Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner unveiled President Obama's budget plan to Congress this week. The plan includes $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, a request for $50 billion in stimulus dollars and a promise to address out-of-control entitlement programs next year with $400 billion in cuts.
And he did it with a straight face.
The proposal made by the President's top money man was as laughable as it was unrealistic. In return for Republicans agreeing to raise income taxes on Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and increasing the rate on capital gains and dividends, the President has offered them a promise of $400 billion in entitlement cuts beginning at some point next year, but won't specify what they might be. In other words, cave in, Republicans, on taxes and then trust the President to do what he says he will do about cutting federal spending.
Does the President propose that the extra revenue be used to cut our deficit and our growing debt? Nope. That's where the President apparently plans to find funds for "investments" in education and other pet programs (i.e., Solyndra). The problem with the President's approach is that unless government spending is controlled, the extra revenue from higher taxes brought in one door will just go out another another door, instead of cutting our annual deficit and growing national debt. The problem is that the additional revenue from punishing higher taxes is much like a single grain of sand in a sandbox full of sand representing our fast-expanding debt.
It's clear that this President refuses to take on the tough budgetary issues, such as entitlement reform. Although the President hasn't put any specific proposal to cut entitlements on the negotiating table, he promises to do this in exchange for significant tax increases almost immediately. Clearly, if America is going to begin cutting its debt and reining in entitlement programs that will soon bankrupt the country, the Republicans will have to be the adults in the room. This line from a story in the New York Times describes the Democratic strategy: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/fiscal-talks-in-congress-seem-to-reach-impasse.html?_r=0
Senate Democratic leaders left their meeting with Mr. Geithner ecstatic. If the Republicans want additional spending cuts in that down payment, the onus is on them to put them on the table, said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.
While the Democrats and the mainstream news media plan to blame the Republicans for any impasse that would cause painful, automatic cuts under sequestration, the truth is that the Democrats and the President haven't even begun negotiating in good faith. We're now exactly one month away from the fiscal cliff that will plunge America back into a deep recession, if not a depression.
At least now you know the truth.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The End of Freedom of Speech, Press in America?
While pondering yesterday evening how America could possibly elect a President with such a horrific record to a second term in office, I began thinking about how much the country I love so much has changed in just the last four years.
I thought back to the venom directed to actress Stacy Dash from the left when she announced she was supporting Mitt Romney, the lack of media coverage and the Administration's response to the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, the dearth of coverage about the horrible suffering in New York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy, the lack of context and depth in the media's coverage of economic issues facing this country, and the hate-filled responses I received on Facebook when I attempted to point out facts about the major issues facing our country.
It suddenly dawned on me. Our First Amendment Freedoms of Speech and the Press, outlined in the Bill of Rights, are slowly being eroded through attempted censorship from within our own citizenry and by a media censoring its own news to avoid appearing to be negative towards their President. Let me explain further.
When the violence in the Middle East erupted on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Obama Administration pointed to a YouTube video as the cause, calling it "despicable" and communicating that America had nothing to do with this slanderous video. The President even spoke before the U.N., essentially apologizing for and attacking this anti-Muslim video. A few weeks later, the person who made this video was jailed by the government on a probation violation charge. A clear message was sent in words and actions by the Obama Administration: No one can speak out against Muslims in America.
As this story began to unfold, Fox News was excluded from an intelligence briefing on Benghazi. The one news organization that has had the courage to probe deeper into what happened and why it happened was excluded from this briefing. (This is something that would wouldn't have even occurred in the Nixon White House.) Again, a clear message was delivered by the Obama Administration: Speak out against the government, and we will retaliate by limiting your access to news.
When Dash announced she was supporting Romney, you would have thought she had sexually abused a child. Twitter was filled with hate-filled Tweets from the left, including threats. Once more, a clear message was delivered by the left: How dare anyone in Hollywood speak out against our President.
The same type of hate-filled messaging was delivered to black conservatives who had the courage to vocalize and publicize their convictions. The same people who rightly rallied around those courageous enough to speak up for civil rights in the 60s were suddenly trying their best to keep other blacks from speaking up for their conservative views in the 2010s.
Even on Facebook, I and others were practically accosted for writing posts and posting links to articles that were less-than-flattering of the Adminstration's response to Benghazi, the facts about our economic recovery and FEMA's response to Hurricane Sandy. One poster wrote sarcastically about how apparently I and others thought the President was a "Muslim bastard," while another defended the Administration's response to Hurricane Sandy when I compared the response to Katrina. Although I didn't mention the President even once in my post about the response to Sandy, the person responded that I was just trying to make the President look bad. Interestingly, those in New York and New Jersey themselves are comparing the slow response to Hurricane Sandy to the response after Katrina. Another liberal friend on Facebook claimed that racism was the reason why people weren't supporting President Obama.
Another Facebook friend posted a picture on Election Day indicating that she "Voted for Democrats." This was the same Facebook friend who derided me in an e mail a couple of months ago for "liking" something on Facebook that she felt didn't represent the fair and reasonable person she had always found me to be. And yet, she was proud that she only voted for those who are members of one political party, not the candidate or the issues? If this isn't hypocracy at its worst, I don't know what is.
In the 1960s, it became politically correct to fight against the government. Today, it has become politically correct to attack anyone who says anything against the government.
The reason why I and others wrote posts on Facebook or posted links was to inform Americans about issues that were not being covered by the national news media fairly and thoroughly. With 23 million Americans struggling to find work, 40-some months of 8%+ unemployment and an economy that has clearly not recovered, one would think that coverage of the economy would have dominated every evening newscast in the months leading up to the election. In the past, the news media would dive deeper into these issues, helping to put them into context for the average American. Instead, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, the mainstream evening news most often focused on anti-Republican issues, while investing precious minutes of a newscast on such important topics such as Rosie O'Donnell taking an aspiran that saved her life or the death of Phyllis Diller -- instead of probing more deeply into our nation's economic or debt woes.
Has the media coverage been biased? A study from the Pew Research Center discovered that 19% of the coverage of President Obama was positive, while 30% was negative. In comparison, only 15% of the coverage of Romney was positive, while 38% was negative.
Interestingly, though, up until before the President's abysmal performance in the first debate in early October, just one month before the election, news media coverage of the President was twice as positive as it was towards Romney. Prior to that debate, 22% of the coverage of the President was positive, compared to just 11% for Romney. This means that for months on end, when the vast majority of voters were making decisions about whom they would vote for, the coverage was twice as positive for the President as it was for the challenger, even though millions were out of work, millions more were forced into poverty and in some months more Americans went on disability than actually found a job.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/11/02/study-romney-obama-both-get-negative-coverage
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-msnbc-had-more-negative-coverage-of-romney-than-fox-had-toward-obama/
Until the news media begin covering this President, the two major parties and the issues facing Americans thoroughly and equitably, Republicans will not have any chance at retaking the White House. Until fairness returns to journalism, Americans will only be given the news the media want us to learn.
Until fairness returns, it will be up to bloggers like myself, and Americans like you, to hold this Administration accountable and to let other Americans learn the truth about what is truly going on in our country. Twitter, Facebook and our blogs will become the source of news for Americans who want to learn all the news that's fit to print, to borrow from the slogan of the New York Times that clearly no longer applies to that newpaper or to the majority of media outlets in America.
Sadly, no one else is going to do it but us. We must fight just as valiantly and tirelessly as those who fought for civil rights in the 1960s. This time, though, we'll be fighting for the soul and the future of the America we love so dearly.
I thought back to the venom directed to actress Stacy Dash from the left when she announced she was supporting Mitt Romney, the lack of media coverage and the Administration's response to the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, the dearth of coverage about the horrible suffering in New York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy, the lack of context and depth in the media's coverage of economic issues facing this country, and the hate-filled responses I received on Facebook when I attempted to point out facts about the major issues facing our country.
It suddenly dawned on me. Our First Amendment Freedoms of Speech and the Press, outlined in the Bill of Rights, are slowly being eroded through attempted censorship from within our own citizenry and by a media censoring its own news to avoid appearing to be negative towards their President. Let me explain further.
When the violence in the Middle East erupted on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Obama Administration pointed to a YouTube video as the cause, calling it "despicable" and communicating that America had nothing to do with this slanderous video. The President even spoke before the U.N., essentially apologizing for and attacking this anti-Muslim video. A few weeks later, the person who made this video was jailed by the government on a probation violation charge. A clear message was sent in words and actions by the Obama Administration: No one can speak out against Muslims in America.
As this story began to unfold, Fox News was excluded from an intelligence briefing on Benghazi. The one news organization that has had the courage to probe deeper into what happened and why it happened was excluded from this briefing. (This is something that would wouldn't have even occurred in the Nixon White House.) Again, a clear message was delivered by the Obama Administration: Speak out against the government, and we will retaliate by limiting your access to news.
When Dash announced she was supporting Romney, you would have thought she had sexually abused a child. Twitter was filled with hate-filled Tweets from the left, including threats. Once more, a clear message was delivered by the left: How dare anyone in Hollywood speak out against our President.
The same type of hate-filled messaging was delivered to black conservatives who had the courage to vocalize and publicize their convictions. The same people who rightly rallied around those courageous enough to speak up for civil rights in the 60s were suddenly trying their best to keep other blacks from speaking up for their conservative views in the 2010s.
Even on Facebook, I and others were practically accosted for writing posts and posting links to articles that were less-than-flattering of the Adminstration's response to Benghazi, the facts about our economic recovery and FEMA's response to Hurricane Sandy. One poster wrote sarcastically about how apparently I and others thought the President was a "Muslim bastard," while another defended the Administration's response to Hurricane Sandy when I compared the response to Katrina. Although I didn't mention the President even once in my post about the response to Sandy, the person responded that I was just trying to make the President look bad. Interestingly, those in New York and New Jersey themselves are comparing the slow response to Hurricane Sandy to the response after Katrina. Another liberal friend on Facebook claimed that racism was the reason why people weren't supporting President Obama.
Another Facebook friend posted a picture on Election Day indicating that she "Voted for Democrats." This was the same Facebook friend who derided me in an e mail a couple of months ago for "liking" something on Facebook that she felt didn't represent the fair and reasonable person she had always found me to be. And yet, she was proud that she only voted for those who are members of one political party, not the candidate or the issues? If this isn't hypocracy at its worst, I don't know what is.
In the 1960s, it became politically correct to fight against the government. Today, it has become politically correct to attack anyone who says anything against the government.
The reason why I and others wrote posts on Facebook or posted links was to inform Americans about issues that were not being covered by the national news media fairly and thoroughly. With 23 million Americans struggling to find work, 40-some months of 8%+ unemployment and an economy that has clearly not recovered, one would think that coverage of the economy would have dominated every evening newscast in the months leading up to the election. In the past, the news media would dive deeper into these issues, helping to put them into context for the average American. Instead, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, the mainstream evening news most often focused on anti-Republican issues, while investing precious minutes of a newscast on such important topics such as Rosie O'Donnell taking an aspiran that saved her life or the death of Phyllis Diller -- instead of probing more deeply into our nation's economic or debt woes.
Has the media coverage been biased? A study from the Pew Research Center discovered that 19% of the coverage of President Obama was positive, while 30% was negative. In comparison, only 15% of the coverage of Romney was positive, while 38% was negative.
Interestingly, though, up until before the President's abysmal performance in the first debate in early October, just one month before the election, news media coverage of the President was twice as positive as it was towards Romney. Prior to that debate, 22% of the coverage of the President was positive, compared to just 11% for Romney. This means that for months on end, when the vast majority of voters were making decisions about whom they would vote for, the coverage was twice as positive for the President as it was for the challenger, even though millions were out of work, millions more were forced into poverty and in some months more Americans went on disability than actually found a job.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/11/02/study-romney-obama-both-get-negative-coverage
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-msnbc-had-more-negative-coverage-of-romney-than-fox-had-toward-obama/
Until the news media begin covering this President, the two major parties and the issues facing Americans thoroughly and equitably, Republicans will not have any chance at retaking the White House. Until fairness returns to journalism, Americans will only be given the news the media want us to learn.
Until fairness returns, it will be up to bloggers like myself, and Americans like you, to hold this Administration accountable and to let other Americans learn the truth about what is truly going on in our country. Twitter, Facebook and our blogs will become the source of news for Americans who want to learn all the news that's fit to print, to borrow from the slogan of the New York Times that clearly no longer applies to that newpaper or to the majority of media outlets in America.
Sadly, no one else is going to do it but us. We must fight just as valiantly and tirelessly as those who fought for civil rights in the 1960s. This time, though, we'll be fighting for the soul and the future of the America we love so dearly.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Uninformed Liberals and Lamestream News Media Tilted Election
I started writing this blog with the idea that I would help to educate America, one uninformed liberal at a time. I, and other conservatives, made some progress this election, but we clearly didn't make enough progress.
I would like to share a couple of anecdotes that may help to explain why Barack Obama was elected to a second term.
Several weeks ago I wrote a post on Facebook, to which one of my liberal friends responded. This 20-something replied that the economy had turned around significantly and that America had created 4.5 million new jobs under this President. Clearly, my friend had listened to the talking points from the Democratic National Convention and believed they were 100% true.
Instead of arguing with him, I posted a link to a fact check article, one which explained that the Administration had created 4.5 million jobs, but only if one looked at the statistics from a timeline most advantageous to the Administration. If you looked at the total number of jobs in America when Obama took office and compared it to the number of jobs at the time my Facebook post was published, America actually had fewer jobs.
My friend thanked me for pointing him to the facts. He realized that he had succumbed to the political spin often found in Presidential campaigns. He was amazed that America had fewer jobs than when the President took office, after hearing so many times that 4.5 million jobs had been created. That mantra was probably repeated 100 times at the Convention.
Earlier this week, I had a Facebook exchange with this same friend. He pointed out how the President had saved the U.S. car industry by keeping GM from bankruptcy. This friend insinuated that Mitt Romney and I wanted GM to fail.
I took the time to explain that GM actually went through a bankruptcy, but that this was controlled and decided by the federal government, not an impartial bankruptcy judge. I also pointed out that the union was essentially made whole during this structured bankruptcy, while investors received pennies on the dollar. I also shared with him that thousands of employees at Delphi, a non-union parts company owned by GM, received little or nothing, unlike their union brethren. I also communicated that according to many experts, GM may be racing toward another bankruptcy because it didn't rid itself of unprofitable assets and outrageous union contracts as would have been done in a typical bankruptcy. Lastly, I pointed out that the two most "American" cars today are the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, based on where they are assembled and the percentage of parts that are made in America. As a result, the American car industry saved by the President is so much more than just GM and Chrysler.
Once again, this friend was astounded to discover the truth. He couldn't believe that he did not know all of the facts and thanked me for taking the time to explain them to him. I'm certain that he voted for Obama yesterday, but I'm also sure that he began to have some second thoughts about his choice and the truthfulness of what he's been spoonfed by the Democratic Party.
The problem isn't that my friend is stupid or that he doesn't want to learn the truth. The problem is that my friend hasn't been provided with the facts by a mainstream news media that have spent all of their time publicizing President Obama instead of reporting on him. To sway this one voter, I would have had to spend hundreds of hours reprogramming him from the thousands of hours of biased media coverage.
Our news media have done a horrendous job. The economy was reported on at a very high level, without the context that makes data meaningful. For example, a jobs report showing 90,000 new jobs in one month sounds as though we're making real progress, until one learns that America needs to create between 125,000 and 200,000 new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth. I watched newscast after newscast essentially ignore the economy, or spin the data in a way that was most advantageous to the President.
Even such issues as the growth in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was spun much differently when reported by the news media the past couple of years, compared to how it was reported during previous administrations. Three percent growth under Bush was often reported as "disappointing." Under Obama, growth half that amount was reported as "slow and steady" by the news media, trying their best to put a positive spin on the slowest economic recovery in history.
Benghazi should have been the topic that dominated news coverage the past two months, but other than Fox News, you really haven't heard much about it. The American people were clearly lied to by this President and the Administration for at least two weeks following the deaths of four Americans. Serious mistakes in judgement and communications were made before, during and after the attacks and these mistakes should have been investigated and explained to the American peoople. More video of an interview President Obama did with "60 Minutes" was released quietly in the days before the election. This video showed that the President lied during his debate when he said that he had labeled the violence in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after the attack. One of Steve Croft's questions pointedly stated that the President had avoided calling the attack a terrorist attack, to which the President did not object. Where was this video when the issues of what the President said and what he believed were being discussed immediately after the debate when voters were most interested and still making their decisions about how to cast their votes? Clearly, a decision was made at the highest levels of major news organizations to not investigate this issue until after the election.
Frankly, I'm sickened by the results of the election, the number of uninformed Americans who voted for Obama and the bias of the news media. I thought I would set a trap for liberals. In a Facebook post earlier today, I wrote the following:
Congratulations to Barack Obama, who ran a very positive campaign, focusing on the issues of the time, not attempting to just tear down his opponent, but striving to delineate his detailed plan to put Americans back to work, to tackle the enormous debt our nation faces and to address the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. I also commend the news media, which focused its attention on the economy, on asking hard-hitting questions that allowed Americans to discover the truth about Benghazi, and whose unbiased reporting gave Americans a clear view of this election.
The trap was set, and it didn't take long. My friend responded snarkily, indicating that my post showed a true lack of class.
I responded, of course, indicating that if my post weren't true and it were sarcastic, then Americans made a serious mistake in electing someone who hasn't laid out his plans for a better future, and that the news media was complicit in helping to mislead the American people into voting for this man. I also explained to him that his belief that my post was sarcastic actually proved my point.
(Believe it or not, this liberal actually wote in an e mail to me that he wished the President had spent more time explaining his plan for the future. If you don't know what someone is planning to do in the future, why in the world would you vote for that person?)
Once more, I educated America, one uninformed liberal at a time.
It's the only solace I have today as our country moves ever more closely to becoming a socialist nation of mediocrity.
I would like to share a couple of anecdotes that may help to explain why Barack Obama was elected to a second term.
Several weeks ago I wrote a post on Facebook, to which one of my liberal friends responded. This 20-something replied that the economy had turned around significantly and that America had created 4.5 million new jobs under this President. Clearly, my friend had listened to the talking points from the Democratic National Convention and believed they were 100% true.
Instead of arguing with him, I posted a link to a fact check article, one which explained that the Administration had created 4.5 million jobs, but only if one looked at the statistics from a timeline most advantageous to the Administration. If you looked at the total number of jobs in America when Obama took office and compared it to the number of jobs at the time my Facebook post was published, America actually had fewer jobs.
My friend thanked me for pointing him to the facts. He realized that he had succumbed to the political spin often found in Presidential campaigns. He was amazed that America had fewer jobs than when the President took office, after hearing so many times that 4.5 million jobs had been created. That mantra was probably repeated 100 times at the Convention.
Earlier this week, I had a Facebook exchange with this same friend. He pointed out how the President had saved the U.S. car industry by keeping GM from bankruptcy. This friend insinuated that Mitt Romney and I wanted GM to fail.
I took the time to explain that GM actually went through a bankruptcy, but that this was controlled and decided by the federal government, not an impartial bankruptcy judge. I also pointed out that the union was essentially made whole during this structured bankruptcy, while investors received pennies on the dollar. I also shared with him that thousands of employees at Delphi, a non-union parts company owned by GM, received little or nothing, unlike their union brethren. I also communicated that according to many experts, GM may be racing toward another bankruptcy because it didn't rid itself of unprofitable assets and outrageous union contracts as would have been done in a typical bankruptcy. Lastly, I pointed out that the two most "American" cars today are the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, based on where they are assembled and the percentage of parts that are made in America. As a result, the American car industry saved by the President is so much more than just GM and Chrysler.
Once again, this friend was astounded to discover the truth. He couldn't believe that he did not know all of the facts and thanked me for taking the time to explain them to him. I'm certain that he voted for Obama yesterday, but I'm also sure that he began to have some second thoughts about his choice and the truthfulness of what he's been spoonfed by the Democratic Party.
The problem isn't that my friend is stupid or that he doesn't want to learn the truth. The problem is that my friend hasn't been provided with the facts by a mainstream news media that have spent all of their time publicizing President Obama instead of reporting on him. To sway this one voter, I would have had to spend hundreds of hours reprogramming him from the thousands of hours of biased media coverage.
Our news media have done a horrendous job. The economy was reported on at a very high level, without the context that makes data meaningful. For example, a jobs report showing 90,000 new jobs in one month sounds as though we're making real progress, until one learns that America needs to create between 125,000 and 200,000 new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth. I watched newscast after newscast essentially ignore the economy, or spin the data in a way that was most advantageous to the President.
Even such issues as the growth in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was spun much differently when reported by the news media the past couple of years, compared to how it was reported during previous administrations. Three percent growth under Bush was often reported as "disappointing." Under Obama, growth half that amount was reported as "slow and steady" by the news media, trying their best to put a positive spin on the slowest economic recovery in history.
Benghazi should have been the topic that dominated news coverage the past two months, but other than Fox News, you really haven't heard much about it. The American people were clearly lied to by this President and the Administration for at least two weeks following the deaths of four Americans. Serious mistakes in judgement and communications were made before, during and after the attacks and these mistakes should have been investigated and explained to the American peoople. More video of an interview President Obama did with "60 Minutes" was released quietly in the days before the election. This video showed that the President lied during his debate when he said that he had labeled the violence in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after the attack. One of Steve Croft's questions pointedly stated that the President had avoided calling the attack a terrorist attack, to which the President did not object. Where was this video when the issues of what the President said and what he believed were being discussed immediately after the debate when voters were most interested and still making their decisions about how to cast their votes? Clearly, a decision was made at the highest levels of major news organizations to not investigate this issue until after the election.
Frankly, I'm sickened by the results of the election, the number of uninformed Americans who voted for Obama and the bias of the news media. I thought I would set a trap for liberals. In a Facebook post earlier today, I wrote the following:
Congratulations to Barack Obama, who ran a very positive campaign, focusing on the issues of the time, not attempting to just tear down his opponent, but striving to delineate his detailed plan to put Americans back to work, to tackle the enormous debt our nation faces and to address the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. I also commend the news media, which focused its attention on the economy, on asking hard-hitting questions that allowed Americans to discover the truth about Benghazi, and whose unbiased reporting gave Americans a clear view of this election.
The trap was set, and it didn't take long. My friend responded snarkily, indicating that my post showed a true lack of class.
I responded, of course, indicating that if my post weren't true and it were sarcastic, then Americans made a serious mistake in electing someone who hasn't laid out his plans for a better future, and that the news media was complicit in helping to mislead the American people into voting for this man. I also explained to him that his belief that my post was sarcastic actually proved my point.
(Believe it or not, this liberal actually wote in an e mail to me that he wished the President had spent more time explaining his plan for the future. If you don't know what someone is planning to do in the future, why in the world would you vote for that person?)
Once more, I educated America, one uninformed liberal at a time.
It's the only solace I have today as our country moves ever more closely to becoming a socialist nation of mediocrity.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The Last Appeal to Undecided Voters
You're an undecided voter. You may lean slightly to the left or slightly to the right, but you're not sure whom you will vote for on Tuesday.
Perhaps you bought into Barack Obama's promise of Hope and Change in 2008, but are now disillusioned because you have seen many of your friends and family members lose their good-paying jobs in the last four years. Maybe you're even out of work yourself, and don't see things turning around quickly enough. There just aren't any good-paying jobs out there, and it worries you that your children and grandchildren will not have the opportunities you have. In fact, if things don't turn around quickly, you may not have the same opportunities your parents had. Maybe you're considering voting for Mitt Romney because of his experience but aren't sold on his positions on social issues, perhaps believing that he's a little too conservative. Maybe you lean to the right and don't think Romney is conservative enough.
No matter which way you're leaning, the fact is that your vote will decide this election and the future direction of this country -- not to put put any pressure on you.
As someone who is a registered Democrat who thinks more like a Republican but who votes for candidates of either party, I would like the opportunity to try to persuade you to vote for Mitt Romney.
If you're like me and millions of other Americans, you believe that the growing national debt and our stagnate economy are the two biggest issues facing our country over the next four years. You believe as I do that if we don't get our debt under control we will pass on a credit card bill to our children and grandchildren that they will never be able to pay. You also know as I do that this economy is dead in the water. There aren't thousands of new, good-paying jobs being created and millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed.
I would urge you to forget about all of the other hot button issues, such as gay marriage or abortion or birth control. If we don't get our debt under control and our economy moving again, we may not have a country four years from now. The other issues will not matter if we don't quickly address the two most important issues facing our country.
In order to address these and other major issues, America will need a leader who is able to reach across party lines to get things done. In the past four years, President Obama has not been able to do this even once. He has devoted most of his time blaming his predecessor and the Republican Party for his inability to move legislation through Congress. But even members of his own party failed to give his proposed budgets even one vote the past two years, which should tell all of us how effectively he leads even his own party. President Obama rarely meets with the top four leaders of Congress and has never tried to develop a strong relationship with other key leaders of Congress, even among his own party. As a result, our President has been unable to accomplish anything of substance that has required bipartisan support. Our President has even admitted that he would rather spend more time with his family than "schmoozing" with Congress. I'm not sure if anyone has told him this, but a large part of the job as President is to spend that time developing relationships with members of the Legislative Branch of our government.
Republicans and Democrats have worked together before with great success, even when our country was greatly divided. President Reagan did it. President Clinton also did it. Each of these Presidents was a leader who realized that developing strong relationships with members of Congress was the key to getting anything done for the good of the country. President Obama hasn't done this at all and has spent little effort even trying to reach across party lines. As a result, our country is more divided than the day he took office and neither party is able to pass much-needed legislation.
In contrast, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney worked collaboratively with his legislature, who overwhelmingly were Democrats, to pass major legislation. He has proven that he is able to reach across party lines. He's done it. If you watched the debates as I did, you didn't hear President Obama mention even once that he had worked with Republicans to pass legislation, while Romney talked about this experience on numerous occasions. Romney used this same talent as a collaborative leader to help companies prosper and to add thousands of jobs while at Bain Capital, and also as head of the Olympics.
If our country is able to move forward and address the major issues of our growing national debt and a stagnate economy, as well as other issues, we will need a strong leader who understands how to work with members of the other party for the good of the country. Mitt Romney has proven that he can do this; President Obama has failed miserably at this.
If for no other reason than this one, undecided voter, Mitt Romney deserves your vote and President Obama does not. It's really that simple.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Why Most Polls Are Wrong
I'm one of those rare people who actually reads the small print at the end of advertisements. By examining the print most people can't even see, I can tell the difference between how the deal is being framed by the advertiser and the reality of the deal.
I take this same care with polls and while doing my research. Earlier this week, I happened to see a headline on the gallup.com website that captured my attention: "2012 Electorate Looks Like 2008." I clicked on the link and read the article as well as the data behind the article. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
As I read the article, I noticed that the demographics of likely voters in the 2012 election are expected to be pretty much the same as they were in 2008. The proportion of men to women, ethnicity and age are expected to be very close to what they were in 2008, according to Gallup's polls. The proportion of voters in different areas of the country, as well as the voters' educational levels are also expected to be very close to 2008.
But then I noticed some data almost buried at the bottom of the page that showed a significant shift in likely voters. Unless you took the time to read the entire article, you wouldn't have even noticed it. The headline didn't even hint at this shift. The fact is that the percentage of "likely voters" in 2012 has shifted significantly to the Republican side, when compared to 2008 voters.
In 2008, voters identified as being Democrats were 39% of the electorate, with independents making up 31% and Republicans coming in at 29%. In 2012, the numbers of likely voters have shifted to 35% Democrat, 29% independent and 36% Republican. In other words, based on Gallup's polling Democrats are expected to vote at a rate four percentage points lower than in 2008, but Republicans are expected to vote at a rate seven percentage points higher than in 2008. Interesting. That's an 11-point swing.
If you look at the projected likely voters in terms of those who are leaning Democrat compared to those leaning Republicans, Republicans are expected to vote in higher nunbers than Democrats, 49% to 46%. In 2008, the electorate was 54% Democrat or leaning Democrat, vs. 42% Republican or leaning Republican. That's a 15-point swing to the Republican side.
What does all of this mean?
According to Gallup's numbers, all of the polls that are oversampling Democrats by 5% or even more are dead wrong. In a poll showing President Obama winning by 5% with 5% oversampling of Democrats, Mitt Romney should win by 3%. In polls with 5% oversampling of Democrats that show the President winning by 3%, Romney should win by 5%. To put this simply, a few of those states that are leaning Obama may actually turn out to Romney wins, and those states that show a dead heat may actually turn out to be Romney wins of 8%. This election could turn out to be a rout in Romney's favor.
Polls of early voting by the same Gallup group seem to reinforce the notion that Republicans are going to out vote Democrats in 2012. Through Sunday, 15% of those surveyed said that they had already cast a ballot in person or via absenstee ballot. Of those surveyed who had already voted, 52% of those polled said that they had voted for Romney, while 46% said that they had voted for President Obama. Of the 63% surveyed who plan to vote on Election Day similarly plan to support Romney by a 51% to 45% margin.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090820229096046.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I'm glad I actually take the time to read the fine print. That's the only way I would know that the vast majority of polls are so biased in favor of President Obama that they are bordering on the ridiculous.
I take this same care with polls and while doing my research. Earlier this week, I happened to see a headline on the gallup.com website that captured my attention: "2012 Electorate Looks Like 2008." I clicked on the link and read the article as well as the data behind the article. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
As I read the article, I noticed that the demographics of likely voters in the 2012 election are expected to be pretty much the same as they were in 2008. The proportion of men to women, ethnicity and age are expected to be very close to what they were in 2008, according to Gallup's polls. The proportion of voters in different areas of the country, as well as the voters' educational levels are also expected to be very close to 2008.
But then I noticed some data almost buried at the bottom of the page that showed a significant shift in likely voters. Unless you took the time to read the entire article, you wouldn't have even noticed it. The headline didn't even hint at this shift. The fact is that the percentage of "likely voters" in 2012 has shifted significantly to the Republican side, when compared to 2008 voters.
In 2008, voters identified as being Democrats were 39% of the electorate, with independents making up 31% and Republicans coming in at 29%. In 2012, the numbers of likely voters have shifted to 35% Democrat, 29% independent and 36% Republican. In other words, based on Gallup's polling Democrats are expected to vote at a rate four percentage points lower than in 2008, but Republicans are expected to vote at a rate seven percentage points higher than in 2008. Interesting. That's an 11-point swing.
If you look at the projected likely voters in terms of those who are leaning Democrat compared to those leaning Republicans, Republicans are expected to vote in higher nunbers than Democrats, 49% to 46%. In 2008, the electorate was 54% Democrat or leaning Democrat, vs. 42% Republican or leaning Republican. That's a 15-point swing to the Republican side.
What does all of this mean?
According to Gallup's numbers, all of the polls that are oversampling Democrats by 5% or even more are dead wrong. In a poll showing President Obama winning by 5% with 5% oversampling of Democrats, Mitt Romney should win by 3%. In polls with 5% oversampling of Democrats that show the President winning by 3%, Romney should win by 5%. To put this simply, a few of those states that are leaning Obama may actually turn out to Romney wins, and those states that show a dead heat may actually turn out to be Romney wins of 8%. This election could turn out to be a rout in Romney's favor.
Polls of early voting by the same Gallup group seem to reinforce the notion that Republicans are going to out vote Democrats in 2012. Through Sunday, 15% of those surveyed said that they had already cast a ballot in person or via absenstee ballot. Of those surveyed who had already voted, 52% of those polled said that they had voted for Romney, while 46% said that they had voted for President Obama. Of the 63% surveyed who plan to vote on Election Day similarly plan to support Romney by a 51% to 45% margin.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090820229096046.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I'm glad I actually take the time to read the fine print. That's the only way I would know that the vast majority of polls are so biased in favor of President Obama that they are bordering on the ridiculous.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Benghazi Debacle Should Be Investigated
I first became interested in journalism after watching the movie, "All the President's Men." This 1976 movie chronicled the investigative journalism of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose series of articles brought down the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
To me, these journalists were American heroes. They had the courage to ask the tough questions, to investigate beyond the quotes and sound bites provided by the Nixon Administration to report that a coverup of a third rate burgularly at the Watergate Hotel went all the way up to the President of the United States. President Nixon wasn't involved in the original crime, but he was deeply involved in the attempt to hide the administration's involvement in the burgulary.
In the past month and a half, I couldn't help to think back to those golden days when journalists believed their jobs were to act as the Fourth Estate in American politics, to keep our government honest and to take everything government officials said with great sketicism. There was a healthy distance between journalists and government officials, with neither side truly trusting the other. Where are those journalists today when it's clear that officials in the Obama Administration are lying about what they knew about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and when they knew it?
Just as the original burgulary did not involve President Nixon, the failure to ensure proper security at the Benghazi embassy in all likelihood never made its way to President Obama. But just like Watergate, the attempt to make the attack appear to be anything but a well-planned attack by terrorists in all likelihood did involve President Obama and his closest staff.
Facing a close election, the last thing this President and his administration wanted to see reported on the televisions of American voters was a terrorist attack killing four of our own, including an ambassador, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. For this reason, the Obama Administration labeled the violence as a spontaneous attack by demonstrators angered by a YouTube video. Obama Administration officials, including the President himself, Press Secretary Jay Carney and our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, continued to perpetuate this lie for at least two weeks following the attacks.
But then more information began to emerge from the shadows.
E mails showed that the White House was told in the hours after the attack that it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration, including that a terrorist group had claimed reponsibility for the attacks. More details revealed that real-time video was being watched at the White House and the State Department, showing as events unfolded that this was a well-planned attack and not the result of a spontaneous demonstration. In the past few days, even more information has come to light, including that the Navy Seals working for the CIA who responded to the attack at our embassy asked for military support, but that this assistance was denied. Yesterday, the CIA released a statement saying that no one at the CIA had denied any request for assistance from those Seals, which in all likelihood means that someone at the Department of Defense vetoed the request. When the Department of Defense denies a request for military assistance at a U.S. embassy under attack, this decision would most likely would have involved the President of the United States. Military experts have reported this weekend that the President would clearly have approved or denied any decision to send in military assistance.
Think about this logically. If a U.S. embassy is under attack, if military assistance is requested and if live video is available to see what is happening on the ground, do you not think the President himself would be aware of what is happening and involved in the decision-making? Absolutely.
Sadly, the mainstream news media, other than Fox News, has turned a blind eye to what is clearly an attempt to deceive the American people. Brian Williams of NBC News, one of the few journalists who have been given any access at all to the President in recent weeks, lobbed one "softball" question about Benghazi to the President during an interview this week. The President deflected the question and Williams moved on to other topics.
In an interview on Fox News this weekend, Bob Woodward (yes, the same Bob Woodward who broke the Watergate story in the 1970s) said that the way the President has answered questions should have raised red flags for any credible reporter. Essentially, the President has said that voters really don't want to hear about Benghazi during this election, which, according to Woodward, means that the President really doesn't want to talk about this issue and may have something to hide.
This is exactly why credible journalists should be asking these questions of the President and key members of his staff.
From all indications, our President had a bad case of electile dysfunction -- afraid to call the violence a "terrorist attack" and afraid to send in military support to raise the profile of a tense situation so close to the election. As a result, four Americans are dead and the American people have been deceived by this President for weeks.
Just as Watergate brought down a President four decades ago, Benghazi could and should end this President's reign.
To me, these journalists were American heroes. They had the courage to ask the tough questions, to investigate beyond the quotes and sound bites provided by the Nixon Administration to report that a coverup of a third rate burgularly at the Watergate Hotel went all the way up to the President of the United States. President Nixon wasn't involved in the original crime, but he was deeply involved in the attempt to hide the administration's involvement in the burgulary.
In the past month and a half, I couldn't help to think back to those golden days when journalists believed their jobs were to act as the Fourth Estate in American politics, to keep our government honest and to take everything government officials said with great sketicism. There was a healthy distance between journalists and government officials, with neither side truly trusting the other. Where are those journalists today when it's clear that officials in the Obama Administration are lying about what they knew about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and when they knew it?
Just as the original burgulary did not involve President Nixon, the failure to ensure proper security at the Benghazi embassy in all likelihood never made its way to President Obama. But just like Watergate, the attempt to make the attack appear to be anything but a well-planned attack by terrorists in all likelihood did involve President Obama and his closest staff.
Facing a close election, the last thing this President and his administration wanted to see reported on the televisions of American voters was a terrorist attack killing four of our own, including an ambassador, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. For this reason, the Obama Administration labeled the violence as a spontaneous attack by demonstrators angered by a YouTube video. Obama Administration officials, including the President himself, Press Secretary Jay Carney and our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, continued to perpetuate this lie for at least two weeks following the attacks.
But then more information began to emerge from the shadows.
E mails showed that the White House was told in the hours after the attack that it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration, including that a terrorist group had claimed reponsibility for the attacks. More details revealed that real-time video was being watched at the White House and the State Department, showing as events unfolded that this was a well-planned attack and not the result of a spontaneous demonstration. In the past few days, even more information has come to light, including that the Navy Seals working for the CIA who responded to the attack at our embassy asked for military support, but that this assistance was denied. Yesterday, the CIA released a statement saying that no one at the CIA had denied any request for assistance from those Seals, which in all likelihood means that someone at the Department of Defense vetoed the request. When the Department of Defense denies a request for military assistance at a U.S. embassy under attack, this decision would most likely would have involved the President of the United States. Military experts have reported this weekend that the President would clearly have approved or denied any decision to send in military assistance.
Think about this logically. If a U.S. embassy is under attack, if military assistance is requested and if live video is available to see what is happening on the ground, do you not think the President himself would be aware of what is happening and involved in the decision-making? Absolutely.
Sadly, the mainstream news media, other than Fox News, has turned a blind eye to what is clearly an attempt to deceive the American people. Brian Williams of NBC News, one of the few journalists who have been given any access at all to the President in recent weeks, lobbed one "softball" question about Benghazi to the President during an interview this week. The President deflected the question and Williams moved on to other topics.
In an interview on Fox News this weekend, Bob Woodward (yes, the same Bob Woodward who broke the Watergate story in the 1970s) said that the way the President has answered questions should have raised red flags for any credible reporter. Essentially, the President has said that voters really don't want to hear about Benghazi during this election, which, according to Woodward, means that the President really doesn't want to talk about this issue and may have something to hide.
This is exactly why credible journalists should be asking these questions of the President and key members of his staff.
From all indications, our President had a bad case of electile dysfunction -- afraid to call the violence a "terrorist attack" and afraid to send in military support to raise the profile of a tense situation so close to the election. As a result, four Americans are dead and the American people have been deceived by this President for weeks.
Just as Watergate brought down a President four decades ago, Benghazi could and should end this President's reign.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Romney Will Win Election
Two weeks until the November 6 election, the numbers are starting to turn markedly in the direction of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
The latest polls show Romney up 50-46% in the Rasmussen Reports poll, up up 49-48% in the ABC News/Washington Post poll and up 51-46% in the Gallup poll. Of the latest polls including data through October 22, only the IBD/TIPP poll shows President Obama up two points, 47-45%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Averaging the two most respected polls, Rasmussen Reports and Gallup, Romney leads with 50.5% to 46% for President Obama. With most polls showing a third party candidate receiving only 1% of the vote, this means that only 2.5% of voters are truly "undecided" in these two polls.
If four years of on-the-job training haven't convinced voters to cast their ballot for President Obama, chances are that two more weeks of campaigning won't either. Historically, two-thirds or more of undecided voters vote against the incumbent when a competent challenger is on the ballot, which means that in all likelihood Romney will pick up around another 1.5% of votes, giving him about 52% to about 47% for the President and 1% for a third party candidate. A 5% percent spread will result in an easy Electoral College victory for the Republican candidate.
Prior to the first debate, the President was clearly in the lead, although he was barely able to reach the 50% point in the polls, which demonstrated voters' dissatisfaction with him and his record. In early September, the President was up by 7% in the Gallop poll and 5% in the Rasmussen Reports poll. This lead came after spending $150 million in negative advertising against Romney by the Obama Campaign and its super PACs.
At the first debate, however, voters who were leaning for President Obama were able to see Romney as someone who clearly is a competent candidate. Viewing Romney through the unfiltered lens on the televisions in their living rooms, voters saw the Republican candidate as someone who was clearly able to stand toe-to-toe with the President and actually beat him soundly at explaining how he would revive the economy, the most important issue of this campaign. More importantly, they saw Romney not as the uncaring person painted by $150 million worth of Obama Campaign advertising, but as a caring human being who is a faithful husband, a strong father and a leading member of his church. Those leaning voters started moving to Romney and the polls began to reflect this change. Voters were able to compare a candidate with an economic plan against a President with a horrific economic record and who also has not explained what he would do differently in a second term.
With each subsequent debate, Romney solidified himself as a competent, caring candidate, equal to or better than the President we currently have. During last night's debate on foreign policy, Romney was actually able to appear more Presidential than President Obama, describing a high-level vision for American foreign policy instead of the snarky and condescending comments made by the President. While most believe President Obama won this debate because of his aggressiveness, Romney achieved what he wanted to achieve -- to present himself to the American people as a competent leader on foreign policy and not the warmonger as he's been portrayed by the Obama Campaign. In comparison, the President did not achieve what he need to achieve -- an overwhelming victory to change the direction of the polls.
The fat lady may not be singing yet, but unless something changes dramatically in the next two weeks, she clearly is warming up her vocal cords.
The latest polls show Romney up 50-46% in the Rasmussen Reports poll, up up 49-48% in the ABC News/Washington Post poll and up 51-46% in the Gallup poll. Of the latest polls including data through October 22, only the IBD/TIPP poll shows President Obama up two points, 47-45%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Averaging the two most respected polls, Rasmussen Reports and Gallup, Romney leads with 50.5% to 46% for President Obama. With most polls showing a third party candidate receiving only 1% of the vote, this means that only 2.5% of voters are truly "undecided" in these two polls.
If four years of on-the-job training haven't convinced voters to cast their ballot for President Obama, chances are that two more weeks of campaigning won't either. Historically, two-thirds or more of undecided voters vote against the incumbent when a competent challenger is on the ballot, which means that in all likelihood Romney will pick up around another 1.5% of votes, giving him about 52% to about 47% for the President and 1% for a third party candidate. A 5% percent spread will result in an easy Electoral College victory for the Republican candidate.
Prior to the first debate, the President was clearly in the lead, although he was barely able to reach the 50% point in the polls, which demonstrated voters' dissatisfaction with him and his record. In early September, the President was up by 7% in the Gallop poll and 5% in the Rasmussen Reports poll. This lead came after spending $150 million in negative advertising against Romney by the Obama Campaign and its super PACs.
At the first debate, however, voters who were leaning for President Obama were able to see Romney as someone who clearly is a competent candidate. Viewing Romney through the unfiltered lens on the televisions in their living rooms, voters saw the Republican candidate as someone who was clearly able to stand toe-to-toe with the President and actually beat him soundly at explaining how he would revive the economy, the most important issue of this campaign. More importantly, they saw Romney not as the uncaring person painted by $150 million worth of Obama Campaign advertising, but as a caring human being who is a faithful husband, a strong father and a leading member of his church. Those leaning voters started moving to Romney and the polls began to reflect this change. Voters were able to compare a candidate with an economic plan against a President with a horrific economic record and who also has not explained what he would do differently in a second term.
With each subsequent debate, Romney solidified himself as a competent, caring candidate, equal to or better than the President we currently have. During last night's debate on foreign policy, Romney was actually able to appear more Presidential than President Obama, describing a high-level vision for American foreign policy instead of the snarky and condescending comments made by the President. While most believe President Obama won this debate because of his aggressiveness, Romney achieved what he wanted to achieve -- to present himself to the American people as a competent leader on foreign policy and not the warmonger as he's been portrayed by the Obama Campaign. In comparison, the President did not achieve what he need to achieve -- an overwhelming victory to change the direction of the polls.
The fat lady may not be singing yet, but unless something changes dramatically in the next two weeks, she clearly is warming up her vocal cords.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Biden's Debate Performance Is Microcosm of Obama Administration
Vice President Joe Biden had a great time at last Thursday's debate against Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Paul Ryan. For much of the 90-minute debate, Biden could be seen laughing, smiling and chuckling, even while Ryan was talking about the attack on the Libyan embassy that killed four Americans or about how Iran is drawing closer to building a nuclear weapon that could wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
The majority of Americans probably thought that Senator Biden was arrogant and condescending to Congressman Ryan, but I view his performance in a slightly different way. I saw his debate performance as a microcosm of the Obama Administration.
Remember when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to pass Obamacare and that they could read it once it was passed? This landmark legislation was shoved down the throats of our elected representatives, or at least the Democratic ones. Not one Republican voted to support this legislation, and the President didn't care anyway. He had enough Democratic votes to pass the legislation, so he didn't need the votes from Republicans. As a result, the most expensive domestic bill ever passed did not even receive a single vote from the minority party.
Although some Americans may view this bill's passage as bold leadership, I view it a little differently. I see it as arrogance. "Trust us," was the message from the President and Democratic leadership. As a result, we have a law that was ruled Constitutional by the narrowest of margins in the Supreme Court and a Chief Justice that used convoluted reasoning to allow the law the stand. We also have a law that people are just now beginning to learn all of its tax and policy ramifications.
But this was not the only occasion when this Administration has displayed arrogance and condescension.
The debt limit crisis of 2011 is another example. According to Bob Woodward's book, "The Price of Power," a deal between the Republicans and Democrats to extend the debt limit was nearly torpedoed by a President who demanded more tax revenue after a deal has been made and who also had a temper tantrum when he did not get his way. Woodward also places blame on House Speaker John Boeher, but he notes a lack of Presidential leadership and that no one in the Administration had Boeher's phone number to remain in contact with him.
For much of the President's time in office, he has belittled and blamed Republicans, spent little to no time actually trying to build relationships with Republican members of Congress or even members of his own party. He has spent much of his term blaming his predecessor for everything and has yet to take responsibility for anything that has occurred under his watch. Yet the President expects Republicans and Democratic members of Congress to ask, "how high?" when he demands them to jump.
Since the passage of Obamacare, Congress hasn't jumped, as evidenced by the Rebublican-controlled House voting down the President's budget 414-0 in 2012, and the Democrat-controlled Senate voting down the President's budget 97-0 in 2011. Not one member of the President's own party voted for these budgets. The same arrogance that Vice President Biden displayed Thursday evening in the debate is undoubtedly the same attitude that the Administration has exhibited when dealing with Congress, so they're pushing back.
A leading member of Congress recently recently shared with a nationally-recognized political pundit that he had "met" the President twice in four years. This leading Congressman made it clear that he did not have a relationship with the President. Recent reports indicate that the President has only met with the top four members of Congress twice this year, although the country is racing towards a fiscal cliff because of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts at the end of this year. The President also recently admitted that he spends time with his family instead of schmoozing with Congress. The Great One apparently doesn't feel hat he has to do the work that other Presidents have done to collaborate with the Legislative Branch of the federal government.
Even the Administration's response to the Libyan embassy attacks smacks of arrogance. There have been so many different explanations for the attacks and lack of security from so many different members of the Administration that the American people as well as the news media are beginning to wonder who has been covering up what in this foreign policy debacle. One day after a representative from the State Department admitted that embassy staff had asked for additional security on several occasions, the Vice President said that "we" had not received any requests for additional security. The next day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the royal "we" vocalized by Biden in the debate referred only to the Vice President and the President and not anyone else in the Administration.
Are you kidding me? This parsing of words reminds me of President Bill Clinton testifying about the meaning of "is."
While being interviewed by Fox News' Brett Baier, Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter recently had the audacity to blame the Romney/Ryan campaign for trying to raise the issue of conflicting statements and potential coverup onto the national stage.
Clearly, if someone in the Obama Administration says something it has to be true and the American people, as well as the news media are expected to believe it. How dare anyone question the Obama Administration's truthfulness, even though its version of the truth changes almost hourly.
In his debate performance, Vice President Biden merely displayed the same attitude toward the opposition party, the American people and even the news media that the Obama Administration has exhibited the past four years.
Americans haven't experienced this level of executive arrogance since the Nixon Administration. Thankfully, the American people can put an end to this arrogance on Nov. 6.
The majority of Americans probably thought that Senator Biden was arrogant and condescending to Congressman Ryan, but I view his performance in a slightly different way. I saw his debate performance as a microcosm of the Obama Administration.
Remember when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to pass Obamacare and that they could read it once it was passed? This landmark legislation was shoved down the throats of our elected representatives, or at least the Democratic ones. Not one Republican voted to support this legislation, and the President didn't care anyway. He had enough Democratic votes to pass the legislation, so he didn't need the votes from Republicans. As a result, the most expensive domestic bill ever passed did not even receive a single vote from the minority party.
Although some Americans may view this bill's passage as bold leadership, I view it a little differently. I see it as arrogance. "Trust us," was the message from the President and Democratic leadership. As a result, we have a law that was ruled Constitutional by the narrowest of margins in the Supreme Court and a Chief Justice that used convoluted reasoning to allow the law the stand. We also have a law that people are just now beginning to learn all of its tax and policy ramifications.
But this was not the only occasion when this Administration has displayed arrogance and condescension.
The debt limit crisis of 2011 is another example. According to Bob Woodward's book, "The Price of Power," a deal between the Republicans and Democrats to extend the debt limit was nearly torpedoed by a President who demanded more tax revenue after a deal has been made and who also had a temper tantrum when he did not get his way. Woodward also places blame on House Speaker John Boeher, but he notes a lack of Presidential leadership and that no one in the Administration had Boeher's phone number to remain in contact with him.
For much of the President's time in office, he has belittled and blamed Republicans, spent little to no time actually trying to build relationships with Republican members of Congress or even members of his own party. He has spent much of his term blaming his predecessor for everything and has yet to take responsibility for anything that has occurred under his watch. Yet the President expects Republicans and Democratic members of Congress to ask, "how high?" when he demands them to jump.
Since the passage of Obamacare, Congress hasn't jumped, as evidenced by the Rebublican-controlled House voting down the President's budget 414-0 in 2012, and the Democrat-controlled Senate voting down the President's budget 97-0 in 2011. Not one member of the President's own party voted for these budgets. The same arrogance that Vice President Biden displayed Thursday evening in the debate is undoubtedly the same attitude that the Administration has exhibited when dealing with Congress, so they're pushing back.
A leading member of Congress recently recently shared with a nationally-recognized political pundit that he had "met" the President twice in four years. This leading Congressman made it clear that he did not have a relationship with the President. Recent reports indicate that the President has only met with the top four members of Congress twice this year, although the country is racing towards a fiscal cliff because of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts at the end of this year. The President also recently admitted that he spends time with his family instead of schmoozing with Congress. The Great One apparently doesn't feel hat he has to do the work that other Presidents have done to collaborate with the Legislative Branch of the federal government.
Even the Administration's response to the Libyan embassy attacks smacks of arrogance. There have been so many different explanations for the attacks and lack of security from so many different members of the Administration that the American people as well as the news media are beginning to wonder who has been covering up what in this foreign policy debacle. One day after a representative from the State Department admitted that embassy staff had asked for additional security on several occasions, the Vice President said that "we" had not received any requests for additional security. The next day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the royal "we" vocalized by Biden in the debate referred only to the Vice President and the President and not anyone else in the Administration.
Are you kidding me? This parsing of words reminds me of President Bill Clinton testifying about the meaning of "is."
While being interviewed by Fox News' Brett Baier, Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter recently had the audacity to blame the Romney/Ryan campaign for trying to raise the issue of conflicting statements and potential coverup onto the national stage.
Clearly, if someone in the Obama Administration says something it has to be true and the American people, as well as the news media are expected to believe it. How dare anyone question the Obama Administration's truthfulness, even though its version of the truth changes almost hourly.
In his debate performance, Vice President Biden merely displayed the same attitude toward the opposition party, the American people and even the news media that the Obama Administration has exhibited the past four years.
Americans haven't experienced this level of executive arrogance since the Nixon Administration. Thankfully, the American people can put an end to this arrogance on Nov. 6.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Without Media Slant, Romney Wins Hands Down
I remember reading about an education study that illustrated how we treat someone and the expectations we have for that person is patterned after what we hear about that person. In the study, teachers were given erroneous information to trick them into thinking that the top-performing students in the class were the worst-performing students and vice versa. As a result, the teachers treated the top-performing students poorly and their grades suffered, while the low-performers were treated well and actually ended up with the top grades in the class.
The mainstream news media have essentially tried the same type of social experiment on the American people, telling them for months what to believe about each of the Presidential candidates. Television newscasts and newspaper coverage have hammered home the media's perceptions of each candidate's attributes. For Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the news media have reiterated that he is an uncaring business person who is losing the election because he isn't forceful enough, he only wants to look out for millionaires and is an ineffective communicator. For President Barack Obama, the news media have delivered continuous messaging that he connects well with the American people, is a strong leader and effecive communicator who is focusing on programs for the poor and middle class and will win the election.
Last night during the debate, the American people were able to make their own judgments about the candidates without the media filters of lliberal news coverage or the slant of political advertisements. They were able to compare and contrast the Republican nominee and his Democratic opponent while they were standing together on one stage.
What they saw wasn't pretty -- one of the worst beatings in American political debate history. What they saw was a complete disconnect with the perceptions of the candidates they have been spoon fed by the news media for months on end.
Romney showed a level of compassion that was the complete opposite of what Americans have been led to believe. He talked again and again about how Americans have been devastated by our current President's policies and that he would address these challenges as our President. Romney also showed that he was able to stand toe to toe with the President and forcefully make his points, even if it meant he had to essentially call the President a liar. Romney also emphasized throughout the evening how he wants to cut the tax rates for everyone, especially the middle class, but wants to limit deductions so that millionaires will continue to contribute the same amount of revenue. As for communication, Romney was able to present his case coherently and concisely, often using bullet-point-like descriptions of his plans that were easy for viewers to follow and understand. His communication style fit the format of the debate to a T.
On the other hand, the President rarely used examples that allowed him to connect with the average American and spent more energy looking down at the stage than staring at Romney, the American people watching their televisions or the audience. Every time the President attempted to tie Romney to promoting "tax cuts for the rich" with a flailing punch, the Republican would counter with a sharp jab that knocked the President back on his heels. The President's responses were often rambling, nearly incoherent phrases and sentences coupled together without any of the same clarity provided by his opponent.
At several points during the evening, moderator Jim Lehrer seemingly offered the President a lifeline, asking questions in a way that actually started to make the President's points for him. But the President continued to drown in his ocean of words -- separated by numerous uhs and ums -- that the American people could not follow and often could not fully comprehend. Although the moderator allowed the President to ramble on for minutes longer than his competitor, the more the President talked the less sense he made. More was not better.
Unlike what Americans have been led to believe the past several months by the news media, Romney looked and sounded Presidential, while the President sounded and acted like a third-rate, unprepared candidate still developing his pitch in the primary season. And while Romney was able to show Americans through examples and data that he has proven experience growing jobs, improving education, cutting taxes and working with members of the opposition party to pass legislation, the President was only able to ask the American people for another chance because he would like to do those things in a second term.
When even the most left-leaning news organizations reported that Romney clearly won the debate, you know that it had to have been a complete rout. NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw may have had the harshest criticism of the President of anyone, saying, "If it had been Romney performing like the President last night, it (the campaign) would have been over." I happen to agree. Even MSNBC couldn't spin the President's clear ineptitude into some false explanation of brilliance. The debate was so lopsided that I fully expected Rosie O'Donnell to jump out of the audience onto the stage and begin singing from "La Boheme."
I strongly believe that what we witnessed yesterday evening was the beginning of the end of the Obama Presidency. It can't come quickly enough for the American people, who are clearly struggling under this President's failed policies.
The mainstream news media have essentially tried the same type of social experiment on the American people, telling them for months what to believe about each of the Presidential candidates. Television newscasts and newspaper coverage have hammered home the media's perceptions of each candidate's attributes. For Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the news media have reiterated that he is an uncaring business person who is losing the election because he isn't forceful enough, he only wants to look out for millionaires and is an ineffective communicator. For President Barack Obama, the news media have delivered continuous messaging that he connects well with the American people, is a strong leader and effecive communicator who is focusing on programs for the poor and middle class and will win the election.
Last night during the debate, the American people were able to make their own judgments about the candidates without the media filters of lliberal news coverage or the slant of political advertisements. They were able to compare and contrast the Republican nominee and his Democratic opponent while they were standing together on one stage.
What they saw wasn't pretty -- one of the worst beatings in American political debate history. What they saw was a complete disconnect with the perceptions of the candidates they have been spoon fed by the news media for months on end.
Romney showed a level of compassion that was the complete opposite of what Americans have been led to believe. He talked again and again about how Americans have been devastated by our current President's policies and that he would address these challenges as our President. Romney also showed that he was able to stand toe to toe with the President and forcefully make his points, even if it meant he had to essentially call the President a liar. Romney also emphasized throughout the evening how he wants to cut the tax rates for everyone, especially the middle class, but wants to limit deductions so that millionaires will continue to contribute the same amount of revenue. As for communication, Romney was able to present his case coherently and concisely, often using bullet-point-like descriptions of his plans that were easy for viewers to follow and understand. His communication style fit the format of the debate to a T.
On the other hand, the President rarely used examples that allowed him to connect with the average American and spent more energy looking down at the stage than staring at Romney, the American people watching their televisions or the audience. Every time the President attempted to tie Romney to promoting "tax cuts for the rich" with a flailing punch, the Republican would counter with a sharp jab that knocked the President back on his heels. The President's responses were often rambling, nearly incoherent phrases and sentences coupled together without any of the same clarity provided by his opponent.
At several points during the evening, moderator Jim Lehrer seemingly offered the President a lifeline, asking questions in a way that actually started to make the President's points for him. But the President continued to drown in his ocean of words -- separated by numerous uhs and ums -- that the American people could not follow and often could not fully comprehend. Although the moderator allowed the President to ramble on for minutes longer than his competitor, the more the President talked the less sense he made. More was not better.
Unlike what Americans have been led to believe the past several months by the news media, Romney looked and sounded Presidential, while the President sounded and acted like a third-rate, unprepared candidate still developing his pitch in the primary season. And while Romney was able to show Americans through examples and data that he has proven experience growing jobs, improving education, cutting taxes and working with members of the opposition party to pass legislation, the President was only able to ask the American people for another chance because he would like to do those things in a second term.
When even the most left-leaning news organizations reported that Romney clearly won the debate, you know that it had to have been a complete rout. NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw may have had the harshest criticism of the President of anyone, saying, "If it had been Romney performing like the President last night, it (the campaign) would have been over." I happen to agree. Even MSNBC couldn't spin the President's clear ineptitude into some false explanation of brilliance. The debate was so lopsided that I fully expected Rosie O'Donnell to jump out of the audience onto the stage and begin singing from "La Boheme."
I strongly believe that what we witnessed yesterday evening was the beginning of the end of the Obama Presidency. It can't come quickly enough for the American people, who are clearly struggling under this President's failed policies.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The Voice of Reason: News Media Report News They Want You to Know
The Obama PR Machine, also known as the mainstream news media, has done a wonderful job spinning the news to reelect the President.
If a poll shows the President with a three-point lead, the story is that the President is gaining an even larger lead, even though the difference between the top candidates is within the margin of error. One recent story about polls showed that nationally the race is essentially tied, but that the President is building upon his lead in the key battleground states. Nevermind that the polling showing this growing lead was based on the survey of a grand total of 169 people in those states. Yes, I typed that number correctly -- 169.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/wapo-crafts-headline-out-of-poll-with-8-margin-of-error
If Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney makes a gaffe or something less-than-flattering comes out about his campaign, it will be the lead story on every evening newscast and an above-the-fold, front page story in every major newspaper. But when the President makes a mistake or news is revealed that puts his Presidency in a negative light, you will be lucky to find it covered with a 15-second piece at the 20-minute mark of the evening news or on page 17D of any major newspaper. The media bias has deteriorated so far that it should be clear to every American.
I usually don't use profanity in my blog, but it's gotten so bad that I will make an exception this time. The mainstream media have their heads so far up our President's ass that they're using his cheeks for earmuffs. It's hard to describe this obvious bias any other way.
The news media are doing the American people a great disservice. Millions of Americans will be making their choices at the polls on November 6 based largely on what information has been provided by the news media. Unfortunately,Americans haven't been privy to a lot of important issues and news, because the news media decided that much of this coverage would damage the President's chances of reelection.
I would venture a guess that 90% of the American people know that Romney was secretly taped talking about how 47% of the public are being dependent on government and probably won't vote for him. But I would bet you that fewer than 10% know that under President Obama the use of warrantless wiretaps has quadrupled, which means that our right to unreasonable search and seizures is being whittled away.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wiretapping/2012/09/28/aclu-obama-has-quadrupled-warrantless-wiretaps
I would bet that 90% of voters know that the Romneys own an expensive horse, which Mrs. Romney rides regularly. But I would bet almost anyone $100 that the vast majority of voters do not know that the same President who promised transparency oversees an administration in which 19 of 20 agencies have not lived up to the Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) laws.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html
I would also say that 90% of Americans have heard something about how Romney likes to fire people (he was talking about firing people who don't provide him with quality service). But it's funny how little coverage Vice President Joe Biden received when he said today that the middle class has been "buried the last four years." Essentially, with that one statement, Biden admitted that the Obama Administration's policies have not worked for the middle class and that they are not better off than they were four years ago. If this gaffe were covered as extensively by the news media and in the same manner as any of Romney's minor gaffes have been, this would probably sink the President's campaign, and the news media would report that Romney has won the race with Biden's single blunder.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOnbhdw9mLcs4XIBXl4xCMrTQILg?docId=afc1a1575f77421bae7873cecce07420
Almost everyone in America now knows that Romney is a Morman or that he supposedly bullied a classmate while in high school, thanks to extensive coverage of these issues. But do you think that the majority of Americans know that our President attended socialist conferences and listened intently to communist professors in college, or that some of his key influences growing up had Marxist leanings? Of course not, because the news media did not dig into the President's background with the same enthusiasm as they have probed into Romney's background. The sad part is that they didn't even have to dig at all to report this negative information, because the President admitted all of this and much, much more in his autobiography.
http://visionary102.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/frank-marshall-davis-cpusa-47544/
I would say that almost every American has heard that Romney said something about betting another Republican candidate $10,000, which made him look out of touch with the average American. Sadly, though, few Americans heard the President describe the recent attacks on our embassies in the Middle East, which included the deaths of four Americans, as mere "bumps in the road." The news media also failed to report that in the hours after the deaths of four Americans in a terrorist attack, the President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. If former President George W. Bush had attended a fundraiser after such an attack, he would have been vilified in the mainstream news media as uncaring and out of touch with Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-60-minutes-wipeout/2012/09/24/acdcf2aa-063f-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
The news media were all over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unfounded allegations about Romney being a tax cheat. Democratic operatives also strongly insinuated that Romney is a felon. These stories consumed the news for several weeks. But have you heard much about how the Obama Administration is telling defense contractors to ignore existing law by not informing employees who may be laid off because of budget cuts. Not only is the administration ignoring a law that the President strongly supported as a Senator, but it is also promising to pay the legal bills for those companies who comply with the administration's requests. The President and his henchmen would rather break the law than have millions of notices of impending pink slips sent to employees in states such as Virginia, which, coincidentally is one of the key battlegrounds. Do you think this decison to pay off defense contractors was done for political reasons?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/
It's almost laughable when you look at what the news media had an opportunity to cover and what they covered extensively. The choices included a frank discussion of the growing entitlement society vs. infringement of the rights of tens of thousands of Americans, an expensive horse vs. ignoring transparency laws, a statement about getting rid of people who don't provide you with good service vs. an admission by the Vice President of four years of failed policies, coverage of a person's religious beliefs and allegations of pranks in high school vs. admitted interest and activities with communists and socialists while in college, an off-hand wager that most Americans can't afford vs. calling American deaths "bumps in the road," and unfounded allegations about tax avoidance vs. clearly breaking the law and paying off defense contractors to avoid bad news right immediately before the election.
Sadly, quality, unbiased journalism has died in America, and, as a result, Americans no longer can rely on most media outlets for their news. Today, Americans must rely on bloggers such as this one, Fox News and sources such as breitbart.com to learn all of the news, and not just that which the mainstream news media wants you to know.
If a poll shows the President with a three-point lead, the story is that the President is gaining an even larger lead, even though the difference between the top candidates is within the margin of error. One recent story about polls showed that nationally the race is essentially tied, but that the President is building upon his lead in the key battleground states. Nevermind that the polling showing this growing lead was based on the survey of a grand total of 169 people in those states. Yes, I typed that number correctly -- 169.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/wapo-crafts-headline-out-of-poll-with-8-margin-of-error
If Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney makes a gaffe or something less-than-flattering comes out about his campaign, it will be the lead story on every evening newscast and an above-the-fold, front page story in every major newspaper. But when the President makes a mistake or news is revealed that puts his Presidency in a negative light, you will be lucky to find it covered with a 15-second piece at the 20-minute mark of the evening news or on page 17D of any major newspaper. The media bias has deteriorated so far that it should be clear to every American.
I usually don't use profanity in my blog, but it's gotten so bad that I will make an exception this time. The mainstream media have their heads so far up our President's ass that they're using his cheeks for earmuffs. It's hard to describe this obvious bias any other way.
The news media are doing the American people a great disservice. Millions of Americans will be making their choices at the polls on November 6 based largely on what information has been provided by the news media. Unfortunately,Americans haven't been privy to a lot of important issues and news, because the news media decided that much of this coverage would damage the President's chances of reelection.
I would venture a guess that 90% of the American people know that Romney was secretly taped talking about how 47% of the public are being dependent on government and probably won't vote for him. But I would bet you that fewer than 10% know that under President Obama the use of warrantless wiretaps has quadrupled, which means that our right to unreasonable search and seizures is being whittled away.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wiretapping/2012/09/28/aclu-obama-has-quadrupled-warrantless-wiretaps
I would bet that 90% of voters know that the Romneys own an expensive horse, which Mrs. Romney rides regularly. But I would bet almost anyone $100 that the vast majority of voters do not know that the same President who promised transparency oversees an administration in which 19 of 20 agencies have not lived up to the Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) laws.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html
I would also say that 90% of Americans have heard something about how Romney likes to fire people (he was talking about firing people who don't provide him with quality service). But it's funny how little coverage Vice President Joe Biden received when he said today that the middle class has been "buried the last four years." Essentially, with that one statement, Biden admitted that the Obama Administration's policies have not worked for the middle class and that they are not better off than they were four years ago. If this gaffe were covered as extensively by the news media and in the same manner as any of Romney's minor gaffes have been, this would probably sink the President's campaign, and the news media would report that Romney has won the race with Biden's single blunder.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOnbhdw9mLcs4XIBXl4xCMrTQILg?docId=afc1a1575f77421bae7873cecce07420
Almost everyone in America now knows that Romney is a Morman or that he supposedly bullied a classmate while in high school, thanks to extensive coverage of these issues. But do you think that the majority of Americans know that our President attended socialist conferences and listened intently to communist professors in college, or that some of his key influences growing up had Marxist leanings? Of course not, because the news media did not dig into the President's background with the same enthusiasm as they have probed into Romney's background. The sad part is that they didn't even have to dig at all to report this negative information, because the President admitted all of this and much, much more in his autobiography.
http://visionary102.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/frank-marshall-davis-cpusa-47544/
I would say that almost every American has heard that Romney said something about betting another Republican candidate $10,000, which made him look out of touch with the average American. Sadly, though, few Americans heard the President describe the recent attacks on our embassies in the Middle East, which included the deaths of four Americans, as mere "bumps in the road." The news media also failed to report that in the hours after the deaths of four Americans in a terrorist attack, the President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. If former President George W. Bush had attended a fundraiser after such an attack, he would have been vilified in the mainstream news media as uncaring and out of touch with Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-60-minutes-wipeout/2012/09/24/acdcf2aa-063f-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
The news media were all over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unfounded allegations about Romney being a tax cheat. Democratic operatives also strongly insinuated that Romney is a felon. These stories consumed the news for several weeks. But have you heard much about how the Obama Administration is telling defense contractors to ignore existing law by not informing employees who may be laid off because of budget cuts. Not only is the administration ignoring a law that the President strongly supported as a Senator, but it is also promising to pay the legal bills for those companies who comply with the administration's requests. The President and his henchmen would rather break the law than have millions of notices of impending pink slips sent to employees in states such as Virginia, which, coincidentally is one of the key battlegrounds. Do you think this decison to pay off defense contractors was done for political reasons?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/
It's almost laughable when you look at what the news media had an opportunity to cover and what they covered extensively. The choices included a frank discussion of the growing entitlement society vs. infringement of the rights of tens of thousands of Americans, an expensive horse vs. ignoring transparency laws, a statement about getting rid of people who don't provide you with good service vs. an admission by the Vice President of four years of failed policies, coverage of a person's religious beliefs and allegations of pranks in high school vs. admitted interest and activities with communists and socialists while in college, an off-hand wager that most Americans can't afford vs. calling American deaths "bumps in the road," and unfounded allegations about tax avoidance vs. clearly breaking the law and paying off defense contractors to avoid bad news right immediately before the election.
Sadly, quality, unbiased journalism has died in America, and, as a result, Americans no longer can rely on most media outlets for their news. Today, Americans must rely on bloggers such as this one, Fox News and sources such as breitbart.com to learn all of the news, and not just that which the mainstream news media wants you to know.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Another Brick in the Wall
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey teacher leave them kids alone
All in all it's just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey teacher leave them kids alone
All in all it's just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
-- Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall
I still remember the day I moved away from home. Although I now had to pay my own utility bills, pay for my own food and my own car, I felt a sense of freedom -- as well as a little apprehension. I realized that as long as I was living under my parents' roof, with my parents paying the bills, I would have to live by their rules. For all of the "things" they bought for me came a tether of control that I would never escape, until I was able to set out on my own.
Our Constitution guarantees Americans certain rights, including the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process of law, the right to a speedy and public trial, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishments. Many of these rights are considered to be unalienable and given to us not by man or government, but by our Creator.
Day by day, year by year, these rights are slowing slipping away, and most Americans don't even realize it is happening. In return for giving Americans "things," the government begins to assert its tether of control, seizing that control from citizens.
Most people aren't even aware of the school lunch debacle that is now occurring in our nation's schools. The Obama Administration, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which controls the school lunch program, has established strict guidelines that determine how much and what is being fed to our nation's children. Does your child like 2% milk? Too bad, the federal government has decided that only skim milk will be served in school lunchrooms. What if your child likes chocolate milk? Again, that's not even a choice.
How many calories should your child eat at lunch? The federal government has decided that your child needs between 750-850 calories. That's it. Even if he is an athlete. Even if she has high metabolism. Even if your child needs to gain weight after being sick. The federal government has decided what your child will eat and how much he or she will eat.
With 30 million American children now being served free or reduced-price lunches, the tether of control grows longer. Most schools are also serving breakfast, and many schools are now serving dinner. The tether grows stronger.
Some overzealous schools have even gone so far as to check bag lunches packed at home to make sure they're healthy and to take them away if the Food Nazis determine them to be unhealthy. Numerous news outlets have reported this, and I've also heard anecdotally from parents in a number of communities that this indeed has occurred.
There will be some who will read this blog and point out that America has an obesity problem. They may believe that the federal government should step in because it costs us all if Americans are unhealthy. But if one can make that argument about food, one can also make the argument that Americans are too violent (take away our firearms or censor our TV shows to remove any violence), Americans use too much gasoline that pollutes the atmosphere (determine that Americans can only buy and drive Chevy Volts), or determine what size of sugary drink an American can buy at his local 7-11. Wait a minute, that last example is happening right now in New York City.
It's a slippery slope; once one right and free choice is taken away, it becomes much easier for government to take away even more rights and choices for Americans.
One might think that this infringment on our rights is limited to something as seemingly innocuous as school lunches? Think again.
The Obama Administration directed Catholic institutions to offer free birth control to their employees -- even though it is against their religious views to use birth control. That's clearly an infringement on the freedom of religion for Catholics. Through the guise of expanding health insurance, the federal government is now telling Catholic institutions how they can and can't practice their religion.
President Obama now has a kill list from which he decides which suspected terrorists live or die via a drone strike. This list includes American citizens, who are guaranteed the right of due process of law in our Constitution. But there is no judicial overview or the determination of guilt by a jury of one's peers for people on this kill list. Like a Roman emporer, President Obama essentially gives a thumbs up or a thumbs down to determine the fate of the suspected terrorist, even if he is an American citizen.
The President also decided to ignore the separation of powers as outlined in our Constitution. He has directed immigration officials and border control agents to enforce only certain provisions of immigration laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous President. Although seemingly not in the same realm as other actions that have taken away our rights, this, too, is a slippery slope. If a President can ignore laws that were passed by the Legislative Branch of our government, which is empowered to write laws, why can't a President also determine new laws without involving Congress? At this point, the President would become the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government.
Once again, many Americans would be surprised to learn that this is already occurring. Congress is empowered to pass environmental legislation, which is enforced by the Executive Branch of our government, mainly through the Environmental Protection Agency. Since President Obama took office, though, the EPA has not only enforced laws and regulations passed by Congress, but it has also determined new regulations that have not been passed by our elected representatives in Congress. Courts have recently slapped down the EPA at least four times in the past six months for not allowing due process to citizens and for expanding its powers beyond that which the Constitution allows. Once again, the separation of powers is being ignored.
As for our right to due process of law, I would guess that most Americans don't know that the Obama Administration has quadrupled the use of warrantless wiretaps? Started under the Bush Administration after 9/11, the Executive Branch pushed for the right to listen in on conversations in order to stop suspected terrorists. The Obama Administration has taken a small infringement on our right to due process and unreasonable searches and seizures to an entirely new level, one which should frighten every American. Once again, the slippery slope has allowed our federal government to take even more control over our lives.
Those same drones that have been used to kill terrorists are now being used in U.S. airspace. The Air Force has a policy that if a drone "incidentally" spies on an American citizen that the footage can be kept for 90 days. Most people also don't know that the EPA is currently using drones to spy on cattle ranches in order to enforce the Clean Water Act. If the federal government can wiretap our phone conversations without a warrant and drones flying ahead are able to spy on our every movement, we may be safer in America, but we have also lost any right to privacy that we had prior to the rapid expansion of this technology.
http://www.infowars.com/epa-using-drones-to-spy-on-cattle-ranchers-in-nebraska-and-iowa/
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/should-drones-be-used-to-spy-on-americans/
Sadly, most Americans don't even realize that any of this is happening. They go to work every day, may watch the evening news, but don't really take the time to search for news that isn't being reported by the mainstream news media. (I did an internet search for "quadruple wiretaps" and found only one large media outlet, Fox News, reporting on this important issue.)
http://www.infowars.com/epa-using-drones-to-spy-on-cattle-ranchers-in-nebraska-and-iowa/
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/should-drones-be-used-to-spy-on-americans/
Sadly, most Americans don't even realize that any of this is happening. They go to work every day, may watch the evening news, but don't really take the time to search for news that isn't being reported by the mainstream news media. (I did an internet search for "quadruple wiretaps" and found only one large media outlet, Fox News, reporting on this important issue.)
Most Americans don't know that our school lunches are now being dictated by the federal government, that the FBI or CIA may be listening in on your phone conversations, the EPA is establishing new regulations without input from your elected representatives, that your religious rights are slowing being taken away, that you may be spied on in your own backyard by a drone flying high overhead, or that a distant relative of yours traveling overseas with the wrong people may be the target of a drone strike with only the President determining whether he lives or dies.
The expansion of our federal government comes at a price, doesn't it?
Thursday, September 27, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Obama Displays Rare Combination of Laziness, Incompetence, Arrogance
In its 236-year history, America has elected Presidents who were lazy. Calvin Coolidge once took a vacation lasting nearly three months and ordered the Secret Service to not install a telephone anywhere nearby. As a result, for nearly one quarter of a year, America essentially had no President.
We've also elected Presidents who were incompetent. Jimmy Carter comes to mind immediately. His policies burdened Americans with hyper-inflation and the word, "debacle," most closely describes his foreign policy decisions.
We've also had Presidents who were arrogant and thought they could do anything because they were the leader of the free world. Richard Nixon was the epitome of arrogance, covering up a third-rate burgulary that eventually ended his Presidency.
But never before in our history have we elected a President like Barack Obama, who has displayed all three attributes -- laziness, incompetence and arrogance -- in such great abundance.
Talk about laziness. What other President has only attended a little more than one-third of his daily intelligence briefings during a year and a half period? In 2011 and the first half of 2012, President attended slightly more than 38 percent of his daily intelligence briefings, compared to his predecessor, George W. Bush, who rarely missed these important meetings. Although President Obama apparently doesn't find them important, these meetings help to ensure the security of the United States. In the week before our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans were killed in an attack on our embassy, our President did not attend a single briefing. The day after the attack, our President scheduled, then cancelled the daily intelligence briefing, opting instead to attend a fundraiser in Las Vegas. The President has found time the last four years to play well over 100 rounds of golf and over 200 fundraisers. Apparently, these activities are viewed by our President as much more important than daily intelligence briefings that help to protect America.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-bogus-defense-of-obamas-intelligence-briefing-record/2012/09/25/f5ae10de-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
As for incompetence, our President clearly does not understand how the American system of capitalism works. His anti-economic growth policies have created unemployment above 8% during his entire term in office, record poverty, and record increases in food stamps. The most recent jobs report showed that for every American who found a job, four simply gave up looking for work because the prospects of finding a job were so bleak. Yet, the President is pushing more of the same policies in a second term that he tried in his first term. The definition of insanity -- or incompetence -- is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
What other President has arrogantly ignored laws passed by Congress and signed by a previous President? Through an Executive Order, President Obama directed federal and state immigation officials to ignore laws designed to protect our borders. What other President has had a kill list of suspected criminals (terrorists), that includes American citizens, from which the President, and the President alone, can determine if the suspected criminal lives or dies in a drone strike. Much like a Roman emporer, President Obama can decide if a person lives or dies, even if that person is an American citizen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Laziness. Incompetence. Arrogance. These clearly are the triumvirate of a failed Obama Presidency.
We've also elected Presidents who were incompetent. Jimmy Carter comes to mind immediately. His policies burdened Americans with hyper-inflation and the word, "debacle," most closely describes his foreign policy decisions.
We've also had Presidents who were arrogant and thought they could do anything because they were the leader of the free world. Richard Nixon was the epitome of arrogance, covering up a third-rate burgulary that eventually ended his Presidency.
But never before in our history have we elected a President like Barack Obama, who has displayed all three attributes -- laziness, incompetence and arrogance -- in such great abundance.
Talk about laziness. What other President has only attended a little more than one-third of his daily intelligence briefings during a year and a half period? In 2011 and the first half of 2012, President attended slightly more than 38 percent of his daily intelligence briefings, compared to his predecessor, George W. Bush, who rarely missed these important meetings. Although President Obama apparently doesn't find them important, these meetings help to ensure the security of the United States. In the week before our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans were killed in an attack on our embassy, our President did not attend a single briefing. The day after the attack, our President scheduled, then cancelled the daily intelligence briefing, opting instead to attend a fundraiser in Las Vegas. The President has found time the last four years to play well over 100 rounds of golf and over 200 fundraisers. Apparently, these activities are viewed by our President as much more important than daily intelligence briefings that help to protect America.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-bogus-defense-of-obamas-intelligence-briefing-record/2012/09/25/f5ae10de-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
As for incompetence, our President clearly does not understand how the American system of capitalism works. His anti-economic growth policies have created unemployment above 8% during his entire term in office, record poverty, and record increases in food stamps. The most recent jobs report showed that for every American who found a job, four simply gave up looking for work because the prospects of finding a job were so bleak. Yet, the President is pushing more of the same policies in a second term that he tried in his first term. The definition of insanity -- or incompetence -- is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
What other President has arrogantly ignored laws passed by Congress and signed by a previous President? Through an Executive Order, President Obama directed federal and state immigation officials to ignore laws designed to protect our borders. What other President has had a kill list of suspected criminals (terrorists), that includes American citizens, from which the President, and the President alone, can determine if the suspected criminal lives or dies in a drone strike. Much like a Roman emporer, President Obama can decide if a person lives or dies, even if that person is an American citizen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Laziness. Incompetence. Arrogance. These clearly are the triumvirate of a failed Obama Presidency.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Don't Believe Everything You Read
My father, a construction worker, was a very smart man.
He dropped out of high school in the eighth grade in order to support his family during the Great Depression. Later, he was drafted into the Army during World War II. He was seriously injured in a battle protecting the Remagen Bridge for transporting American troops and equipment as the Germans retreated back across the Rhine. What he lacked in book knowledge, he made up in good, old American common sense. I still remember one of the best pieces of advice he ever gave me:
They can put anything on paper.
I didn't understand what he was trying to tell me when I was a kid, but it started to make sense to me when I began studying journalism in college. When I started work as a public relations professional and saw how the news media would often lie or slant the news to sell newspapers, I began to fully comprehend what this man was trying to tell me. My father was letting me know that once something is printed on paper, people tend to believe it, and what is printed may not be true. While watching recent news coverage of Republican nominee Mitt Romney, I began to recall my father's words.
If you have taken the time to read, view and listen to the coverage of Romney published and broadcast by various mainstream news sources as I do every day, you may begin to think that he has lost the race. You watch as liberal commentators and liberal reporters slant the news in a way that makes it appear that President Barack Obama is pulling ahead. You read and watch the coverage of Romney's comment about how 47% of Americans are depending on entitlements, with the pundits predicting that this one comment has killed Romney's chances for a victory. You also watch as these same pundits cite polls showing President Obama leading in the battleground states, almost as if it's a foregone conclusion that he will win this election.
In short, they aren't reporting the news; they are projecting the news through coverage that includes their opinions and biases.
And despite their best efforts, the most respected polls show that this race is a dead heat. The fact is that Republicans are much more likely and motivated to vote than their Democratic counterparts. Although there may be slightly more registered Democrats, Republicans will turn out in record numbers while Democrats will likely stay home in droves. Polls also show Romney winning over independent voters by as much as 14 points.
An astute observer can spot the shenanigans of the mainstream news media very easily. While most of the news media has focused on Romney's comments and polls taken immediately following the Democratic National Convention, we have also seen significant negative coverage that is chipping away at the approval ratings of the President, driving low numbers even lower.
Look at what's happened in the past week.
We've seen embassies all around the world being attacked. We've also learned that our Libyan ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans. For those of us who watch and read more than just NBC News, we've learned that while our ambassador was missing, our President was asleep, and the day after our ambassador was killed, our President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. We've seen coverage of a scathing report about serious mistakes at our Justice Department that resulted in a border control agent being killed, and coverage about how our State Department and other agencies received warnings of the impending attacks at our embassies, but apparently did nothing to protect the Americans who were killed by those terrorists. We've also seen coverage of the Administration apologizing for the video that supposedly initiated the violence, before backtracking and admitting that these were planned, coordinated attacks by terrorists. We've seen reports of increased weekly unemployment claims, with nearly 400,000 people applying for benefits for the first time this past week alone. We've also learned that President Obama could not find time to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but found time to meet with JayZ and Beyonce, and also to appear on the David Letterman show, where he couldn't even tell us how much debt this country had incurred when he took office. Just today, we learned that President Obama was grilled on Univision for deporting so many illegal immigrants, but not proposing a comprehensive immigration policy in four years. We learned from the same interview that the President doesn't believe that Washington can be changed from the inside. Think about it. If he doesn't believe it can be changed from the inside, why the heck did America elect him on a platform of Hope and Change and why should they give him a second chance?
And in a development that received sparse national coverage but may hit the pocketbooks of Americans harder than all of the other news put together, the prestigious firm of Egan-Jones downgraded the rating on the world's largest economy to AA-, which is three steps below the coveted AAA rating America once enjoyed.
And the news media report that Romney had a bad week?
Americans aren't stupid. They read their newspapers and watch their evening news. Although the Romney story may have been the lead on the evening news for a couple of days, coverage of the other, more important issues that chip away at the President's approval ratings have also been on the same newscasts. The mainstream news media do their best to avoid linking this negative coverage to the President, but the American people know who is leading this country. They also know that our economy hasn't recovered and our foreign policy is falling apart. All of this has occurred on his watch.
My advice to you is the same as what my father told me years ago: They can put anything on paper. In other words, don't buy what the biased mainstream news media are trying to sell you. The Obama Administration is imploding, even if the news media won't report it.
He dropped out of high school in the eighth grade in order to support his family during the Great Depression. Later, he was drafted into the Army during World War II. He was seriously injured in a battle protecting the Remagen Bridge for transporting American troops and equipment as the Germans retreated back across the Rhine. What he lacked in book knowledge, he made up in good, old American common sense. I still remember one of the best pieces of advice he ever gave me:
They can put anything on paper.
I didn't understand what he was trying to tell me when I was a kid, but it started to make sense to me when I began studying journalism in college. When I started work as a public relations professional and saw how the news media would often lie or slant the news to sell newspapers, I began to fully comprehend what this man was trying to tell me. My father was letting me know that once something is printed on paper, people tend to believe it, and what is printed may not be true. While watching recent news coverage of Republican nominee Mitt Romney, I began to recall my father's words.
If you have taken the time to read, view and listen to the coverage of Romney published and broadcast by various mainstream news sources as I do every day, you may begin to think that he has lost the race. You watch as liberal commentators and liberal reporters slant the news in a way that makes it appear that President Barack Obama is pulling ahead. You read and watch the coverage of Romney's comment about how 47% of Americans are depending on entitlements, with the pundits predicting that this one comment has killed Romney's chances for a victory. You also watch as these same pundits cite polls showing President Obama leading in the battleground states, almost as if it's a foregone conclusion that he will win this election.
In short, they aren't reporting the news; they are projecting the news through coverage that includes their opinions and biases.
And despite their best efforts, the most respected polls show that this race is a dead heat. The fact is that Republicans are much more likely and motivated to vote than their Democratic counterparts. Although there may be slightly more registered Democrats, Republicans will turn out in record numbers while Democrats will likely stay home in droves. Polls also show Romney winning over independent voters by as much as 14 points.
An astute observer can spot the shenanigans of the mainstream news media very easily. While most of the news media has focused on Romney's comments and polls taken immediately following the Democratic National Convention, we have also seen significant negative coverage that is chipping away at the approval ratings of the President, driving low numbers even lower.
Look at what's happened in the past week.
We've seen embassies all around the world being attacked. We've also learned that our Libyan ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans. For those of us who watch and read more than just NBC News, we've learned that while our ambassador was missing, our President was asleep, and the day after our ambassador was killed, our President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. We've seen coverage of a scathing report about serious mistakes at our Justice Department that resulted in a border control agent being killed, and coverage about how our State Department and other agencies received warnings of the impending attacks at our embassies, but apparently did nothing to protect the Americans who were killed by those terrorists. We've also seen coverage of the Administration apologizing for the video that supposedly initiated the violence, before backtracking and admitting that these were planned, coordinated attacks by terrorists. We've seen reports of increased weekly unemployment claims, with nearly 400,000 people applying for benefits for the first time this past week alone. We've also learned that President Obama could not find time to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but found time to meet with JayZ and Beyonce, and also to appear on the David Letterman show, where he couldn't even tell us how much debt this country had incurred when he took office. Just today, we learned that President Obama was grilled on Univision for deporting so many illegal immigrants, but not proposing a comprehensive immigration policy in four years. We learned from the same interview that the President doesn't believe that Washington can be changed from the inside. Think about it. If he doesn't believe it can be changed from the inside, why the heck did America elect him on a platform of Hope and Change and why should they give him a second chance?
And in a development that received sparse national coverage but may hit the pocketbooks of Americans harder than all of the other news put together, the prestigious firm of Egan-Jones downgraded the rating on the world's largest economy to AA-, which is three steps below the coveted AAA rating America once enjoyed.
And the news media report that Romney had a bad week?
Americans aren't stupid. They read their newspapers and watch their evening news. Although the Romney story may have been the lead on the evening news for a couple of days, coverage of the other, more important issues that chip away at the President's approval ratings have also been on the same newscasts. The mainstream news media do their best to avoid linking this negative coverage to the President, but the American people know who is leading this country. They also know that our economy hasn't recovered and our foreign policy is falling apart. All of this has occurred on his watch.
My advice to you is the same as what my father told me years ago: They can put anything on paper. In other words, don't buy what the biased mainstream news media are trying to sell you. The Obama Administration is imploding, even if the news media won't report it.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Top 10 Reasons NOT to Vote for Obama
While on Twitter earlier today, I posted several tweets providing reasons why one should not vote to reelect President Barack Obama.
Once I looked at these tweets in their entirety, it became very clear. Only a complete moron, or a staunch far-left liberal, would vote to reelect our current President based on his failed record, his broken promises and his lackadaisical attitude towards the job of leading our great nation.
Unfortunately, there are morons who don't pay attention or who watch only the mainstream news media. There are also far-left liberals who wouldn't vote for anybody but a Democrat even if that Democrat had been convicted of murder or rape.
For those people who are halfway reasonable and look at the facts, here are what I believe are the top 10 reasons why our current President does not deserve our vote.
1. He hasn't made the economy better; he's made it worse.
After over three and one-half years on the job, the latest jobs report was a telling barometer of this President's effectiveness. For every American who found a job in August, four Americans simply gave up looking for work because the prospects were so bleak. The facts are that one in every six Americans is now living in poverty and that the average American household has lost $4,000 in income since the Obama "recovery" started. All of these facts paint a picture of failed Presidency.
2. He has befriended our enemies and has forsaken our friends.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked to meet with our President, but the President apparently did not have enough time to meet with him -- although Netanyahu offered to travel to Washington in order to accomodate the President. But President Obama has found time to schedule a meeting with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, and has also pledged billions in aid to this country led by the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-Israel party. Earlier this week, our President did have time to meet with JayZ and Beyonce, and also found a few minutes to appear on the David Letterman Show. While Israel is facing an Iran that will soon have nuclear weapons, our President has not found time to meet with the leader of one of our longest and staunchest allies.
3. He does not prioritize his duties in a way that's Presidential or even logical.
Although the President has found time to play well over 100 rounds of golf during the past three and one-half years and also to attend more fundraisers than his predecessors combined, he hasn't found time to lead such efforts as meeting with his Jobs Council or his Cabinet. According to some reports, he hasn't met with his Jobs Council since January, and he only met twice with his Cabinet from January to the July. While our Ambassador to Libya was missing, our President was sound asleep. The day after our Ambassador and three other Americans died in Libya, our President had to interrupt a fundraiser in Las Vegas in order to address the American people. According to numerous other reports, the President also has not found time to connect with key leaders of Congress in his own party in three and one-half years, or to meet regularly with the Republicans. With the Bush era tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of the year for all Americans, the President has been busy campaigning instead of meeting with Congress. He has done nothing to prevent our economy from falling off what many are calling a fiscal cliff at the end of the year when the average American family will pay $4,000 more in taxes, unless the tax cuts are continued. Our President has also missed about two-thirds of recent intelligence briefings, probably because he's been too busy campaigning, fundraising and golfing.
4. He has developed no coherent energy policy.
President Obama likes to comment that fixing high gasoline prices can't be done overnight. So, what did he do three and one-half years ago to help prevent the doubling of gas prices we've seen since he took office? Nothing. He has not opened up federal lands or our shores for drilling, although this country has vast resources in those areas ready to tap. He also opposed the completion of the top half of the Keystone Pipeline, which would have brought millions of gallons of oil to American refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. He has done nothing to support natural gas drilling, or even the new development of vast new deposits of oil found in the Dakotas. President Obama's EPA appears to be doing its best to kill the coal industry, although America has hundreds of years of reserves and this energy source has supplied consumers with cheap, reliable electricity for decades. As the President said when he was campaigning in 2008, the cost of electricity would "necessarily skyrocket" because of the regulations he said he would impose on coal. This is one promise he intends to keep, and the increase in prices at the pump will soon be matched by increased in prices in electricity bills nationwide.
5. He's added $6 trillion to our debt.
To put this accomplishment in perspective, consider this. In 232 years, the United States of America incurred $10 trillion in debt. In three and one-half years, President Obama has added nearly $6 trillion to our national credit card bill. Early on, President Obama said that he would cut our debt in half by the end of his first term; instead, he's increased our debt by more than 50%.
6. He's wasted trillions of dollars.
Not only has President Obama added $6 trillion to our debt, he's wasted a lot of that money. He pushed for and received nearly $1 trillion for a stimulus when he was first elected, but we saw few jobs created. Later, the President said that "those shovel ready jobs weren't quite so shovel ready" and laughed about it. He also wasted billions on alternative energy projects like Solyndra, many of which were headed by people who coincidentally raised money for the President in 2008.
7. He's done nothing to address the impending insolvency of our entitlement programs.
Other than attacking Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan for his proposals to slow down the growth in costs of programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicare, the President has rarely even talked about them. Unlike Congressman Ryan, President Obama certainly hasn't made any proposals to save them, although they are all heading towards bankruptcy, putting them in jeopardy for future generations of Americans.
8. His economic policies have devastated two groups that strongly supported him in 2008 -- blacks and young people.
His policies have destroyed economic opportunties for young people and blacks. Only about one-half of recent college graduates have actually found a job in their field, while the other half is relegated to not working or working at a job not in their field. As for blacks, the reported unemployment rate is nearly twice that of the total population. The reality is that the real unemployment rate for blacks, once you consider those who have given up looking for work, is probably closer to 30%. The chances of finding a job for young people who are black may be close to that of winning the lottery. It's that bleak.
9. He's taken no responsibility when things go wrong, but seemingly takes most of the credit when things go right.
Our President uses the word, "I," a lot when commenting about things that go as planned, such as the raid to kill Osama Bin Laden, but continues to blame his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the economy. Great Preidents such as Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy always credited others for success and also talked about success in terms of "we."
10. He has trampled on our Constitutional rights.
President Obama has ordered federal and state officials to not enforce immigration laws, ignoring laws passed by Congress and signed by a previous President. He has also attempted to force Catholic institutions to provide free birth control as part of their healthcare plans, ignoring the religious freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. President Obama has also made recess appointments while Congress was still meeting, which is not Constitutional. His healthcare law was found Constitutional in what any reasonable person would consider to be quite a stretch, with Chief Justice John Roberts seemingly caving in to political pressure to find some way to allow the law to stand. Lastly, our President now has a "kill list" of suspected terrorist targets that he and he alone makes the final decision as to who lives and who dies. His list includes American citizens, who, until President Obama took office, had Constitutional rights ensuring the rights to a trial before being found guilty.
Once you put all of this together, you see an arrogant, egotistical President who has made our economy worse; trampled on our Constitutional rights; devastated economic opportunities afforded to those who supported him the strongest; added significantly to our debt; done nothing to protect entitlement programs for future generations; increased the price we pay for energy; and ignored our strongest ally in the Middle East at a time they need our steadfast support the most.
There is no way that this man should be elected to lead our country another four years. No way.
Once I looked at these tweets in their entirety, it became very clear. Only a complete moron, or a staunch far-left liberal, would vote to reelect our current President based on his failed record, his broken promises and his lackadaisical attitude towards the job of leading our great nation.
Unfortunately, there are morons who don't pay attention or who watch only the mainstream news media. There are also far-left liberals who wouldn't vote for anybody but a Democrat even if that Democrat had been convicted of murder or rape.
For those people who are halfway reasonable and look at the facts, here are what I believe are the top 10 reasons why our current President does not deserve our vote.
1. He hasn't made the economy better; he's made it worse.
After over three and one-half years on the job, the latest jobs report was a telling barometer of this President's effectiveness. For every American who found a job in August, four Americans simply gave up looking for work because the prospects were so bleak. The facts are that one in every six Americans is now living in poverty and that the average American household has lost $4,000 in income since the Obama "recovery" started. All of these facts paint a picture of failed Presidency.
2. He has befriended our enemies and has forsaken our friends.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked to meet with our President, but the President apparently did not have enough time to meet with him -- although Netanyahu offered to travel to Washington in order to accomodate the President. But President Obama has found time to schedule a meeting with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, and has also pledged billions in aid to this country led by the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-Israel party. Earlier this week, our President did have time to meet with JayZ and Beyonce, and also found a few minutes to appear on the David Letterman Show. While Israel is facing an Iran that will soon have nuclear weapons, our President has not found time to meet with the leader of one of our longest and staunchest allies.
3. He does not prioritize his duties in a way that's Presidential or even logical.
Although the President has found time to play well over 100 rounds of golf during the past three and one-half years and also to attend more fundraisers than his predecessors combined, he hasn't found time to lead such efforts as meeting with his Jobs Council or his Cabinet. According to some reports, he hasn't met with his Jobs Council since January, and he only met twice with his Cabinet from January to the July. While our Ambassador to Libya was missing, our President was sound asleep. The day after our Ambassador and three other Americans died in Libya, our President had to interrupt a fundraiser in Las Vegas in order to address the American people. According to numerous other reports, the President also has not found time to connect with key leaders of Congress in his own party in three and one-half years, or to meet regularly with the Republicans. With the Bush era tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of the year for all Americans, the President has been busy campaigning instead of meeting with Congress. He has done nothing to prevent our economy from falling off what many are calling a fiscal cliff at the end of the year when the average American family will pay $4,000 more in taxes, unless the tax cuts are continued. Our President has also missed about two-thirds of recent intelligence briefings, probably because he's been too busy campaigning, fundraising and golfing.
4. He has developed no coherent energy policy.
President Obama likes to comment that fixing high gasoline prices can't be done overnight. So, what did he do three and one-half years ago to help prevent the doubling of gas prices we've seen since he took office? Nothing. He has not opened up federal lands or our shores for drilling, although this country has vast resources in those areas ready to tap. He also opposed the completion of the top half of the Keystone Pipeline, which would have brought millions of gallons of oil to American refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. He has done nothing to support natural gas drilling, or even the new development of vast new deposits of oil found in the Dakotas. President Obama's EPA appears to be doing its best to kill the coal industry, although America has hundreds of years of reserves and this energy source has supplied consumers with cheap, reliable electricity for decades. As the President said when he was campaigning in 2008, the cost of electricity would "necessarily skyrocket" because of the regulations he said he would impose on coal. This is one promise he intends to keep, and the increase in prices at the pump will soon be matched by increased in prices in electricity bills nationwide.
5. He's added $6 trillion to our debt.
To put this accomplishment in perspective, consider this. In 232 years, the United States of America incurred $10 trillion in debt. In three and one-half years, President Obama has added nearly $6 trillion to our national credit card bill. Early on, President Obama said that he would cut our debt in half by the end of his first term; instead, he's increased our debt by more than 50%.
6. He's wasted trillions of dollars.
Not only has President Obama added $6 trillion to our debt, he's wasted a lot of that money. He pushed for and received nearly $1 trillion for a stimulus when he was first elected, but we saw few jobs created. Later, the President said that "those shovel ready jobs weren't quite so shovel ready" and laughed about it. He also wasted billions on alternative energy projects like Solyndra, many of which were headed by people who coincidentally raised money for the President in 2008.
7. He's done nothing to address the impending insolvency of our entitlement programs.
Other than attacking Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan for his proposals to slow down the growth in costs of programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicare, the President has rarely even talked about them. Unlike Congressman Ryan, President Obama certainly hasn't made any proposals to save them, although they are all heading towards bankruptcy, putting them in jeopardy for future generations of Americans.
8. His economic policies have devastated two groups that strongly supported him in 2008 -- blacks and young people.
His policies have destroyed economic opportunties for young people and blacks. Only about one-half of recent college graduates have actually found a job in their field, while the other half is relegated to not working or working at a job not in their field. As for blacks, the reported unemployment rate is nearly twice that of the total population. The reality is that the real unemployment rate for blacks, once you consider those who have given up looking for work, is probably closer to 30%. The chances of finding a job for young people who are black may be close to that of winning the lottery. It's that bleak.
9. He's taken no responsibility when things go wrong, but seemingly takes most of the credit when things go right.
Our President uses the word, "I," a lot when commenting about things that go as planned, such as the raid to kill Osama Bin Laden, but continues to blame his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the economy. Great Preidents such as Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy always credited others for success and also talked about success in terms of "we."
10. He has trampled on our Constitutional rights.
President Obama has ordered federal and state officials to not enforce immigration laws, ignoring laws passed by Congress and signed by a previous President. He has also attempted to force Catholic institutions to provide free birth control as part of their healthcare plans, ignoring the religious freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. President Obama has also made recess appointments while Congress was still meeting, which is not Constitutional. His healthcare law was found Constitutional in what any reasonable person would consider to be quite a stretch, with Chief Justice John Roberts seemingly caving in to political pressure to find some way to allow the law to stand. Lastly, our President now has a "kill list" of suspected terrorist targets that he and he alone makes the final decision as to who lives and who dies. His list includes American citizens, who, until President Obama took office, had Constitutional rights ensuring the rights to a trial before being found guilty.
Once you put all of this together, you see an arrogant, egotistical President who has made our economy worse; trampled on our Constitutional rights; devastated economic opportunities afforded to those who supported him the strongest; added significantly to our debt; done nothing to protect entitlement programs for future generations; increased the price we pay for energy; and ignored our strongest ally in the Middle East at a time they need our steadfast support the most.
There is no way that this man should be elected to lead our country another four years. No way.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Could These Be the Last Days of America?
The statistics are sobering.
More than 23 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have simply given up looking for work. The number of Americans on food stamps has increased by more than 14 million since President Barack Obama first took office, and the number on social security disability has increased 10 percent in that same time period.
Since President Obama was inaugurated, the amount of money the federal government gives to households has increased by a third, to the point that nearly one-half of all households in the country now receive a check of some kind from the government.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/16-statistics-which-show-that-the-number-of-americans-dependent-on-the-government-is-at-an-all-time-high
Our debt is now over $16 trillion, increasing by more than 50% since our current President took the reins.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
What Tocqueville predicted nearly two full centuries ago appears to have a good chance of coming true. With a near-majority of Americans receiving assistance from the government, will they vote for the candidate promising the most benefits, President Obama, or will they vote for Romney, a candidate who promises to control spending in order to save America from financial insolvency?
If what Tocqueville predicts comes true, our nation will collapse financially and then become a dictatorship.
Interestingly, President Obama has not proposed any plan whatsoever to rein in entitlement programs or to slow the growth of our debt that threatens to implode this country financially. He hasn't proposed anything in four years as President, and he certainly didn't propose any plan in his convention speech.
Without a change of direction, our country is racing towards a financial collapse. And yet, nearly one-half of Americans indicate that they will vote for President Obama on November 6?
With all of the campaigning during the past several months, few noticed that our President issued an executive order that directs border control agents to ignore immigration laws passed by Congress and signed by a former President. More noticed when he passed health care legislation to take over one-sixth of our economy, but very few paid attention when Health and Human Services directed Catholic institutions to provide free birth control, stomping on the religious rights of Americans. Even fewer paid attention when the New York Times reported that President Obama has a "kill list" that includes American citizens as primary targets without any judicial or Congressional review. President Obama alone decides who lives and who dies. Are these the actions of a President in a democracy or a dictator?
Tocqueville predicted that a dictatorship follows the financial collapse. Based on our current President's actions, we're already halfway there.
As I wrote in an earlier blog, this election will be the second most important one in our nation's history. The most important election was the first, when our country elected a leader, George Washington, who established the model for sharing power among the three branches of government, instead of grabbing the near-unlimited power that could have been his.
I fervently believe that this election will determine if America continues being a democracy or if it transforms into a socialist nation or worse, a dictatorship; if America will regain financial stability or drown in its debt; and if America will continue to be the land of opportunity or a country where the government determines how successful one will become.
In short, this election will determine if these will be the last days of the shining beacon of freedom. Will we become the nation they once called America, or the nation that continues to beckon those yearning to be free?
It will be up to us on November 6.
More than 23 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have simply given up looking for work. The number of Americans on food stamps has increased by more than 14 million since President Barack Obama first took office, and the number on social security disability has increased 10 percent in that same time period.
Since President Obama was inaugurated, the amount of money the federal government gives to households has increased by a third, to the point that nearly one-half of all households in the country now receive a check of some kind from the government.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/16-statistics-which-show-that-the-number-of-americans-dependent-on-the-government-is-at-an-all-time-high
Our debt is now over $16 trillion, increasing by more than 50% since our current President took the reins.
And yet, the latest polls show President Obama with a slight lead over Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Given the economic condition of our country, which has been made precipitously worse by our current President, how can this be?
I believe that this nearly 200-year-old quote from French historian Alexis de Tocqueville can perhaps provide the best explanation:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
What Tocqueville predicted nearly two full centuries ago appears to have a good chance of coming true. With a near-majority of Americans receiving assistance from the government, will they vote for the candidate promising the most benefits, President Obama, or will they vote for Romney, a candidate who promises to control spending in order to save America from financial insolvency?
If what Tocqueville predicts comes true, our nation will collapse financially and then become a dictatorship.
Interestingly, President Obama has not proposed any plan whatsoever to rein in entitlement programs or to slow the growth of our debt that threatens to implode this country financially. He hasn't proposed anything in four years as President, and he certainly didn't propose any plan in his convention speech.
Without a change of direction, our country is racing towards a financial collapse. And yet, nearly one-half of Americans indicate that they will vote for President Obama on November 6?
With all of the campaigning during the past several months, few noticed that our President issued an executive order that directs border control agents to ignore immigration laws passed by Congress and signed by a former President. More noticed when he passed health care legislation to take over one-sixth of our economy, but very few paid attention when Health and Human Services directed Catholic institutions to provide free birth control, stomping on the religious rights of Americans. Even fewer paid attention when the New York Times reported that President Obama has a "kill list" that includes American citizens as primary targets without any judicial or Congressional review. President Obama alone decides who lives and who dies. Are these the actions of a President in a democracy or a dictator?
Tocqueville predicted that a dictatorship follows the financial collapse. Based on our current President's actions, we're already halfway there.
As I wrote in an earlier blog, this election will be the second most important one in our nation's history. The most important election was the first, when our country elected a leader, George Washington, who established the model for sharing power among the three branches of government, instead of grabbing the near-unlimited power that could have been his.
I fervently believe that this election will determine if America continues being a democracy or if it transforms into a socialist nation or worse, a dictatorship; if America will regain financial stability or drown in its debt; and if America will continue to be the land of opportunity or a country where the government determines how successful one will become.
In short, this election will determine if these will be the last days of the shining beacon of freedom. Will we become the nation they once called America, or the nation that continues to beckon those yearning to be free?
It will be up to us on November 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)