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

-- 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.

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/28/pictures-inspire-school-lunch-boycott/
 

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.   

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=84479

http://nation.foxnews.com/wiretapping/2012/09/28/aclu-obama-has-quadrupled-warrantless-wiretaps
 

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.)
 

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?

     

 

   

The Voice of Reason: Hoodwinked by Hope and Change

We've all heard or read the story of President Barack Obama's life espoused by the mainstream news media, the Democratic Party and the President himself. 

It goes something like this. He grew up in impoverished Indonesia and later in Hawaii.  As a low-income student in Hawaii, he began abusing drugs and alcohol, before turning his life around.  Someway, somehow, he made it through high school and later on to college, eventually earning his way to Ivy League schools.  Later, as a professor, he was considered to be a "rock star" by his students, who were drawn to his magnetic personality.  He became an attorney and a community organizer, struggling to make it financially, much like the people he was trying to help.  As a legislator in Illinois and later as a U.S. Senator, he fought for those less fortunate, especially African-Americans.  He rose to national prominence to become America's first black President.

This is a very touching and inspiring story, isn't it?  It almost brings tears to one's eyes.  The only problem with this biography is that it's mostly fiction.

A 10-part article in the Washington Examiner exposes President Obama's biography for what it is --a fantasy.  Interviewing people who have known the President throughout his life, the Examiner did what others in the mainstream news media didn't do when he ran in 2008 and haven't done in the past four years. They actually checked to see if what they were told is the truth, a lie or something in between.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama#.UFsoFI0iZnM

Where should I start to bring a dose of reality to the awe-inspiring, but fictional story of Barack Obama?

First off, our President did not spend the majority of his childhood and teen years living in poverty.  When he lived in Jakarta, Indonesia, he lived much of the time in a very affluent section reserved for diplomats and economic elites. When he moved back to Hawaii, he lived with his grandmother, who was a bank vice president.  In both Indonesia and Hawaii, he attended elite private schools reserved for the upper class. While he may have lived in poverty for a short period during his childhood, the vast majority of his childhood was spent living much more affluently than we've been led to believe.

The truth about our President is that he started out as a popular guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.  He was one of the school's most popular lecturers his first two years, but his ratings began to decline to the point that in 1999 only 23 percent of students recommended his class.  In that same year, he was the third lowest rated lecturer.  Colleagues interviewed for the article in the Examiner said that he was disengaged. He never wrote scholarly papers and was rarely at the school.  In short, it appears he did the absolute minimum required for the job.

In this revealing article, numerous other facts about President Obama run contradictory to the story we've all been told.  A supposed champion of black people, he never lived in a community with a predominantly African-American population. Instead, he chose to live in one of the most affluent areas of Chicago, mostly inhabited by rich white people. He may have helped poor people in the ghetto through his job as a community organizer, but he certainly didn't live among them as we have been led to believe.  As an attorney, Obama may have taken on a couple of cases that championed people living in poverty, but he also defended slumlords who overcharged poor people for run-down apartments.

The truth is quite a different narrative, isn't it? But there's a lot more to this story.

President Obama's service to the people of Illinois, first as an Illinois legislator and later as a U.S. Senator can be described as barely "present."  He never championed significant legislation and never worked collaboratively with other lawmakers to write legislation of note.  He voted numerous times as "present," apparently not willing to take a stand that might offend, or maybe, once again, he was doing the absolute minimum for the job.

So how did Obama become our President?  An accurate bio will show that the only things he's done well that could possibly explain his ascension to President are that he's delivered two great speeches and he's used government funds to help his friends make millions.  Seriously.

He gave a stirring speech in Chicago in 1997 as a newly-elected state senator that allowed him to get noticed by that city's and Illinois' political elite, which then propelled him to become a U.S. Senator.  In 2004, he delivered another inspiring speech at the Democratic National Convention that elevated him to the national stage.  He parlayed that national recognition into a successful run for the White House in 2008.

While in Chicago, Obama surrounded himself with people who became millionaires through Chicago's $1.6 billion neighborhood demolition program known as the Plan for Transformation. At least 25,000 low-income apartments in Chicago were destroyed under the guise of urban renewal, which forced thousands of black families -- many of whom lived in Obama's state Senate district -- to move out of Chicago. Many saw the Plan for Transformation as a scam or con game, with those in charge acting like they were doing charitable work, but using public money to demolish and redevelop property or to get rid of all the tenants. The goal wasn't to help poor people; the goal was to use public money to make millions if not billions for Obama's closest allies, who directed the efforts.

As one can see now, the President's "investments" in companies like Solyndra, which coincidentally was headed by a staunch supporter, was simply a continuation of his practice of lining friends' pockets with money from public coffers.  The only difference is that the federal government has significantly more money to invest in schemes that make money for the President's allies.

It's evident after examining the President's more accurate biography provided by the Examiner that much of what we've learned about him from the news media, the Democratic Party and President Obama himself is a gross exaggeration at best, an outright lie at worst.  It's also evident that our President is largely a creation of the mainstream news media, who refuse to let Americans learn the truth about this man.

What I find ironic and quite sad is that Obama, who became our President largely on the basis of his public speaking prowess, began his political ascension in what is affectionately called the Windy City. 

How apropos.

The Voice of Reason: Election of 2012 Will Be Our Second Most Important

The Presidential Election of 2012 will undoubtedly be viewed by historians in 100 years as the second most important election in American history.

The first election, of course, was the most important election in our country's history.  A young nation was willing to award king-like power to our first President.  Fortunately, the leader of the Revolutionary War, George Washington, won the election and became the model for future Presidents.  Instead of grabbing for the almost-unlimited power available to him, Washington cautiously navigated the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution, realizing that the fledgling nation needed to move toward the democratic vision of our founding fathers, instead of the monarchy model found in England.

Just as the outcome of the first election determined whether or not America would resemble a democracy or monarchy, this year's election will determine whether America moves  towards a European-style democracy that borders (or crosses into) socialism or will return to being the country our founding fathers envisioned when writing the Constitution.

To those who believe strongly in the Constitution, the choice should be crystal clear.  But for those who are the beneficiaries of a strong federal government and its numerous social programs that support them, the choice may be more difficult.

Currently about half of the country benefits from big government programs, while the other 50% pay for them.  While a little more than 50% of Americans pay income taxes, nearly 50% do not.  President Barack Obama's policies to "redistribute the wealth" have only encouraged more Americans to apply for unemployment, disability, welfare, food stamps and numerous other government programs.  For many, the monetary compensation and benefits they receive for not working is close to the compensation and benefits they would receive for working. Why would anyone work if they could stay at home and live nearly as well, especially when the horrific Obama economy has limited their opportunities for a decent income?

The sad part is that many Americans have simply given up trying to improve their lots in life.  Many have found it easier to maintain a minimal standard of living -- and the Obama Administration has encourged this through the expansion of numerous social programs. The result is that more and more Americans are living on less than they were before President Obama was elected.  A recent report recently revealed that the median household income for Americans of all ages was 4.8% lower in June 2012 than it was when the recovery technically started three years earlier, in June 2009.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/167272875.html?refer=y 

America is quickly becoming a country that encourages mediocrity instead of exceptionalism. In fact, in a recent speech, President Obama downplayed the importance of intelligence and hard work in determining one's success. His views about how government -- not intelligence and hard work --determine the success of Americans provide an excuse for any American who is not successful:  They simply haven't received enough support from government to succeed.

President Obama's policies, attitudes and actions have strongly communicated that America is no longer the place where an individual can save money, build a business and become an overwhelming success.  To the President, if someone is successful, it is because the federal government, not the individual, made it happen.  To President Obama, the American dream is dead, unless the government gives you that dream. 

Very early in a second Obama term, more Americans will be supported by the government than those who are supporting the government through taxes. President Obama has made it very clear he wants the most successful Americans to pay even higher taxes, which will provide them with a financial disincentive to suceeed.  More American businesses and high net worth individuals will move offshore, avoiding America's regressive tax policies, which will create even more unemployment.  As a result, more Americans will determine that it's easier to stay at home and receive a check than to head out to work every day. Those lucrative benefits offered by the government will eventually have to be cut dramatically, or taxes will have to be increased on more Americans to pay for them. The middle class, dwindling because of the loss of American jobs, will not be spared from the dramatic tax increases. In order to pay for these programs, even with higher taxes, America will plunge more deeply in debt, creating a Greece-like financial disastor in our country within the next four years and eroding the standard of living for all Americans. The interest alone on the national debt will soon consume the majority of the federal budget, so much so that other countries will no longer loan us funds to continue our spending spree.

President Obama is a proponent of big government, more social programs, government takeovers of business (i.e., GM and the healthcare system) and the government, not the free market, picking winners and losers (i.e., trying his best to kill the coal industry through EPA regulations, while supporting alternative energy companies like Solyndra).  In other words, he believes in a European-style of democracy that is more like socialism than a capitalistic, democratic society.

The antidote for this imminent disastor is for America to grow its economy, get people off their couches and back to work, provide incentives for Americans to succeed and build businesses, get its federal budget under control, and slow the growth of entitlement and social programs so that they don't bankrupt the country and are available for future generations of Americans. In other words, America needs to become America again, allowing the principles of capitalism to determine winners in the marketplace, while limiting the powers of the federal government.

The Obama Administration has shown no indication whatsoever that it's willing to promote pro-growth, pro-business policies; provide incentives for Americans to grow businesses; or to slow the growth of entitlement programs.  In fact, President Obama appears to be diametrically opposed to making any of the difficult choices necessary to prevent the impending financial disastor.

In contrast, Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, are proposing pro-growth, pro-business policies; incentives for people to grow businesses; and a revamping of entitlement programs for those 54 and younger so that these programs are available to future generations of Americans.

While many Americans see the choice in November between Democrats and Republicans, others see this election as a pivotal decision point in American history.  The fact is that if America continues down its current path in a second Obama term, it will never return to a free-market system of capitalism with limited federal government.  

Americans voted wisely in 1789 and set our country on a course that would allow it to dominate economically and militarily for over 200 years.  Are Americans just as wise today, or will they succumb to the appeal of government programs that allow them to have a mediocre standard of living while doing nothing?

We will find out on November 6.




 





  

The Voice of Reason: So Do You REALLY Want to Vote for Obama?

I was thinking today about all of the reasons why I won't vote to reelect Barack Obama in November. And then I looked at the polls and saw that he has a slight lead in the average of all polls on realclearpolitics.com

How can this be? Are there people out there who will blindly vote for him because he's a Democrat or because he's black? Are there that many voters in America who aren't paying attention to what has happened to our country in three and one-half short years?

After looking at his record, no one should vote to reelect President Obama. No one.

Today's jobs report showed an up uptick in unemployment to 8.3%. Let's put this number in perspective. In EVERY ONE of the 42 months that Obama has been in office, unemployment has been above 8%, the longest record of 8%+ unemployment in the history of our country. In contrast, in 96 months with George W. Bush as President, we did not have a single month of unemployment at 8% or above. Not one. Why would any person hoping to find a job vote for President Obama in 2012?

The "real" unemployment number is over 15%, when you count those who have given up work and those who are stuck working part-time jobs although they want to work full-time. For those 18-29 years old and African-Americans, the numbers are even worse. Why would any young person or African-American vote for someone whose economic policies have made winning at roulette a much more likely proposition than actually finding a job?

Let's look at a few more good reasons to not reelect President Obama.

In three and a half years, he has increased our national debt by 50%. If President Bush spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor, which he did, President Obama has spent our tax dollars like a drunken sailor on crack. Why would any taxpayer vote to reelect President Obama?

For a President who promised transparency when he was elected, he has been one of our least transparent Presidents. He passed the healthcare law without giving Congress time to actually read it. His administration is full of lobbyists. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, has claimed "Executive Privilege" rather than releasing documents to a House investigation. We learned this week that members of his administration have been meeting lobbyists away from the White House so that their visits would not show up on the official White House log. We also learned this week that members of his staff have been using private e mail addresses to conduct official business. Transparency? Yeah right. Why would anyone who expects transparency in government vote to give Barack Obama a second term?

What major promise has he actually kept? He promised to close Gitmo. It didn't happen. He promised to cut our debt in half by the end of his first term. It's gotten worse. The Obama Administration also predicted that our unemployment rate would be about 6% now if only taxpayers wrote a check for his $800 billion stimulus to pay for shovel ready jobs that we later learned from the President himself "weren't quite shovel ready." And yet, our unemployment rate is 8.3% if you don't count all of the people who have given up looking for work or are working part-time at McDonalds after their unemployment ran out -- instead of working full-time at IBM or Microsoft. Why would anyone who believed Barack Obama when he was running in 2008 vote for him again in 2012?

So, what else hasn't he been doing?

Well, at at time that millions of Americans desperately need jobs, his Jobs and Competitiveness Council hasn't met in over six months, and his Cabinet didn't meet between the end of January and the end of July. Imagine the CEO of any major organization not having a staff meeting in nearly six months. This clearly shows a lack of leadership. Why would anyone expecting leadership from a President vote for someone who has displayed little or none?

Now, let's look at a few of the more underhanded things he's done.

I bet you hadn't heard that his campaign has now filed a lawsuit attempting to limit the number of service members who will be able to vote.  Presently, Ohio allows the general public to cast a ballot in-person up until the Friday before the election, but members of the military are given an additional three days to vote. The Obama Campaign has filed a suit to eliminate this extra time given to those service men and women who just might happen to be fighting on the front lines and need the extra time to vote. Why would any active member of the military vote for a President who doesn't want to make it easy for him or her to vote, even when they're valiantly serving our country?

Or how about when his chief campaign advisor, David Axelrod, suggested that presumptive Republican nominee had committed a felony? Instead of backing away from this outrageous statement, the President insinuated that Romney should be investigated. Although some of his staunchest supporters were interviewed in the news media saying that these allegations were ridiculous, the President continued to fan the flames with insinuations. Why would anyone who demands the truth from his or her leader vote for Barack Obama again?

Another recent revelation is that the Obama Administration is telling our border control agents to let any illegal immigrant go free who says that he or she has graduated from high school or has a GED. No proof or verification is required, and even those who have attacked and injured our border control agents are being let go. The latest is that a border control agent was suspended for arresting an illegal immigrant who had a number of traffic tickets. He was told to let the person go free, but the agent refused. Funny him, he actually thought it was his job to protect our borders. You can't make this stuff up. Why would anyone who expects our borders to be secure vote for a President who has essentially opened our borders to anyone and everyone willing to say that he or she has a high school diploma?

Of course, part of this equation was the Executive Order signed by the President that essentially directed border control agents to ignore immigration law passed by Congress and signed by a previous President as long as the illegal aliens met certain conditions. This wasn't the first time the President has trampled on our Constitution. An order from his administration to force religious organizations to provide free birth control as part of their healthcare plans is yet another example of how President Obama has looked at our Constitution as a "suggestion" for how this country should be run. Why would anyone who believes in the Constitution written by our Founding Fathers vote to give President Obama another chance?

And then you have all of his statements that clearly show he is out of touch. He said that the "private sector is doing fine." He said that his economic plan has worked. The President has also said that he sometimes forgets how bad the economy is. Maybe he doesn't realize what's going on in the lives of ordinary Americans because he hasn't met with his Cabinet or his Jobs Council in six months? Of course his Press Secretary, Jay Carney, gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for the President's lack of attention on jobs, saying that the President "has a lot on his plate." Why would anyone vote for a President who has more important things to do than strive to help millions of Americans get back to work?

He's found enough space on his plate to play over 100 rounds of golf and attend more fundraisers than any of his predecessors. But who are we to judge a President whose administration has experienced 42 straight months of unemployment over 8%? But then again, why would anyone who expects our President to actually work for the American people vote for Barack Obama in 2012?

On top of all of this, you have an EPA that is clearly out of control and a General Services Administration that seems to be doing more partying than working. The EPA has been slapped down by courts several times in the past few months for overstepping its bounds. Policy is now based on whim, not science, and even an EPA official said that he was attempting to "crucify" certain industries. As for the GSA, more was recently revealed about this bloated agency that spends taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences and huge bonuses for employees at a time the country is going broke and millions are out of work. Why would anyone who expects "government by the people and for the people" vote to reelect Barack Obama in 2012?

And then you have the President's statement to business owners that "you didn't build that." He clearly doesn't understand the sacrifices required in terms of time, money and sweat to build a successful business in America. Why would any business owner vote to reelect our current President after he belittled their hard work, courage and intelligence?

Speaking of business, what about our domestic energy industry?  President Obama and his EPA are trying their best to kill the entire coal industry, from mines to the coal-fired power stations.  As a candidate, he boasted that his policies would cause electric rates to "necessarily skyrocket."  This is one promise he's kept. He's wasted billions on alternative energy companies like Solyndra, but has done little to encourage drilling in our domestic oil and natural gas reserves.  Even when he had the opportunity to create tens of thousands of jobs and bring millions of barrels of Canadian oil to our refineries through the Keystone Pipeline, he balked.  As a result of his energy policy, or lack thereof, Americans are now paying close to $4 per gallon of gasoline at the pump, electric rates are increasing dramatically, dozens of power stations are being retired prematurely and hundreds of miners and employees at coal-fired power stations are losing their jobs.  Why would anyone who uses electricity, natural gas or gasoline, or anyone who works in the energy industry for that matter, vote to allow President Obama to expand upon his job-killing, price-hiking policies in a second term?

Lastly, in three and a half years in office, our President has done nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of our entitlement programs, putting them in jeopardy for future generations of Americans. He's made no proposals to save Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Our President has focused his attention on playing golf and raising money for his reelection, instead of leading our country and making tough decisions. Why would any senior citizen, or anyone who expects to receive Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare for that matter, vote for a President who has "kicked the can down the road" instead of trying to save these programs for future generations?

Once you put all of this information together in one blog, it's frightening to see what's gone on in this country the past three and one-half years. It's pretty clear: No one in his or her right mind should vote to reelect Barack Obama. No one.

The Voice of Reason: Questions I'd Like the Lamestream News Media to Ask Our President

As a trained journalist, I am amazed at the "free pass" that the vast majority of our lamestream news media have given the President over the past three and one-half years.

To be clear, I don't claim to have the high-brow intellect of Brian Williams of NBC News, Diane Sawyer of ABC News or Anderson Cooper of CNN, but I am bright enough to ask a few tough questions of our President.  Brian, Diane and Anderson, if you have the opportunity to interview the President, please feel free to steal these questions, unless you feel that asking tough questions will somehow diminish your journalistic "integrity."  You might want to take notes:

• Mr. President, your administration did not approve the upper part of the Keystone Pipeline despite years of review but are now supporting the lower half of the pipeline and pledging to speed the approval process for only this part of the pipeline.  Without supporting the upper half, essentially aren't you essentially supporting a pipeline to nowhere?
• Mr. President, when you were elected, you said that you would have the most transparent administration in history.  Since that time, Democratic leaders in Congress passed your health care legislation without even giving members of Congress or the public time to read it.  You also have recently claimed Executive Privilege for documents that pertain to the Fast and Furious investigation.  What do you say to the American citizens who remember what you said about transparency and now see what you have done and are doing?
• Mr. President, in your autobiography, you talked about listening to Marxist professors and attending socialist conferences, in addition to using drugs "enthusiastically" while you were in college and high school.  How have these experiences shaped your views as President?  What did you learn from these Marxist professors and socialist conferences?
• Mr. President, you have continued to blame your predecessor, George Bush, for the economy.  At what point will you begin to accept blame for this economy?
• Mr. President, if you aren't reelected as President, how long should Americans blame you for the economy in the next Administration?
• Mr. President, you have provided a birth certificate indicating you were born in Hawaii, but why did your publisher tout the fact that you were "Kenyan born" for over 15 years?  Did you provide this information to your publisher as is the case with almost all authors?  If you didn't provide this bio, why wasn't this mistake corrected until the months before you ran for President?
• Mr. President, while running for President and when you were first elected, you were vehemently opposed to housing prisoners at Gitmo, using enhanced interrogation techniques to obtain information and other practices that you deemed to be inhumane and not in line with American values.  As President, you now have a "kill list" of people who are suspected of being terrorists. How can killing suspected terrorists be more humane or more in line with American values than housing or interrogating a live known terrorist?
• Mr. President, on two different occasions in 2011, while talking with Unvision, you discussed how the separation of powers outlined by the Constitution would prevent you from ignoring laws passed by Congress in order to allow illegal immigrants stay in this country. Earlier this month, you announced that you were going to do just that -- allow certain illegal immigrants to stay in this country.  What changed in the past year in the Constitution or in laws passed by Congress to make you change your mind?
• Mr. President, when you issued your Executive Order allowing certain immigrants to stay in this country, weren't you essentially creating new law?  What part of the U.S. Constitution allows you to issue new laws through Executive Order superceding those laws already passed by Congress and signed by a previous President? Did you not take an oath to uphold the laws of the United States?
• Mr. President, now that through an Executive Order you have allowed an estimated one million illegal immigrants to stay in this country and work, what would you say to millions of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed and desperately need those jobs currently being taken by those who are in this country illegally? What would you say to the thousands of American students who have applied to colleges and universities, only to be turned down because of space limitations, while illegal immigrants have been accepted?
• Mr. President, you have attended more fundraisers than your past three predecessors combined at this same point in their administrations. What do you say to those out-of-work Americans who wonder if you are spending more time trying to be reelected than working to help them put food on their tables by improving this economy?
• Mr. President, ads produced by your campaign have attacked Mitt Romney for his work at Bain Capital, a venture capital firm.  While Bain risked the dollars of private investors, did your administration essentially do the same thing -- except with taxpayer dollars -- in loans and investments to firms such as Solyndra?  How many of these firms failed and how much in taxpayer dollars have been lost?
• Mr. President, since the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the State of Arizona has the right to check immigration status during traffic stops, your Administration has ended programs of cooperation with this state in enforcing immigration laws.  Isn't this vindictive, and don't these changes signal to those living illegally in Arizona that the federal government is not going to enforce immigration laws vigorously?   
• Mr. President, what leading economic indicators have improved since you were inaugurated in January 2009?

Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but it seems to me that someone in the mainstream news media should be willing to ask tough questions.  After all, these are the types of questions that millions of Americans, including this one, want answered.

News Media Selectively Report the News

Earlier this week, news media coverage of a major issue appeared in almost every newspaper and on nearly every television and radio broadcast.  The extensive  coverage pointed out the unbridled arrogance of former President George W. Bush when he was in office, providing readers, viewers and listeners with a number of stunning examples.

One example cited was Bush's recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board.  Although permitted by the Constitution to make appointments while the Senate is in recess to allow key positions to be filled, the President made these appointments while the Senate was in pro-forma sessions.  Bush clearly stretched the limits of the President's Constitutional power, pushing it further than the framers of the Constitution ever intended.

Another example revealed by the news media was Bush's "kill list," a list of suspected terrorists selected for execution by drones.  Without any trial by jury or evidence presented to a judge, the President and his team determined who would die and who would live.  If family members or other community members were found with suspected terrorists, Bush and his group of advisors often decided that they were up to no good, too, and ordered a drone strike, killing both the potentially innocent and those strongly suspected of guilt.  Dead men, women and children tell no tales.

Did you happen to see any of this coverage?  You didn't?   

The fact is that there has been little coverage about these issues because the President who has displayed this unequaled disregard for the Constitution, as well as American and international laws, has been Barack Obama, not George W. Bush.

Yes, it was Obama who made the recess appointments while the Senate was still convening.  Yes, it was Obama who has developed an ever-expanding list of suspected terrorists to kill, justifying the killing of potentially innocent people who just happen to be near the suspected terrorists.  It was also the Obama Administration who closed the gap between Church and State, telling Catholic institutions that they must provide birth control converage as part of the new health care law.

It was the Obama Administration that stretched the limits of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, telling Americans that they must buy health insurance and would be penalized if they didn't.  For the first time in American history, the Commerce Clause is going to be used to penalize Americans for not participating in commerce?

This President and his administration also selectively decided who would be the winners and the losers in the bailout of General Motors, protecting the United Auto Workers and the dealerships of those who supported his election, while distributing pennies on the dollar to shareholders and bondholders and closing GM dealerships for most of those who strongly supported John McCain in the 2008 election.  Even in its selection of the "green" companies to support with stimulus dollars, the Obama Administration just happened to pick those who supported his candidacy the strongest.  What a coincidence.

But you haven't heard much about any of these issues because the mainstream news media wanted Obama to be elected, and wants him to serve another four years. 

But if it had been Bush who had done even half of these shenanigans, you would have seen extensive coverage on the front page of every major newspaper and news magazine, the lead story on every major television station's broadcast, and the main topic of every major radio station's news coverage. The mainstream news media, as well as the Internet, would have been abuzz with coverage and comments about how Bush was acting more like a dictator than a President. 

Sadly, the same Americans and members of the news media who vehemently condemned Bush for approving enhanced interrogation techniques on live prisioners are applauding Obama for having the courage to kill suspected terrorists and innocent people who may be near suspected terrorists.  The same voters and reporters who vehemently opposed the ability of the Bush Administration to obtain a wiretap quickly from a single federal judge in order to listen in on the phone conversations of suspected terrorists now undoubtedly support the Obama Adminitration's selection of who will be killed, without any legislative or judicial oversight.

To me, this is the height of hypocricy. It's past time for the news media and the electorate to quit giving this President a free pass in terms of accountability and to begin holding him to the same  standard as his predecessors.