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.
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Friday, November 9, 2012
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.
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 20, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The President Continues to Be Empty Suit of Broken Promises and Pathetic Record
After returning home this weekend after a week on the road, I've had a little time to re-watch the latest the Presidential Debate that was held on Tuesday, October 16.
What amazed me while watching this debate the second time around was how little the President had to say in terms of his plans for a second term. Apparently he has no plans, except to enact more of the same failed policies that have devasted this country, especially the middle class, during the past four years.
In short, this President continues to be an empty suit of broken promises, a pathetic economic record and no articulated plans for the future. His only campaign strategy appears to be smearing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a man with a proven record as a job creator and leader of government.
While Romney talked about how he worked collaboratively with Democrats to pass legislation while Governor of Massachusetts, the President blamed the Republicans, including his predecessor, George W. Bush, and the Republican House, for the current state of the economy.
While Romney talked about a clear path toward energy independence, the President talked about his support of coal and oil, although his policies have devastated the coal industry and hindered the development and transportation of domestic and Canadian oil that could dramatically decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East and our prices at the pump. His rhetoric during the debate certainly hasn't matched his policy agenda.
Ask any coal miner if the President's policies have helped or hurt their industry and you'll receive a resounding answer: The President is killing their entire industry, one unreasonable EPA regulation at a time.
While the President proudly cited the jobs that have been created during his first term in office, Romney pointed out that the jobs created under the Obama Administration haven't even kept pace with population growth or the loss of jobs under this Administration. As Romney astutely and accurately explained, fewer Americans are working today than when this President took office. Romney also compared his exemplary record as a job creator in the private sector to the President's dismal record leading this country out of a recession.
While the President discussed how he would like to address comprehensive immigration reform in a second term, Romney promised that he would address this major issue in his first term as President. In contrast, the current President did nothing when he had a Democratically-controlled House and Senate for the first two years he was in office, and has done nothing since to move immigration forward in Congress.
While the President merely mentioned how he would like to reduce the deficit, Romney cited his own experience turning a deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts, while also pointing out that the current President has dramatically increased our nation's debt in just four years.
Simply put, the debate was a comparison of a leader with a proven record of achievements to a community organizer who would like more time to do what he's been unable to do or hasn't even attempted in four years. The debate came down to Romney talking about the record of what he's done as a business leader and governor -- creating jobs, reducing deficits and working across party lines -- compared to the President saying he would like to accomplish those same things if given another four years.
The debate featured a candidate spelling out his five-point plan to revitalize the American economy, with the President asking for more time to continue the same policies that have resulted in massive unemployment, record poverty and year-over-year slowing of our Gross Domestic Product.
In my 54 years on this Earth, I have never seen an election with such a stark contrast in the top two Presidential candidates. Although the President's rhetoric may sound soaring to some, his words ring hollow -- if you take the time to listen intently to what he has to say and closely examine his record of non-accomplishments.
I have to believe that Americans are smart enough to spot a used car salesman when they see and hear one. We'll all find out on November 6.
What amazed me while watching this debate the second time around was how little the President had to say in terms of his plans for a second term. Apparently he has no plans, except to enact more of the same failed policies that have devasted this country, especially the middle class, during the past four years.
In short, this President continues to be an empty suit of broken promises, a pathetic economic record and no articulated plans for the future. His only campaign strategy appears to be smearing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a man with a proven record as a job creator and leader of government.
While Romney talked about how he worked collaboratively with Democrats to pass legislation while Governor of Massachusetts, the President blamed the Republicans, including his predecessor, George W. Bush, and the Republican House, for the current state of the economy.
While Romney talked about a clear path toward energy independence, the President talked about his support of coal and oil, although his policies have devastated the coal industry and hindered the development and transportation of domestic and Canadian oil that could dramatically decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East and our prices at the pump. His rhetoric during the debate certainly hasn't matched his policy agenda.
Ask any coal miner if the President's policies have helped or hurt their industry and you'll receive a resounding answer: The President is killing their entire industry, one unreasonable EPA regulation at a time.
While the President proudly cited the jobs that have been created during his first term in office, Romney pointed out that the jobs created under the Obama Administration haven't even kept pace with population growth or the loss of jobs under this Administration. As Romney astutely and accurately explained, fewer Americans are working today than when this President took office. Romney also compared his exemplary record as a job creator in the private sector to the President's dismal record leading this country out of a recession.
While the President discussed how he would like to address comprehensive immigration reform in a second term, Romney promised that he would address this major issue in his first term as President. In contrast, the current President did nothing when he had a Democratically-controlled House and Senate for the first two years he was in office, and has done nothing since to move immigration forward in Congress.
While the President merely mentioned how he would like to reduce the deficit, Romney cited his own experience turning a deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts, while also pointing out that the current President has dramatically increased our nation's debt in just four years.
Simply put, the debate was a comparison of a leader with a proven record of achievements to a community organizer who would like more time to do what he's been unable to do or hasn't even attempted in four years. The debate came down to Romney talking about the record of what he's done as a business leader and governor -- creating jobs, reducing deficits and working across party lines -- compared to the President saying he would like to accomplish those same things if given another four years.
The debate featured a candidate spelling out his five-point plan to revitalize the American economy, with the President asking for more time to continue the same policies that have resulted in massive unemployment, record poverty and year-over-year slowing of our Gross Domestic Product.
In my 54 years on this Earth, I have never seen an election with such a stark contrast in the top two Presidential candidates. Although the President's rhetoric may sound soaring to some, his words ring hollow -- if you take the time to listen intently to what he has to say and closely examine his record of non-accomplishments.
I have to believe that Americans are smart enough to spot a used car salesman when they see and hear one. We'll all find out on November 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 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.
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.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Debunking the Biggest Lie at the Democratic Convention
As a kid growing up in the country, I remember being told by another boy that if water in a stream runs over three rocks with moss on them, the water is safe to drink. I didn't believe it at the time, and I don't believe it now.
The Democrats at the 2012 National Convention are using a similar method to try to purify their lies. If they say something three or more times, they think it is the truth -- or at least the American people will believe it is the truth. Just as three mossy rocks won't make water safe to drink, saying a statement three times doesn't make it a fact.
During this convention, you will hear a statistic repeated numerous times, like a mantra. Democrat after Democrat will say that "this administration has created 4.5 million jobs." Sometimes the speaker will quantify this statement by saying that 4.5 million "private sector" jobs were created, but typically speakers will leave out the clarification.
I don't know how to say it any other way. This statement is a damn lie. It misleads the American people into thinking that the Obama Administration is doing a better job than it really is in turning around this economy. Shame on them.
Compared to when Barack Obama took office, today there are slightly more private sector jobs (about 300,000) and significantly fewer public sector jobs. As a result, there are about 400,000 fewer total jobs today than when President Obama took office.
Let me repeat that. There are about 400,000 fewer American jobs today than when the President took office. He certainly hasn't created 4.5 million jobs during his administration.
But in stating and restating their "fact" about job creation, Democrats don't count the private jobs lost at the beginning of the Obama Administration. They conveniently compare the number of private sector jobs at the lowest point of the recession, which was in January 2010 (a year after President Obama took office), to the number of private sector jobs today in order to arrive at their 4.5 million figure. In other words, they cherrypick the best possible time points in order to show the greatest difference in jobs -- and they only look at the private sector jobs.
This is misleading, dishonest and unfair to the American people who will cast their votes in November. It also shows that this administration is willing to mislead Americans in order to try to put lipstick on their pig of an economic recovery. But no matter how much lipstick they put on this pig, it's still a pig. No matter how many times their "fact" is repeated, it is still a lie.
Even CNN and Yahoo News have called the Obama Administration out on this outright lie. These liberal news organizations even report that the vast majority of the jobs created have been lower-wage jobs, not the types of "good-paying jobs" that First Lady Michelle Obama said were created by this administration in her speech last night. Simply put, they are spreading lies on top of lies.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fact-check-4-5-million-jobs-created-under-175621036--election.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html
But even comparing the number of jobs today to the number of jobs when the President took office doesn't tell the whole story. Why? Our population grows, so in order to maintain the same percentage of people working, we must add jobs in addition to the jobs needed to offset job losses. If we don't, the unemployment percentage increases, which has occurred under this President. Since President Obama took office, we not only have fewer jobs than we did when he took office, we haven't added enough jobs to keep pace with the population growth. That's why when he took office our unemployment rate was 7.8%, but is now 8.3%, with millions more simply giving up looking for work and not counted in these statistics. In reality, the real unemployment rate could be as high as 12%. As one can see, job creation during the Obama Administration has been much worse than most people realize and the Democrats want us to believe.
So now you know the truth, not some watered down version of it, or the truth based on conveniently selected timelines. The Obama Campaign is hoping that Americans won't take the time to search out the truth.
Bloggers such as this one, and the people who take the time to read this blog won't let that happen.
The Democrats at the 2012 National Convention are using a similar method to try to purify their lies. If they say something three or more times, they think it is the truth -- or at least the American people will believe it is the truth. Just as three mossy rocks won't make water safe to drink, saying a statement three times doesn't make it a fact.
During this convention, you will hear a statistic repeated numerous times, like a mantra. Democrat after Democrat will say that "this administration has created 4.5 million jobs." Sometimes the speaker will quantify this statement by saying that 4.5 million "private sector" jobs were created, but typically speakers will leave out the clarification.
I don't know how to say it any other way. This statement is a damn lie. It misleads the American people into thinking that the Obama Administration is doing a better job than it really is in turning around this economy. Shame on them.
Compared to when Barack Obama took office, today there are slightly more private sector jobs (about 300,000) and significantly fewer public sector jobs. As a result, there are about 400,000 fewer total jobs today than when President Obama took office.
Let me repeat that. There are about 400,000 fewer American jobs today than when the President took office. He certainly hasn't created 4.5 million jobs during his administration.
But in stating and restating their "fact" about job creation, Democrats don't count the private jobs lost at the beginning of the Obama Administration. They conveniently compare the number of private sector jobs at the lowest point of the recession, which was in January 2010 (a year after President Obama took office), to the number of private sector jobs today in order to arrive at their 4.5 million figure. In other words, they cherrypick the best possible time points in order to show the greatest difference in jobs -- and they only look at the private sector jobs.
This is misleading, dishonest and unfair to the American people who will cast their votes in November. It also shows that this administration is willing to mislead Americans in order to try to put lipstick on their pig of an economic recovery. But no matter how much lipstick they put on this pig, it's still a pig. No matter how many times their "fact" is repeated, it is still a lie.
Even CNN and Yahoo News have called the Obama Administration out on this outright lie. These liberal news organizations even report that the vast majority of the jobs created have been lower-wage jobs, not the types of "good-paying jobs" that First Lady Michelle Obama said were created by this administration in her speech last night. Simply put, they are spreading lies on top of lies.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fact-check-4-5-million-jobs-created-under-175621036--election.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html
But even comparing the number of jobs today to the number of jobs when the President took office doesn't tell the whole story. Why? Our population grows, so in order to maintain the same percentage of people working, we must add jobs in addition to the jobs needed to offset job losses. If we don't, the unemployment percentage increases, which has occurred under this President. Since President Obama took office, we not only have fewer jobs than we did when he took office, we haven't added enough jobs to keep pace with the population growth. That's why when he took office our unemployment rate was 7.8%, but is now 8.3%, with millions more simply giving up looking for work and not counted in these statistics. In reality, the real unemployment rate could be as high as 12%. As one can see, job creation during the Obama Administration has been much worse than most people realize and the Democrats want us to believe.
So now you know the truth, not some watered down version of it, or the truth based on conveniently selected timelines. The Obama Campaign is hoping that Americans won't take the time to search out the truth.
Bloggers such as this one, and the people who take the time to read this blog won't let that happen.
Please share with your family members, neighbors and co-workers.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Why Recent College Graduates Don't Have a Job
So, you studied hard and graduated from college. Maybe you graduated with honors and perhaps even finished among the best in your class. You did what everyone said you needed to do in order to get a good job -- you graduated from college. After graduation you've seen advertisements for very few openings in your field, and you've submitted resume after resume. Maybe you've had an interview or two, but haven't been offered a job. You've had to move back with your parents and have had to settle for a job that doesn't require a college degree. You're making minimum wage or maybe a few cents more per hour. You don't earn enough to even think about buying a house, let alone a car.
Or maybe you graduated from college a couple of years ago, lost a job during the recession and have been looking for another job. You have some experience in your field and you thought that surely you would be able to find a good job after going without work for a couple of weeks. But the weeks turned into months, and the months turned into a couple of years. You're wondering if you will ever find a job in your field that pays enough for you to buy a house or car or to support a family -- or to have any of the things normally associated with being a member of the middle class.
Do either of these scenarios describe the difficulty you've faced in finding a job -- a good job -- in your field of study?
If so, you're not alone. About one-half of recent college graduates have been unable to find a job in their field of study. The job market for recent graduates is the worst it's been since the Great Depression at the start of the last century. Tens of thousands of your classmates are also out of work, and things don't appear to be getting any better.
So, why haven't you been able to find a job? It's complicated, but let me try to explain.
The recession officially ended in June 2009. Since then, our economy has been in a "recovery." Unfortunately, this recovery has been the worst since the Great Depression.
The reason this slow recovery is that businesses -- small. medium and large -- are faced with an uncertain future. The policies of the Obama Administration have created this uncertainty in terms of environmental regulations, taxes on income and healthcare costs. This uncertainty has resulted in businesses curtailing new hiring and halting any expansion or investment in capital projects.
In short, as a result of this uncertainty created by the Obama Administration, you don't have a good job.
Let's take a look at each of the areas of uncertainty for business and industry.
President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is clearly out of control. Just as businesses invest funds to meet one new environmental regulation, another, stricter one is enacted. In some cases, the EPA seems to be more intent on closing entire industries than protecting the environment. Business and industry don't know what these new regulations will cost or even when they will be enacted, so they are leery of expanding or hiring new people when one unreasonable regulation could close their doors.
As for taxes, President Obama has made it clear he wants affluent people and businesses to pay what he describes as their "fair share." The affluent people he's talking about are mostly the small business owners, the people who create the majority of jobs in America. They don't know how much more in taxes they will pay, so they're afraid to hire new people or to expand their business because they don't know what their profit margins will be -- or even if they will be able to operate profitably when these new taxes are enacted.
The costs of healthcare seem to increase every year, but another monkey wrench has been thown into the equation -- Obamacare -- that has created even more uncertainty. Most of the new healthcare law will not be enacted until 2013 and 2014, so businesses don't know how this new law will fully impact them. In just the past year, the average cost of healthcare insurance for their employees has increased by $2,500, although the President said that Obamacare would decrease by $2,500 this year. Clearly, this new law will cost a lot more than the President said, and businesses know that the majority of those increased costs will ultimately be passed on to them in taxes and/or penalties. They're afraid to hire more employes or to expand because they simply don't know what the affect will be on their bottom lines.
This uncertainty is why so few jobs have been created. This uncertainty is also why you and so many of your classmates have been unable to find a job in their fields of study.
To put this uncertainty in terms anyone can understand, imagine that you save up just enough money for an Ipad. But as soon as you have the money saved and are ready to buy your Ipad, your car breaks down and you take it to the mechanic. Do you buy the Ipad until you know how much it will cost to fix your car? Of course not. Uncertainty causes you to move cautiously with your money. Businesses operate the same way. Until they know what things will cost, they are reluctant to spend.
Remember then-candidate Barack Obama, who promised you Hope and Change? As a result of his policies, you Hope you will be able to find a job in your field and you're essentially earning pocket Change for doing a job well below your talents and abilities. If President Obama is reelected for four more years, he will undoubtedly continue the same policies that created the uncertainty that has left millions of Americans unemployed or underemployed.
There's are two other major factors to consider during this election: debt and entitlement programs. Under President Obama, our national debt has increased by 50% in just three and one-half years. It now stands at $16 trillion. To put this debt in perspective, the amount owed by the United States equates to over $533,000 for every household in America. Unfortunately, President Obama has not offered any serious proposal to cut this debt, which threatens the security and standard of living for every citizen, especially younger Americans. Although Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all racing toward insolvency, President Obama not made a serious proposal to rein in their costs so that future generations of Americans -- your generation -- has access to these vital programs.
In short, President Obama is mortgaging your future for his reelection. President Obama has said that the proposals by Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, to cut the debt and slow the growth of entitlements are "extreme" and "radical." The truth is that not doing anything, as President Obama has done, is what is truly extreme and radical.
Fortunately, you have a choice this election. In Romney and Ryan, you have two people with unique qualifications that will allow them to tackle the serious issues facing our nation. Romney has a "stellar" business record, even according to former President Bill Clinton. Romney clearly knows what businesses require in order to expand and hire more people. He also was an effective governor, turning a debt into a surplus without raising taxes and cutting Massachusetts' unemployment rate to under 5%. Ryan, 42, is closest in age to your generation of any of the candidates, and he is considered to be the most knowledgeable budget expert in Congress. He knows that unless something is done soon to cut the debt and slow the growth of the entitlement programs, your generation and his children's generation will be faced with a standard of living below that of previous generations and without the benefit of entitlement programs that have served generation after generation of Americans.
Millions of Americans were truly inspired by then-candidate Obama in 2008 with his soaring rhetoric and his promises to unite a divided country. But four years later, the economy has not improved and our country is still divided. In fact, things have gotten much worse.
Of all Americans voting in the election of 2012, college graduates in their 20s should understand better than anyone else that President Obama's policies just haven't worked. But will they be persuaded by more the President's inspiring rhetoric, or his pathetic record creating jobs for people in their age group?
Or maybe you graduated from college a couple of years ago, lost a job during the recession and have been looking for another job. You have some experience in your field and you thought that surely you would be able to find a good job after going without work for a couple of weeks. But the weeks turned into months, and the months turned into a couple of years. You're wondering if you will ever find a job in your field that pays enough for you to buy a house or car or to support a family -- or to have any of the things normally associated with being a member of the middle class.
Do either of these scenarios describe the difficulty you've faced in finding a job -- a good job -- in your field of study?
If so, you're not alone. About one-half of recent college graduates have been unable to find a job in their field of study. The job market for recent graduates is the worst it's been since the Great Depression at the start of the last century. Tens of thousands of your classmates are also out of work, and things don't appear to be getting any better.
So, why haven't you been able to find a job? It's complicated, but let me try to explain.
The recession officially ended in June 2009. Since then, our economy has been in a "recovery." Unfortunately, this recovery has been the worst since the Great Depression.
The reason this slow recovery is that businesses -- small. medium and large -- are faced with an uncertain future. The policies of the Obama Administration have created this uncertainty in terms of environmental regulations, taxes on income and healthcare costs. This uncertainty has resulted in businesses curtailing new hiring and halting any expansion or investment in capital projects.
In short, as a result of this uncertainty created by the Obama Administration, you don't have a good job.
Let's take a look at each of the areas of uncertainty for business and industry.
President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is clearly out of control. Just as businesses invest funds to meet one new environmental regulation, another, stricter one is enacted. In some cases, the EPA seems to be more intent on closing entire industries than protecting the environment. Business and industry don't know what these new regulations will cost or even when they will be enacted, so they are leery of expanding or hiring new people when one unreasonable regulation could close their doors.
As for taxes, President Obama has made it clear he wants affluent people and businesses to pay what he describes as their "fair share." The affluent people he's talking about are mostly the small business owners, the people who create the majority of jobs in America. They don't know how much more in taxes they will pay, so they're afraid to hire new people or to expand their business because they don't know what their profit margins will be -- or even if they will be able to operate profitably when these new taxes are enacted.
The costs of healthcare seem to increase every year, but another monkey wrench has been thown into the equation -- Obamacare -- that has created even more uncertainty. Most of the new healthcare law will not be enacted until 2013 and 2014, so businesses don't know how this new law will fully impact them. In just the past year, the average cost of healthcare insurance for their employees has increased by $2,500, although the President said that Obamacare would decrease by $2,500 this year. Clearly, this new law will cost a lot more than the President said, and businesses know that the majority of those increased costs will ultimately be passed on to them in taxes and/or penalties. They're afraid to hire more employes or to expand because they simply don't know what the affect will be on their bottom lines.
This uncertainty is why so few jobs have been created. This uncertainty is also why you and so many of your classmates have been unable to find a job in their fields of study.
To put this uncertainty in terms anyone can understand, imagine that you save up just enough money for an Ipad. But as soon as you have the money saved and are ready to buy your Ipad, your car breaks down and you take it to the mechanic. Do you buy the Ipad until you know how much it will cost to fix your car? Of course not. Uncertainty causes you to move cautiously with your money. Businesses operate the same way. Until they know what things will cost, they are reluctant to spend.
Remember then-candidate Barack Obama, who promised you Hope and Change? As a result of his policies, you Hope you will be able to find a job in your field and you're essentially earning pocket Change for doing a job well below your talents and abilities. If President Obama is reelected for four more years, he will undoubtedly continue the same policies that created the uncertainty that has left millions of Americans unemployed or underemployed.
There's are two other major factors to consider during this election: debt and entitlement programs. Under President Obama, our national debt has increased by 50% in just three and one-half years. It now stands at $16 trillion. To put this debt in perspective, the amount owed by the United States equates to over $533,000 for every household in America. Unfortunately, President Obama has not offered any serious proposal to cut this debt, which threatens the security and standard of living for every citizen, especially younger Americans. Although Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all racing toward insolvency, President Obama not made a serious proposal to rein in their costs so that future generations of Americans -- your generation -- has access to these vital programs.
In short, President Obama is mortgaging your future for his reelection. President Obama has said that the proposals by Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, to cut the debt and slow the growth of entitlements are "extreme" and "radical." The truth is that not doing anything, as President Obama has done, is what is truly extreme and radical.
Fortunately, you have a choice this election. In Romney and Ryan, you have two people with unique qualifications that will allow them to tackle the serious issues facing our nation. Romney has a "stellar" business record, even according to former President Bill Clinton. Romney clearly knows what businesses require in order to expand and hire more people. He also was an effective governor, turning a debt into a surplus without raising taxes and cutting Massachusetts' unemployment rate to under 5%. Ryan, 42, is closest in age to your generation of any of the candidates, and he is considered to be the most knowledgeable budget expert in Congress. He knows that unless something is done soon to cut the debt and slow the growth of the entitlement programs, your generation and his children's generation will be faced with a standard of living below that of previous generations and without the benefit of entitlement programs that have served generation after generation of Americans.
Millions of Americans were truly inspired by then-candidate Obama in 2008 with his soaring rhetoric and his promises to unite a divided country. But four years later, the economy has not improved and our country is still divided. In fact, things have gotten much worse.
Of all Americans voting in the election of 2012, college graduates in their 20s should understand better than anyone else that President Obama's policies just haven't worked. But will they be persuaded by more the President's inspiring rhetoric, or his pathetic record creating jobs for people in their age group?
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
The Voice of Reason: President Obama Interviews for Job as CEO of America
HELP WANTED
President of the United States
Searching for leader with proven experience as a chief executive officer and significant record of accomplishments. Must have experience growing revenue in the private or public sectors and promoting policies that create jobs. Must also have proven experience reaching across party lines in order to pass legislation into law. Needs to have proven experience addressing challenging budgetary issues, turning deficits into surpluses, and making tough budgetary choices. Also needs to inspire, communicate and lead a nation to prosperity. Job will be available January 2013. Must be able to start work immediately.
President of the United States
Searching for leader with proven experience as a chief executive officer and significant record of accomplishments. Must have experience growing revenue in the private or public sectors and promoting policies that create jobs. Must also have proven experience reaching across party lines in order to pass legislation into law. Needs to have proven experience addressing challenging budgetary issues, turning deficits into surpluses, and making tough budgetary choices. Also needs to inspire, communicate and lead a nation to prosperity. Job will be available January 2013. Must be able to start work immediately.
An election is nothing more than lengthy job interview, with each candidate communicating his or her experience, record of accomplishments and vision for the future to the ultimate selection committee -- the voters -- in speeches, advertisements, appearances at events and a party convention.
In the election of 2012, our incumbent President, Barack Obama, is facing a serious challenge from presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney because the President has not improved the standard of living for most Americans in his three and one-half years on the jobs. Members of the selection committee -- voters -- have essentially reopened the job because the President’s performance has not lived up to the expectations of the people who selected him for the job in 2008.
Given the current state of our country, what would an interview entail for President Obama (BO), as he explains his experience and record of accomplishments to the head of our selection Committee, a fictional person named John Q. Public (JP)? Let’s take a look at how this interview might proceed:
JP: Thank you for meeting with us today, President Obama.
BO: It’s a pleasure to be here today. I just finished a round of golf and am heading to another fundraiser, so let’s make this quick.
JP: I know that you're currently serving in this position. The selection committee has decided to repost the job, but have given you a chance to re-apply. That's why I'm interviewing you today -- to determine if you should be hired for another four years, or if we should go in another direction.
BO: I understand, but I think I've done a very good job. The private sector is doing very well under my leadership and my economic plan has worked.
JP: Your plan has worked? I'll get to that in a few minutes. You'll have the opportunity to tell me about your record, but let's move through the interview questions. Tell me about your experience as a chief executive officer.
BO: Well, I’ve been President of the United States for three and one-half years now.
JP: Prior to that, did you have CEO experience?
BO: I was a community organizer, state legislator and U.S. Senator.
JP: Had you led anything prior to becoming President, such as a major Senate Committee?
BO: No.
JP: Were you the CEO of a business or even a nonprofit organization?
BO: No.
JP: Have you even led a Cub Scout Troop?
BO: No.
JP: So, you essentially had no leadership experience prior to becoming President?
BO: In college, I was president of the Harvard Law Review, and I was kind of the leader of a group in high school. We smoked a lot of. . .but that’s another story.
JP: Well, tell me about your record of accomplishments as President.
BO: I was able to pass healthcare reform legislation and I shot Osama Bin Laden. I’ve also shot well over 100 rounds of golf and have attended more fundraisers than the last four Presidents combined at this point in their first term. As you can see, I’ve worked extremely hard and have accomplished great things. Other than a couple of Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, I would put our legislative accomplishments up against any President.
JP: Let’s take a look at these accomplishments one at a time. Part of the job description is being able to work across party lines in order to pass legislation. How many Republican members of Congress voted for your healthcare plan?
BO: None.
JP: None?
BO: Zero.
JP: So not one member of the opposition party voted to support your landmark legislation?
BO: Not a one.
JP: And isn’t it true that the majority of the American public wants this law repealed?
BO: They just haven’t had time to read it. Even I haven’t had time to read it. We're just learning what all Nancy Pelosi and the lobbyists put into the law.
JP: You also mentioned that you shot Osama Bin Laden?
BO: I didn’t actually shoot him as in pulling the trigger, but I made the decision to have him killed after obtaining intelligence where he was hiding. I did the tough part, making the decision. I thought about this decision for months. Valerie Jarrett told me that I should hold off, but after a few months of thinking about it, I decided to move forward. That was a tough decision.
JP: You did the tough part? Given Bin Laden's atrocities against the U.S., wouldn’t any President have made that decision?
BO: I don’t know. I don’t think that any Republican would have made that decision.
JP: Any President would have made that decision. Even Jimmy Carter would have ordered that raid on Bin Laden’s compound. Let’s talk about your other accomplishments. You’ve played golf and attended fundraisers?
BO: Yes, I’ve worked very hard. Some days I play a round of golf and then attend two fundraisers. It’s arduous work, but I love it.
JP: Have you met with your Jobs Council or Cabinet in the past six months?
BO: There hasn’t been a lot of time for that. I’ve had a lot on my plate with the golf and fundraisers. I think I've met with my Cabinet once, and my Jobs Council? No so much.
JP: I’m sure you've been very busy. You mentioned that your legislative accomplishments have been among the most impressive in American history. What other legislative accomplishments have you and your administration achieved?
BO: I can't think of anything right now, but I'll get back to you later if I think of something.
JP: Let's move on to another topic. Tell me about your experience growing revenues and adding jobs.
JP: I’m sure you've been very busy. You mentioned that your legislative accomplishments have been among the most impressive in American history. What other legislative accomplishments have you and your administration achieved?
BO: I can't think of anything right now, but I'll get back to you later if I think of something.
JP: Let's move on to another topic. Tell me about your experience growing revenues and adding jobs.
BO: In my first term, 4.5 million jobs have been created.
JP: But aren’t there fewer Americans working than when you were elected?
BO: Yes, but you have to look at how many jobs we’ve created. After all, George Bush. . .
JP: President Obama, this interview is about you. You’ve been on the job nearly four years now and have had enough time to show us what you can do. Hasn't the unemployment rate increased since you took office?
BO: Yes, it has, but 4.5 million jobs have been created.
JP: But how many jobs have been lost and how many new people have entered the workforce? You do know that America needs to add up to 200,000 jobs a month just to break even, don't you?
BO: Yes, but we've created 4.5 million jobs.
JP: I heard that the first time you said it, but that statistic doesn't tell whether we're gaining ground, treading water or losing ground. If my numbers are correct, we have nearly 500,000 fewer jobs than the day you were inaugurated. The recent jobs report was also a downer. Only 96,000 jobs were created and nearly 375,000 people stopped looking for work, but let's move on. Let’s talk about the budget. Have you been able to balance the budget or at least slow down the growing debt?
BO: Yes, it has, but 4.5 million jobs have been created.
JP: But how many jobs have been lost and how many new people have entered the workforce? You do know that America needs to add up to 200,000 jobs a month just to break even, don't you?
BO: Yes, but we've created 4.5 million jobs.
JP: I heard that the first time you said it, but that statistic doesn't tell whether we're gaining ground, treading water or losing ground. If my numbers are correct, we have nearly 500,000 fewer jobs than the day you were inaugurated. The recent jobs report was also a downer. Only 96,000 jobs were created and nearly 375,000 people stopped looking for work, but let's move on. Let’s talk about the budget. Have you been able to balance the budget or at least slow down the growing debt?
BO. No. The debt has increased by 50%.
JP: Fifty percent? Are you kidding? Did I hear you correctly?
BO: The debt has increased by 50% since I took office. It's now at $16 trillion. But we had to spend a lot of money to get the economy going. That's the job of government. We would have made more progress on jobs but the shovel ready projects we thought we were paying for weren't quite shovel ready. After all, government, not entrepreneurs, build businesses.
JP: What? I don't believe what I'm hearing.
BO: Those business owners, they didn't build those businesses.
JP: So who built them?
BO: They got a lot of help from the government.
JP: Let's get back to the stimulus. So, essentially, nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus dollars was wasted? Is that what you're saying?
BO: It wasn't all wasted.
JP: What about the debt? So you haven't cut the debt even one cent?
BO: Those business owners, they didn't build those businesses.
JP: So who built them?
BO: They got a lot of help from the government.
JP: Let's get back to the stimulus. So, essentially, nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus dollars was wasted? Is that what you're saying?
BO: It wasn't all wasted.
JP: What about the debt? So you haven't cut the debt even one cent?
BO: Well, George Bush. . .
JP: Again, Mr. President, this interview is about you. Every President faces issues left over from his predecessor when he takes office. You didn’t hear George Bush complain that he had to face the terrorist attacks on 9/11 because Bill Clinton didn’t have Bin Laden killed when he had the chance. But let’s move on. Tell me about your last two budgets.
BO: I really haven’t had one. But it's the responsibility of Congress to. . .
JP: What do you mean you haven’t had one?
BO: Well, Congress never got around to passing mine or one of their own.
JP: Didn’t you propose budgets in 2011 and 2012?
BO: Yes.
JP: Well, what happened? Why didn’t Congress pass your budgets?
BO: The Senate voted them down.
JP: They voted them down in the Senate? What was the tally of the votes?
BO: 97-0 and 99-0.
JP: But didn’t your party control the Senate both of those years?
BO: That’s right, but the Republicans. . .
JP: So, you couldn’t get a single vote for your proposed budgets even though your own party controlled the Senate?
BO: That’s right.
JP: Doesn’t that seem to indicate that even your own party won’t follow you? Doesn’t that also show a lack of leadership on your part as a CEO, not pressing Congress to actually do its job? This is basic stuff. No organization should operate without a budget.
BO: Well, the Republicans. . .
JP: But your party controlled the Senate. So, you’re operating without a budget passed by Congress?
BO: That’s right.
JP: Well, let’s get to the last part of the job. Are you an inspiring person, President Obama?
BO: Yes, I am. MSNBC's Chris Matthews even said that he gets tingles up his leg when I speak.
JP: Chris Matthews is an absolute idiot. I think he just has a bladder problem. He probably meant he tingles down his own leg.
BO: In 2008 people were fainting when I spoke and I inspired thousands of young people to vote for the first time. Hope and Change. Hope and Change.
JP: That’s great, but inspiration is one thing, and slogans are another. Actually getting something accomplished is the role of the President. What is the level of excitement for you now among the American people?
BO: It's kind of waning. I don't understand.
JP: Let’s review to make sure I have this information right. Other than your experience as President, you have zero CEO experience. You made the deficit worse, and you've been unable to get Americans back to work. You've been unable to reach across party lines to get legislation passed, even a budget when your party controlled the Senate. You were able to pass healthcare legislation, but the majority of Americans don't want it. Under your watch, Navy Seals were able to kill Osama Bin Laden, and you’re a great speaker who makes Chris Matthews all tingly. Does that pretty much sum it up?
BO: I think you’ve covered it.
JP: President Obama, I have to say that I’m disappointed in your performance.
BO: Well, the Republicans, and George Bush. . .
JP: Mr. President, a true leader inspires and cajoles the other party to move to his side of the fence, or he meets them somewhere in the middle. You haven't done either.
BO: But I promise I’ll compromise more if I’m just given another chance. I need more time.
JP: About that other chance. I’m not so sure you will be given another chance.
BO: When will I find out if I’ve got the job again? Michelle is planning a few vacations for us and the kids in 2013. We're planning to travel to all 57 states, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Russia, China, South Korea, England, Ireland. . .
JP: November 6, Mr. President. We'll make our decision on that day. That day can’t come fast enough, as far as I’m concerned. Thanks for interviewing again for the job. But, please, please, don’t call us, we’ll call you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)