Over the weekend, I thought back to the tumultuous days of the 1960s and early 1970s.
I remember the images on my black and white television of those anti-war protests all over the U.S., with young people in the tens of thousands marching in various cities and occupying college administration buildings. Young people marched on the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, protesting the Vietnam War and our federal government. They were met by police, who used mace indiscriminately on protestors and bystanders. The protestors chanted, "The Whole World's Watching," as television cameras captured images of the police fighting back the protestors.
The young people in those crowds were the offspring of those who experienced World War II, a generation that nearly saw its rights taken away by the Germans, Japanese and Italians. Many of those young people had parents who were killed or injured in World War II, and they also had many friends and family members who were either injured or killed in the Vietnam War. With the military draft still in force, these young people certainly had skin in the game, so to speak. They protested the Vietnam War with a passion, perhaps because at any time they could be forced by their government to fight in a war they didn't feel was necessary or just.
Although I was a little too young to participate in those protests, my father was seriously injured in World War II and had to live with pain every single day for the rest of his life. I knew a lot of young men from my hometown who never made it home from Vietnam. I learned from my father, who grew up in the Great Depression, that our rights were worth worth fighting for, even if it meant giving up your own life.
During this time period, young people, more than any other age group, questioned the decisions and motivations of our federal government, and rightly so. Young reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post were among those from this age group who doggedly asked tough questions and uncovered sources within the federal government in order to report the truth about the Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup. Their reporting, and the reporting of others, forced a President, Richard Nixon, to resign, not because of the original burgulary of political offices at the Watergate Hotel, but because he was deeply involved in the coverup to keep others from learning who was involved in the original break-in.
While thinking about life in the 1960s and 1970s this weekend, I began comparing the young people of today to the young people of yesteryear. Young people from both time frames are similar in some ways, including their impatience, but they are vastly different in other ways, including their belief in and support for our federal government. While young people of 40 and 50 years ago had a healthy disbelief for anything the government told them, the young people of today seem to blindly follow the federal government, especially this President.
I have to wonder how the young people of yesterday, as well as the reporters in their age group, would have reacted to a President who clearly avoided calling violence on our consulate the result of terrorism, although intelligence before the attack pointed to a growing terrorist threat, and intelligence immediately after the attack indicated that a terrorist group had carried out a well-planned, coordinated assault.
Young people back then became very angry when their President and government clearly lied to them. Young people of today don't even seem to want to know the truth.
I wonder how those young people of yesterday would have reacted to an Administration that ignored pleas for additional security at the consulate or to an Administration that clearly dragged its feet in sending in military assistance to save American lives. I also wonder how those same young people would have reacted to a federal government whose policies have devastated so many of their peers economically, with only one out of two recent college graduates able to find a job in their field. Young people in the 1960s and 1970s would have been protesting in the streets if jobs weren't available to them. After their parents had sacrified life and limb so that their children would have a better life, those children, as well as their parents, would have demanded opportunities better than the previous generation of Americans. Today, being out of work and living with your parents is apparently the new normal in America.
For some reason, the young people of today just don't seem to care with the same fervor how easily our rights can all be taken away. They also don't even seem to believe that our federal government should be viewed with a cynicism. That's always been the American way -- to distrust government. This friction between citizens and government was ingrained in our fabric even before America was a country. We forged our own union because of an oppressive British government, and we have remained a country because our citizens have fought valiantly to preserve those rights and also to hold our government accountable to we the people.
Somewhere along the way, the healthy skepticism our young people have had for government has become an unhealthy allegiance. Sadly, if young people blindly follow government, our democratic form of government is at great risk for this and future generations of Americans.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Obama's BS vs. Ryan's Substance
On almost every television talking heads program, in nearly every newspaper article and on every radio talk show, Democrat operatives have been using the same words from scripted talking points
to describe Republican Vice President nominee, Paul Ryan.
Extreme. Radical. Right wing idealogue.
The reason they are doing this is very simple. President Barack Obama cannot run on his record of 40-plus months of unemployment over 8%, our national debt increasing by half (50%) under the President's watch although he promised to cut it in half, and the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. President Obama's only hope at being reelected is to make the Republican option so unsettling to voters that they will reluctantly vote for the President in the November election.
This is the reason why a Democrat super PACs developed an ad accusing Republican nominee Mitt Romney of causing a woman's cancer death. This is why the Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, made outrageous claims that Romney might be a felon and that the "word's out" that Romney didn't pay federal income taxes for 10 years. This is also why leaders in the Obama Campaign tried their best to smear Romney's work at Bain Capital.
Advantage Obama.
Democratic operatives realized that every day the Romney Campaign was forced to answer questions from the news media about the despicable "cancer" ad, every day that the news media kept the story alive about Romney's tax returns and every day the news media asked about Bain Capital was one more day that the Obama Campaign didn't have to talk about the principal issues in this campaign -- the dismal economy and an unfathomable debt that will be passed on to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.
But as soon as Romney announced that Ryan was his pick, the Democrats changed course and began attacking Ryan on Medicare, thinking that they had found a weakness that would allow them to continue to paint the Republican ticket as unacceptable to voters. Democrats immediately began making the rounds with reporters and various talk shows, using the Democrat script to paint Ryan as a radical right winger who would cut off granny's Medicare.
Instead of being defensive, though, Romney and Ryan became even aggressive, pointing out that President Obama stole $700 million from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. The Republic tandem also began talking about using Ryan's proposed budget as a framework to save entitlement programs, pointing out that President Obama and the Democrats had not proposed any plan whatsover in three and half years although the programs faced insolvency for future generations. The focus shifted from the earlier distractions of taxes, Bain Capital and the "cancer" ad to talking about saving entitlement programs and addressing the ballooning national debt. By learning about what the Republicans would be proposing, which was not to change Medicare for current recipients and those 55 or older, voters were able to see that the Democrats' plan of "doing nothing" is much more radical and extreme than the Republicans' framework to save much-needed entitlement programs for current and future generations of Americans.
Advantage Romney and Ryan.
The Democrats also discovered in the past week that it is nearly impossible to attack Ryan, a good-looking 42-year-old fitness freak, husband and father, who spends as little time as possible in Washington, traveling home to soccer games in Wisconsin on the weekends. Democrats also found that this young leader is literally a rock star on the campaign trail, bringing in huge crowds everywhere he goes, inspiring them while talking about serious issues and framing them in a way that the average person can understand. President Obama and the Democrats also found that Ryan is able to disagree with them over substantive issues in a way that doesn't stoop to the gutter politics level of the Democrats, but instead attacks their positions with logic, numbers and good old common sense. Americans like that.
In short, President Obama is now facing an adept communicator, Ryan, who can not only inspire voters, which is Obama's strongpoint, but Ryan can do it by providing substantive solutions and facts, which is something Obama has never been able to do. Substance will win over bullshit every time.
Advantage Romney and Ryan.
The change in just one week has been palpable. Romney and Ryan are raking in millions of dollars in donations and attracting tens of thousands at rallies they attend individually and together. Romney appears to be energized, stepping up his game in a way that has impressed even his staunchest critics. In contrast, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have been struggling to raise money and the crowds attending their campaign stops don't appear to be energized or anywhere near the size of the Romney/Ryan crowds. While Ryan seemingly can fill stadiums with potential voters, Biden has trouble filling a large room. And Biden, well, is Biden, often saying the most inappropriate things, trying to be funny, trying to appeal to the Democrats' base, but alienating members of that base as well as independents.
In one week, the campaign has changed dramatically. According to numerous sources, the Obama Campaign is unsettled, confused by the turn of events. They've tried smear tactics, which caused more voters to have a strong negative perception of the President, and they've now tried framing the election around entitlements, but discovered that Romney and Ryan turned the issue into a discussion about the lack leadership by the Obama Administration on fixing the entitlement mess. I wonder what the Obama Campaign will try now?
They certainly can't run on the President's record. That would be an even bigger disaster politically.
to describe Republican Vice President nominee, Paul Ryan.
Extreme. Radical. Right wing idealogue.
The reason they are doing this is very simple. President Barack Obama cannot run on his record of 40-plus months of unemployment over 8%, our national debt increasing by half (50%) under the President's watch although he promised to cut it in half, and the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. President Obama's only hope at being reelected is to make the Republican option so unsettling to voters that they will reluctantly vote for the President in the November election.
This is the reason why a Democrat super PACs developed an ad accusing Republican nominee Mitt Romney of causing a woman's cancer death. This is why the Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, made outrageous claims that Romney might be a felon and that the "word's out" that Romney didn't pay federal income taxes for 10 years. This is also why leaders in the Obama Campaign tried their best to smear Romney's work at Bain Capital.
Advantage Obama.
Democratic operatives realized that every day the Romney Campaign was forced to answer questions from the news media about the despicable "cancer" ad, every day that the news media kept the story alive about Romney's tax returns and every day the news media asked about Bain Capital was one more day that the Obama Campaign didn't have to talk about the principal issues in this campaign -- the dismal economy and an unfathomable debt that will be passed on to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.
But as soon as Romney announced that Ryan was his pick, the Democrats changed course and began attacking Ryan on Medicare, thinking that they had found a weakness that would allow them to continue to paint the Republican ticket as unacceptable to voters. Democrats immediately began making the rounds with reporters and various talk shows, using the Democrat script to paint Ryan as a radical right winger who would cut off granny's Medicare.
Instead of being defensive, though, Romney and Ryan became even aggressive, pointing out that President Obama stole $700 million from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. The Republic tandem also began talking about using Ryan's proposed budget as a framework to save entitlement programs, pointing out that President Obama and the Democrats had not proposed any plan whatsover in three and half years although the programs faced insolvency for future generations. The focus shifted from the earlier distractions of taxes, Bain Capital and the "cancer" ad to talking about saving entitlement programs and addressing the ballooning national debt. By learning about what the Republicans would be proposing, which was not to change Medicare for current recipients and those 55 or older, voters were able to see that the Democrats' plan of "doing nothing" is much more radical and extreme than the Republicans' framework to save much-needed entitlement programs for current and future generations of Americans.
Advantage Romney and Ryan.
The Democrats also discovered in the past week that it is nearly impossible to attack Ryan, a good-looking 42-year-old fitness freak, husband and father, who spends as little time as possible in Washington, traveling home to soccer games in Wisconsin on the weekends. Democrats also found that this young leader is literally a rock star on the campaign trail, bringing in huge crowds everywhere he goes, inspiring them while talking about serious issues and framing them in a way that the average person can understand. President Obama and the Democrats also found that Ryan is able to disagree with them over substantive issues in a way that doesn't stoop to the gutter politics level of the Democrats, but instead attacks their positions with logic, numbers and good old common sense. Americans like that.
In short, President Obama is now facing an adept communicator, Ryan, who can not only inspire voters, which is Obama's strongpoint, but Ryan can do it by providing substantive solutions and facts, which is something Obama has never been able to do. Substance will win over bullshit every time.
Advantage Romney and Ryan.
The change in just one week has been palpable. Romney and Ryan are raking in millions of dollars in donations and attracting tens of thousands at rallies they attend individually and together. Romney appears to be energized, stepping up his game in a way that has impressed even his staunchest critics. In contrast, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have been struggling to raise money and the crowds attending their campaign stops don't appear to be energized or anywhere near the size of the Romney/Ryan crowds. While Ryan seemingly can fill stadiums with potential voters, Biden has trouble filling a large room. And Biden, well, is Biden, often saying the most inappropriate things, trying to be funny, trying to appeal to the Democrats' base, but alienating members of that base as well as independents.
In one week, the campaign has changed dramatically. According to numerous sources, the Obama Campaign is unsettled, confused by the turn of events. They've tried smear tactics, which caused more voters to have a strong negative perception of the President, and they've now tried framing the election around entitlements, but discovered that Romney and Ryan turned the issue into a discussion about the lack leadership by the Obama Administration on fixing the entitlement mess. I wonder what the Obama Campaign will try now?
They certainly can't run on the President's record. That would be an even bigger disaster politically.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The Voice of Reason: So Do You REALLY Want to Vote for Obama?
I was thinking today about all of the reasons why I won't vote to reelect Barack Obama in November. And then I looked at the polls and saw that he has a slight lead in the average of all polls on realclearpolitics.com
How can this be? Are there people out there who will blindly vote for him because he's a Democrat or because he's black? Are there that many voters in America who aren't paying attention to what has happened to our country in three and one-half short years?
After looking at his record, no one should vote to reelect President Obama. No one.
Today's jobs report showed an up uptick in unemployment to 8.3%. Let's put this number in perspective. In EVERY ONE of the 42 months that Obama has been in office, unemployment has been above 8%, the longest record of 8%+ unemployment in the history of our country. In contrast, in 96 months with George W. Bush as President, we did not have a single month of unemployment at 8% or above. Not one. Why would any person hoping to find a job vote for President Obama in 2012?
The "real" unemployment number is over 15%, when you count those who have given up work and those who are stuck working part-time jobs although they want to work full-time. For those 18-29 years old and African-Americans, the numbers are even worse. Why would any young person or African-American vote for someone whose economic policies have made winning at roulette a much more likely proposition than actually finding a job?
Let's look at a few more good reasons to not reelect President Obama.
In three and a half years, he has increased our national debt by 50%. If President Bush spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor, which he did, President Obama has spent our tax dollars like a drunken sailor on crack. Why would any taxpayer vote to reelect President Obama?
For a President who promised transparency when he was elected, he has been one of our least transparent Presidents. He passed the healthcare law without giving Congress time to actually read it. His administration is full of lobbyists. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, has claimed "Executive Privilege" rather than releasing documents to a House investigation. We learned this week that members of his administration have been meeting lobbyists away from the White House so that their visits would not show up on the official White House log. We also learned this week that members of his staff have been using private e mail addresses to conduct official business. Transparency? Yeah right. Why would anyone who expects transparency in government vote to give Barack Obama a second term?
What major promise has he actually kept? He promised to close Gitmo. It didn't happen. He promised to cut our debt in half by the end of his first term. It's gotten worse. The Obama Administration also predicted that our unemployment rate would be about 6% now if only taxpayers wrote a check for his $800 billion stimulus to pay for shovel ready jobs that we later learned from the President himself "weren't quite shovel ready." And yet, our unemployment rate is 8.3% if you don't count all of the people who have given up looking for work or are working part-time at McDonalds after their unemployment ran out -- instead of working full-time at IBM or Microsoft. Why would anyone who believed Barack Obama when he was running in 2008 vote for him again in 2012?
So, what else hasn't he been doing?
Well, at at time that millions of Americans desperately need jobs, his Jobs and Competitiveness Council hasn't met in over six months, and his Cabinet didn't meet between the end of January and the end of July. Imagine the CEO of any major organization not having a staff meeting in nearly six months. This clearly shows a lack of leadership. Why would anyone expecting leadership from a President vote for someone who has displayed little or none?
Now, let's look at a few of the more underhanded things he's done.
I bet you hadn't heard that his campaign has now filed a lawsuit attempting to limit the number of service members who will be able to vote. Presently, Ohio allows the general public to cast a ballot in-person up until the Friday before the election, but members of the military are given an additional three days to vote. The Obama Campaign has filed a suit to eliminate this extra time given to those service men and women who just might happen to be fighting on the front lines and need the extra time to vote. Why would any active member of the military vote for a President who doesn't want to make it easy for him or her to vote, even when they're valiantly serving our country?
Or how about when his chief campaign advisor, David Axelrod, suggested that presumptive Republican nominee had committed a felony? Instead of backing away from this outrageous statement, the President insinuated that Romney should be investigated. Although some of his staunchest supporters were interviewed in the news media saying that these allegations were ridiculous, the President continued to fan the flames with insinuations. Why would anyone who demands the truth from his or her leader vote for Barack Obama again?
Another recent revelation is that the Obama Administration is telling our border control agents to let any illegal immigrant go free who says that he or she has graduated from high school or has a GED. No proof or verification is required, and even those who have attacked and injured our border control agents are being let go. The latest is that a border control agent was suspended for arresting an illegal immigrant who had a number of traffic tickets. He was told to let the person go free, but the agent refused. Funny him, he actually thought it was his job to protect our borders. You can't make this stuff up. Why would anyone who expects our borders to be secure vote for a President who has essentially opened our borders to anyone and everyone willing to say that he or she has a high school diploma?
Of course, part of this equation was the Executive Order signed by the President that essentially directed border control agents to ignore immigration law passed by Congress and signed by a previous President as long as the illegal aliens met certain conditions. This wasn't the first time the President has trampled on our Constitution. An order from his administration to force religious organizations to provide free birth control as part of their healthcare plans is yet another example of how President Obama has looked at our Constitution as a "suggestion" for how this country should be run. Why would anyone who believes in the Constitution written by our Founding Fathers vote to give President Obama another chance?
And then you have all of his statements that clearly show he is out of touch. He said that the "private sector is doing fine." He said that his economic plan has worked. The President has also said that he sometimes forgets how bad the economy is. Maybe he doesn't realize what's going on in the lives of ordinary Americans because he hasn't met with his Cabinet or his Jobs Council in six months? Of course his Press Secretary, Jay Carney, gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for the President's lack of attention on jobs, saying that the President "has a lot on his plate." Why would anyone vote for a President who has more important things to do than strive to help millions of Americans get back to work?
He's found enough space on his plate to play over 100 rounds of golf and attend more fundraisers than any of his predecessors. But who are we to judge a President whose administration has experienced 42 straight months of unemployment over 8%? But then again, why would anyone who expects our President to actually work for the American people vote for Barack Obama in 2012?
On top of all of this, you have an EPA that is clearly out of control and a General Services Administration that seems to be doing more partying than working. The EPA has been slapped down by courts several times in the past few months for overstepping its bounds. Policy is now based on whim, not science, and even an EPA official said that he was attempting to "crucify" certain industries. As for the GSA, more was recently revealed about this bloated agency that spends taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences and huge bonuses for employees at a time the country is going broke and millions are out of work. Why would anyone who expects "government by the people and for the people" vote to reelect Barack Obama in 2012?
And then you have the President's statement to business owners that "you didn't build that." He clearly doesn't understand the sacrifices required in terms of time, money and sweat to build a successful business in America. Why would any business owner vote to reelect our current President after he belittled their hard work, courage and intelligence?
Speaking of business, what about our domestic energy industry? President Obama and his EPA are trying their best to kill the entire coal industry, from mines to the coal-fired power stations. As a candidate, he boasted that his policies would cause electric rates to "necessarily skyrocket." This is one promise he's kept. He's wasted billions on alternative energy companies like Solyndra, but has done little to encourage drilling in our domestic oil and natural gas reserves. Even when he had the opportunity to create tens of thousands of jobs and bring millions of barrels of Canadian oil to our refineries through the Keystone Pipeline, he balked. As a result of his energy policy, or lack thereof, Americans are now paying close to $4 per gallon of gasoline at the pump, electric rates are increasing dramatically, dozens of power stations are being retired prematurely and hundreds of miners and employees at coal-fired power stations are losing their jobs. Why would anyone who uses electricity, natural gas or gasoline, or anyone who works in the energy industry for that matter, vote to allow President Obama to expand upon his job-killing, price-hiking policies in a second term?
Lastly, in three and a half years in office, our President has done nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of our entitlement programs, putting them in jeopardy for future generations of Americans. He's made no proposals to save Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Our President has focused his attention on playing golf and raising money for his reelection, instead of leading our country and making tough decisions. Why would any senior citizen, or anyone who expects to receive Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare for that matter, vote for a President who has "kicked the can down the road" instead of trying to save these programs for future generations?
Once you put all of this information together in one blog, it's frightening to see what's gone on in this country the past three and one-half years. It's pretty clear: No one in his or her right mind should vote to reelect Barack Obama. No one.
How can this be? Are there people out there who will blindly vote for him because he's a Democrat or because he's black? Are there that many voters in America who aren't paying attention to what has happened to our country in three and one-half short years?
After looking at his record, no one should vote to reelect President Obama. No one.
Today's jobs report showed an up uptick in unemployment to 8.3%. Let's put this number in perspective. In EVERY ONE of the 42 months that Obama has been in office, unemployment has been above 8%, the longest record of 8%+ unemployment in the history of our country. In contrast, in 96 months with George W. Bush as President, we did not have a single month of unemployment at 8% or above. Not one. Why would any person hoping to find a job vote for President Obama in 2012?
The "real" unemployment number is over 15%, when you count those who have given up work and those who are stuck working part-time jobs although they want to work full-time. For those 18-29 years old and African-Americans, the numbers are even worse. Why would any young person or African-American vote for someone whose economic policies have made winning at roulette a much more likely proposition than actually finding a job?
Let's look at a few more good reasons to not reelect President Obama.
In three and a half years, he has increased our national debt by 50%. If President Bush spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor, which he did, President Obama has spent our tax dollars like a drunken sailor on crack. Why would any taxpayer vote to reelect President Obama?
For a President who promised transparency when he was elected, he has been one of our least transparent Presidents. He passed the healthcare law without giving Congress time to actually read it. His administration is full of lobbyists. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, has claimed "Executive Privilege" rather than releasing documents to a House investigation. We learned this week that members of his administration have been meeting lobbyists away from the White House so that their visits would not show up on the official White House log. We also learned this week that members of his staff have been using private e mail addresses to conduct official business. Transparency? Yeah right. Why would anyone who expects transparency in government vote to give Barack Obama a second term?
What major promise has he actually kept? He promised to close Gitmo. It didn't happen. He promised to cut our debt in half by the end of his first term. It's gotten worse. The Obama Administration also predicted that our unemployment rate would be about 6% now if only taxpayers wrote a check for his $800 billion stimulus to pay for shovel ready jobs that we later learned from the President himself "weren't quite shovel ready." And yet, our unemployment rate is 8.3% if you don't count all of the people who have given up looking for work or are working part-time at McDonalds after their unemployment ran out -- instead of working full-time at IBM or Microsoft. Why would anyone who believed Barack Obama when he was running in 2008 vote for him again in 2012?
So, what else hasn't he been doing?
Well, at at time that millions of Americans desperately need jobs, his Jobs and Competitiveness Council hasn't met in over six months, and his Cabinet didn't meet between the end of January and the end of July. Imagine the CEO of any major organization not having a staff meeting in nearly six months. This clearly shows a lack of leadership. Why would anyone expecting leadership from a President vote for someone who has displayed little or none?
Now, let's look at a few of the more underhanded things he's done.
I bet you hadn't heard that his campaign has now filed a lawsuit attempting to limit the number of service members who will be able to vote. Presently, Ohio allows the general public to cast a ballot in-person up until the Friday before the election, but members of the military are given an additional three days to vote. The Obama Campaign has filed a suit to eliminate this extra time given to those service men and women who just might happen to be fighting on the front lines and need the extra time to vote. Why would any active member of the military vote for a President who doesn't want to make it easy for him or her to vote, even when they're valiantly serving our country?
Or how about when his chief campaign advisor, David Axelrod, suggested that presumptive Republican nominee had committed a felony? Instead of backing away from this outrageous statement, the President insinuated that Romney should be investigated. Although some of his staunchest supporters were interviewed in the news media saying that these allegations were ridiculous, the President continued to fan the flames with insinuations. Why would anyone who demands the truth from his or her leader vote for Barack Obama again?
Another recent revelation is that the Obama Administration is telling our border control agents to let any illegal immigrant go free who says that he or she has graduated from high school or has a GED. No proof or verification is required, and even those who have attacked and injured our border control agents are being let go. The latest is that a border control agent was suspended for arresting an illegal immigrant who had a number of traffic tickets. He was told to let the person go free, but the agent refused. Funny him, he actually thought it was his job to protect our borders. You can't make this stuff up. Why would anyone who expects our borders to be secure vote for a President who has essentially opened our borders to anyone and everyone willing to say that he or she has a high school diploma?
Of course, part of this equation was the Executive Order signed by the President that essentially directed border control agents to ignore immigration law passed by Congress and signed by a previous President as long as the illegal aliens met certain conditions. This wasn't the first time the President has trampled on our Constitution. An order from his administration to force religious organizations to provide free birth control as part of their healthcare plans is yet another example of how President Obama has looked at our Constitution as a "suggestion" for how this country should be run. Why would anyone who believes in the Constitution written by our Founding Fathers vote to give President Obama another chance?
And then you have all of his statements that clearly show he is out of touch. He said that the "private sector is doing fine." He said that his economic plan has worked. The President has also said that he sometimes forgets how bad the economy is. Maybe he doesn't realize what's going on in the lives of ordinary Americans because he hasn't met with his Cabinet or his Jobs Council in six months? Of course his Press Secretary, Jay Carney, gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for the President's lack of attention on jobs, saying that the President "has a lot on his plate." Why would anyone vote for a President who has more important things to do than strive to help millions of Americans get back to work?
He's found enough space on his plate to play over 100 rounds of golf and attend more fundraisers than any of his predecessors. But who are we to judge a President whose administration has experienced 42 straight months of unemployment over 8%? But then again, why would anyone who expects our President to actually work for the American people vote for Barack Obama in 2012?
On top of all of this, you have an EPA that is clearly out of control and a General Services Administration that seems to be doing more partying than working. The EPA has been slapped down by courts several times in the past few months for overstepping its bounds. Policy is now based on whim, not science, and even an EPA official said that he was attempting to "crucify" certain industries. As for the GSA, more was recently revealed about this bloated agency that spends taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences and huge bonuses for employees at a time the country is going broke and millions are out of work. Why would anyone who expects "government by the people and for the people" vote to reelect Barack Obama in 2012?
And then you have the President's statement to business owners that "you didn't build that." He clearly doesn't understand the sacrifices required in terms of time, money and sweat to build a successful business in America. Why would any business owner vote to reelect our current President after he belittled their hard work, courage and intelligence?
Speaking of business, what about our domestic energy industry? President Obama and his EPA are trying their best to kill the entire coal industry, from mines to the coal-fired power stations. As a candidate, he boasted that his policies would cause electric rates to "necessarily skyrocket." This is one promise he's kept. He's wasted billions on alternative energy companies like Solyndra, but has done little to encourage drilling in our domestic oil and natural gas reserves. Even when he had the opportunity to create tens of thousands of jobs and bring millions of barrels of Canadian oil to our refineries through the Keystone Pipeline, he balked. As a result of his energy policy, or lack thereof, Americans are now paying close to $4 per gallon of gasoline at the pump, electric rates are increasing dramatically, dozens of power stations are being retired prematurely and hundreds of miners and employees at coal-fired power stations are losing their jobs. Why would anyone who uses electricity, natural gas or gasoline, or anyone who works in the energy industry for that matter, vote to allow President Obama to expand upon his job-killing, price-hiking policies in a second term?
Lastly, in three and a half years in office, our President has done nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of our entitlement programs, putting them in jeopardy for future generations of Americans. He's made no proposals to save Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Our President has focused his attention on playing golf and raising money for his reelection, instead of leading our country and making tough decisions. Why would any senior citizen, or anyone who expects to receive Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare for that matter, vote for a President who has "kicked the can down the road" instead of trying to save these programs for future generations?
Once you put all of this information together in one blog, it's frightening to see what's gone on in this country the past three and one-half years. It's pretty clear: No one in his or her right mind should vote to reelect Barack Obama. No one.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Obama Administration Opens Our Borders
While driving home from work yesterday, I heard a disturbing interview with border control agents on a local radio station. What I heard should make every American mad as hell.
According to the agents interviewed on the radio talk show, the Obama Administration has told border control agents tolak low any illegal alien to go free who says that he or she has graduated from high school or has received a GED. The other disturbing part of the interview is that one of the agents shared a story of an agent being attacked and injured by an illegal alien, but then being told by higher ups to let the person go because he said he had a high school diploma.
My first thought was that there is no way that our federal government has essentially opened our borders to any and all, as long as they say they have graduated from high school or have a GED, with no proof required. But then I did a little research using the internet, and I found these articles, among many, many others:
http://www.examiner.com/article/border-patrol-and-ice-representatives-sound-off-on-lenient-immigration-policy
http://www.local2544.org/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/27/picket-video-border-agents-say-dhs-tells-them-rele/
The more I read, the angrier I become. How in the world can our federal government essentially open our borders, using the words, "I have a high school diploma," instead of requiring documentation and verification, to allow someone to stay in this country legally?
President Obama's executive order allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country legally under certain conditions is a farce. There is no verification required. Documentation isn't even required. Even those who have committed crimes here in this country, or have assulted border control agents, are allowed to stay in America, as long as they say they have graduated from high school or have earned a GED.
Immigration laws passed by our Congress and signed by a previous President are being ignored by our current President. If this President can completely ignore this law, he can ignore any law. I am flabbergasted, disillusioned, angry and disappointed, all at the same time. It's one thing for a President to decide on which parts of a law to focus enforcement, another to declare that certain people will be exempt from that enforcement, and yet another to essentially ignore the law altogether by giving anyone and all illegal immigrants a "get out of jail free" card by saying a few simple words.
I am even more convinced that this President must be voted out of office in November, if we have any chance of saving this country and our Democracy.
According to the agents interviewed on the radio talk show, the Obama Administration has told border control agents tolak low any illegal alien to go free who says that he or she has graduated from high school or has received a GED. The other disturbing part of the interview is that one of the agents shared a story of an agent being attacked and injured by an illegal alien, but then being told by higher ups to let the person go because he said he had a high school diploma.
My first thought was that there is no way that our federal government has essentially opened our borders to any and all, as long as they say they have graduated from high school or have a GED, with no proof required. But then I did a little research using the internet, and I found these articles, among many, many others:
http://www.examiner.com/article/border-patrol-and-ice-representatives-sound-off-on-lenient-immigration-policy
http://www.local2544.org/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/27/picket-video-border-agents-say-dhs-tells-them-rele/
The more I read, the angrier I become. How in the world can our federal government essentially open our borders, using the words, "I have a high school diploma," instead of requiring documentation and verification, to allow someone to stay in this country legally?
President Obama's executive order allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country legally under certain conditions is a farce. There is no verification required. Documentation isn't even required. Even those who have committed crimes here in this country, or have assulted border control agents, are allowed to stay in America, as long as they say they have graduated from high school or have earned a GED.
Immigration laws passed by our Congress and signed by a previous President are being ignored by our current President. If this President can completely ignore this law, he can ignore any law. I am flabbergasted, disillusioned, angry and disappointed, all at the same time. It's one thing for a President to decide on which parts of a law to focus enforcement, another to declare that certain people will be exempt from that enforcement, and yet another to essentially ignore the law altogether by giving anyone and all illegal immigrants a "get out of jail free" card by saying a few simple words.
I am even more convinced that this President must be voted out of office in November, if we have any chance of saving this country and our Democracy.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Debunking Liberals' View of Conservatives
From members of the elite news media to the elite of Hollywood and every far-left Democrat in between, liberals in America have a stilted view of conservatives.
They don't understand us and don't want to try to understand us. They just can't seem to comprehend that more Americans are like us than them. They think that every American should think as they think, and if they don't, they believe that there is something wrong with their moral make up. After all, many liberals believe, they have the moral high ground.
My purpose today is to debunk every belief liberals have about conservatives, one belief at a time. While I know that my feelings certainly aren't representative of every conservative, I happen to think that I'm pretty much a middle-of-the-road conservative American in terms of my views. Let's take a look at what liberals believe and what the reality is:
They believe we are all rich
No, we're not all affluent, but I happen to believe that the vast majority of us aspire to succeed. Like most conservatives, I certainly wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, as neither one of my parents graduated from high school. We are teachers, truck drivers, business owners, professionals and laborers. We are pastors, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, college students and retired people. What connects us is that we believe that anyone can succeed in America if we work harder and work smarter.
They believe we hate poor people
No, we don't hate poor people, but we believe that most government programs create dependency, not pathways to success. Sure, there should be programs to support those who can't support themselves and those facing an emergency situation, but we also believe that that government programs should be designed to move the vast majority of people to self-sufficiency, not to a lifetime of support from the government and taxpayers. We also believe that local charities do a better job of determining who truly needs help, and we generously support those local charities.
They believe we want dirty air and dirty water
The truth is that we believe in protecting the environment. We are concerned about the quality of our air and water, but we also believe that environmental regulations based on ideology that attempt to "crucify" entire industries are flat out wrong. Yes, we want government to encourage clean energy through research grants, but we believe that the marketplace, not the federal government, can best determine when new technologies are economically feasible. We believe that we should do everything possible to take advantage of our abundant domestic energy resources -- coal, oil and natural gas -- using the most environmentally-friendly methods to extract those resources. We want low-cost energy so that we can remain competitive in the global marketplace and our standard of living does not decline because of rising energy costs taking more of our paychecks.
They believe many of us are Bible-thumpers who "cling to their guns"
Yes, many of us go to church every Sunday, and the vast majority of us believe strongly in the Second Amendment. We happen to believe that there's nothing wrong with either. America was and still is a Christian nation, and we're proud of that heritage, although we don't believe in discrminating against those who believe differently. The "Separation Between Church and State" outlined in the First Amendment was designed to keep the government out of the church, not the other way around.
They believe we want to hold down the poor and the middle class
Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe that any American can increase his or her income through hard work and innovation. We believe that the best way to help Americans move up in class is for our country to have a strong economy that provides all Americans with good-paying jobs and the opportunity to save. We want the government to encourage more entrepreneurs, not discourage them through burdensome and ridiculous government regulations. Nothing proves the genius of our American system more than when someone of limited means becomes very successful. It happens every day, and it makes conservatives very happy.
They believe that we don't pay our "fair share" in taxes
We're getting tired of this "class warfare" argument, because the facts show that the more you earn in America, the more you pay in taxes. Nearly half of all Americans pay no income taxes whatsoever, while the top earners pay a disproportionate percentage of income taxes compared to their incomes. Sure, there are corporations and high-income Americans who pay little or no taxes, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. We believe in closing the loopoles so that those rare exceptions can be eliminated, but we also believe that the Capital Gains Tax should continue to be low in order to encourage investments to help America grow.
They believe we want to eliminate all entitlement programs
No, Representative Paul Ryan does not want to push grandma over a cliff. We simply look at the numbers and realize that if entitlement programs continue at their current pace, there will not be Social Security, Medicare or Medicare for future generations of Americans. We believe that ignoring the impending collapse of these programs caused by rising costs and our skyrocketing debt is irresponsible and not being truthful with the American people. We would rather address these challenges now, than wait until significant changes are necessary to keep these programs solvent.
They believe we hate gay people and African-Americans
This is probably the liberal belief that angers me the most. No, we don't hate gay people, and no, we don't hate black people. Although some conservatives may be against gay marriage because of religious reasons, a lot of us believe that this issue is a states' right issue and not an issue the federal government should decide. I happen to have a number of gay friends, a number of black friends, and I also have worked tirelessly throughout my career to fight discrimination against people of color. I am most proud of my work developing programs that helped African-American students in the rural south have opportunities to continue and expand their education. We happen to believe that the Democratic Party has made many African-Americans dependent on government programs, instead of helping them to succeed. We believe that every American, irregardless of sexual orientation or skin color, should have an equal opportunity to succeed.
They believe we hate government
This one belief comes closest to being the truth. We believe in limited government because government has never done anything really well, except for national defense. We believe that government is often the problem, not the solution. We also believe that government should streamline regulations so that more people can start businesses, more Americans can become wealthy and more businesses can thrive. No, we don't "hate" government, but we don't like it much.
I hope that I've been able to debunk most of the beliefs held by the majority of liberals. Even if one liberal reads this blog, looks at conservatives in a different light and considers voting for Mitt Romney, then I have succeeded.
They don't understand us and don't want to try to understand us. They just can't seem to comprehend that more Americans are like us than them. They think that every American should think as they think, and if they don't, they believe that there is something wrong with their moral make up. After all, many liberals believe, they have the moral high ground.
My purpose today is to debunk every belief liberals have about conservatives, one belief at a time. While I know that my feelings certainly aren't representative of every conservative, I happen to think that I'm pretty much a middle-of-the-road conservative American in terms of my views. Let's take a look at what liberals believe and what the reality is:
They believe we are all rich
No, we're not all affluent, but I happen to believe that the vast majority of us aspire to succeed. Like most conservatives, I certainly wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, as neither one of my parents graduated from high school. We are teachers, truck drivers, business owners, professionals and laborers. We are pastors, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, college students and retired people. What connects us is that we believe that anyone can succeed in America if we work harder and work smarter.
They believe we hate poor people
No, we don't hate poor people, but we believe that most government programs create dependency, not pathways to success. Sure, there should be programs to support those who can't support themselves and those facing an emergency situation, but we also believe that that government programs should be designed to move the vast majority of people to self-sufficiency, not to a lifetime of support from the government and taxpayers. We also believe that local charities do a better job of determining who truly needs help, and we generously support those local charities.
They believe we want dirty air and dirty water
The truth is that we believe in protecting the environment. We are concerned about the quality of our air and water, but we also believe that environmental regulations based on ideology that attempt to "crucify" entire industries are flat out wrong. Yes, we want government to encourage clean energy through research grants, but we believe that the marketplace, not the federal government, can best determine when new technologies are economically feasible. We believe that we should do everything possible to take advantage of our abundant domestic energy resources -- coal, oil and natural gas -- using the most environmentally-friendly methods to extract those resources. We want low-cost energy so that we can remain competitive in the global marketplace and our standard of living does not decline because of rising energy costs taking more of our paychecks.
They believe many of us are Bible-thumpers who "cling to their guns"
Yes, many of us go to church every Sunday, and the vast majority of us believe strongly in the Second Amendment. We happen to believe that there's nothing wrong with either. America was and still is a Christian nation, and we're proud of that heritage, although we don't believe in discrminating against those who believe differently. The "Separation Between Church and State" outlined in the First Amendment was designed to keep the government out of the church, not the other way around.
They believe we want to hold down the poor and the middle class
Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe that any American can increase his or her income through hard work and innovation. We believe that the best way to help Americans move up in class is for our country to have a strong economy that provides all Americans with good-paying jobs and the opportunity to save. We want the government to encourage more entrepreneurs, not discourage them through burdensome and ridiculous government regulations. Nothing proves the genius of our American system more than when someone of limited means becomes very successful. It happens every day, and it makes conservatives very happy.
They believe that we don't pay our "fair share" in taxes
We're getting tired of this "class warfare" argument, because the facts show that the more you earn in America, the more you pay in taxes. Nearly half of all Americans pay no income taxes whatsoever, while the top earners pay a disproportionate percentage of income taxes compared to their incomes. Sure, there are corporations and high-income Americans who pay little or no taxes, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. We believe in closing the loopoles so that those rare exceptions can be eliminated, but we also believe that the Capital Gains Tax should continue to be low in order to encourage investments to help America grow.
They believe we want to eliminate all entitlement programs
No, Representative Paul Ryan does not want to push grandma over a cliff. We simply look at the numbers and realize that if entitlement programs continue at their current pace, there will not be Social Security, Medicare or Medicare for future generations of Americans. We believe that ignoring the impending collapse of these programs caused by rising costs and our skyrocketing debt is irresponsible and not being truthful with the American people. We would rather address these challenges now, than wait until significant changes are necessary to keep these programs solvent.
They believe we hate gay people and African-Americans
This is probably the liberal belief that angers me the most. No, we don't hate gay people, and no, we don't hate black people. Although some conservatives may be against gay marriage because of religious reasons, a lot of us believe that this issue is a states' right issue and not an issue the federal government should decide. I happen to have a number of gay friends, a number of black friends, and I also have worked tirelessly throughout my career to fight discrimination against people of color. I am most proud of my work developing programs that helped African-American students in the rural south have opportunities to continue and expand their education. We happen to believe that the Democratic Party has made many African-Americans dependent on government programs, instead of helping them to succeed. We believe that every American, irregardless of sexual orientation or skin color, should have an equal opportunity to succeed.
They believe we hate government
This one belief comes closest to being the truth. We believe in limited government because government has never done anything really well, except for national defense. We believe that government is often the problem, not the solution. We also believe that government should streamline regulations so that more people can start businesses, more Americans can become wealthy and more businesses can thrive. No, we don't "hate" government, but we don't like it much.
I hope that I've been able to debunk most of the beliefs held by the majority of liberals. Even if one liberal reads this blog, looks at conservatives in a different light and considers voting for Mitt Romney, then I have succeeded.
Friday, July 13, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Election Will Decide If America Is a Nation of Exceptionalism or Mediocrity
By now, you've probably heard the audio of Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State, speaking at a Mitt Romney fundraiser two weeks ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNDNqGAE5ug
Her rousing and heartfelt speech, which appeared to be off the cuff, delineated the difference between the direction of the country under the leadership of President Barack Obama, and an America led by a President, Mitt Romney, who believes in American exceptionalism and the free market system. According to many in attendance, Rice was the star of the show, demonstrating an ability to differentiate the policies of Barack Obama from the principles that made this country great.
Folks, I truly believe, as does Rice, that America is at a precipice. If we continue on our current path under Barack Obama, we will slowly slide into mediocrity or worse. Will America continue to be an exceptional nation, or will we become a nation of mediocrity?
While still a candidate, Barack Obama promised to "fundamentally transform America." This is one instance when he's told us the truth. He's done exactly what he promised, turning our country from a nation of people who produce, to a nation of people who receive government checks to not produce.
Let me explain with cold, hard facts.
Under his leadership, unemployment benefits were extended to 99 weeks -- five weeks short of two full years. In June, more Americans went on disability than got jobs. Only 80,000 jobs were created in June, while 85,000 Americans were added to the rolls of disability. http://nation.foxnews.com/disability-benefits/2012/07/06/more-people-went-disability-got-jobs-june
Under President Obama's leadership, the budget for food stamps has increased by 110% and is now 80% of the total farm budget. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/the-food-stamp-president-2.php What's worse is that the President wants even more people on this program. The Obama Administration spent $3 million on radio ads encouraging more people to sign up for free food. http://moneysmartguides.com/government-wants-you-on-food-stamps
These programs have resulted in the fewest percentage of Americans in the workforce in three decades. The latest report shows that only 58.6% of Americans 16+ are in the workforce, which means that 41.4% of Americans older than 16 are not working. http://ospreyflyer.com/?p=11024
The sad reality is that we can't afford any more "giveaway" programs, because the country is broke and going deeper in debt faster than at any other time in our nation's history. With fewer and fewer Americans working and paying taxes, this will become even worse in the coming months and years, if this trend continues. Since President Obama took office, our debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $15.9 trillion, an increase of 50%. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-64000-question-how-much-has-debt-increased-per-taxpayer-under-obama?f=must_reads
The Obama Administration's all out assault on work continued today. We learned today that the highly-successful welfare reform will essentially be scrapped. This bipartisan law, passed by a Republican Congress and Democrat President Bill Clinton, forced people to transition to work. Now, such activities as motivational reading, massage and bed rest will suffice as work. Believe it or not. http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=93347db5-d161-4f23-b2d0-fe724a53fe14
I don't know about you, but I am scared. America is on the brink of economic failure, our President is encouraging more people to go on the government dole, our populace seemingly is being encouraged to not work, and our national Nero, Barack Obama, is fiddling.
Instead of working on fixing our stagnate economy, our President has attended more fundraisers at this point in his term than his last five predecessors combined. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136851/Obama-held-fundraisers-previous-Presidents-combined-visits-key-swing-states-permanent-campaign.html Clearly, he's become our Campaigner in Chief.
And instead of running a campaign touting his record of accomplishments, our President has focused his campaign on two issues: Raise taxes on the rich (job creators), and smear Republican nominee Mitt Romney with falsehoods and outright lies.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/whats-true-and-false-in-obamas-bain-attacks.html
After examining all of this data closely, I've come to the conclusion that if Barack Obama had spent his entire term trying to ruin America, he couldn't have done any better at doing just that.
Her rousing and heartfelt speech, which appeared to be off the cuff, delineated the difference between the direction of the country under the leadership of President Barack Obama, and an America led by a President, Mitt Romney, who believes in American exceptionalism and the free market system. According to many in attendance, Rice was the star of the show, demonstrating an ability to differentiate the policies of Barack Obama from the principles that made this country great.
Folks, I truly believe, as does Rice, that America is at a precipice. If we continue on our current path under Barack Obama, we will slowly slide into mediocrity or worse. Will America continue to be an exceptional nation, or will we become a nation of mediocrity?
While still a candidate, Barack Obama promised to "fundamentally transform America." This is one instance when he's told us the truth. He's done exactly what he promised, turning our country from a nation of people who produce, to a nation of people who receive government checks to not produce.
Let me explain with cold, hard facts.
Under his leadership, unemployment benefits were extended to 99 weeks -- five weeks short of two full years. In June, more Americans went on disability than got jobs. Only 80,000 jobs were created in June, while 85,000 Americans were added to the rolls of disability. http://nation.foxnews.com/disability-benefits/2012/07/06/more-people-went-disability-got-jobs-june
Under President Obama's leadership, the budget for food stamps has increased by 110% and is now 80% of the total farm budget. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/the-food-stamp-president-2.php What's worse is that the President wants even more people on this program. The Obama Administration spent $3 million on radio ads encouraging more people to sign up for free food. http://moneysmartguides.com/government-wants-you-on-food-stamps
These programs have resulted in the fewest percentage of Americans in the workforce in three decades. The latest report shows that only 58.6% of Americans 16+ are in the workforce, which means that 41.4% of Americans older than 16 are not working. http://ospreyflyer.com/?p=11024
The sad reality is that we can't afford any more "giveaway" programs, because the country is broke and going deeper in debt faster than at any other time in our nation's history. With fewer and fewer Americans working and paying taxes, this will become even worse in the coming months and years, if this trend continues. Since President Obama took office, our debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $15.9 trillion, an increase of 50%. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-64000-question-how-much-has-debt-increased-per-taxpayer-under-obama?f=must_reads
The Obama Administration's all out assault on work continued today. We learned today that the highly-successful welfare reform will essentially be scrapped. This bipartisan law, passed by a Republican Congress and Democrat President Bill Clinton, forced people to transition to work. Now, such activities as motivational reading, massage and bed rest will suffice as work. Believe it or not. http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=93347db5-d161-4f23-b2d0-fe724a53fe14
I don't know about you, but I am scared. America is on the brink of economic failure, our President is encouraging more people to go on the government dole, our populace seemingly is being encouraged to not work, and our national Nero, Barack Obama, is fiddling.
Instead of working on fixing our stagnate economy, our President has attended more fundraisers at this point in his term than his last five predecessors combined. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136851/Obama-held-fundraisers-previous-Presidents-combined-visits-key-swing-states-permanent-campaign.html Clearly, he's become our Campaigner in Chief.
And instead of running a campaign touting his record of accomplishments, our President has focused his campaign on two issues: Raise taxes on the rich (job creators), and smear Republican nominee Mitt Romney with falsehoods and outright lies.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/whats-true-and-false-in-obamas-bain-attacks.html
After examining all of this data closely, I've come to the conclusion that if Barack Obama had spent his entire term trying to ruin America, he couldn't have done any better at doing just that.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
The Voice of Reason: A Preview of Obama's Second Term -- Long Gas Lines, Extended Power Outages?
The storm that hit the East Coast on June 29 has resulted in millions of Americans experiencing lengthy power outages and waiting in line for two hours or more just to buy a few gallons of gas.
I am one of those Americans.
While sitting in my house for several days without any air conditioning, with outside temperatures approaching 100 degrees fahrenheit, a thought suddenly appeared in my head.
This, my fellow Americans, may be a preview of Barack Obama's second term.
Do you think I'm crazy? Surely, it's unrealistic to think that a second term by our current President would result in extended power outages and lengthy gas lines, isn't it? Well, let's take a look at the facts.
It's clear to any American who reads the newspaper or watches the television that our current President absoutely hates fossil fuels, including oil and coal.
My blog of June 23 outlined his war on coal, illustrating how the EPA is deciding what policy it wants to change and then trying to find any scientific study to support it, and how the EPA's new mercury regulations will have little if any impact on human health but will essentially kill the building of any new coal-fired power plants. According to the experts, what will be the impact of these regulations?
According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, EPA regulations will cause the premature retirement of up to 36 gigawatts of coal-fired generation, stressing the country's power grid and placing electric reliability at risk. http://www.kleanindustries.com/s/environmental_market_Industry_news.asp?ReportID=494299
http://www.nerc.com/files/2011LTRA_Final.pdf
Putting this in layman's terms, the NERC report says that our nation risks lengthy power outages because the country will not have enough power stations to meet the needs of consumers.
Outages due to power capacity issues do not occur on mild days when you don't need heat or air conditioning. These outages occur on the bone-shivering winter days and sweltering summer days -- the days when you can least afford to go without power. If the electric grid were to go down due to capacity issues, we risk having power outages across much of the country lasting days or even weeks. The week-long outages faced by millions of Americans this week may turn out to be a practice run for even longer outages in the years to come.
Now let's take a look at oil and gasoline.
The EPA's new Tier 3 rule demands that oil refineries reduce gasoline sulfur levels although the science suggests that the rule will produce little if any additional benefits to human health. Even more ludicrous is that the EPA is fining refineries for not blending cellulosic biofuel into gasoline and diesel fuel. The only problem is that cellulosic biofuel isn't commercially available. Of course, the cost of these fines and increased regulations will simply be passed on to U.S. consumers, or if regulations become too onerous, refineries will simply move to other countries, further increasing the cost of gasolina and reducing our supply.
http://cnsnews.com/node/549162
Couple these new refinery regulations with the Obama Administration's opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, as well as its opposition to drilling on public lands, in the Gulf of Mexico and off our shores, and we have significant pressure against increasing our domestic supply of oil, with similar pressure against refining oil domestically to produce gasoline in the most cost-effective manner.
In short, we face gasoline shortages and increased prices tomorrow because of the Obama Administration's policies of today.
If you are currently still without power like millions of Americans, you know what it's like to spend an entire day trying to find supplies of water, batteries and gasoline, or standing in line for an hour at the one restaurant in the area that's open and has power. You know what it's like to take a cold shower, only to begin sweating profusely minutes later when you walk into your 85-degree living room. You know what it's like to not have a phone that works because the landlines and cellphone towers are all down. You know what it's like to see your entire street pitch dark, knowing that all of your neighbors are in the same straits as you and your family. And you know what it's like to do this for days on end.
Sadly, I have a feeling that those of us who have suffered this week will be joined by millions of other Americans in the coming years for even longer outages and gas lines -- if our current President is reelected and our out-of-control EPA continues its overregulation.
I am one of those Americans.
While sitting in my house for several days without any air conditioning, with outside temperatures approaching 100 degrees fahrenheit, a thought suddenly appeared in my head.
This, my fellow Americans, may be a preview of Barack Obama's second term.
Do you think I'm crazy? Surely, it's unrealistic to think that a second term by our current President would result in extended power outages and lengthy gas lines, isn't it? Well, let's take a look at the facts.
It's clear to any American who reads the newspaper or watches the television that our current President absoutely hates fossil fuels, including oil and coal.
My blog of June 23 outlined his war on coal, illustrating how the EPA is deciding what policy it wants to change and then trying to find any scientific study to support it, and how the EPA's new mercury regulations will have little if any impact on human health but will essentially kill the building of any new coal-fired power plants. According to the experts, what will be the impact of these regulations?
According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, EPA regulations will cause the premature retirement of up to 36 gigawatts of coal-fired generation, stressing the country's power grid and placing electric reliability at risk. http://www.kleanindustries.com/s/environmental_market_Industry_news.asp?ReportID=494299
http://www.nerc.com/files/2011LTRA_Final.pdf
Putting this in layman's terms, the NERC report says that our nation risks lengthy power outages because the country will not have enough power stations to meet the needs of consumers.
Outages due to power capacity issues do not occur on mild days when you don't need heat or air conditioning. These outages occur on the bone-shivering winter days and sweltering summer days -- the days when you can least afford to go without power. If the electric grid were to go down due to capacity issues, we risk having power outages across much of the country lasting days or even weeks. The week-long outages faced by millions of Americans this week may turn out to be a practice run for even longer outages in the years to come.
Now let's take a look at oil and gasoline.
The EPA's new Tier 3 rule demands that oil refineries reduce gasoline sulfur levels although the science suggests that the rule will produce little if any additional benefits to human health. Even more ludicrous is that the EPA is fining refineries for not blending cellulosic biofuel into gasoline and diesel fuel. The only problem is that cellulosic biofuel isn't commercially available. Of course, the cost of these fines and increased regulations will simply be passed on to U.S. consumers, or if regulations become too onerous, refineries will simply move to other countries, further increasing the cost of gasolina and reducing our supply.
http://cnsnews.com/node/549162
Couple these new refinery regulations with the Obama Administration's opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, as well as its opposition to drilling on public lands, in the Gulf of Mexico and off our shores, and we have significant pressure against increasing our domestic supply of oil, with similar pressure against refining oil domestically to produce gasoline in the most cost-effective manner.
In short, we face gasoline shortages and increased prices tomorrow because of the Obama Administration's policies of today.
If you are currently still without power like millions of Americans, you know what it's like to spend an entire day trying to find supplies of water, batteries and gasoline, or standing in line for an hour at the one restaurant in the area that's open and has power. You know what it's like to take a cold shower, only to begin sweating profusely minutes later when you walk into your 85-degree living room. You know what it's like to not have a phone that works because the landlines and cellphone towers are all down. You know what it's like to see your entire street pitch dark, knowing that all of your neighbors are in the same straits as you and your family. And you know what it's like to do this for days on end.
Sadly, I have a feeling that those of us who have suffered this week will be joined by millions of other Americans in the coming years for even longer outages and gas lines -- if our current President is reelected and our out-of-control EPA continues its overregulation.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Politics, Not Science, Driving Obama's Environmental Policy
When protecting the environment, one would think that our government would rely on science to drive policy changes. What we've learned recently is that politics, not science, is currently determining policy changes in the U.S.
A few weeks ago, I attended an environmental conference sponsored by the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce. The key points I learned at this conference from the various state and national experts were very alarming:
One example of EPA Science running amock is the recently finalized Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule addressing mercury emissions from power plants. If allowed to be implemented, this new rule will put electric reliability at risk in the U.S. and cost electric ratepayers $10 billion or more, with little if any benefit to public health. In justifying its policy change, the EPA's claims of benefits from MATS are the result of its counting coincidental reductions of “particulate matter” below the standards that the EPA has already determined are necessary to protect public health.
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/233361-mercury-rule-could-upset-energy-supply-should-be-reset
So what impact will MATS have on the mercury in our air? Negligible. In fact, if every U.S. coal fired power plant were shut down, it would result in a reduction of mercury of less than .5%. The other 99.5% of the mercury in our air would not be affected. Sources such as forest fires, volcanoes, human cremation, subsea vents, geyers and power plants in other countries would continue to put the majority of mercury in our air. http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/201206210125
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329420414284558.html
Although the impact on public health would be negligible, the effect on an industry employing a few hundred thousand Americans directly and indirectly could be catastrophic.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States
"The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson (head of the EPA) shot us (coal industry) in Washington," Cecil Roberts, president of the UMWA, said in an interview in April on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/219919-mine-union-chief-coal-industry-could-suffer-same-fate-as-osama-bin-laden
In the interview, Roberts said that new coal-fired power plants would have to install technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions in order to comply with the rules. The problem is that this technology, known as carbon capture and storage, "is not commercially available," Roberts said.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work or have quit looking for work, can we really afford these policy changes by the Obama Administration that will cost ratepayers $10 billion or more, and put our nation's electric reliability and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk?
Voters will have the opportunity to voice their opinions in November.
A few weeks ago, I attended an environmental conference sponsored by the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce. The key points I learned at this conference from the various state and national experts were very alarming:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently deciding what policy they want to implement and then find scientific studies to back up what they believe.
- The EPA weights various environmental studies, which allows them to consider multiple independent studies as "junk science" when those studies oppose what the EPA wants to prove, while pointing in some cases to a single study that agrees with the EPA.
- In some cases, the EPA has considered one part of a scientific study as "junk science," while touting another part of the same study that might agree with what the EPA wants to prove.
One example of EPA Science running amock is the recently finalized Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule addressing mercury emissions from power plants. If allowed to be implemented, this new rule will put electric reliability at risk in the U.S. and cost electric ratepayers $10 billion or more, with little if any benefit to public health. In justifying its policy change, the EPA's claims of benefits from MATS are the result of its counting coincidental reductions of “particulate matter” below the standards that the EPA has already determined are necessary to protect public health.
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/233361-mercury-rule-could-upset-energy-supply-should-be-reset
So what impact will MATS have on the mercury in our air? Negligible. In fact, if every U.S. coal fired power plant were shut down, it would result in a reduction of mercury of less than .5%. The other 99.5% of the mercury in our air would not be affected. Sources such as forest fires, volcanoes, human cremation, subsea vents, geyers and power plants in other countries would continue to put the majority of mercury in our air. http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/201206210125
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329420414284558.html
Although the impact on public health would be negligible, the effect on an industry employing a few hundred thousand Americans directly and indirectly could be catastrophic.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States
"The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson (head of the EPA) shot us (coal industry) in Washington," Cecil Roberts, president of the UMWA, said in an interview in April on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/219919-mine-union-chief-coal-industry-could-suffer-same-fate-as-osama-bin-laden
In the interview, Roberts said that new coal-fired power plants would have to install technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions in order to comply with the rules. The problem is that this technology, known as carbon capture and storage, "is not commercially available," Roberts said.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work or have quit looking for work, can we really afford these policy changes by the Obama Administration that will cost ratepayers $10 billion or more, and put our nation's electric reliability and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk?
Voters will have the opportunity to voice their opinions in November.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
A President Who Will Say or Do Anything to Be Re-Elected
On Friday, President Obama announced that his Administration would no longer deport young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally before age 16 and spent at least five continuous years in this country. Under this new policy, those immigrants would be allowed to stay and apply for work permits if they have no criminal history and meet other criteria, such as graduating from high school or serving honorably in the military.
Many illegal immigrants and the family members of those immigrants are probably cheering the President's new policy.
In reality, they should be very leery of a President who is pandering for their votes.
Consider the facts:
- Shortly after he was elected, President Obama promised to address comprehensive immigration reform. He has done nothing, although he has had bi-partisan support to address this issue for the past three and one-half years.
- The Obama Administration has deported twice as many illegal immigrants in his first term than his predecessor, George Bush, did in his first term and considerably more than Bush did in his second term. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obamas-record-high-deportations-draw-hispanic-scorn/
Last month, President Obama announced that his position on gay marriage had "evolved" to the point that he now supports it. Of course, he also said that it was just his "personal" opinion, meaning that he certainly isn't going to expend any political capital to advocate for this issue on a national policy level.
Earlier this month, when labor unions were making a stand in Wisconsin, President Obama sent a tweet to his supporters, instead of campaigning on the ground, providing funds from his war chest or doing anything substantial to support their efforts.
For three and a half years, President Obama did little or nothing to support gay people, Hispanics and union members, all of whom were vital to his 2008 election. Now, as the November 2012 election draws closer, he will be pandering to these groups, saying or doing anything to try to garner their votes.
I learned a long time ago that anyone who is my friend only as long as I can do something for him or her is not really my friend. I actually consider these folks to be worse than my enemies. These so-called friends will forget me as soon as they get what they want.
President Obama is just such a fair weather friend to these voting groups, forgetting them for years on end and only remembering when it's advantageous for him.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Fool Me Once, Shame on You. Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me
Two of the largest voting blocs -- black voters and young voters -- that overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election are among those hardest hit by the current recession.
During the 2008 election, 96% of black voters voted for Senator Obama (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html), while nearly 70% of young voters (ages 18-29) cast their ballot for the Illinois Senator (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27525497/ns/politics-decision_08/t/youth-vote-may-have-been-key-obamas-win/).
The current unemployment rate for blacks stands at 13 percent, compared to the national average of 8.1% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm). Forty percent of black teenagers are unemployed, compared to 25 percent of all teenagers (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-22/boomers-and-millennials-whos-got-it-worse-in-the-workplace). To put these numbers in perspective, an African-American is 60% more likely to be unemployed than the average American of the same age group.
After three years of the President's economic policies, nearly one out of three adults (32%) between the ages of 18 and 29 is "underemployed," while 13.6% of that same age group is unemployed. In other words, a young person is 68% more likely to be unemployed than the average American (http://www.gallup.com/poll/154553/one-three-young-underemployed.aspx).
The President is counting on these voters once again to help him win a second term. If these voting blocs look past his powerful oratorical skills and consider his record, they will be hard pressed to find a reason to vote for him again. Actions -- and results -- speak much louder than words, no matter how well those words are delivered.
Whether you're black, white, Hispanic, young, middle aged or an older American, one sobering economic statistic should give every American pause: Today, America has the smallest percentage of people working since 1981 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/unemployment-rate-april-jobs_n_1477014.html).
Clearly, the President's economic policies are not working for America, but especially for those who voted so overwhelmingly for him in 2008.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Difference Between Republicans and Democrats
While on the Internet this week, I read an interesting post from someone. I'm not sure where it originated, but it was thought-provoking:
Republicans believe that God helps those who help themselves, while Democrats believe that blessed are those who help others.
At first glance, this statement appears to be spot on. But after thinking about it a bit longer, I realized that this perception is part of the reason why Republicans are often misunderstood. Republicans and Democrats alike believe in helping others; they just differ in the way it should be done.
Democrats believe it's the role of government to ensure that charity is provided to those in need through government programs. If someone needs food, there needs to be a program to make that happen. If someone needs housing, there needs to be a government program to help that person. If someone is sick and doesn't have health insurance, government needs to step in, Democrats believe.
Republicans also believe that people in need should be supported, but they also believe that the responsibility of the individual is primary, and that government assistance should be secondary. If a person doesn't have food, housing or health insurance, the first step is not a handout, but a hand up through work. Republicans believe that government programs should be in place to help people through hardships until they are able to help themselves, and those who truly can't help themselves should be supported long-term through government programs.
In addition to supporting these government programs through tax dollars, Republicans believe that charity is voluntary, not forced by the government. People in need can and should first be helped by their families, churches and other community organizations -- people who are closest to the situations of those needing help.
Perhaps this difference in philsophy helps explain why Democrat Vice President Joe Biden contributed only 1.46% of his income to charity in 2011, compared to Republican Mitt Romney's 19.1%. Biden probably sincerely believes he "gave at the office" through income taxes, while Romney believes that community organizations can do a better job of helping local people in need than the federal government. To be fair, many Democrats believe in government programs and contribute a large percentage of their income to charity, as Romney does.
Republicans are not the uncaring, money-hungry capitalists often described by Democrats and the mainstream news media. Republicans sincerely care about people, as do Democrats, but Republicans believe that work, not welfare, is the way to create a society that provides everyone with an equal opportunity at success, while also providing sufficient tax dollars to support needed government programs for those in need.
Republicans are for entitlement reform, not because they don't believe people should be helped, but because they realize that by continuing the current course America will very soon reach the point where more people aren't paying income taxes than those who are, and more people are receiving government support than those who aren't. This isn't financially sustainable and puts all entitlement programs, and the people who rely on them, at great risk.
As you can see, those Republicans aren't the uncaring, selfish capitalists described by Democrats and the mainstream news media. If anything, Republicans care enough about these programs -- to be honest with the American people about their future and to try to save entitlement programs now so they will be available for future generations of Americans.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
President Needs Lesson in Economics
During a news conference on Monday, President Barack Obama slammed presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney for his business experience, saying that Romney was more interested in making money than creating jobs while at Bain Capital.
There are two major problems with the President's attack on Romney: 1) America is and has always been a capitalistic country driven by profit, and 2) the President's record on creating jobs has been absolutely horrific.
If you're an American, you're living in a capitalistic society. When you go to work, you either work for someone who is trying to make a profit, or you own your own business and are trying to earn a profit. Profit is not a four-letter word; it's what drives America and it's what has made America great. If owners of companies were to focus on hiring the most people, instead of earning a profit, very few companies would actually stay in business. Profit is what drives companies like Apple Computer, Microsoft and even the mom and pop shop down the street to innovate and prosper. It is also what allows companies to hire more people and expand.
While at Bain Capital, Romney's job was to provide a healthy return to investors. He and Bain took huge risks, saving dozens of companies near bankruptcy and their workers from the scrap heap, all for the potential of earning a reward for their investment. Sure, a few companies went bankrupt even after they received an influx of much-needed capital, but 80% of the companies Bain Capital invested in either added or saved jobs. Thousands of jobs were added by companies supported by Bain Capital, helping more families all across America to put food on the table. The money raised by Bain Capital was provided by private investors, who risked losing most if not all of their investment if the companies did not show a profit. Instead, under Romney's strong leadership, they made money and more employees were hired. This is American capitalism at its best.
In comparison, the President has wasted billions of dollars acting as a venture capitalist -- except he's gambled with OUR MONEY. A large number of companies supported by the Obama Administration, including Solyndra, have filed for bankruptcy, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. If those companies had an 80% chance of thriving, then venture capitalists, including Bain Capital, driven by the potential for profit, would have invested long ago. They haven't invested because these alternative energy companies will not be profitable until their technology improves dramatically and the cost of production drops exponentially. If private equity firms driven by profit won't invest, why should our government?
Perhaps instead of listening closely to those Marxist professors and attending socialist conferences while in college, our President should have taken Economics 101. In this basic class, he would have learned about the law of supply and demand and other basic principles of economics that would guide him as he attempts to lead the world's largest economy out of a deep recession.
Fortunately, this election season, we have a choice. Romney already understands and has prospered from the principles of capitalism President Obama clearly never learned.
Monday, May 21, 2012
West Virginians Voted Wisely in Selecting Convict over Obama
Much of America was astonished that a convict in a Texas prison, Keith Judd, would garner 41% of the vote in the May 8 West Virginia primary, nearly beating the incumbent president, Barack Obama.
"What are those uninformed, uneducated West Virginians thinking? How could they possibly select a convict over a sitting president? Those West Virginians must be racist, aren't they?" This is probably what most of America was thinking.
Before jumping to any conclusions, though, let's take a look at each of the candidates.
It's evident that Judd can't be trusted. He's a convicted felon serving a 17 1/2 year sentence for extortion. Prior to the election, his background was pretty much unknown. The bio provided to the news media, and which the news media publicized, was largely a work of fiction. According to his bio, Judd is a Harvard-educated musician whose mother was a 1920s actress and whose father helped to develop the first atomic bomb. The news media blindly publicized his bio for all voters to see.
In comparison, we are beginning to understand that Obama's biography from the early 1990s is also a work of fiction. We learned last week that the President's bio publicized by his literary agent described Obama as "Kenyan born" in a booklet printed in 1991. This same literary agent continued to include Obama's birth place as Kenya until 2007, just a couple of months before he announced his intention to run for the presidency. We've also learned recently that a girlfriend described in Obama's autobiography was a compilation of a number of women he dated. What's true and what isn't true about Obama's bio? It appears that Obama's biography has "evolved," much like his stance on a number of issues.
It's evident that Judd was not properly vetted by the news media. They took his candidacy on face value, not really checking into his background or even his views. Clearly, this was a disservice to West Virginians who cast their vote on May 8.
Obama wasn't properly vetted by the news media, either, before voters went to the polls in 2008, and even now as Americans prepare to select a new president later this year. Although he wrote in his autobiolgraphy of using drugs from marijuana to cocaine, attending socialist conferences and being attracted to the teachings of Marxist professors, the news media have asked few probing questions and have provided very little coverage about his background. The mainstream news media have acted more like cheerleaders and the President's public relations people than journalists. Chris Matthews and other so-called journalists feel all tingly when Obama speaks, and they aren't afraid to admit it.
Judd has no legislative accomplishments, and based on his current residency and prospects for at least the next decade or so, he probably never will.
As a candidate in the 2008 election, Obama could also boast of few if any legislative accomplishments. His claim to fame was voting 130 times as "present" in the Illinois Legislature, and he authored no significant legislation as a U.S. Senator. Obama's most significant claim to fame was a rousing speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Judd will have a 17 1/2 year record when he's finally released from prison. During that time, Judd will have perfect attendance, not taking a single day off or taking a single vacation. Although Judd really hasn't accomplished anything, he also hasn't done anything in prison that has raised the ire of ordinary Americans.
By comparison, Obama now has a record of over three years as President. While he's taken dozens of vacations and played hundreds of rounds of golf, the economy is in the tank, the real unemployment rate is at its highest rate since the Great Depression, and millions of Americans are out of work, underemployed, or have simply dropped out of the workforce. Obama's EPA is essentially trying to kill the domestic production of all fossil fuels. In West Virginia, with hundreds of years of coal reserves to power this country and several thousand mining and mining-related jobs, Obama's policies will ultimately result in a death sentence to the West Virginia economy. America has no coherent energy policy other than wasting money on new technologies that aren't yet economically feasible, and even our staunchest allies do not trust America under Obama. The country is going into debt faster than ever before, saddling our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren with debt and the strong likelihood of their standard of living being lower than previous generations of Americans. Other than authorizing Navy Seals to kill Usama Bin Laden and implementing a health care law that the majority of Americans don't want, Obama has no accomplishments of significance as President. A recent 99-0 vote by the Senate, controlled by Democrats, sent the proposed Obama budget to the scrap heap. To think that his proposed budget couldn't get a single vote of support should send a powerful message to all Americans about his effectiveness as a leader. Of course, the mainstream news media barely covered this story, so most Americans aren't even aware that his proposed budget went down in flames.
After looking more closely at the two candidates, maybe West Virginians aren't uninformed, uneducated and racist. Maybe they're the smart ones, after all. The most surprising fact about the primary isn't that West Virginians voted for a convict, it's that Judd didn't win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)