The Upside of President Obama

We are about to enter the New Year and on January 20th, President Obama becomes a lame duck President.  The 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution limits Presidents to a maximum of 10 years.  It would take another Amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment (a very difficult process), so we can rest comfortably that this is indeed President Obama's last hurrah.

There's no sense in rambling on about his lack of experience, his distorted view of America, and his crabbed far left ideology.  Everyone who has any knowledge whatsoever knows what an ill prepared, ill-suited President he is. 

Moreover, we all know about his complete disregard for the principle of rule by law.  He is of the stripe of liberal left leaders who either do not understand the concept, or simply reject the idea that a government of laws is always preferable to a government of men (or women).  Having this set of mind, he does his very best to ignore the Constitution and any law with which he disagrees.  He may not be the worst rascal to inhabit the White House, but he's certainly in the top five.

All that said, let us agree that he will do further damage to the Constitution and the rule of law.  He will bypass Congress and have various bureaus and agencies simply issue decrees and edicts that Congress will not approve.  He will appoint judges that either think the Constitution says what they want it to say, or for which they have outright contempt.  And he will be abetted in his villainy by a far left media that dances when he plays the tune.

So, the question is, where do we stand politically, and are there any possibilities for gains and advances?  Surprisingly, the answer is yes to the second question.  As to where we stand politically, the landscape is not as bad as the left leaning news media would have us believe.  It certainly does not look like 2008 when the Democrats not only controlled the White House, but also had a 60% majority in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate.  Furthermore, in 2008, the Democrats had a majority of governorships, a vast majority of state legislatures, and control of many more city councils and county councils than they do today.

Thanks to the watershed election of 2010, there are far more red states today than there are blue states.  Let us not forget that the 2010 election victory was not only broad, but very deep.  Even in the darkest blue states, counties, and cities, conservative, tea party Republicans were elected to office.  In some cases, it was the first election of Republicans to public office in more than 100 years, and this happened not only in the South, but also in the Midwest, the West and even some places in the East.

Today the GOP holds 30 governorships and 27 state legislatures.  In contrast, the Democrats hold just 20 governorships and 17 state legislatures.  Five legislatures are split.  The Republicans also continue to control the United States House of Representatives.  The only gains the Democrats made in 2012 were in taking back a couple of state legislature houses and adding a couple of US Senators; otherwise, the gains made by the GOP in 2010 still stand.

So, let's not hang our heads.  We made tremendous, historic gains at the state level in 2010, and the Democrats failed miserably at taking back the races we won.  President Obama squeaked back into the White House with 9 million less votes than he received in 2008—hardly a mandate for his policies.

The off year election of 2013 in Virginia and in New Jersey will tell us a couple of things.  First, was the 2009 sweep in Virginia of every statewide office a fluke?  Remember, Obama carried Virginia in both 2008 and in 2012.  The Northern Virginia suburbs have become increasingly Democratic over the past few years, making it very difficult for the state to stay in the red column.  On the other hand, the turnout in 2013 will be just a fraction of what it was in 2014.  The headline race for Governor will feature a stark contrast of governing philosophy.  Terry McAuliffe was Bill Clinton's bag man in his second race for President.  He raised millions of dollars for Clinton's successful re-election campaign.  McAuliffe got rich through a somewhat shady deal involving Global Crossing.  The Republican candidate is one of the finest, most principled conservatives in America, Ken Cuccinelli.  It takes a lot to persuade me that a candidate can be trusted, but you can put Ken in that column.  He has rock solid integrity and has always won a good share of the Democrat vote. 

McAuliffe and his allies in the media are sure to portray Ken as an extremist, but they will have a hard time making that stick.  Ken was repeatedly elected to the State Senate from a strong Democrat district, and, in 2009, he led the Republican ticket statewide when he was elected Attorney General.  Cuccinelli is a rising star nationally in the GOP, so this is an important race to watch. 

The entire Republican ticket in Virginia should be very strong.  The state convention has not yet been held, but there are some great candidates for statewide office including Mark Obenshain for Attorney General and Earl Jackson for Lieutenant Governor.  Obenshain is currently a state senator and is the son of Dick Obenshain, a great conservative who was killed in a plane crash while running for US Senate.  Earl Jackson is an African American with a degree in law from Harvard University.  He is a tough, principled conservative.

New Jersey will also be interesting to watch.  Although Governor Christie talks a good game, there's no doubt he burned some bridges with conservatives when he "rescued" Obama by pumping him up during the final days of the presidential race.  Can this moderate Republican hold on to the New Jersey Governorship?  It's hard to say.

So is there an upside to Barack Obama's second term?  I'd say the answer to that is a cautious maybe.  Here are some things that might happen…

1. US Supreme Court.  Current members of the US Supreme Court that actually believe the Constitution says what it means will probably try to hang in there until the next Presidential election.  Of course, Obama doesn't have anything to do with this, but the situation is hopeful.
2. Keystone Pipeline.  Don't be surprised if President Obama ultimately gives approval to the Keystone Pipeline.  The reason is simple politics.  The radical Greens have votes, but they don't have money, and their political muscle cannot be compared to that of the unions.  I suspect that there was a sub-rosa deal made with the unions prior to election day.  Obama probably told them that he could not approve the pipeline and alienate the Greens before the election, but if the unions would hold in there, he would approve it in his second term.  The unions want those high paying jobs.
3. Fracking.  Money is a powerful thing and here, once again, the unions have a big interest in keeping fracking going.  The supply of natural gas is growing rapidly with exportation likely to expand dramatically.  This will, for the first time in many, many years, tip the balance of trade payments on its head and will create many new union jobs.  Obama will probably make noises against fracking to satisfy his radical Green allies, but smart politics augurs for a hands off policy on fracking.
4. Congress.  Although the Republicans control only one house of Congress, that control provides a huge roadblock to advancing some huge new government takeover.  You can be sure that the Democrats have their eye on nationalizing the energy industry.  It may be a ways down the road, but they have already let this goal slip several times.  Nevertheless, there is no hope of advancing this radical idea in the current Republican controlled House of Representatives.
5. Scandals.  The White House is far from being in the clear on the Fast and Furious scheme to limit gun control, and they are still under the lens for their politically motivated screw-up in Benghazi that cost four lives.  In addition, a lame duck president is often lackadaisical when it comes to avoiding further scandals.  Even a compliant news media is going to be more skeptical of scandals in Obama's second term.

I certainly realize that these are not great gains for conservatives or for our nation, but with an ever worsening economy (how can it not get worse when every step the President takes is the exact opposite of what really needs to be done) the Democrats could find themselves in a very tough position by the time the next Presidential election rolls around.

Of course, the Republicans will have to be as smart as Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, who appointed the first African American from the South to the United States Senate, Tim Scott.  Scott is not just another Republican, he is a tea party Republican with deep conservative credentials and a track record of voting his principles.  The GOP will also need to get its get-out-the-vote act together.  The Democrats have eaten the lunch of the Republicans in the last two presidential elections.

From my perspective, conservatives are in the cat bird's seat.  They have an opportunity to not only take control of the apparatus of the GOP, but also make significant gains in 2014 and 2016.  So take heart, the best is yet to come.

Compassion Denied

It is literally true that with some folks, everything is politics.  They eat, sleep, and breathe politics 24 hours per day.  Every event in life, good or bad, is viewed entirely through the prism of politics.  There is no time for rejoicing, no time for reflection, no time for compassion, no time for beauty, no time for having fun.  Every waking hour is filled with politics.  There even is no time for love, only time for anger, and scheming, and political intrigue.  Their life is a tragedy.
On Friday, December 14, 2012 the unthinkable happened.  A mentally disturbed young man walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School and murdered 20 children and he shot and killed his own mother.  These aren't 20 statistics, they are 20 lives snuffed out by evil.  Each one of these children had loving parents, many had loving siblings, and others who cared deeply about them.  Their deaths are nearly incomprehensible.  Most were just 6 or 7 years old.
Their parents need our prayers and our support as they struggle to endure such an unspeakable loss.  They deserve our true compassion.  They don't deserve to have the news media intruding into their lives at this awful moment.  And, most of all, they don't deserve to be used by political opportunists to advance their political agenda.  This is not a time for politics, it is a time for compassion and reflection.
But, alas, from the White House to Congress to the media there is little compassion and much political scheming.  Any compassion for the children who died is being squeezed out by political opportunism.  Their deaths are not viewed as a time for reflection on the spiritual character of our nation, but rather as an opportunity to be seized for political gain.
I hate it.  It is nothing less than despicable.  This is not a time for politics, it is a time for mourning.  It is not a time for division, it is a time for unity.  But, like it or not, we are once again thrust into a political debate that divides Americans, instead of uniting them in sorrow and compassion for those who died and for those left behind.  Gutter politics is never attractive, and using the deaths of young children to advance a political agenda is disgraceful.
Therefore, like it or not, you and I have no choice but to speak out.  Let me briefly make just a few important points…

1. Right Time.  There is a time and a place to debate important topics like gun control and the Second Amendment.  The Founders intentionally created a republic, not a democracy, so that such debates would not take place in the heat of the moment when emotions are the highest.  When actions are taken on emotion, only ill-conceived legislation is enacted.  Any action that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms should be based on reason and the law, not on emotions.  Whenever there is a rush to judgment, neither reason nor justice is served.
2. Legal Process.  The Founders established a specific legal process for modifying the United States Constitution.  The wording of the Second Amendment is very specific.  It says that the federal government does not have the right to infringe on an individual's right to keep and bear arms.  Maybe the government should have that right.  Maybe we should place some restrictions on gun ownership.  If that's what should be done, then Congress should propose a specific Amendment to the Constitution that includes such restrictions.  However, neither the Congress nor the President has the right to infringe on an individual's right to keep and bear arms by simply passing a law.  And neither does the US Supreme Court have the right to curtail the right to keep and bear arms by simply re-interpreting the law.  When that happens we have crossed over from a government of laws to a government of men.  In other words, the republican form of government that our Founders created has suffered a near mortal wound.
3. The Loss of Life.  If there is to be a reasoned debate on passing an Amendment to the US Constitution, it must include consideration of the lives that would be lost by passing such infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.  The fact is, each year there are over a 100,000 incidents of armed citizens using their firearms to defend their lives and property from criminals.  If only 10% of these individuals (or their loved ones) would have otherwise have been killed, it would mean an annual loss of more than 10,000 lives.  Are we willing to sacrifice those 10,000 lives on the cross of political correctness?
4. Right-to-Carry Saves Lives.  Thirty-seven states have right-to-carry laws on their books.  In every single case the incidence of violent crime declined after the passage of right-to-carry gun laws.  Moreover, these states have lower violent crime rates than the states that do not have right-to-carry laws.  In other words, right-to-carry laws save lives. 
5. Decline in Morality.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has for many years sought to drive religion, especially Christianity, from the public square.  Could it be that the decline in religion and spirituality in the United States is the root cause of the tragedy that occurred in Sandy Hook, Connecticut?  I hesitate to sound like a broken record, but freedom can only exist when citizens respect life and property and exercise self-restraint.  Where does such respect and self-restrain come from?  It comes from faith in God and belief in his Ten Commandments.  When schools are more attentive to showing children how to use a condom than they are to teaching the Ten Commandments, the seeds of violence and chaos are spread.  The exercise of faith and religion in the public square is not only forbidden, it is derided by schools, television, politicians, and Hollywood.  Without morality (or virtue as Adams, Washington, and Franklin referred to it), freedom contracts and society becomes more immoral and more violent.  It was evil that killed those children, and no new gun law will have any effect in curbing a rising tide of violence.  The Bible warns us in Matthew 24:12 that as faith declines "…there will be more and more lawlessness, most people's love will grow cold."  You simply cannot mock the Ten Commandments and expect virtue to exist among the people.
6. Culture of Death.  Why are we surprised that a tragedy like the one that happened in Sandy Hook occurred?  Perhaps we should be surprised that more mass murders don't occur.  When government sanctions policies that snuff out the lives of millions of pre born children each year, dallies in euthanasia, and passes laws that authorize the killing of children born alive, who were supposed to be aborted, should we be surprised that life itself is so little valued by those who kill others?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't have a peaceful, non-violent society, and on the other hand sanction the killing of human life inside or outside the womb.  Like it or not, the government has created a culture of death and this culture will foster more killing no matter what gun laws are passed.
7. Institutionalization of the Mentally Ill.  In the case of the mass murders that took place in the theater in Aurora, Colorado, at Virginia Tech University, and now at Sandy Hook Elementary School, all the killers were suffering from mental illness.  Had they been institutionalized, the murders would not have happened.  It is as straightforward and simple as that.  However, once again, the ACLU has worked hard and effectively to make it impossible to institutionalize even the criminally disturbed.  It was the ACLU that effectively closed down all homes for the mentally ill in the United States.  They did it in the name of freedom, but the result was terrible personal misery for those who were incompetent and unable to care for themselves.  It also resulted in even the criminally ill being set loose on the streets.  The consequence is events like those that have taken place in Colorado, Virginia, and now in Connecticut.

No matter what your position is on the ownership of firearms, and your anger at what happened in Connecticut, and elsewhere, the solution lies not in passing ill-conceived laws in the heat of emotion.  Rather, it lies in reasoned debate that doesn't take shortcuts bypassing the rule of law.  Such debates must consider all the possible reasons why these terrible mass killings have taken place and why they will continue to happen.  Otherwise, all that will result is the further infringement upon the rights of law-abiding men and women.  Worse yet, the end result will be that only the criminals and the government have firearms.  Ask yourself this, do you trust either the government or criminals as the sole repository of firearms in America?
While President Obama may have autocratic instincts, he is no dictator.  He has awesome power as President, but he does not and will not possess absolute power over the citizens of this land.  We do know from history, that nations rise and fall.  Some last but just a few years.  Even the powerful, ambitious Soviet Union lasted less than 100 years.  Nevertheless, it is understandable that a dictator or aspiring dictator would want to remove all guns and ammunition from the people.  After all, what dictator could rest easy at night knowing that the people are armed.
Chairman Mao is famously quoted as saying that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."  How true!  Taking guns out of the hands of citizens is always a top priority of tyrants.  It was with Stalin.  It was with Chairman Mao.  It was with Hitler.  The widespread ownership of firearms by the citizens of any land, including the United States, is the last defense against tyranny.
The tragedy at Sandy Hook will long be remembered.  But rapid legislative action driven by emotion that restricts the ownership of firearms is not the solution.  Evil man will always find a way to kill, just as Cain killed Abel.  It is only if we change hearts through spiritual renewal that we will be able to stop the killing and maintain our free society.

Charles Dickens & a Possible Motor City Revival

In speaking of Paris and London in his book, A Tale of Two Cities, the famous English novelist, Charles Dickens (1812-1870) wrote…

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

In many ways the United States of America of 2012 (soon to be 2013) could be described likewise.  There is much wisdom in the ideas of the Tea Party movement in returning the United States to the principles of America's Founders.  At the same time, foolish ideas seem to be gaining ground as their failure rate accelerates.  Socialism works, really?  With nary a successful example, and multitudes of examples to the contrary, America plunges forward into the darkness of a Socialist abyss. 

Even as faith in the Founders principles and in God expands, skeptics abound.  Renowned pundits skillfully ponder why the leading problems in high school in the 1950s were bubblegum chewing and talking in class, while today the challenges are drugs and violence.  Duh!  These experts can't understand why the violent crime and murder rates of 50 or 60 years ago were so low compared to the skyrocketing rates of today.  They are puzzled.  They worry about the huge homeless population of today and wonder why there were few homeless in 1960.  Really?

We have systematically driven God out of the public square and we wonder why people have become more corrupt and more violent?  We have destroyed the institutions that showed compassion to those who could not fend for themselves and we wonder why the rolls of the homeless continue to grow?  We trap the poor in government welfare programs and wonder why poverty only gets worse.  Wisdom is in short supply, but foolishness is in abundance.

Some honestly believe that, through ever more powerful government, we have made progress over the past 50 to 60 years.  Maybe so, but where are the results?  There aren't any.  Yet there is hope, there really is.

In today's newspaper I read about something I was sure would never happen.  The State of Michigan passed a law giving individual workers the right to decide if they would join a union.  If I had to pick the last state in the nation that would pass a right to work bill, Michigan would have been my first guess, or pretty close to it.

In one of those, "can't see the forest for the trees" moments, supposedly smart men have agonized over the deterioration of manufacturing in the United States, especially the north central states of Wisconsin and Michigan.  They can't identify a reason, but they did come up with a clever description.  They call these states (and a couple of others nearby) "the Rust Belt."

Rust Belt my eye!  There is no mystery about what happened in Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee.  It is very simple.  Government granted a labor monopoly to the unions.  That's all that happened.

All monopolies—labor or business—originate with government.  Working with politicians and bureaucrats, monopolies that only benefit the privileged few are created to prop up and sustain enterprises that should go out of business.  When government legalizes a labor monopoly, every worker in a union shop is forced to join a union, and to pay union dues whether he wants to or not.  Government even mandates that companies deduct union dues for the union.  Or, when government grants special privileges and advantages to certain business enterprises (or provides them with subsidies) it guarantees that the consumer will pay more than the free market rate for those products and services.  Such business monopolies diminish the economic well-being of all Americans, by lowering their standard of living.

Similarly, when government subsidizes any economic activity, it punishes all Americans.  If it has to be subsidized, it should not exist.  If it has to be subsidized, that economic burden falls on the back of every American.  For example, consider mass transit that is not only constructed with tax dollars, but which cannot sustain itself and thus must be subsidized forever.  It becomes a permanent financial burden on us, our children and grandchildren because it is not a marketplace solution to transportation.  If it was, it would have been built by private enterprise.

There is a simple and easy way to know that something is not a market sustainable service, i.e. one that should not be built.  If an enterprise cannot cover its operating costs, like mass transit, it should not be built.  The capital cost of construction is the least of the burdens on the taxpayer.  The greatest burden, one that extends for many generations, is the operating cost shortfall.  If tolls by the user do not cover the cost of operation and provide a profit, operation of the enterprise becomes a permanent financial burden on all taxpayers.

It is always a mistake for government, at any level, to second guess the free market, or worse yet, enter into the marketplace itself.  For example, consider the glaring inefficiency and high cost of mass transit or medical services.  In each and every case, without one exception, the capital and operating cost will be far greater, the inefficiency larger, and the quality less than any free market built and operated enterprise.  There are no exceptions.

Subsidies and monopolies always artificially drive up the prices of goods and services to the universal detriment of all citizens.  For instance, if any manufacturer is forced by law to accept a closed union shop (i.e. labor monopoly), it is forced to collect mandatory union dues, higher cost and less productivity.  If all workers are forced to participate in a labor monopoly, i.e. union, everyone who buys goods or services will pay a higher than market price for those goods and services.  Similarly, if government creates rules and regulations that bar entry into the marketplace in the form of licenses and certifications, it is artificially driving up the price of those goods and services.

Such actions may be well intentioned, but the inevitable result is higher, and possibly inferior, goods and services.  Only in a free market, where free men and women freely exchange goods and services in the form of dollars (representing labor and goods), will the best quality and the best possible prices prevail.

A monopoly cannot exist in a free market.  A truly free market destroys attempts by individuals or even cabals of individuals to create monopolies.  They exist for the short term, and then they are decimated by the forces of the free market.  Monopolies can never survive competition in the free market.  It is only when government intervenes that monopolies can exist.  And when monopolies exist in either labor or in business, the consumer is punished.

What happened to Detroit is simple.  When Detroit had to compete on the world market, they could not do it because the union labor monopoly had artificially raised the cost of automobiles above the market level.  Who lost, by the way?  The answer is every single American who was forced to pay a higher-than-market price for his car prior to allowing competition from foreign automobile companies whose labor costs were not inflated because they were not compelled to obtain their labor from a monopoly.  As long as American automobile manufacturers remain in states that force workers to join a union, they will not be able to compete with foreign manufacturers.

The reality is that when the US opened the markets in the 1970s, Americans benefitted from the high quality and the lower prices of Japanese manufacturers that had access to non-monopoly labor.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with Detroit or the workers or engineers or designers that a free market can't fix.  But you can't pay 30% to 50% more for wages and benefits and still compete in a free market. 

That's why I was so excited about the news that was published and broadcast on Thursday, December 7th.  Over the protests of big labor bosses and their paid protestors, the Michigan state legislature passed, and the governor signed, a bill that empowers the worker to decide whether or not he will join a union.

What a tremendous irony.  The union bosses and the union workers were protesting a bill that can rejuvenate and strengthen the automobile industry and save their jobs.  In truth, the only way Detroit can make a comeback is by eliminating the labor monopoly.  Detroit is quite possibly in the worst economic shape of any big city in America.  Hundreds of thousands of people have fled Detroit, tens of thousands of houses sit empty, many simply abandoned.  Detroit is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, begging for a bail out.  General Motors is on track to ask Uncle Sam for more billions to run their bloated, non-market operation.

Only Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and the Republican majority seem to have sufficient sense to know that Detroit either competes in the marketplace without a government sanctioned labor monopoly, or it continues down the path to extinction.  Radical filmmaker Michael Moore is not surprisingly outraged, but then again, Michael Moore thinks Fidel Castro is a great leader.  Sadly, neither Michael Moore, nor President Barack Obama have any idea whatsoever how the free market works. 

Hooray for Governor Snyder and the courageous legislators of Michigan.  They are throwing a lifeline to employees and businesses in Michigan.  These employees may not grasp the lifeline and may succeed in repealing this inspired piece of legislation, but they do so to their own personal detriment.  This is an opportunity for Detroit revival.  It's good news for the citizens of Michigan and a harbinger of all the good things that the Republican governors of 30 states will be bringing to America over the next few years.

While our president sees government as the answer, Ronald Reagan knew the truth.  Reagan said wisely, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."  You can almost hear the Founders applauding.  The wisdom of the Republican governors stands in stark contrast to the foolishness coming from the White House.  It is the best of times, it is the worst of times.  Which will prevail?

Over the Cliff

One of the late Jack Kemp's axioms (and a favorite of mine) was, "When you tax something you get less of it, and when you subsidize something, you get more of it."  It's so simple, yet so true.  It is one of those universal axioms that fit every circumstance I can think of.  If you raise taxes on any goods or service, it becomes less attractive to the buyer and thus you get less of it.  If you subsidize any commodity or service or any personal practice, you get more of it.

You undoubtedly read in this morning's paper about the fiscal crisis or you heard about it over the television or on the internet.  It's being called the "Fiscal Cliff" by the mainstream media.  What is the so-called Fiscal Cliff?  It's a combination of what has been called "Taxmageddon" by members of Congress—the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (which fall primarily on the middle class) and the trillion dollar implementation of Obamacare.

Taxmageddon has been described by the Heritage Foundation this way…

• Unprecedented Tax Hike For 2013: Starting January 1, 2013, Americans will face a $494 billion tax increase, the highest ever in one year. Obamacare's tax increase over 10 years barely edges ahead of Taxmageddon at $502 billion. The average American household would see its taxes rise by $3,800 in 2013 alone. And this is just for one year. Taxpayers would see even higher tax hikes in succeeding years.
• Expiring Tax Cuts and Obamacare's New Taxes: Almost 34% of the tax increases from Taxmageddon come from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. Another 25% comes from the expiration of the payroll tax cut. Most of the remaining increases come from Obamacare, notably from the start of the hospital insurance 3.8% surtax on all forms of income over $250,000.
• Taxmageddon Hits the Middle Class: Taxmageddon falls primarily on middle- and low-income Americans. That's because 60 percent of the Bush tax cuts went to middle and low-income taxpayers. The expiration of the patch on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will cause these taxpayers to pay a tax they were never supposed to be hit with, and the expiration of the payroll tax cut is a tax hike almost exclusively on middle- and low-income families. That's just the direct impact. Americans at all income levels will feel the pain of Taxmageddon because it will slow job creation and wage growth.

If Taxmageddon weren't enough, the Budget Control Act of 2011 will also go into effect on January 1, 2013.  What are the implications of the Budget Control Act and how did it come about?

More than 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget and Medicare will be cut dramatically.  The defense budget will be effectively gutted, leaving the United States in a very precarious situation in an increasingly dangerous world.  On the positive side, the Budget Control Act will cut the annual operating deficit of the federal government in half.

How did Congress agree to such a potentially disastrous piece of legislation?  It was simply Congress (House and Senate) doing what they do best—kicking the can down the road.  It was also the result of the Democrats putting their hard line leftists the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, a super committee of the Senate and House charged with the responsibility of coming up with a compromise that would bring the budget into balance.  The Committee consisted of 12 members, six Republicans and six Democrats, six from the House and six from the Senate. 

The committee was given the responsibility of coming up with a deficit reduction plan that would keep the government from defaulting on its debts.  The recommendation of the committee was to have been voted up or down by a simple vote of the House and Senate (without any amendments).  It was the responsibility of this super committee to cut a minimum of $1.5 trillion over the coming 10 years.  If the super committee failed to act, "sequestration" i.e. across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion would automatically take place, including major cuts to Medicare and to the Department of Defense.  The Democrats stacked their super committee picks with hard line leftists—Senators Patty Murray and John Kerry with Max Bacus thrown in for good measure.  On the House side the Democrats picked three radicals—Xavier Becerra, Jim Clyburn, and Chris Van Hollen, perhaps the most partisan member of Congress.  For their part, the Republicans picked Senators John Kyl, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey.  On the House side the Republicans picked Representatives Jeb Hensarling, Fred Upton, and Dave Camp.  While the Republicans excluded Tea Party Congressman and Senators in favor of moderates (with the notable exception of Pat Toomey), the Democrats picked leftwing ideologues.  On November 21, the committee concluded "After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline."  There was no surprise in the outcome.  Essentially the Democrats would not agree to any specifically mandated cuts in spending, only promises of future cuts, while insisting on raising taxes.

Accordingly, the United States now faces a "fiscal cliff" that will, drive the nation into another recession, or frankly, into a depression.  The Democrats of 2012 are following the same recipe that was undertaken by the Democrats of the 1930's under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt, redistributing income from rich to the poor.  But in the process, they will kill off the goose (free enterprise) that laid the golden egg (prosperity).

It is a continuation of the Marxist class warfare campaign waged by President Obama in the recent election.  Karl Marx said, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."  The modern version according to Barack Obama might be stated this way "Tax the rich to give to the poor."  There is no difference in intent or outcome.

The only problem with the Marx-Obama approach to handling the economy is that it doesn't work.  It has never worked.  Redistribution of income through the mechanism of socialism always ends the same way—in disaster.  It endeavors to force every person into the same mold, with each receiving the same income, the same reward (except for the political ruling class, the apparatchiks) no matter who works harder, who works smarter, who innovates, who takes risks, etc.

In reality, socialism simply freezes all advancement, all innovation, all progress.  It sacrifices freedom and progress on the altar of equality, and in the end equality doesn't exist either.  Sadly, President Obama and his cohorts in Congress either do not care about the consequences, or they do not understand the consequences.  The politics of greed, jealousy, and envy always lead a nation to economic collapse.

So here we are, facing Taxmagedden and a Fiscal Cliff.  Obama thinks the solution is to tax the rich, which is anyone who earns more than $250,000 per year.  But Jack Kemp's axiom always holds true.  A huge percentage of the folks who make more than $250,000 per year are small businessmen who operate subchapter S corporations, i.e. all expenses and revenue are passed through to the business owner.  The inevitable outcome of taxing these folks is that there will be less of them.  Many will simply go out of business and when they do so, so will the jobs they provide.  This group of business owners employ, in aggregate, more people than any other segment of the American economy.  They are the absolute worst group of people to tax at this critical time.  Yet, because of greed, envy, and petty jealously that's exactly what Obama plans to do and I fully expect him to be successful.

What makes this even more foolish is that the amount of revenues this punitive tax will produce to reduce the deficit is miniscule.  It compares to a homeowner seeing his house on fire and thinking he can simply spit on it and put it out.  But, frankly, that's not the reason for the tax.  The reason is to punish men and women who President Obama and his cronies think are greedy.

On top of this tax burden, the average taxpayer will suffer from a trillion dollar tax imposed by Obamacare, a house of horrors that will destroy the greatest medical care in the history of the world.  Today your chance of surviving cancer is greater than in any other nation in the world, but don't expect that to last for long.  The United States of America drives all innovation and research in medical care for the world, yet we are about to freeze it in place through a socialized scheme concocted by far left radicals.

The left only has one problem.  Everything they are proposing and everything they have enacted is financially unsustainable.  It will collapse of its own weight.  The question that remains is whether it will be replaced by freedom or by tyranny.  Socialism and freedom are incompatible. 

As I have said before, America has seen and overcome darker days.  I firmly believe that we will overcome this folly too.  The common sense of the American people will triumph.  The left has little to crow about in regard to the last election.  The result is that they held on to the White House by the skin of their teeth.  They were, in the President's words, shellacked in 2010 and they did not recover from that shellacking in 2012. 

Not only did the GOP add to their count of governors in 2012 and hold on to nearly all their gains in the House and in state legislatures, they also added to the "Demint" caucus in the U.S. Senate with the election of Ted Cruz from Texas (replacing a moderate) and Deb Fischer of Nebraska (who replaced Ben "Cornhusker Payoff" Nelson).  Do not underestimate the impact these dedicated and principled conservatives will have on the Republican Party and in the US Senate.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."  Obama fooled too many Americans in 2012 and he had the luxury of running against a candidate who would not defend his own record and whose conservative principles were skin deep.  The next time around, by God's grace, we will run a true conservative, with bone deep principles who will route the left.

The off year elections in Virginia and New Jersey next year will give us a good indication of the temperature of the voters.  If the Republicans run strong conservative candidates and they win, it will be a good sign for 2014.  And, of course, the results of the 2014 elections will signal whether or not the GOP has regained its political footing. 

Giving Thanks to God

As if everything must be God-free and secularized, the modern version of Thanksgiving being taught to our children in school is about the Pilgrims thanking the Indians (native Americans) for their survival.  Gone is the truth that the Pilgrims held a Thanksgiving celebration to thank the God of the Bible for their bountiful harvest.  It's not that the Pilgrims did not especially appreciate and thank Squanto, a member of the Patuxet band of the Wampanoag tribe, for all they learned from him about harvesting crustaceans, success with crops and other practical living skills.  In fact, his guidance proved so indispensable to them that Plymouth Governor William Bradford was moved to declare him a "special instrument sent of God for [their] good."  In fact, so close was their relationship that Squanto was baptized into the Christian faith.

This practice of giving thanks to God for his providence and his guidance was repeated throughout American history.  In fact, when Columbus first landed in the New World, his first act was to kneel and give thanks to God for their safe journey.  The first recorded day of thanksgiving in America was in what is now St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565.  The first celebration of thanksgiving in Virginia was held in 1620 about 20 miles north of Jamestown.  Its purpose was "giving thanks to God."  The Pilgrim Thanksgiving which receives the most publicity was celebrated in the autumn of 1621.  It is from this particular celebration that the tradition of eating turkey on that day comes.

Pilgrim leader, Edward Winslow wrote this about the first Thanksgiving (in modern English)…

"…our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty."

On June 1, 1774, Thomas Jefferson introduced a resolution into the Virginia House of Burgesses, calling for a day of fasting and prayer.  It read in part…

"Being deeply impressed with apprehension of the great dangers, to be derived to British America, from the hostile Invasion of the City of Boston, in our Sister Colony of Massachusetts bay, whose commerce and harbor are, on the first Day of June next, to be stopped by an Armed force, deem it highly necessary that the said first day of June be set apart, by the members of this House as a day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, devoutly to implore the divine interposition, for averting the heavy Calamity which threatens destruction to our Civil Rights, and the Evils of civil War; to give us one heart and one Mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper means, every injury to American Rights; and that the Minds of his Majesty and his Parliament, may be inspired from above with Wisdom, Moderation, and Justice, to remove from the loyal People of America all cause of danger, from a continued pursuit of Measures, pregnant with their ruin."

On October 3, 1789, President George Washington issued the following Proclamation of Thanksgiving…

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor…Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and…for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. …and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions…To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue…and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best."

On October 3, 1863, in the midst of a terrible civil war, President Abraham Lincoln issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation which reads in part…

"To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God…No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.

On Thanksgiving Day, 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt included in his proclamation the following words…

"…Americans have thanked God for their blessings. In our deepest natures, in our very souls, we…turn to God in time of trouble and in time of happiness. 'In God We Trust.'

On October 27, 1961, President John F. Kennedy began his Thanksgiving Proclamation in this way…

"More than three centuries ago, the Pilgrims, after a year of hardship and peril, humbly and reverently set aside a special day upon which to give thanks to God for their preservation and for the good harvest from the virgin soil upon which they had labored. Grave and unknown dangers remained. Yet by their faith and by their toil they had survived the rigors of the harsh New England winter. Hence they paused in their labors to give thanks for the blessings that had been bestowed upon them by Divine Providence."

In his first Thanksgiving Proclamation, President Ronald Reagan wrote…

"Searching our hearts, we should ask what we can do as individuals to demonstrate our gratitude to God for all He has done. Such reflection can only add to the significance of this precious day of remembrance. Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family that has played such an important role in making this a great Nation, and which will be needed as a source of strength if we are to remain a great people.

President Bill Clinton's 1997 Thanksgiving Proclamation began this way…

"Once again, millions of us will gather with family and friends to give thanks to God for the many blessings that He has bestowed upon us."

All of our Presidents have included references to God and giving thanks to God in their Thanksgiving Proclamations right up until today.  That is as it should be considering that God is the author of our freedom and has watched over our nation since its founding.

Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday.  It is an expression of a nation founded by men of faith who understood that their every need was in the hands of the almighty God who created the heavens and the earth.  Every attribute we were born with—our appearance, our innate abilities, our aptitudes, our personality, our intelligence—all are gifts from God.  We are what we are because God created us this way.

Sadly, some have sought to secularize Thanksgiving and to erase our Christian heritage from our textbooks.  But God cannot be erased.  He is the author of life and of freedom.  He is the source of all wisdom.  He is the God of our Fathers.

These are difficult times for America; but, throughout our history there have been many other dark times.  The Pilgrims experienced dreadfully difficult times during which many lost their lives.  The Founders risked having their neck in a noose if they failed to secure American freedom.  The bloody civil war cost hundreds of thousands of lives in North and South.  Reoccurring wars, from the time of the Revolution up through World War I and II and continuing on today, place our nation in a perilous position.  Threats external and internal threaten to destroy the nation created by our Founders, yet by the grace, mercy and blessing of God, we continue.

Ironically, the hymn most associated with Thanksgiving is Come, Ye Thankful People Come, written by the Englishman Henry "Dean" Alford in 1844.  Its words are truly inspiring…

Come, ye thankful people, come, raise the song of harvest home;

All is safely gathered in, ere the winter storms begin.

God our Maker doth provide for our wants to be supplied;

Come to God's own temple, come, raise the song of harvest home.

All the world is God's own field, fruit unto His praise to yield;

Wheat and tares together sown unto joy or sorrow grown.

First the blade and then the ear, then the full corn shall appear;

Lord of harvest, grant that we wholesome grain and pure may be.

For the Lord our God shall come, and shall take His harvest home;

From His field shall in that day all offenses purge away,

Giving angels charge at last in the fire the tares to cast;

But the fruitful ears to store in His garner evermore.

Even so, Lord, quickly come, bring Thy final harvest home;

Gather Thou Thy people in, free from sorrow, free from sin,

There, forever purified, in Thy garner to abide;

Come, with all Thine angels come, raise the glorious harvest home.

As we celebrate another Thanksgiving, it is my hope that you and all Americans will pause to give thanks to God for all our blessings, especially the blessing of liberty.  Happy Thanksgiving!

The Election

Well, I hereby resign as a prognosticator of any election results.  My forecast (as well as those of Michael Barone and Dick Morris) was as far away from being accurate as the North is from the South.  I did not see the outcome of the presidential race coming. 

Folks, we still have a very divided nation and frankly, some very weird election results.  The popular vote count as of November 7, 2012 was Obama 58,720,700 (50.1%) to Romney 56,145,950 (48.4%).  Obama was way down from his 2008 vote count of 69,456,897 and Romney was way down from John McCain's total 2008 vote count of 59,934,814.  In fact, as you can see, had Romney gotten as many votes as John McCain, he would have won the popular vote. 

The US House of Representatives is virtually unchanged with the Republicans guaranteed a 35 to 40 seat majority.  The Republicans slipped in the Senate, where the Democrats now have a 10 seat majority.  In the state house races, the Republicans have reached a milestone.  The GOP now has 30 out of 50 state governors!  This is a very big and a very important accomplishment.

The weirdness did not end there.  In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker added enough seats in the State House of Representatives to regain a majority there.  Reporting on the results of state legislature races in other states is unavailable at this time.  However, the mixed results clearly indicate that the United States is a very divided nation.

What the results do not show is that the conservative principles of limited government, a balanced budget, and adherence to the Constitution are not a winning political message.  Republican moderates like Mitt Romney will always struggle in a national election.  The last Republican to win a large majority was Ronald Reagan, who not only won convincingly in 1980, but overwhelmingly in 1984.  Reagan didn't couch his conservative views in muddled words. 

The conservative message is not an amalgamation of messages, some for one special interest group, another for a different interest group.  It is one message for all Americans, regardless of race, ethnic background, or geography.  It is a simple message.  We believe in freedom and opportunity for all Americans.  We don't believe in special privileges for one group over another.  We don't believe that those in government can or should pick winners and losers in the marketplace.  We don't want government to run our lives by telling us through regulations or taxes what kind of car to drive, what kind of light bulb to buy, how electricity is to be generated, or what size Coke we can drink.  That's not freedom, that's a loss of freedom.

Conservatives do not believe that Americans are stupid and need to be told how to live their lives, how to spend their money, or how to raise their children.  We believe that Americans are smart enough to make their own choices when it comes to health care, toilet paper, bananas, clothing, roller skates, and everything else in their lives. 

If you love nanny government and are willing to accept less freedom, please move to one of the soft tyranny socialist states of Europe.  Conservatives have the quaint idea that the United States Constitution means exactly what it says.  If you don't like it, don't pretend it's some sort of "living document" that can be interpreted in any way you like.  If you want to change it, then go through the process stipulated by the Constitution to do so.  If you can't make that work, don't cheat and fabricate some sort of interpretation that would cause the Founders to roll over in their graves.

As conservatives, we believe that one of the primary roles of the president is to keep us safe and to preserve our national sovereignty.  That role is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  We expect our nation to be strong enough militarily to scare off any threat from abroad.  We don't like or support military adventurism, but that doesn't mean we want to sacrifice our military strength.  The Reagan doctrine was peace through strength.  That is the only way to peace.

Americans are historically a moral people.  As conservatives, we understand and believe what Founder John Adams said…

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

That same sentiment was echoed by Benjamin Franklin…

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

And by Patrick Henry…

"Bad men cannot make good citizens.  It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.  A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.  No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

And finally, George Washington…

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.  The general government… can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."

Of course, the religion that all of these men were referring to was the Christian religion.  Their heritage and ours is that of the Pilgrims who came to America for the purpose of religious freedom and who strove to create "a shining city on a hill."

The essential understanding of our Founding Fathers was of human nature.  They understood that man by nature is sinful.  It is only when he becomes a forgiven child of God that he can do good works and love his neighbor.  This understanding of human nature is the cornerstone of all of our founding documents. 

The Founders made every effort to curb the power of men so that the citizens of America could live in freedom.  They created a government of checks and balances, and they intentionally limited the power of government over its citizens.  They understood that freedom can only exist when men (and women) exercise self-restraint.  And they knew that self-restraint springs from faith in God.  Freedom is a product of faith.  It is not itself a virtue, it is an outgrowth of a virtuous society.

The challenge for you and I today is not to win the next election.  It is to promote and encourage spiritual renewal in our land—without spiritual renewal, virtue dies, and with it, our freedom.

This is not the darkest hour of our Republic.  To believe that would be very arrogant.

The darkest hour undoubtedly existed at the very foundation point of our nation.  When the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the new nation, they knew that they were signing their own death warrant.  At that instant they went from being loyal English citizens, to being traitors.  It was not something they did lightly, and the price they paid was heavy.

At Valley Forge, George Washington saw the chance for victory slipping away.  All seemed lost.  His troops were starving, enlistments were ending, desertion was rampant, shelter and clothing were practically non-existent that brutal winter.  Meanwhile, the British were well-fed, well-clothed, and sleeping comfortably in warm beds. 

If Washington failed, he would hang.  So would the others.

Washington versus what was then the world's most powerful army was like Gideon versus the Midianites.  There was really no logical chance that he could be successful.

This is how the website, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com describes the situation and what Washington decided to do…

"During the night of December 25, Washington led his troops across the ice-swollen Delaware about 9 miles north of Trenton.  The weather was horrendous and the river treacherous.  Raging winds combined with snow, sleet and rain to produce almost impossible conditions.  To add to the difficulties, a significant number of Washington's force marched through the snow without shoes.

The next morning they attacked to the south, taking the Hessian garrison by surprise and over-running the town.  After fierce fighting, and the loss of their commander, the Hessians surrendered.

Washington's victory was complete but his situation precarious.  The violent weather continued - making a strike towards Princeton problematic. Washington and his commanding officers decided to retrace their steps across the Delaware taking their Hessian prisoners with them.

The news of the American victory spread rapidly through the colonies reinvigorating the failing spirit of the Revolution.  The battle's outcome also gave Washington and his officers the confidence to mount another campaign. On December 30 they again crossed the Delaware, attacked and won another victory at Trenton on January 2, and then pushed on to Princeton defeating the British there on January 3.

Although not apparent at the time, these battles were a decisive turning point in the Revolution.  The victories pulled the languishing Revolution out of the depths of despair, galvanized colonial support, shocked the British and convinced potential allies such as France, Holland and Spain, that the Continental Army was a force to be reckoned with."

God was certainly with Washington.  He will be with us if we continue the fight.

Millions of babies have been murdered.  Immorality is broadcast to millions each night over our televisions.  God's standards of decent behavior have been replaced by human cravings for immoral behavior.  Today's America is not the America of our Founders or the America of just a few decades ago.  It is not the America that you and I grew up in.

But God doesn't care about the odds.  All he cares about is our faithfulness to him.

We are more than a remnant.  Each year our nation sends out more than 140,000 missionaries around the globe.  We publish more Bibles, more religious tracts, and broadcast the Christian message to millions each week.  A higher percent of Americans go to church each week than in any other industrialized nation in the world.  God is not dead.

God will not abandon us if we place our trust in Him.  He still governs the course of all nations (Psalms 47:8), including ours.  If we have the faith of our Fathers, we will preserve the Republic.

May God continue to bless the United States of America!

Why Romney Will Win Big

Although the so-called mainstream media (MSM) is hoping and praying (maybe not) and doing everything they can to campaign for Obama, it will all go for naught.  The core problem is the general disdain that liberal elites have for the average man.  They think everyone but them is incapable of making the right decisions in life.  They honestly believe that they must take care of the "little people."  They are not the champions of the poor and the downtrodden, they are their worst enemy.  They discourage those who are struggling, they call them victims, and they manipulate them for their own political gain. 

The problem for the left is that the average man and woman is a whole lot smarter than those on the left think they are.  In fact, most of them have more common sense; i.e., wisdom, than those on the left have.  The average man or woman is, in fact, the bedrock of America.  Your everyday American works hard, they take care of their families, they take compassion on others, they volunteer and donate, they attend church, and they love the United States of America.  They correctly view America as a God blessed land, offering hope and opportunity that is not available anywhere else on the face of the earth.  Americans are tolerant, kind, and forgiving, but they have a strong sense of right and wrong that guides them in making hard decisions in life and in politics.  You can fool them once because they expect the best in people, but you can't fool them twice, and that's what the Obama campaign is all about, trying to fool Americans into believing the worst about their neighbors, and about their nation.  That dog won't hunt.

Americans are not a bunch of buffoons as President Obama and his cronies on the left believe.  They will give you the shirt off their back if you need help, but they will take a con artist to the woodshed, especially if he tries to con them a second time.  The 2012 election is the liberal's trip to the woodshed.  They have miscalculated the American people because they really don't believe in the intelligence and wisdom of the average American. 

The left chose a stealth candidate in Barack Obama in 2008.  A neophyte without a resume as a public figure, and the compliant MSM hid the real Barack Obama from the American people.  They refused to report his close ties to SDS radicals Bill Ayres and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn.  They hid the mentorship of Communist Party USA member, Frank Marshall Davis, from public view.  They dismissed the nearly family ties of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama to radical preacher, Jeremiah Wright. 

But it was more than that.  The good nature of the American people caused them to want to elect a black man to the White House as a sign of their good will and concern for the plight of black Americans caught in the web of the liberal establishment that keeps them in perpetual poverty.  Such is the nature of the average American.  While black Americans were thrilled to have someone of their own race in the White House, it was white Americans who gave Obama the needed votes to win.  It was their sign of wishing all black Americans well.  Even those who voted against Barack Obama wanted him to succeed in creating a post racial society, and to build upon the foundation of freedom created by our Founders.  Only those who successfully navigated the fog created by the MSM feared what Barack Obama would do as President.  Sadly, those who looked deeper found a man rigidly bound to an ideology that is the antithesis of that of the Founders.  And today, the failure of that far left ideology is on display for all Americans—higher energy costs, fewer jobs, government takeover of health care, bigger and more intrusive government, voter fraud, soaring debt, and an anti-business attitude. 

But the American people have rallied from their sleep.  They are going to reject a young, inexperienced, and ideologically driven President who is in way over his head.  They don't take kindly to politicians of any stripe who endeavor to manipulate and con them, especially those who do not share their love for America.  This is the situation as I see it…

2010 Was Not an Accident

• Tea Party is Stronger than Ever.  The Tea Party movement isn't holding massive rallies anymore, instead they have put their efforts into navigating the political process, and mastering the tools of voter turnout, fund raising, communications, etc.  Today's Tea Party movement is stronger, better organized, and more focused and politically effective than ever.  While the much vaunted Occupy Movement never was much more than a rag tag bunch of far left hooligans, the Tea Party movement is built on solid goals and objectives.  Moreover, the folks who lead the various Tea Party groups are smart and canny.  A survey of Tea Party participants shows that these folks are better educated, better informed, and more motivated than the establishment of either political party.  They believe in the United States Constitution and the guiding principles of our Founders.  The Tea Party was responsible for launching the political careers of talented individuals like Allen West and nearly 80 other members of Congress.  This movement is still in its early stages and will be a potent force in this year's election and for years to come.  Just as the Tea Party led the GOP to victory in 2010, they will be leading the way in 2012.
• Nothing has Changed.  Almost nothing has changed from 2010, politically speaking, except that the intensity of conservatives is, if anything, even stronger than ever.  While it is true that the turnout in 2012 will be larger than it was in 2010, the Obama base is not energized according to any surveys.  African Americans are morally incensed by Obama's endorsement of gay marriage that was made for fund raising purposes.  In addition, they are dissatisfied (as they should be) with the exceptionally high unemployment rate in the black community.  Yes, the MSM is fully in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, but the only thing different than the past is the complete partisan approach that reporters and writers in the MSM are taking.  Counterbalancing that is the fact that more people watched the Fox News Channel when the Presidential Debates were on than they did  CBS, NBC or ABC.  It is, thus, much harder for the MSM to hide the truth about what is going on in the campaign from the American people.  The $400 million Obama campaign ad effort to portray Romney as a heartless, cruel, mean spirited person went up in smoke after the first debate.  There is no reason to believe that the outcome of the 2012 election will be significantly different than the outcome of the 2010 election.  Part of the reason for that is explained by the fact that…
• The Democrats are Still in Denial.  That's right, the Democrats are still in denial about the significance of the Tea Party movement.  They have not accepted the fact that 2010 was a sea change election that changed the political landscape, if not forever, certainly for the foreseeable future.  The Tea Party not only impacted the Republican Party, but also the entire political landscape.  It brought about the sweeping electoral victory in 2010 that ran from the halls of Congress to state houses, court houses, and to city halls.  It was, in many ways, quite similar to the sweeping victory of the Democrats in 1928.  There was no presidential election that year, but the Democrats won Congress, state legislatures, governorships, county council races and city council.  Even after that sweeping election, the Republicans were still in denial.  They said, as the Democrats say today, that it was just a "change" election and believed that it would all come back their way in 1930 and 1932, but just the opposite happened.  It won't happen for the Democrats in 2012 either.  This will be another big victory for the Republican Party, and especially for Tea Party activists.
• Stay-at-Home Republicans.  In 2008 more than 10 million Christians and/or conservatives sat out the election.  This was due to either non-interest in the Republican nominee, John McCain, or outright dislike of the nominee.  Today, these folks are energized and ready to roll.  They are no longer sitting on the fence, dissatisfied, or uninterested.  They will turn out in this critical election year and provide the margin needed for a big victory that may reach landslide proportions.

Delusional Poll Selection

Almost all the polling numbers for the 2012 presidential election are based on the Democrat and Republican turnouts (percentage wise) in 2008.  There are many problems with that approach.  The primary problem is that it ignores the 2010 sea change election that changed the political landscape.  The substance of this change is that while in 2008 the majority of the American people identified themselves as Democrats (9% advantage for Democrats), in 2012 the majority of voters identify themselves as Republicans (1% advantage for Republicans).  This is a huge turnaround, even though the advantage for the GOP is minimal. 

In spite of these changes, most pollsters are using the 2008 model and totally ignoring the 2010 model.  The notable exceptions are Rasmussen and Gallup, both of which are showing a victory for Romney.  Moreover, the internal polling of the candidates also shows this situation.  The over-polling of Democrats by 10% means just one thing.  It means the polling firm is assuming the intensity of the Democratic voters (or the Democratic ground game for getting out the vote) will result in a higher percentage of identified Democrats voting than identified Republicans voting.  There two major problems with this assumption.  First, all surveys indicate that the Republican base is more energized than the Democrat base.  Second, by all accounts, the Republican ground game is as good as or better than the Democratic get-out-the-vote ground game in 2012.  The GOP was behind in this area in 2008, but they have caught up and possibly passed the Democrats.

But does this still mean a big, sea change victory?  Oversampling by 10 points is misleading.  For instance, if a sample of 1,000 prospective voters includes 300 independents, 400 Democrats and 300 Republicans it is in statistical error by 33%.  It has under-sampled Republicans by at least 33% (100 divided by 300 = 33%).  The impact of this over-sampling is enormous.  Some of the current polls show Obama in the lead 49% to 47% for Romney.  If you correct the oversampling to 50/50, the result is 56.6% for Romney and 43.4% for Obama!  I am not saying that the election will be a landslide for Romney, but it does have that potential.

Finally, no candidate for president who was behind the challenger at this point in the campaign has ever lost the race for president.  Both the Rasmussen polls and the Gallup polls have Romney ahead.  Rasmussen gives Romney an edge 49% to 47% with 2% undecided.  Gallup gives Romney the lead by 4%.  While both of these polls are subject to a ±3% error factor, they do not take into account the fact that for the last 40 years…

Undecided Votes Go to the Challenger

That's right, historically all undecided votes go to the challenger (except for Ronald Reagan who was, in fact, an exceptional candidate and an exceptional president).  In fact, the Friday prior to the 1980 election, when Reagan was running against Carter, the Gallup poll showed Carter winning by 3%.  It did not look promising.  It was another case of oversampling Democrats.

The results, of course, looked quite different.  Reagan won by 8,423,115 votes with a 10% victory over Carter, even though turncoat Republican John Anderson was in the race and won 5,719,850 votes, denying Reagan 6.6% of the vote total.  It was a stunning election victory that befuddled the left and their allies in the MSM.  Reagan not only won the White House, but thanks to his coattails, the Republicans also took control of the US Senate and added seats in the House of Representatives. 

Benghazi Attack Scandal

Do not underestimate the impact of the Benghazi Scandal that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador.  The confusing and contradictory and ever changing stories that keep coming out belie a scandal of likely great proportions.  While President Obama professes that he finds "offensive" any suggestion that politics controlled his actions in this matter, that assertion is questionable, at best.

While it is unlikely that we will hear the truth before election day, and it is likely that the shredders in the White House are working overtime, the truth will eventually come out.  Why, because more than 300 people were recipients of the emails and messages sent out by the White House and those on the ground in Benghazi.  A conspiracy designed to block the truth when 300 individuals received emails is impossible to contain or manage.

Members of the CIA fast response team have reported that three times they asked for permission to go to the consulate and rescue the ambassador and others there, and three times they were denied permission.  These are hard, unimpeachable sources that tell an ignoble, sad story.  Was it concern that a terrorist attack would disrupt the PR narrative of the recent Democratic Convention, that the terrorist threat had subsided, that deterred the President from giving the go-ahead needed to save these men?  Was it gross ineptitude?  In either case, it is dereliction of duty by the Commander in Chief.

There is a distinct possibility that before election day honorable men will come forward, putting risk to their careers, and tell the truth.  If that should happen, even the MSM will not be able to keep a lid on this scandal.

2008 Was High Water Mark of American Liberalism

As I have noted before, the 2008 election victory of Barack Obama was likely the high water mark of the left in America, just as Pickett's charge was the high water mark of the Confederacy.  The Barack Obama of 2008 was a mythical character, concocted by the campaign and supported by the MSM.  His lack of experience, his association with domestic terrorists (Ayres and Dohrn) and assorted radicals of the far left (Jeremiah Wright and Frank Marshall Davis), and his votes as an Illinois State Senator for killing babies who were born alive due to a botched abortion, were ignored by the MSM.  In 2008, the Obama Chicago machine with the full compliance of the MSM created a false narrative of Barack Obama, but that false narrative has been punctured by books, articles, and extensive reports.  That exposé, combined with the utter failure of the Obama policies and his running rough shod over the US Constitution, has created a mountain of opposition to his re-election.

For all of the reasons provide above, I am confident that Mitt Romney will win a substantial election victory, somewhere in the 53% to 56% range. 

What Would an Obama Second Term Would Mean?

 "What's past is prologue" is a line from the William Shakespeare play, The Tempest.  The Bard of Avon was right, of course.  If someone has a spotty record of paying their bills in the past, they are probably not someone you want to loan money to.  Similarly, if you are looking for a husband, your best bet is to avoid those gentlemen who have already had several wives.  The bottom line is that past performance (or lack thereof) is a good indicator of what you can expect in the future. 

Those who expect President Obama to do things differently in a second term fit Albert Einstein's definition of insanity, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  In other words, if you liked what Obama did in his first term, you'll love what he will do in the second term.  But if you don't like the economy, if you don't like the fact that the price of a gallon of gas has more than doubled since Obama took office, and if you don't like apologizing to dictators and potentates, you'll hate an Obama second term.

President Obama made many promises during the past four years…

"…if we don't pass the stimulus bill, unemployment will rise above 8%."—It topped 10% shortly thereafter and for 40 months stayed above 8%.

Obamacare will "bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family."—The reality is that premiums have gone up, on average, by $2,500 per family.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."—Sadly, this is not true.  Many companies are dropping insurance coverage because they can't afford to provide it.

Americans hoped that an Obama election would mean a post racial presidency—Regrettably, America has never been more divided and President Obama has been the chief instigator, exacerbating this division for political advantage.

President Obama promised "…the most open and transparent ever."—In reality, it has been one of the most secretive and closed presidential administrations in history.

There was an absence of a promise when millions of Iranians risked their lives by demonstrating for freedom in the streets of Tehran in May of 2011.  Not a word of encouragement was forthcoming from the mouth of the President who apparently feared offending Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs who run Iran.

"I support Israel."—Instead, President Obama has repeatedly snubbed Israel and its leaders, refusing to meet with them and in doing so, encouraging Israel's enemies. 

"I have an all-of-the-above energy strategy."—The truth is that President Obama is shutting down coal plants, killing jobs and jeopardizing the electrical grid of the US.  He has reduced oil and gas drilling permits on government land by 37.4%.  The only reason oil and gas production is up is that vast reserves have been tapped on private lands where Obama was unable to block it.

But, in all fairness, President Obama has received some very impressive endorsements for a second term…

Castro.  On his apparent deathbed, Fidel Castro, the bloody Cuban dictator endorsed him.

Chavez.  Hugo Chavez, the Socialist strongman in Venezuela endorsed the President.  On a previous visit to Venezuela, Obama embraced Chavez and called him "Mi Amigo."

Putin.  Russian President and dictator, Vladimir Putin, backs the President.  He wants some of that "flexibility after the election" that Obama promised Russian henchman Dmitri Medvedev in a comment that was accidentally picked up by an open microphone.

Webb.  Sam Webb, Chairman of the Communist Party USA, threw his support behind President Obama, saying of the President, "We are speaking to a friend."

In years past, such endorsements would have sunk any candidate for President, but so far there has been no disavowal by the Obama campaign.  Nor has there been any attention or concern expressed by the news media.

But what, specifically, would a second term for President Barack Obama mean to you and to me?  Here is a brief list of what the President would like to do in a second term according to White House insiders and that is in sync with his past record…

1. Double Down on Green Energy.  In spite of the many "Solyndra" type scandals, and failures, the President plans to double down on this unproven technology.  This will not only mean more waste of tax dollars, but also higher energy prices.
2. Block Gas & Oil Exploration and Production.  In spite of the opportunity to create jobs and make the US energy independent, the President intends to choke off all coal production, restrict its exportation, and put obstacles in the way of oil and gas production via fracking.
3. Force Conservative Talk Radio Off the Air.  The Obama team at the FCC has already proposed changes that include Paragraph 25 titled Community Advisory Boards.  These Advisory Boards would consist of local community organizers and be diverse, i.e. left wing.  If the radio station does not go along with the recommendations of the Community Advisory Board it could face fines and a loss of its license.  The architect of this new rule is Mark Lloyd who has written, "…the gap between conservative and progressive [i.e. liberal] talk radio is the result of…the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."  Now that Obama has a majority on the Federal Communications Commission, he can and will force conservative talk radio off the air in his second term.  No more Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, etc.
4. Domestic Drones.  Obama recently authorized the widespread use of drones by local, state and national government entities ostensibly for the purpose of tracking drug dealers and other criminals.  More than 30,000 are expected to be flying by the end of the decade.  Such drones pose a great threat to civil liberties if abused by the government.
5. Electrical Shortages.  With the shutdown of coal fired power plants which provide some 40% of all electric generation, prices will not only skyrocket, but brownouts and blackouts are likely.  A decline in energy use is a reliable measurement of a decline in a civilized society.
6. Gasoline, Diesel, and Heating Fuel Shortages.  Such shortages will drive gasoline prices to European levels of $8.00 to $10.00 per gallon.  This is Obama's goal.  Diesel shortages will drive up the price at the pump and the cost of nearly every consumer item, including groceries.  Fuel shortages will hit the young and our elderly the hardest, lowering the standard of living of all Americans.
7. Decline in the Quality of Health Care.  Individuals who have chronic diseases and are past the age of 60 will be hit hard by the Obamacare "death panels."  As my wife, who suffers from MS, found out, it is already harder to get an MRI under Obamacare.  The vast bureaucracy of Obamacare will choke off quality health care, stifle research and development, and limit health care for individuals judged by the various Obamacare panels as being past their ability to contribute to society.  Doctors are already retiring early, enrollment in medical schools is sure to decline sharply, along with a decline in nursing school enrollment.  While Americans have been able to see a doctor in a matter of days, that waiting time is sure to extend into weeks and months, as a result of Obamacare.  It is only a matter of time until bureaucrats, not your doctor decide what procedures you can have, and which ones are not necessary.
8. Reduction in Medicare Coverage.  By extracting $716 billion from Medicare and transferring it to Obamacare, doctors and medical practitioners will be paid even less than they are today, ultimately resulting in their refusal to provide medical services to the elderly. 
9. Social Security.  Due to the massive debt rolled up in the first four years of the Obama Administration and the refusal of Congress to address the Social Security crisis, recipients are sure to suffer.  Funds available to Social Security recipients are due to run out shortly.  In lieu of necessary marketplace reforms, Social Security benefits will decline sharply.
10. Inflation.  Deficit spending always results in inflation.  It may be delayed by advances in productivity or new technology, but it ultimately hits.  Today the United States is more than $20 trillion in debt and rising at the rate of more than $1 trillion per year.  When inflation comes (as it did under Jimmy Carter) it will result in devaluation of the dollar and make the economic situation of those on fixed incomes much worse.
11. Further Credit Downgrading of the United States.  Obamanomics caused the first downgrading of US debt in the history of the United States by Standard and Poors credit rating organization.  The US lost its AAA rating and was downgraded to a AA+ rating.  Such a rating decline is significant because it means that when the US borrows more money from China (or other countries) we must pay a higher rate.  As of June 30, 2012 the national debt exceeded the total annual US gross domestic product.  In other words, thanks to $5 trillion in additional debt, our national debt is for the first time in history greater than the value of all goods and services created annually in our nation!  With deficit spending planned to continue at more than $1 trillion per year, our credit rating is almost sure to be downgraded again.
12. Military Inferiority.  President Obama has promised Russia that he will be "more flexible" in his second term and he has a publically stated goal of ridding the world of all nuclear weapons.  Like Jimmy Carter, he sees the US as the problem and will unilaterally disarm the US, making us a second rate world power.  Today, thanks to President Obama, we have fewer ships than since before World War I and further cuts are planned.  This weakens our nation and could make us vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.
13. Appeasement and Apology.  A second Obama term will lead to more apology and appeasement, setting the stage for more wars and conflicts taking the lives of more Americans.  Appeasement always leads to conflict.
14. Voting Franchise Corruption.  The current US Department of Justice is run by far left radicals who have absolutely no respect for the law.  If re-elected, Obama's appointees at DOJ will run rampant in corrupting the election process, blocking voter ID laws and enabling voter theft on a scale similar to that of a banana republic.
15. Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.  High on Obama's agenda in a second term will be granting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, thus ensuring a permanent Democratic majority for decades to come. 
16. Ideologically Driven US Supreme Court.  In his second term, Obama will be able to appoint two to three new Justices to the US Supreme Court.  These justices will be similar to his past appointees, ideologically driven, having a high disregard for the Constitution, and following a far left agenda.  Individual freedom will suffer greatly.  Past rulings such as the Citizens United case will be reversed and social engineering by the High Court will become common and much more intrusive.  Churches and religious groups as well as gun owners will be under attack.

On October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed; due, most economists say, to the enactment of the Smoot-Hawley tariff law.  It was also brought about by expansive spending by big government Republican, President Herbert Hoover.  But by December of 1931, economic signs were improving, the stock market was rising, production was up, but government spending by the Roosevelt Administration was accelerating at an unprecedented pace.  Instead of a recovery that was on the horizon, the US was plunged into the Great Depression.  And because of the big government policies followed by the Roosevelt Administration, the US wallowed in the Depression for nearly eight years longer than the rest of the world.

The handwriting is on the wall.  The United States of America simply cannot sustain the irrational and unlimited spending of the Obama Administration.  When an individual or a government spends money it doesn't have, the result is inevitable economic catastrophe.  Socialism is a financially unsustainable model.  It always comes crashing down and it never recovers.  Government intervention into the marketplace (such as underwriting loans to people who cannot afford them in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) leads to economic misery, recessions and depressions.  Only the free market can restore prosperity.

If Obama is given another four years, the almost certain outcome will be another Great Depression that will far overshadow the current economic misery.  Such a Depression would give the President nearly unlimited power over the lives of American citizens.  It will mean the end of freedom and prosperity as bequeathed to us by the Founders.  Government intervention into the lives of its citizens will expand dramatically, regulating everything we do.  We will indeed become just another nation, no longer a beacon of freedom and hope to the world. 

The good news is that the American people are waking up to the threat to individual liberty and freedom posed by President Barack Obama and his radical Administration.  We are on the cusp of winning an historic election that will run from the White House to the state house to the court house to city hall.

The depth, scope, and importance of that election victory will be discussed in my next blog.

Caught With Their Pants Down

The problem with talking behind someone's back is that the story usually gets back to the one you are talking about.  And if you slander someone, they find out about it.  The result is that you look pretty bad and the person you lied about looks quite good.  That about sums up what happened in the recent Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

The fact is that most people don't pay much attention to politics until after Labor Day and most of them don't pay much attention to the race for President until the first Presidential debate.  So, for many of the 65 million or so that watched the debate between the incumbent President and the former Governor of Massachusetts, this was their first exposure to the candidates, other than the barrage of commercials that were aired on TV.  And, if you were lucky (or unfortunate, as you may think it) enough to live in a "battleground" state such as Virginia, North Carolina, Florida or Ohio, you received a double blast from the Romney and Obama political shotguns.  For months you have been treated to personal attacks on Mitt Romney as a low down, merciless, greedy, evil businessman who doesn't give a whit for the concerns of the poor or the middle income folks.  From the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on pro-Obama, anti-Romney ads you would think that Romney beats his wife, eats caviar for dinner every night, kicks the dog, and spends his time figuring out how he can benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.

When you spend several hundred million dollars developing a false narrative of your opponent, the only thing you can hope for is that the truth doesn't come out.  It is said the campaign book at the Obama headquarters has one theme, "kill Romney."  Now, the Obama folks don't mean that literally, but they do mean it politically.  Frankly, I'm not offended at the theme, except if it means slandering Romney.  In this case, painting a picture of Romney as a heartless monster was exactly the theme.  The success of the entire campaign rested upon creating this false caricature of Mitt Romney.  If they could do that, they felt they could win the election.

But when the first Presidential Debate took place, Romney failed to cooperate.  People saw that he was not the awful person that had been portrayed in the multitude of personal attack ads run against him on TV.  Neither was he a bumbling idiot.  The President tried to continue the false attacks on him, claiming that he would raise taxes on the middle income folks, but the problem was it just wasn't true.  Yes, one ITT (In the Tank) Think Tank came up with a cockamamie analysis that indicated that the Romney plan would raise taxes on the middle income folks by $5 trillion, but several other much more reputable think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, found the plan to be either revenue neutral or actually a reduction.  The Wall Street Journal also concluded that the Romney plan would not raise taxes on anyone.  Nonetheless, the President proceded to repeat this canard over and over again.

Surely someone on the Obama political team knew about the preponderance of analyses that concluded the Romney plan would not raise taxes on the middle income folks, yet they advised the President to proceed with this patently false attack.  What gives?  Did they expect the moderator, a kindly liberal fellow, Jim Lehrer, to come to Obama's aid?  And speaking of Jim Lehrer, the Obama ITT media and other liberal mouthpieces are outraged by the moderator's even handed handling of the debate.  Even though the President spoke for five minutes more than Romney, they think Obama got a raw deal.  What he really got was a political knock out from someone more talented, more accomplished, more knowledgeable, and more prepared than the President.  Barack Obama lost fair and square.  I have heard it said that a compulsive liar is speechless when confronted with the truth.  Maybe that was what happened at the Presidential Debate.

So, the President and his politicos simply acknowledged that he lost, conceded victory and moved on, right?  No, they didn't.  The problem was that they had bet everything on convincing the voters, especially the swing voters, that Romney was someone he wasn't.  So, instead of moving on, they have decided to double down and label Romney a liar.

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised since that comes right from the book that Obama taught from, Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky—accuse your opponent of what you are guilty of.  Staying on the attack is one of the tenets of Alinsky.  Never let your opponent go on the offensive.

Speaking of lying, it's hard to know where to start with Obama.  Here is the very short list of some of the whoppers that Obama has told…

1. I never heard my pastor say anything like that, i.e. "G__ D__ America" or in regard to 9-11, "The chickens came home to roost."  He said that with a straight face after sitting in his church for more than 20 years, donating more than $20,000 and dedicating his (as it turns out) third book to him and calling him a confidant.
2. I hardly knew Bill Ayres.  Ayres is the unrepentant domestic terrorist that bombed the Capitol Building and tried to bomb the Pentagon.  Obama knew him and his radical wife, Bernadine Dohrn, quite well.  He launched his state senate race in the home of Bill and Bernadine, he served on a board with Bill, he talked with him frequently, yet claimed to not know him well.
3. I do not support one payer health care like Canada.  He can be seen on video tape saying that he prefers one payer health care.
4. I support clean coal in coal producing states during his first run for president.  At the President's direction his EPA has virtually shut down all coal production.
5. I support all forms of energy production.  Oil exploration has gone up during my term in office.  Obama has stated in private conversations that he is not interested in any energy except green energy.  The fact is that during Obama's term in office oil exploration has been shut down in the Gulf of Mexico and squeezed to a near halt on all federal lands. 
6. I never voted to let babies die that were accidentally born alive instead of aborted.  False.  Not once, but twice Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions.
7. Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed as the result of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islamic video produced in the US.  The White House knew that the attack was not spontaneous and that it was likely an attack by Al-Qaida within 24 hours of the event, yet the President kept telling this lie a week later.
8. We have created millions of new jobs.  If that is true, why are there fewer people employed today then there were when Obama was inaugurated? 
9. I have always reached across the aisle to work with the Republicans.  Never once has the President attempted to work with Republicans to solve problems.  He has never compromised one iota. 
10. Amnesty for undocumented workers [illegals] was blocked by the Republicans.  The truth is that for two years the Democrats had total control of Congress.  The Republicans couldn't block anything.  Yet, the President tells his Hispanic supporters that it is the Republicans fault.

Nearly every day the President utters another lie.  Even claiming that Romney lied is a lie.  His administration is not only filled with liars, it is also filled with law breakers.  For example, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, has told lies under oath before Congress in regard to Operation Fast and Furious.  His Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sibelius, violated the Hatch Act by campaigning for the President.  The White House engineered an advisory telling Lockheed Martin that it did not need to abide by the law requiring them to issue a notice to their workers that they may be laid off due to looming defense cuts.  When a Republican Congress was elected in 2010, the EPA illegally bypassed Congress and issued regulations that were not approved by Congress when put to a vote.

The list goes on and on.  This White House has total disrespect for the law, for Congress, and for the United States Constitution, yet the ITT media always gives Obama a pass.  Even more than that, in the case of Operation Fast and Furious, CBS and others essentially covered up the scandal by not reporting it.  Verbal gaffs by the President and by Vice President Biden simply go unreported.

For this President and his team to talk about Romney lying is sheer hypocrisy.  As the talk show host Chris Plante likes to say, "If it weren't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all."  Indeed.

But don't expect the White House team to change its colors.  The next few weeks will be dirtier and more dishonest than anything you have ever previously witnessed in politics.  The Obama ship is sinking.  The polls are not only up, they are headed further upward and Obama the narcissist can't stand that. 

The next presidential debate will undoubtedly be less fair.  It is a town hall set up and the moderator will be fully in Obama's camp.  He or she knows what happened to Jim Lehrer when he failed to help out Obama in the last debate.  He was derided as incompetent, out of date, unfair, etc.  This time, you can be sure that Obama will be in full attack mode and the moderator will be giving him a boost at every turn.  You will probably get an inkling of the compliant ITT media in full attack mode at the upcoming Vice Presidential debate this coming Thursday.  Stay tuned for the fun and games.