Where is Our Hero?

America is the greatest story ever told, but we are missing our lead character.

Every story has the “narrative arc”. In other words, for a story to be decent let alone great it needs some basic elements of style, some structure; mainly a beginning, middle and an end. The truly great stories that have been told since the creation of the written word have had more than just a flow of events. They are saturated with conflict, opposition, struggle and most importantly resolution, triumph and victory.

But, the drama of those events hinge on the characters in the story.
A great story always has a courageous, self-less hero who sets out to defeat a heinous villain. Is there anything more compelling than a epic battle between good and evil, between annihilation and survival?

The embattled hero is the most beloved character of all time, and he can be found in every variation of storytelling from the bible to hieroglyphics in Egypt; from a elementary school history book to the Loew’s movie theater down the block. He is in comic books and the Disney movies of my youth; he is in the songs song around a campfire; in the lyrics belted out by rock bands. The hero is ever-present in the folklore of nearly every culture, and the story that is America is saturated with heroes.

Our history books are flooded with stories of bravery, courage, vision and ingenuity. The pioneers ventured to this great land at tremendous peril escaping religious persecution in Europe. They struggled and survived through the first vicious winters only to see their families flourish.



Our country was founded by a brave band of rebels; revolutionaries who stood on the battlefield facing the most powerful empire in the known world with little more than a few rifles and raggedy horses.

The curious minds of young student s are filled with images of George Washington stealthy crossing a fog-covered river escaping utter demise at the hands of the British or sitting tall upon his horse surveying the battle camp during the freezing winters; of Thomas Jefferson tirelessly working on a document by candlelight that would forever alter the destiny of mankind.

As young students, we imagine the lanky, tall Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address at a battlefield soaked with American blood.

Immigrants from all walks of life and from the four corners of the earth sacrificed all they knew to come to these shores in search of a new life. And, when opportunities dried up, they moved their families to the great prairies that stretch to the stony Rockies. The spirit of exploration thrived. Thousands of Americans entered the emptiness beyond the Mississippi; an unknown, uncharted land: the Wild West. Fear of Indian raids or the brutality of Mother Nature was not enough to weaken the American spirit of adventure. Who didn’t love the stories of law and order facing down the mayhem of corruption in Tombstone and Wyatt Earp shooting it out at the OK Corral?

One hundred brave Texans stood up to the Mexican army at the Alamo; refusing to let their country down; every last one of them perishing on the dusty courtyard of a old chapel.

Who doesn’t feel a tremendous sense of patriotism when they see video footage or photos of America’s finest young men storming the beaches of Normandy prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice for our country and the cause of freedom?

Neil Armstrong walking on the moon declaring that one of the last frontiers had finally been breached, just as President Kennedy said it would.

Ronald Reagan, standing before a crowd at the gates of ‘the Evil Empire”, demanding that the madness ends and that the wall that represented one of the most murderous governments be torn down.

Of course, who will ever forget the scene of the brave men and women of New York’s police and fire departments running into two towers ablaze on 9/11? And who cannot feel anything but deep admiration, love and appreciation for our troops fighting the War on Terror?

Our pop culture has always tapped into the emotions of Americans with the story of the hero. Countless movies tell of epic battles between good and evil; the power of one on the side of Right against the masses on the side of Wrong. TV shows, songs, cartoons and comic books all retell the story of our hero.

But, being a hero isn’t all that easy.

We want our heroes just, honest, and tough. We want knights of goodwill; people who will fight against evil no matter how perilous the journey, no matter how hopeless the fight, no matter what the sacrifice. We want our heroes to be the ultimate expression of who we are and what we believe in; our ideals incarnate.

People are drawn to the hero because the hero represents everything that we hope is in each one of us. Where we fall short, we want the hero to exist. The fights we are afraid to fight, we want the hero stepping in. The hero is more than a icon, a symbol. The hero is the embodiment of everything we want for ourselves and our families, he believes in the same things we do, he cherishes our ideals, he is willing to fight for the hopes and dreams of us all. He is our amplified voice; he is all we wish to be.

America is more than the sum of its borders; it is a living creature. Freedom and Liberty flows through its veins of democracy keeping its heart, the American people, pumping strong. America has always had and always needs a hero.

Americans love America and all this nation stands for. Even those of us who shy away from the word “patriotic” are patriots deep down. We cherish liberty and freedom and we always have been and we are willing to fight when the existence of those ideals are threatened. Americans are a kind and generous. We despise evil. We have a shared vision for a brighter and better tomorrow for ourselves and our families. We believe deeply in our Declaration of Independence and it eternal proclamation, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

We believe in America and all it stands for. We are a proud society. Americans are not willing to settle for mediocrity or second best. We know that we are better than that. Most of us still believe that this is a greatest nation on earth and, as Ronald Reagan described: the last best hope of man on earth. And, no one can tell us differently.

Our culture, our history is filled with folklore; stories about the hero who withstood all opposition, who overcame diversity and brought deliverance to the suffrage. We are our past. We tell the stories not just to hear them, but to relive them. We teach our children history in hope that they will learn more than just dates and names. We celebrate our heroes and our nation's successes so that generations to come will internalize the American character.

We are Americans. We are proud. And we need heroes who will fight for and protect this nation and what it stands for.

We want our politicians, but more importantly ( after all, we need to be realistic), our president to be of such stock. We want a hero in the Oval Office, a guardian of American values, a protector of our hopes and dreams. If you think back to all the men who have occupied the highest office in the land, who comes to mind as great - not good, but great - presidents? Washington? Lincoln? FDR? Truman? Reagan? All the great presidents were men who were living heroes; who protected our way of life and fought to keep America the great nation that it is. Sure, there have been other good presidents,fine men. Some of you will count Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Clinton among them and others might be inclined to count John Adams and Jefferson. But, only the heroes have that mystical allure about them and their presidency; only the heroes were great.

Heroes rise to the occasion. Would Lincoln have been Lincoln without the Civil War? Would Reagan have been Reagan with the devastating presidency of Carter or the Soviet Union? Would Washington have been a nameless farmer if not for the Revolution?

Each of these men certainly lived in trying times; moments in this country’s history when hardships were swallowing the American spirit whole. There is a common saying that “the times make the man.” That is certainly true, but the man makes the hero. Tough times are an opportunity and only the hero, the man of integrity, of sound character, of upstanding morals, of vision, of guts can rise to the occasion. Did Carter rise to the occasion during the Iran hostage crisis?

America once again is facing tough times. Everyone is feeling the economic crisis. Countless Americans are losing sleep over their jobs. Our nation was the victim of another attempted terrorist attack this week. Our troops are engaged in a war that spans two countries against a faceless enemy.

We need a hero; a president who could comfort our concerns, someone we can believe when he says he is doing all he can to keep us safe. America needs a leader, a man who can rise to the occasion and carry us out of the devastation of hopelessness that surrounds us.

We need another iconic figure to deliver us from evil, to keep us safe, to ensure us that better times truly are ahead. While so many believed this was going to be Barak Obama, most of us now know what we feared to be true: he cannot and has not risen to the challenges that our country faces. He is not the embodiment of all that makes this country great. He is not a leader, merely a bureaucrat.

As 2010 is gearing up, the eyes of the nation are looking for someone who can fill our void, ease our suffering and make America truly great again. A hero has yet to emerge, and we are waiting.

Americans Agree: Health Care Will Pass This Year; And They Oppose It

A new Rasmussen Poll this week shows a huge jump in the number of Americans who think that health care will pass this year. But, that doesn't mean they like it.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters nationwide now expect that health care reform legislation will pass this year. That’s up from 49% before the Senate passed its version of the legislation on Christmas Eve - and by far the highest level of expectation yet measured.

And, as most of you might have guessed, opposition to the bill still runs strong.

However, while expectations for passage have risen dramatically, support for the plan has not. Just 40% of voters nationwide now favor it while 55% are opposed. Those figures are essentially unchanged from a week ago. This is the sixth straight week with support for the legislation between 38% and 41%

When it comes to health care reform, Americans are worried about: costs and quality. And, the current legislation falls short of easing those concerns.

When it comes to the costs of health care, a shockingly low "13% now believe the proposal will achieve its stated goal of reducing the cost of health care."

Well, if something costs more, it's usually because it's better, right? Nope.
Most voters, 54%,"now believe that passage of the plan will make the quality of care worse. Those figures have remained fairly consistent for months."

I have a rule of thumb: if the majority of people share an opinion, that opinion is more likely than not a reality. I am baffled that the "policy makers" in DC aren't wising up to the mood of America.

Read the full Rasmussen Report here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Americans Feel that the Economy Has Not Been Stimulated

A new Rasmussen poll released last week show for the first time that a plurality of Americans believe the stimulus plan has hurt the economy.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 30% of voters nationwide believe the $787-billion economic stimulus plan has helped the economy. However, 38% believe that the stimulus plan has hurt the economy. This is the first time since the legislation passed that a plurality has held a negative view of its impact.

Well this seemed inevitable, I think that there are two interesting points highlighted in this poll.

Firstly, this poll shows a massive move away from Liberalism. Keep in mind, that the Democratic Party and Liberalism has always believed in a massive, central government. The government, according to this ideology, is the cure to all social ailments. Republicans and Conservatism, on the other hand, believes that the government should mind its own business favoring a small, non-intrusive central government. Obviously, I adhere to the latter. After all, all it takes is a visit to the post office or your local DMV to realize that the government is inept at handling anything well. And, it seems that most Americans do not want a large, free-spending government:

50% of voters believe increasing government spending is bad for the economy. Just 28% believe that increased government spending helps the economy.

Concerns about federal budget deficits also play a role in evaluating the stimulus spending. Voters continue to think that the president’s top budget priority should be cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. But they see it as the goal the president is least likely to achieve.

Government spending equals a growing government, a more entangling bureaucracy and Americans are getting tired of it.

I believe that these numbers reflect a ideological shift towards Conservatism, even if we don't call it by a name.

This paradigm shift is greatly seen amongst the "unaffiliated" voter.

Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 52% believe the stimulus plan has had a negative impact.

The second interesting point is that there is a tremendous disconnect between the "Political Class" and the American public.

The Political Class has a much different view than the rest of the county. Ninety percent (90%) of the Political Class believes the stimulus plan helped the economy and not a single Political Class respondent says it has hurt.

Clearly, the average American, the backbone of our society, the folks who work hard for the money they earn, are unhappy with the economy and, perhaps more importantly, unhappy with the way their government has addressed the issue.

The economy is the number one issue gnawing at the minds of Americans. People are afraid and uncertain. Will they have their job next week or fall victim to unemployment? When their sons and daughters graduate college, will they find a job? Will the economy ever recover? Why is the government spending my tax-payer dollars on nonsense?

As Americans search for answers, the government continuously fails to offer sound minded policies. Americans are saving their money, the government is spending it. And, as a result, Americans are going to be looking for real change in 2010.

I hate to always look at things through a election lens, however, if Americans are fed up, the only thing they can do it vote. If their representatives fail them, Americans need to fire them; vote them out of office. Our vote is our voice and I have a feeling Americans are going to be loud in 2010.

For the full Rasmussen Report, click this link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/december_2009/for_first_time_plurality_believes_stimulus_plan_hurt_the_economy

What Is the Difference Between the House and Senate Health Care Bills?

Most of us haven't read either health care bill that has been approved by the House or the Senate. Beyond being filled with typical ambiguous legislative wording, these bills are monstrosities and they are beyond the scope of the Average Joe.

As Americans, we have the right to know what our elected officials have in store for us; especially when their votes and policy decisions directly impacts the health and well being of our families. Before these bills go to conference, I think it is important to know what the fundamental differences are between these beasts of bills.

The Heritage Foundation, one of the leading and only voices of Conservatism today, has prepared a fantastic, concise paper that outlines these differences.

The giant House and Senate health care bills[1] reflect a common ideological foundation: a profound congressional faith in the efficacy and desirability of federal government control over the financing and delivery of Americans' health care, ranging from federal control over health benefits to the dramatic expansion of government coverage--notably Medicaid--for new classes of American citizens.

Nonetheless, there are consequential policy problems to be resolved. Before a final bill reaches the desk of the President, House and Senate negotiators must iron out these differences and engage in further compromise and concessions. Read the full document: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2740.cfm

Obama: You Don't Want Someone Slick

Obama has been stomping the campaign trail hard for Creigh Deeds, the Democrat in the Virginia gubernatorial race. He made one comment, recently, that struck me as odd.

In describing Creigh Deeds at a rally, Obama seemed to try and convince his audience to vote for the candidate who can offer real solutions, not someone who is merely "slick" looking. Obama's message seemed pretty darn simple: Sure, Deeds might look like a wreck adn his opponent, McDonnell seems well groomed and put together. But, does that really matter? Vote based on the issues! Here is a little of that exchange:

"Are you looking for someone slick?"
The crowd shouts back: No!
"Are you looking for someone who will be fighting for you...I hope you are going to be voting on his track record."

But, Mr. President, and forgive my ignorance, but weren't you viewed as the "cool, hip" candidate in 2008? If I remember correctly, your "style" was part of your whole image, right?

I don't know, maybe my memory is failing me. I just thought the comment was ironic. Check out the video link below.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8930953

War Against FNC, Chamberlain Reborn

When it comes to foreign policy, President Obama has been called an appeaser. If you had any doubt about that being true, look at the president's recent attempt to censor the media and the character it reveals.

In case you missed it, President Obama went to war with Fox News trying to block their access to a White House czar. Fox was triumphant in this little struggle as other news agencies refused to partake in the interview if anyone was banned from access.

So, Obama tried to control the media and silence what the White House considers opposition to their policies. This is exactly what was going on in England during the late 1930s.

One of the most infamous appeasers in the last century was Neville Chamberlain. Fueled by his immense stubbornness, Chamberlain pursued peace at all cost even has the horrors of Hitler's war machine were becoming know. One of the tactics Chamberlain and his government used leading up to disastrous meeting in Munich was to control the press and the information the general public received.

The media has the overwhelming responsibility to deliver the truth. While Chamberlain and his government never officially censored the press, they did all they could to suppress any anti-appeasement sentiment.

Jack Margach, a reporter for The Sunday Times, later remarked in his book The Abuse of Power: The War Between Downing Street and the Media from Llyod George to Callaghan (p. 50):

"From the moment [Chamberlain] entered No. 10 in 1937, he sought to manipulate the press into supporting his policy of appeasing the dictators...In order to cling to power, Chamberlain was prepared to abuse truth itself. He made the most misleading and inaccurate statements, which he was determined to see published so as to make his polciies appear credible and successful. Quite simply, he told us lies."

Officials from Chamberlain's government (Lord Halifax in particular), expressed envy when talking about Hitler's ability to control the German media. The government determined which politicians were able to speak on BBC radio and what exactly they were allowed to say. Controlling the media and determining what people are told, how they are told it and who delivers the message is a central character trait of any politician and/or government blinded by the falsity of appeasement.

America, like the British, are a proud people. We have a heritage soaked with patriotism. Our forefathers waged a revolution that defined the very meaning of liberty and freedom. Most Americans are extremely proud of that heritage and this country's place in history.

Appeasement does not sit well with the majority of Americans. Firstly, we are not nor should we be apologetic of who and what we are as a nation. Our ideals are of the finest; we never have to apologize for what this country stands for. Appeasing dictators inevitably means apologizing for celebrating individuals' freedoms; it inevitably means that we are wrong.

Secondly, while I wish to believe that we are all peace loving, I know that we are not willing to sacrifice security, liberty and freedom for the sake of a empty peace. We are not foolish enough to believe that every world leader values freedom, desires peace or is a rational partner in negotiations. If history has taught us anything at all, is that there are truly evil people in this world and some of those people rise to power.

President Obama, like Chamberlain, is blinded by his childish belief that peace can be achieved. All we have to do is apologize for who we are and compromise what we believe in and than we will all be able to lovingly hold hands. Thankfully, Americans aren't buying it.

The recent attempt to muscle Fox News isn't shocking. The president and his administration were only acting in character with a administration of appeasement.
Over the last couple of months,Fox News Channel and its highly talented staff was the lone voice of reasoning; questioning the ridiculous numbers of White House czars, covering in depth the town hall meetings, releasing real economic figures, and exposing ACORN for the criminal enterprise it truly is. Fox News alone has been the watchdog in the media. Fox News was and is exposing the flaws in this administration's policies. In Obama's mind, they therefore needed to be silent. So Chamberlainean.

Gosh, I'm Annoyed!

President Obama is bothered by all the criticism.

No, not about his handling of the war or his failure to unite the nation under his health care reform effort. Nope, not the summer full of town hall meetings.

What annoys the president the most so far...being criticized for spending over $278,000 of taxpayer money on a date.

The New York Daily News reports:

He told this Sunday's New York Times Magazine the criticism he received for whisking his wife up to Manhattan for dinner and a Broadway play was the single most annoying experience since arriving at the White House
Read more:

Gosh, that is annoying!I would be annoyed too if people were totally overlooking my significant flaws, misjudgments and failures and focusing on a date!

Is Andy Afraid of Rudy?

Yesterday, the New York Post reported that the New York Attorney General and aspiring gubernatorial candidate sent a message to Rudy Giuliani: I'm all in!

The Post reported that:

"The confidential message, conveyed through intermediaries, was delivered to Giuliani recently and is expected to play a central role in the former mayor's impending decision on whether to run as the Republican candidate for governor in 2010, sources with knowledge of the situation said.
It was sent as a courtesy -- Giuliani says he's "friends" with Cuomo -- and as a warning that the former presidential candidate would face a brutal and, according to a dozen recent polls, losing battle against the highly popular attorney general."

It was an interesting move and I would be satisfied with the explanation that Cuomo was courteously giving Rudy a heads up except for one bothersome fact: who didn't know that Cuomo was running for Governor?

Cuomo has made his intentions very clear: he is going to challenge his Party's current governor in 2010, assuming the Governor Paterson chooses to run again. Cuomo has already begun fund raising for his campaign. The potential match up between Paterson and Cuomo even gained national attention when it was alleged that one of the President's political advisers asked Paterson to step down and not run for re-election. And than there was the debate over the Obama hug/snub when he was in upstate New York a few weeks back.

So, again, it is safe to assume that Rudy - and the rest of the nation - has long known of Cuomo's political aspirations. Why, then, the warning, or the heads up, or whatever else you choose to call it?

Cuomo is getting nervous. A primary against Paterson will be ugly, unpleasant ( Paterson is New York's first African American governor) and, most importantly, costly. And, there is a very realistic possibility that it might become a three-way Primary, only complicating Cuomo's life even further.

Rudy is the only New York Republican that can wage a legitimate campaign for the governorship - sorry Lazio, but you ain't got a shot. Rudy might be running behind Cuomo in the polls now, however, if Cuomo gets caught up in a rough Primary, voters' opinions of him will inevitably change and for the worse.

If Rudy does run, Cuomo's life becomes very difficult. When developing a campaign strategy, he will be forced to build up reserves for a legitimate General Election campaign whereas if Rudy chooses not to run, Cuomo can focus a far larger number of resources - both money and manpower - in the Democratic Primaries to ensure his victory against Paterson and whoever else emerges in that contest.

And, while Cuomo is entangled in a brutal battle with his own Party, Rudy can travel the state, build a a robust grass-roots organization, and raise huge lumps of cash( don't forget, the mayor still has a large national donor base from his presidential bid).

If Rudy runs, Cuomo might very well win the Primary but find himself stretched too thin.

This note was a scare tactic. Cuomo knows that his future is jeopardized by facing a formidable candidate in the General Election. Cuomo needs Rudy to stay out of this thing enabling him to go full throttle during the Primary and than coast through the General Election against Lazio. Therefore, in his desperation, Cuomo sent his little note.

Whatever Rudy decides to do, I think it is fair to say that Cuomo is not as confident as some people think; despite the encouraging polls. And, I don't think Rudy is the kind of man that backs down from a challenge.

For Full Article

Isreal Take a Hike, We Love You Iran

It became clear today that America is no longer Israel's close friend and ally.

This morning, the United Nations Security Council voted today on a proposal that demands that Israel give up its atomic weapons, and it passed. Yep, that wasn't a typo. The world has demanded that Israel disarm and face the hungry wolves with nothing but sticks and stones.

And where did America stand on this resolution? Well, last September America opposed a similar resolution that targeted Israel's nuclear arsenal. Not this time. This time, Obama's administration abstained.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens points out that America was strategically motivated.

"...the factors that chiefly seemed to drive the administration's decision to abstain from this morning's vote were more strategic than personal. Western negotiators have been pressing Iran to make good on its previous agreement in principle to ship its nuclear fuel to third countries so it could be rendered usable in Iran's civilian nuclear facilities. The Iranians, in turn, have been adamant that they would not do so unless progress were made on international disarmament." (Read the full artcile here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574454782341597654.html)

Than, Mr. Stephens quotes a senior administration official:

"The Iranians have a point...The U.S. can't forever be the enforcer of a double standard where Israel gets a nuclear free ride but Iran has to abide by every letter in the NPT... How can we tell Tehran that they're better off without nukes if we won't make the same point to our Israeli friends?"

Look at what this official is say: Iran has a point? In what twisted version of realty does Iran even have a opinion on the world stage? At what point did we begin taking policy advice from foreign dictators?

The White House should be ashamed. The president's approach to nuclear disarmament is naive, dangerous and irresponsible. Nuclear disarmament has never and can never work. The good guys, the nations that would never think of attacking a foreign sovereignty are always the first to drop their weapons while evil rulers who wish to further their own agenda while destroying anyone in their way simple sit int eh corner snickering with their stockpiles of weapons. Disarmament always leave the innocent vulnerable to the violent attacks of aggressors. Every move that the world has made towards peace has been negotiated through strength.

is Obama foolish enough to think that peace can be achieved in the Mid East if Israel disarms? He cannot be serious!

What would have happened if Ronald Reagan moved America towards disarmament in the early 80s? Hundred of millions of innocent people would be living under the brutal communist regime in Russia. Liberation from fear and the deliverance of liberty to countless millions was only made possible because America became stronger and built up our arms. Reagan knew that you can only negotiate with a bully from a point of strength.

Israel is the only thing that keeps some resemblance of order in the middle east. Iran, Syria and other hostile nations are kept in check from the fear of Israel's might. Israel is the only deterrent in the region. And, I promise you no matter what Iran says over a cup of coffee in front of a fire place and no matter what Israel does, Iran's current regime will never cease to pursue a nuclear arsenal.

This White House official claims that we are trying to tell Iran that they are "better off without nukes." No! No we are not. We are telling and must continue to tell Iran that under no circumstances will America and world allow them to have nukes. America has never been a enforcer of a " double standard".

A double standard is when you have different expectations from similar sources. Israel is a peaceful nation and always has been. They have never invaded the borders of their neighboring countries. Israel has never mobilized its army provokingly. They have never sent verbal threats to their enemies. Israel's leaders have never displayed a apocalyptic disillusion. Israel has never said another nation does not have the right to exist. Israel has never funded terror groups who constantly attack women and children, targeting civilian centers of life. Iran has done all of the above and more. Clearly, America and the world must treat Iran differently. And, that is not a double standard.

All Ican say is: Shame on you Mr. President. Today, your administration has drastically changed our country's foreign policy. Today you have abandoned a long time friend in the region. Today, you have brought the possibility of a nuclear bomb going off within the borders of Israel a bit closer. Today, your administration has failed this country.

Psss...What Would You Do?

Yesterday on CNBC's Squawk Box embattled Governor Paterson came out swinging at the ghosts challenging would be candidates to explain what they would do.

"If you had any courage ... get up and say what you'd do now."

It sounded to me like poor Dave was desperately fishing for some free advice. Can he really be that lost? Well, he just might be, but, Paterson would never have the sense to realize it. Instead, he was actually trying to turn up the heat as it becomes more and more apparent that his own Party wants him out.

Than the Governor threw a swing while dropping his guard:

"When all these phantom people who say they are running for governor get into this race, they're going to have to answer the same questions that I've been answering for 18 months,"

Well, most New Yorkers really don't think you have been answering our financial crisis, Mr. Governor. In fact, roughly 80% DISAPPROVE of the way you are executing the duties of your office. We simply do not like your "answers".

And if you are taking a swing at potential candidates like Mayor Rudy Giuliani, you are way out of your league.

Do you really want to know how Rudy Giuliani would handle New York's financial crisis? Look how he governed as mayor.

When he became mayor, New York City was in severe financial trouble. His pro-growth, conservative policies cut unemployment in half, created 423,000 private sector jobs, and increased personal income by nearly 50%.

Like you, Rudy faced a massive budget deficit; $2.3 billion dollars. However, by 2001, he turned that into a $2.9 billion dollar deficit.

Stop scratching your head Dave, I will tell you how he did it. As mayor, Rudy slashed the wasteful spending and drastically reduced the size of government. In fact, he eliminated 20,000 full-time city-funded city jobs (or nearly 20%)excluding teachers and uniformed police officers. I know Mr. Governor, what about all those jobs lost! Unemployment must have spiked! Actually, 640,000 people were able to come off the welfare rolls.

And, the answer was never to burden New Yorkers with more taxes. Rudy reduced or completely eliminated 23 taxes, including sales, income and business taxes. This resulted in over $9 billion dollars in tax savings for hard working New Yorkers.

Mr. Governor, if you want to know what Rudy would do, I suppose the answer is simple: he would rise to the occasion and tackle the tough issues facing New Yorkers day in and day out with common sense solutions built on the principles of accountability and responsibility. Rudy would get us on the right track. Unlike you, Mr. Governor, he would actually work on our behalf.

If you want to challenge candidates like Mayor Rudy Giuliani on economic policies, you are way out of your league.. I hope your suit cases are ready ( oh, and leave the $20,000 rug your wife bought to decorate the mansion in Albany. That belongs to the taxpayers silly!).

Is the First Lady Anti-Family???

The First lady, Michelle Obama, spoke to a group of family advocacy groups and health care professionals. Get what she said, as reported by Bloomberg.com:

Mrs. Obama said women are being “crushed by the current structure of our health care” because they often are responsible for taking care of family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care.

“Women are the ones to do it,” she said to an audience of 140 people, including representatives from groups such as the Women’s Chamber of Commerce and the National Council of Negro Women. “Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses.” Read the full article here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aTUFlFQHNlEI

Now, I grew up with a stay at home mom. Whenever I had the sniffles, she was there with a tissue. When a viscous bee stuck me for the first time in kindergarten, she came and picked me up. When I stayed home from school, she would make me soup. When I got older and went away for high school and I felt a cold of some sorts coming on, she was the first person I spoke to. AND WE HAD INSURANCE!

So, as you can imagine, the First Lady has left me kinda of confused. Is she saying that the uninsured families around America have a harder time taking care of their children or is she saying that a government-run health care system would lessen the burden of raising children by swiping away the sick ones in the middle of the night? Hopefully a comprehensive health care bill will be passed that truly helps ease the costs of health care in the country and enables everyone to be covered. However, I hope and pray that when we get a strawberry on our kneed after falling off our bikes, or when we get our first stitches or when we need to be covered in pink lotion and take goo baths to ease the itching of chicken pocks, our moms will still be there to make us feel better, to give us a hug, to ease the pain and, yes Mrs. Obama, to sometimes take us to the doctor.

You Cannot Silence Us

The draft of a new bill (S.773) seems to give the president ( obviously, that would currently be Obama) full authority to shut down the internet access to a private sector as he sees fit.

To be fair, the assumption is that the president would use these new powers only when the nation or a specific sector is being attacked. But, as we all know well, powers granted can easily be abused. After all, who is to say what a true emergency is? Perhaps, blogs criticizing the new health care plan might be considered a "threat". Or, maybe the lunatics in our government might come to the conclusion that the town hall "mobs" threaten public safety and shut down the internet as a way of "protecting" Americans? POOF! There goes Twitter. And, what was that sound? Oh, it was the crashing sound of Democracy being thrown out the window.

It has long been known that the mainstream media has lost its way and has become extremely liberal. They do what they can to twist the truth in favor of liberal ideals and to destroy any and all opposition, i.e. the conservatives and Republicans. We clearly saw this during the coverage of the 2008 presidential campaigns and we continue to see it in the current coverage of this White House.

This week, the mainstream media has hit another low. As the health care debate is heating up, numerous third party ads have hit the airwaves, some in favor of and others against the current health care proposal. This is the healthy process of democracy. Everyone's voice should be heard and heard as loud as someone wants to shout it. However, some networks disagree. ABC and NBC have refused to air a ad that is critical of the health care proposal. ( Read more here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543940,00.html)

Censorship is a critical aspect to any tyrannical government. The Nazis used censorship to control their propaganda machine. Communists used it and continue to do so in China and North Korea. More recently, in Iran, when thousands of the country's citizens organized and protested the recent elections, what was one of the first things the tyrannical government did to suppress the threatening uprising? They shut down access to the internet.

And now in the nation that redefined liberty and freedom is seeking to do the same? Where is the outrage?

Censorship has long been a weapon of the anti-democracy arsenal. Control what people hear, say and see. Manipulate them with your own version of the story; lead them to believe in the lies you are creating. Now, our very own government is trying to seize control of the First Amendment.

Is this what we are becoming? A government that uses fear and power to control our lives? Look what our government is doing to our freedoms. They are willing to sacrifice everything that makes America the "last best hope for mankind". Just look at what they are trying to do: control the media, suppress the outlets for the First Amendment and silence the opposition. Well, we will not and we cannot be silent. We are Americans and we cherish the tremendously profound ideals that have made this country great far too much. This is a young country, but one with a rich history. If our history says anything about us it is this: we are willing to do everything and anything, even offer the ultimate sacrifice, to protect America and all it stands for. We are a nation of fighters. We are kind and compassionate. But not weak or naive. We are the American people and we will only take so much.

The outrage you see at the town hall meetings is Americans at their best. The elderly folks who flock to these events to voice their opinion are the same Americans who lived during the last Great War. They have seen what this country is willing to suffer to ensure that freedom and liberty endures. They are the protect of such sacrifices. The young married couple are the Americans who fear that their children will inherit a America that vaguely resembles the one they grew up in, if at all.

We are America, the greatest country on earth. Try to take away our freedoms, and you will see what we are mad of. Test our resolve and commitment to liberty and you will hear our voices. Try to silence us, we will only shout louder. We do not back down and we will not be bullied.

*text from the bill http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf

Cheney on CIA

Vice President Cheney's statement to The Weekly Standard:

The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions. President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security.

From http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/cheney_statement_on_cia_docume.asp

Major Tom to Ground Control

 

On Sunday, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez said that, when it comes to Latin American policy, President Obama is "lost in the Andromeda" galaxy.

 

Chavez went on to say that the "empire" ( that is us, America, by the way) should get its hands out of Honduras and our "claws" ( was that another reference to the devil?) our of Latin America. "President Obama is lost in the Andromeda Nebula, he has lost his bearings, he doesn't get it," he said.

 

These comments came after the American and Columbian government came to agreement that would allow the US to use and have access to seven Columbian army bases allowing the two governments to more effectively combat the Columbian cocaine trade and guerillas. This move might also impact the revenues for Venezuela's corrupted government.

 

This sort of irrational and extreme rhetoric is nothing new for Chavez. However, this should be a lesson to Obama.

 

On the campaign trail, Obama practically demonized the Bush administration's approach with Chavez constantly blaming President Bush for destroying diplomatic relations with Chaves and Iran, to name a few. Friendly relations. Open dialogues. Reaching out with a open arms to dictators and tyrants alike ( not that Obama or the Left would ever call them that). And I am sure we all remember the tender moment back in April when Obama shook Chavez's hand at the Summit of Americas and accepted Chavez's gift: a book title called Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent
by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano. For interesting info on the book's background, check out this ABC blog: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/chavez-gifts-ob.html.

 

Bush is long gone, but the hatred remains. America stands for liberty, freedom, equality and individualism – all ideals despised by tyrants around the world who rule the masses by keeping them down, destroying their will for independence through fear; tyrants who abuse their power; forgetting the needs of their people and focusing on their own power and wealth.

 

These leaders are bullies. And there is only one way to deal with a bully: toughness, toughness and toughness. Obama was a slightly delusional candidate, I hope the recent slanders from Chavez helps convince him to be a smarter president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Guilty, Plea to a Lesser Crime

Today the White House finally admitted that something screwy was going on with their email system. Apparently, it was possible for third party groups to sign up your email address at the White House webpage causing you to receive unsolicited email updates from the administration.

This issue first came to light when Fox News' Major Garrett confronted White House Press Secretary Gibbs at a routine press conference( see previous blog).

After a few days of bad media, the White House figured out what went wrong. Sunday night, White House spokesman Kick Shapiro said:

"We are implementing measures to make subscribing to e-mails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual’s behalf"

Ok, so the White House admitted that their system was flawed. They apologized. There was a loophole that other people and/or organizations were abusing. The deed was wrong, the White House is innocent and the straw men are to blame.

Than Shapiro continued in his statement:

"The White House e-mail list is made up of e-mail addresses obtained solely through the White House website. The White House doesn't purchase, upload or merge from any other list. … [A]ll e-mails come from the White House website as we have no interest in emailing anyone who does not want to receive an email."

Sometimes, when someone has done something wrong, they would rather admit to a lesser crime to avoid further investigations. After all, if they were guilty of something graver, they would admit that as well, right? This is a childish tactic and the White House might be using it here.

They admit to being the victim, state what would be wrong and clarify that they would never dream of doing it.

To be clear, I am not saying that the White House is guilty of any wrongdoing. Perhaps they really are the victim of clever third party operational tactics. But, what if, just what if it is more than that? Or, what if the White House assisted these "third parties"? Don't we deserve to know? Keep at it Major!

Major Garrett vs Gibbs - Is the White House in Your InBox?

In Case You Missed Last Week's Fiery Exchange



Last week, Major Garrett from Fox News hammered away at an issue during a routine White House press conference once again showing the bias that is corroding the integrity of the modern day media.

Basically, Garrett received numerous complaints from people claiming to ave received emails from the White House - from David Axelrod to be exact - without signing up for these updates. The email was more or less an issue advocacy piece "clarifying" the President's health-care plan and urging Americans to get behind the current legislation.

Garrett asked Press Secretary Gibbs a very simple question: why are these citizens receiving email updates from the White House? Are they on a list? If so, how did the White House cultivate these email lists?

The question was straight forward, direct and relatively simple. Why did Gibbs seem so agitated and frustrated with the question?

Garrett was actually just scraping the surface of a very complicated issue.

The White House cannot partake in political activity and they cannot lobby the American public. President Obama has actually maneuvered around these restrictions by allowing or supporting the creation of Organizing for America,the campaign apparatus left over after the president's run.

This organization is currently housed in the headquarters of the DNC. According to the Huffington Post:

Organizing for American has roughly 13 million e-mail addresses and two million active volunteers, though its strength in helping to advance specific legislative items has yet to be tested. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/30/organize-for-america-to-t_n_162519.html)

13 million e-mail addresses at their disposal. Unlimited funds. Organizing for America is a beast to be reckon with, be sure of that. However, the real question that should bother all Americans who believe in freedom is: what is the true relationship between this organization and the White House?

Major Garrett was just scrapping the surface of a profoundly important issue. Did the White House utilize the organization's e-mail list? Is the White House overstepping its role in electoral politics? Is the Obama administration abusing its boundaries as the executive branch? Is the government mining IP addresses for emails? Late at night, when Axelrod, Emanuel and Gibbs are sitting around, are they bending some rules in the name of the"greater good".

Through my own professional experiences, I know you can purchase voter files with email addresses. Did the White House purchase a list; an act that I imagine is borderline illegal, immoral at best?

The end of this story is yet written. However, two truths have already come out:
1. Major Garrett is probably the only objective reporter in the White House
2. This can be the beginning of a far larger story and we should all thank Garrett for "following his nose" as the they say in the newspaper business.

Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Unrest at a health-care Townhall Meeting in Tampa

" You work for us!"

Town Hells

Americans are giving the Dems a ear full during their recess. Unruly and upset crowds flood these town hall meetings. Is this what Obama was fearful of? Was this the reason for the rush?

Check out this video...

President Obama in His Own Words

This is what he really thinks about government controlled healthcare

Crowd Explodes at Sen. Specter

Americans are speaking out. WE DO NOT WANT HEALTHCARE REFORM DONE FAST!

Neutral and Detached Healthcare? Just Ask NYC

Finally, some of the stimulus money is being spent. And on something useful!
The government dished out one billion dollars to various cities to enable their law enforcement agencies to hire extra personnel.

Brilliant! Fantastic! I mean this is a great way of spending the much awaited funds: creating new jobs while keeping us safer.

But get this: guess who was left out? New York City! You know, the city that has been and continues to be a consistent target of terrorism.

However, this post is not about New York City getting the shaft from Big Brother. This post is actually about government controlled healthcare (or anything government controlled for that matter).

How did the government determine which cities deserved funding that would allow them to increase their police force?

Well, the acting director of the Justice Department office administering the program, Dave Buchanan, said that his office used a “uniform system of evaluating applicants” which “allowed us to review applicants in a neutral and detached manner in order to best allocate funds”
Read that very carefully. Mr. Buchanan was offering us a very honest insight into how government bureaucracies make decisions; decisions that affect our daily lives.

The government is cold and calculating; objective and bottom-line oriented. We are a government “of the people” and people work beyond the scope of mathematics. Of course we are logical creatures, but we are also emotional, thoughtful and able to utilize all the traits that make us human while making decisions. This truly makes us a unique species. Government, however, is also its own entity; a entity that thrives on formulas, charts and spreadsheets.
Formulas can work out well on paper but can also miss the point.

Anyone reading this would have enough knowledge from life experiences to realize: hey, New York City would be a smart place to invest in increasing security. It is the financial capital of the world and it has already been the victim of two terrorist attacks, one that has completely changed the world we knew it. But, when New York City was plugged into the formula, they were rejected.

When you read Mr. Buchanan’s words “neutral” and “detached” you should start rethinking government controlled healthcare.

If you are ever in the need of a surgery that can prolong or even save your life, do you really want some mathematical formula determining whether or not you are worth the expense? Do you really want your healthcare determined in a vacuum void of human experience; one that is “neutral” and “detached” when determining how to “best allocate funds”?

I do not know about you, but I want my healthcare provider to be extremely subjective and attached. I want them having a shared investment in my healthy existence. I want them to place my existence above all us when deciding whether or not my insurer should be allocating funds.

My god people!

Obamacare: Isolate Opposition. Apply Pressure. Lie.

Last night, Americans sat around their TVs watching the president try to sell his healthcare plan. Many of the viewers were yearning for clarity; they were hoping for change, myself included. Instead, many Americans turned off the TV, scratched their heads and walked away numbed by the president’s vagueness.

The speech was eloquent with the typical flawless Obamaesque delivery. However, it lacked substance. This speech needed to circle the wagons in congress and convince Americans that healthcare will evaporate in this country unless we implement this legislation and do it now. None of that was really accomplished.

Americans are not going to buy into the idea “that society as we know it will cease to exist unless we act now”. We did that once before and the memory of the stimulus package still stings. While we all know that America’s healthcare needs reform, none of us think we will all be left to suffer if we don’t act now. In fact, most of us think that we should take a step back and think this thing through so that the reform truly changes the system for the better without crippling our economy or burdening taxpayers or falling short of any of its goals.

The speech did not cultivate bi-partisan support. Obama really wasn’t reaching across the aisle last night. Instead, he used his prime time spot to vilify the opposition.
All in all, the speech truly failed to convince Americans or members of congress to jump on board the Obamacare train. What, then, is the president’s next step?

Isolate opposition. Apply pressure. Lie.

Isolate Opposition
Today Roll Call reports that Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that criticizes the health care reform plan. All official mail sent by members must be approved. The piece in question here is a chart created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) that illustrates the organization of the Democratic health care plan (I posted it a few days ago).

The Democrats in the house are holding these mailers for further review. They are going to stale for as long as they can. Americans deserve to know the truth about the healthcare reform that their representative is going to vote for or against. After all, that is the definition of representation; members of congress go to DC to watch out for our interests. Controlling media and communications isolates the opposition and allows the Dems to run a propaganda machine.

Apply Pressure
Today, the House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn announced that he wants to cancel or postpone the August recess in order to pass Obama’s healthcare plan. The president and the Democrats definitely want this legislation rushed, but I think Rep.

Clyburn, no doubt acting on behalf of Pelosi and the White House, has another agenda.

It has become abundantly clear that Americans do not support the current legislation. Every poll that was released over the last two days, shows a dramatic decline in support for the president on the healthcare issue. Remember: elected officials are at the mercy, and rightfully so, of their constituents. If members of congress go back to their districts, they will be bombarded with complaints and concerns from angry constituents. After a few weeks of direct contact with the people they are meant to serve, members will return to DC even more skeptical of the president’s plan. Support will inevitable erode and we will get the opportunity to see if this really was Obama’s Waterloo.

That is unacceptable to the White House and Democratic leadership.
Therefore, keep congress in session during August. Keep them away from the pulse of the people and keep them cooped up in their offices, apply pressure, convince, cut deals and twist arms. Summon them to the Oval Office.

Lie
Nancy Pelosi came straight out and said, “I have no question we have the votes on the floor of the House to pass this legislation.” Excuse my ignorance, but if that was true, what is the hold up?

The truth is Ms. Pelosi and the presidents do not have the votes. They can whine and try to blame Republicans. However, the GOP is powerless in this process. The Dems have majority control in both chambers of the House. They control the Executive Branch. If the Dems wanted this bill to pass, it would in the blink of an eye. However, the truth is that not all of the Dems are on board just yet.

Rep. Mike Ross, a leader of the Democrat group called the Blue Dog Coalition said, “No, I don’t think they have the votes.”

With every passing day the likelihood of them rounding up the votes before the fall seems impossible.

This isn’t going to be the president’s Waterloo, it will be his Titanic. Realizing that his overwhelming charisma is not enough to get the job done, Obama has reverted back to old school Chicago political tactics. He might be an inspirational speaker and brilliant politician but Mr. Obama is a lousy leader. Healthcare is a serious issue, and, Mr. President, your 15 minutes of fame over. Get off the cover of People Magazine; stop touring the world. Sit down and get the job done. Listen to the voice of the American people. You work for us, not the other way around. Stop talking and messing with my TV schedule. Start doing, accomplish and succeed. We don’t have time or patience for your mind games.

Oh, and read the bills before you advocate for them! As a rule of thumb: read than approve.

Obama Intimidates Elmendorf - America and Tyranny

The day has started off on a scary and weird foot. This morning, Obama has summoned Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, to the White House.

Clearly, Obama meeting with the leaders of various industries, as he has, is not all that unusual. However, summoning Mr. Elmendorf is extremely inappropriate and highly suspicious.

Mr. Elmendorf is the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This is an independent agency that reports directly and only to congress. It was created to be free of political influence and to present congress with a truly objective perspective. This is how the CBO describes their role on their webpage (http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/budgetprocess.shtml):

CBO assists the House and Senate Budget Committees, and the Congress more generally, by preparing reports and analyses. In accordance with the CBO's mandate to provide objective and impartial analysis, CBO's reports contain no policy recommendations.

On July 16th, Mr. Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee about the healthcare legislation currently proposed in the House (you know, the plan that Obama has been talking about nonstop for weeks). He was there to offer a little perspective and objective analysis of the bill. And, it wasn’t good for the president’s plan.
During the testimony he explained that this legislation did not offer "the sort of fundamental changes" that would reign in the costs of healthcare. He went further saying:

"the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals."

His words had a rippling effect causing Democrats to begin rethinking their support for the president’s plan, especially among the more moderate Democrats. His words justified the complaints of the Republicans. Clearly, Elmendorf is a critic of the president’s plan; an extremely legitimate and valid source of dissent.

How did the president handle Mr. Elmendorf’s analysis? He breaks protocol and summons him to the Oval Office on the morning before he delivers a significant address to the nation on the very issue that Elmendorf criticized! Hmm, I wonder: did the invitation come with a dead fish wrapped in newspaper from Emanuel?

Ok, lets sum this up: The president proposed a massive overhaul of healthcare. The director of the CBO, an objective oversight agency, explained before congress that the plan will not and cannot achieve its goals. Elected officials and the general public accept this analysis and start rethinking the plan. In the wake of the president losing support, he schedules yet another press conference/televised national address in a intense PR blitz to defend his legislation (which, according to his own admission in a conference call with liberal bloggers, he has not read in its entirety). On the morning of the address, the lone objective, non-political voice of dissent is summoned to the room with no corners, the Oval Office.

Wow, this sounds a tad Stalinesque.

Nowadays, people throw around words like: fascism, socialism, authoritarianism. Lets loose the “isms” and go with a far more simple definition for the direction Obama is stirring America, shall we?

Nathan Sharansky wrote in The Case for Democracy:

“Can someone within that society walk into the town square and say what they want without fear of being punished for his or her views? If so, then that society is a free society. If not, it is a fear society.”

American has always been the very definition of a “free society”. We are a nation that was founded by men who stood in the town squares challenging their king at the top of their lungs. Freedom is in our bones; it is the bloodline of our country. Our political system is built on the idea of debate, dissent and arguments. Difference of opinion is a concept celebrated throughout the Constitution.

Today, Obama seems to have taken us another step closer to a "fear society". Don't disagree, or we are coming for ya!

Tyrannical rulers silence their opposition, not American presidents.

Obama: New Polls, Bad News

President Obama has blasted through the first six months of his presidency. But, for a man who achieved the presidency after a mere 150 days or so in the United States senate, time is irrelevant. Or maybe it is extremely relevant.

Perhaps the president is simply used to a “roadrunner” pace, but America isn’t.

A six month anniversary isn’t necessarily a tremendous benchmark, but for a president who has quickly and drastically introduced and pressured dramatic new legislative measures, much can be said after six months of work. Beyond that, it is also interesting to see how Americans are responding to a president who they were only introduced to over the last two years or so; a president whose background was void of legislative accomplishments to brag about or who had any significant voting record.

Therefore, as Americas have become acquainted with President Obama, it is worthwhile to see how they feel about what he has accomplished (or tried to) in his first six months in the Oval Office.

Overall, Americans like Obama. While he has begun to see his approval ratings dip, his approval rating has averaged 62%. That is not too shabby at all. But, when you ask Americans about the issues, a very different picture begins to take form.
Americans are facing extremely harsh economic times. When the economy began to tank back in September, many voters looked to Obama to save them from imminent financial doom.

We were promised that the stimulus package would “immediately” rescue the slumping economy and that it would help create jobs while keeping the unemployment rate at 8%. Those promises have evaporated as the economy seems to be worsening with unemployment at 9.5% nationally and over 10% in 14 states. Over 2.5 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office. Where is the stimulus plan’s immediate relief? Where are the new jobs? Empty promises.

Americans want their politician to keep their promises. Obama hasn’t and Americans are not happy. When it comes to the economy, President Obama’s approval rating has dived from 59% in February to 47% today, according to a recent Gallup Poll. 59% of Americans feel that he is spending too much money and 55% of Americans disapprove of the federal budget’s deficit.

The president has made healthcare reform his primary focus; perhaps in attempt to redirect the national dialogue away from the stimulus package’s failure. There seems to be countless press conferences and prime time addresses stressing, once again, the urgency to pass legislation to “immediately” save our healthcare system.

But, Americans aren’t buying it this time around. Maybe the failure of the stimulus package has caused us to be skeptical. Or, maybe Americans don’t want to become a nation with socialized medicine. Either, Americans are frowning.

In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 51% of Americans disapprove of Obamacare.
And, this isn’t an isolated poll.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, 50% of Americans disapprove of the way the president is handling the healthcare issue. More interestingly, 55% of independent voters, the individuals who really secured the presidency for Obama, disapprove of the president’s healthcare proposals. Do I hear opportunity knocking on the door of the GOP (please answer!)?

The same Gallup Poll revealed that the majority of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling Afghanistan and Iraq; two areas, interestingly enough, where the Obama administration has kept most of the Bush administration’s policies.
As we reflect on the last six months, it is abundantly clear that most Americans are concerned about the way the president is handling the critical issues facing our country. They might have believed in him a few months back, but now they are beginning to lose their faith.

While we have a long way to go, Obama should be nervous. Americans are patient and they have definitely given this president the benefit of the doubt, offering him some lead way. But, that patience will only last so long before it wears out. The gravel coming down the mountain can turn into a landslide very quickly. Only time will tell.

Obamacare: Can this be more confusing? Seriously...

Read Between the Lines Chuck; Sotomayor even more questionable

Our new SCOTUS nominee, Sotomayor, has been making her rounds on the Hill meeting with the key players. The issue that seems to have been coming up, and rightfully so, is whether or not Sotomayor is a reverse racist or not.

Does she judge with race in mind? Was the case in Connecticut with the firefighters a example of that? Can you truly be for equality and civil rights if you do not view everyone equally?

All of this erupted when a one of Sotomayor's statements hit the news cycle shortly after her nomination. In 2001 (and the WSJ is reporting that she made the same exact statement in 1994, the judge said:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

(Hmmm. White people can't have rich experiences too? And since when did all of life's experiences help us reach better conclusions? If that were the case, the entire psychological medical field would fold up and close their doors. The truth is, certain life experiences make us bitter, angry, revengeful, biased and untrustworthy. I don't want any of those attributes in a judge, let alone a SCOTUS judge. But, that is not the point.)

Democrats have been defending that horrific sentence for a week now. Today,Sen. Charles Schumer, a senior Judiciary Committee member, met with Sotomayor and afterward he made himself, as always, available to the press. When the senator was asked if he had a chance to bring up the issue with her, the answer was extremely enlightening, at least for me. In fact, I think good old Chuck made it far worse for Sotomayor.

Yes, he did ask her to explain herself. Here is what he said, and read carefully:

"She said, 'Read three sentences later -- nine white males changed history with Brown v. Board of Education."

That was her defense: put it in context! That seems to be the strategy Sotomayor and supporters have taken for about a week now. Well, Chuck did. He read on quoting Judge Sotomayor's three sentences later:

"We should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group....Nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues, including Brown.

Ok. Us, the "others of different experiences" than Sotomayor, might, we just might be capable. After all, "nine white men" got it right. In a world of biased, racist white men, nine got it right. The rest of us: grab the hoods and pitch forks.

Are you serious! That is the context they summon together to defend her!? If anything, it reinforces her earlier statement.

I would ask Ms. Sotomayor:
1. There are only nine people who got it right?
2. Any other white people on the right track since 1954? Or has it been downhill from there?
3. So, despite our "white" background, we really are capable of empathy and morality? Really? Truly!?

Way to go Chuck, you convinced me: Sotomayor's views on race must be scrutinized.

Obama Silecning the Marching Beat

Today was a long day. Plugging away on a new project for a new client and it simply wasn't going well. I came home, nibbled on some leftovers, and opened up the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. I usually read the Journal in the early morning while sitting outside and sipping a coffee and enjoying the early morning sun; one of my indulgent moments. But, today things just got off on the wrong foot. I was late; while the news was read throughout the day, the op-ed was postponed. Now that I was home, I had time and opened up the pages that waited for me all day, teasing me as they lay on my desk.

And, there it was. At first I skimmed it over and moved on. Than, I read it again and a feeling of remorse settled over me, reminding me of what we, all of us, the country as a whole, has lost since January.

The article was titled Islamists Lose Ground in the Middle East by By JOSHUA MURAVCHIK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124381143508370179.html) and it is a must read.

Mr. Muravchik describes the incredible, no, monumental election that took place in Kuwait last month. This was more than a election; it was a revolution of ideas, of hope, of real authentic change.

It was the birth of democracy, of freedom in a region ruled by tyrants and ruthless rulers. Four women, four amazing women, were elected to Kuwait's parliament. Unprecedented. Amazing. But, why didn't I hear about it, or at least pay more attention?





The answer is simple: Barak Obama.

After all, how can democracy be celebrated elsewhere, when, at home, the government has taken over the auto industry? How can we value the accomplishment of a electoral system at work elsewhere while our government is protecting and funding ACORN here at home? How can we celebrate the spread of capitalism and independent financial freedom when our own banks are being bought by the government and we are told which cars we can buy? How can we celebrate freedom when we are being punished through numerous taxes for lifestyle choices as mundane as which soda we buy ?How can we appreciate overcoming oppression when Americans are wondering where the money for food is going to come from while the president goes on a $300,000 date? How can we stand as a shinning city on a hill while our president apologizes to the world for our existence? How can we be proud of others while still wondering what has happened to us?

Empathy. That has been a buzz work lately, with the Sotomayor nomination and all. But, if you want to know about empathy,to define it, you must look at the presidency of George W. Bush. Let's leave alone, for a moment, the thousands of meetings the president had with the families of our fallen soldiers, which is a amazing testimony to the man in of itself. The president felt the pain, the burden of oppression, not only for Americans, but the citizens of the world.

President Bush believed in freedom, in liberty and in what the human spirit can accomplish with those ideals as its sustenance. The president worked to promote democracy around the world.




Bare with me for a moment and indulge in the following quote from President Bush:

“Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of demoracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.”

But, Bush was concerned with more than just security. It worried about people and the life that would be able to live. He understood the immense suffering felt by a wounded spirit. Mr. Bush had faith in people and truly believed that every single person should have the right to dream and be given the opportunities to pursue those dreams. It wasn't solely about our own freedom, but the idea that freedom for all means safety and security for all. It is also so much more.

Now, with President Obama, we are realist, as President Bush said, but no longer Americans, or at least what made being American so splendid.

I have been to Venice. And in San Marco square there are numerous cafes that line the walls and each of them has an ensemble that plays typical classical music. Tourist love it. Some newly in love and some in love for decades sway along with the dancing notes. But, the square has a horrible echo; a nightmare to any musician. So, these ensembles of talented Italian musicians would take turns. First one band would play a set and than the next and so on. Always polite, always allowing the crowd to mosey along to the next musical delight.

We are America. The birthplace of democracy and all its glorious ideals. We are the place that destiny has empowered to be a nation that is ruled by a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Read that again and truly grasp who we are as a nation, as a country and what our government is meant to be.

Our music is meant to be shared, to be celebrated. We are not meant to sit this one out and patiently admire the glorious notes another's freedom. We are meant to play on together, to compliment one another. Where has our music gone? We were the composer, and now the tone deaf critic.

If we are polite, if we refuse to join- in in the masterpiece of music that is global democracy, we will fall into the shadows of history and time; become irrelevant, all sad and broken.

America has always been a nation of visionaries; innovators who broke through the barriers built by logic and reason. We are a people who venture beyond the prairie and dive into a new ocean. We are a country founded by people who risked their lives to cross treacherous seas to reach a rocky shore, bear the harshest of winters, and dig in the earth to plant a new seed in a land with no prior example to follow. We always looked towards tomorrow and asked: what if? But now? Now we are on a path that leads us to a place we have never been. A place that will cause us to long for yesteryear, to remember, with a fancy, what once was.

Freedom and liberty is blossoming in the desert. Hope is in the eyes of the old and young alike. The spirit, the remarkable spirit of the human soul is vibrant and reaching for independence, for liberty, for personal freedom like a starving seed that, after the winter, stretches towards the brightly shinning sun; like fresh drops of water on cracked parched lips. Democracy is on the march, moving to the beat of a steady drummer, thumping on the ground as it pounces over tyrants and prejudices. Freedom is on the march elsewhere; here, it is silent, in retreat, bashful and apologetic. Here, President Obama has silenced the drummer.


I am exuberant about the freedom others are discovering, but wondering where America's has gone? I am overwhelmed with joy at seeing the vision of our Founding Fathers enacted in the lives of the oppressed, but enviously yearning for a freedom of our own. I am too young to be nostalgic, but nostalgic nonetheless.

I suppose all I can do is wait; wait and see if the American people will rediscover itself and demand change; not the kind of change romantically but emptily spoken of on a campaign trail from a teleprompter but the kind that can bring us back to our destined greatness. I suppose all I can do is hope; thirst for true change that can bring American back to its founding principles; the same principles that are bringing salvation to the rest of the world.

I suppose all I can do is be thankful I lived to see a man like President Bush in the White House. For now, anyway.