Wednesday, December 30, 2009

And We're Supposed to Feel Safe?

This is what happens when you have a bunch of politically correct appointees who are more concerned about spin in the press and the Miranda rights of Gitmo detainees than they are about being at war with terrorists. Listen to the clips on the screen but scroll down to read the words of former Vice President Cheney as you listen. (Speaking of VPs, haven't seen Biden lately. I feel like he's due for foot-in-mouth moment.)

Start this first clip only if you believe what she says in the second clip about her statement being taken out of context.

The tone of Obama's remarks below is exactly what Cheney is talking about in the text below this last screen.

Can you imagine this him-hah-um-um-um instilling any confidence in our country or our troups when a more serious incedent happens, and yes, I'm afraid to say I think it is far more likely to happen now that Obama and his likes are in charge than it was during the eight Bush-Cheney years. Seriously, the president sounds like the SNL version of himself; he sounds like a college professor telling a bunch of freshmen what will be on the semester exam. He does not sound like a president whose administration and Homeland Security Secretary just dropped the ball with 300 innocent lives at stake. Heaven help us!

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war." Vice President Cheney

Read more here.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Unmasking the Health-Care Bill Charade
Excerpts from speech on the floor today:
Senator Mitch McConnell

‘And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen. That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

“So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.

“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.

“The Majority disagrees.

“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

“Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.

“Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.

“Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.

“And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.

“And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen.

“That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.

“That’s what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

“So this entire process is essentially a charade.

“But let’s just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here’s a snapshot of what we’ve done and where we stand:

• The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend — four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake

• No American who hasn’t been invited into the Majority Leader’s conference room knows what will be in that bill

• This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November — less than four weeks ago.

• We started the amendment process two weeks ago.

• We’ve had 21 amendments and motions — less than two a day.

“Now let’s look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.

“No Child Left Behind" (2001):

• 21 session days or 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 44

• Number of Amendments offered: 157

“9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act" (2002):

• 19 session days over 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 20

• Number of Amendments offered: 30

“Energy Bill" (2002):

• 21 session days over 8 weeks

• Number of Roll Call votes: 36

• Number of Amendments offered: 158

“This isn’t an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy — to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American — and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.

“I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday:

‘Given the enormity and complexity,’ she said, ‘I don’t see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.’

“And I think Senator Snowe’s comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point.

“Here’s what she said in late November:

‘I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade shouldn’t be determined by one vote-margin strategies – surely we can and must do better.’

“The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it. Here’s the latest from Pew. It came out just yesterday.

“A majority (58 percent) of those who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them while only 32 percent favor them.”

“There is no justification for this blind rush — except a political one, and that’s not good enough for the American people.

“And there’s no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen.

“Americans already oppose this bill. The process is just as bad.

“It’s completely reckless, completely irresponsible.”


And may I add, if President Obama is willing to let this happen before the full senate can read it and have proper debate just to get a "win" before Christmas Break, it will reflect not true leadership but rather his desperate need for the pretense of achievement—even the empty shell of achievement—which is a sure sign of what will become a hollow presidency.
And if that does give you hope that the wheels will soon fall off Obama's empty cart, listen to this motivating speech from congressional candidate Lt. Col. Allen West:


Tuesday, December 1, 2009

I Never Cared for Dean's Politics,
But He's Not Afraid to Call it SOCIALISM

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Reality vs. Photo Ops...

Wow! I wish I had more to add to this first video clip but it is simply the best explanation I've heard for why Obama has made a terrible decision to try KSM in a federal court.

Among other things, SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM says: "If you're gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you're saying he's subject to criminal court in the United States and you're confusing the people fighting this war."

Another reason this is a pathetic decision on Obama's part is that we will now give these terrorists a televised platform from which to spew their hatred.


On nearly the same day that the above clip was filmed, Obama was in Joe Cool mode with the fighting men and women. I'm not going to pretend he didn't pull off this line and get a respectable laugh. I'm not going to imply that the soldiers didn't feel flattered that he called them a photo op... I'm just saying that if a Republican leader were that glib about those we put in harms way while dithering about their mission, he or she would be excoriated. On a more serious note, I think this tone is foreshadowing of the fact that he is about to end his dithering about future deployments in the least combative way possible, and he will probably time his announcement to capitalize on the Holiday Season. That, too, will be well recieved at first....but then we will remember that this person is still in candidate mode...still candidating for something beyond what he has already gained...this person is the same candidate who would not wear an American flag lapel pin for years until a veteran at another photo op asked him to do so while the cameras rolled.

[In the above montage of photo ops is the one he authorized in NYC near the anniversary and site of 9-11 in which the public thought we were under attack, but hey, he got a nice photo of AF1 in front of the Statue of Liberty, and that's what counts.]


Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Meet Governor Rick Perry of Texas...


The tenth Ammendment reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Think about that in light of what Obama and Pelosi and Reid are trying to do right now. Never has the White House pushed more state governors into a serious study of the implications of the Tenth Ammendment.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

When Unions Overstep

I did not know this about FedEx and UPS. Makes me want to use FedEx in the same way that I wish I could go buy a new Ford just to say "Thank you for not taking the bailout money and being the most successful US carmaker during these hard times."

In less than two minutes, this clip will teach you a lot about free enterprise, unions, and the government's power to play favorites with the thugs (and community organizers) that put them in office. We are seeing the birth of a new form of government that can "absolutely, positively guarantee that it can crush any business overnight." [And that goes for private health care providers, too.]

Monday, November 2, 2009

The Power of Seeing the Truth

Back in August, I speculated about why the state of Connecticut banned 3-D ultrasounds. This story confirms my theory to some extent. The director of this Planned Parenthood watched a 3-D ultrasound of an abortion in progress and suddenly understood the reality of her job with Planned Parenthood, the business ($) of abortion, and her need to become an advocate for life.

"Finally what happened one day was I actually was in the room when a different type of abortion procedure was being done. And that day I just thought, I can't do this anymore," said Johnson. Read full story here.


Thursday, October 15, 2009

Folks, This is Rich! Sad but Rich!

The parallels between this story and what Obama and Company are doing to the American people are so obvious I'll not even write them down.
You be the judge.
This share-the-wealth story exposes the flaws in human nature that inevitably surface when people feel entitled to something for nothing. What a perfect parable for us to watch as we witness the Obamazation of a country built by hard working hands, willing to lend a hand in true need, but never expecting a government hand-out.

It will be interesting to see if other video from inside the store surfaces. This account and others tell how the store was trashed and looted while some demanded they be allowed to keep what they piled in their carts even after learning that the "source" of the give-away was actually flat broke and had no means to fulfill such promises.

Monday, October 5, 2009

It's Time for a Dear John Letter, Man

In case you missed this last Friday night, Dave Letterman had his audience in stitches as he disclosed his multiple sexual harassment exploits with various young female staffers on his show.

Tonight he is going to apologize to his wife (who is the true victim of his "It's good to be the King" mentality, but I hardly believe she was the last to know what he is like with subordinate babes). I'm sure that moment will be heart-felt and aired often in days to come, but other than those lines, reportedly, he just can't help but play his plight for laughs. For his entire career glib irreverence in hopes of a laugh has been his best shot. Sad when that's all you've got. Live by the sword; die by the sword. Play it for all it's worth while you still have fans who think it's funny.

Don't get me wrong. I'm against blackmail (if that's what it was that exposed him); and I think Letterman's truth telling is strategically prudent for a man in his position, but public confession and man-on-the-street forgiveness is not a magic wand in criminal matters, and this is still very likely to turn into sexual harassment case whether he's a celebrity or not. He has to hope for 100% tight-lipped loyalty from all those girls that notched his belt. (Or should we say un-notched it?)

I agree with Andrea Peyser of the New York Post who says dump depraved Dave now! I wonder what the top ten reasons will be for his final exit off that little stage?

One thing is for sure, there will be a movie made of it (there always is), and we haven't heard or seen the half of what his joke writers are capitalizing on for the moment.

Update: next morning video clips found here.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

There's Somethin' Happenin' Here...
Feeling Insecure in the Homeland

Click on this link to see a website about an event that caught my attention today.

Turn your volume up and imagine this happening here at our U.S. Capitol. At the bottom of that web page the Muslim hosts proclaim:


Above that it says that the goal of these 50,000+ Muslim worshipers who will gather on the mall, bow toward Mecca, and use loud speakers to chant the Athan ... "echoing off of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill" will be to "...manifest Islam's majestic spiritual principals [sic] as revealed by Allah to our beloved prophet Muhammad (PEACE BE UPON HIM) of Arabia....The peace, beauty and solidarity of Islam will shine through America's capitol."

Is this real? If it is, did you know it was happening Friday? I didn't. I'll confess that it makes me feel pretty insecure about the homeland. It makes me think of a post I wrote last November that hinted that a great nation was about to be changed forever as people mumble "nothing like us ever was." But it's the verb WAS that bothers me the most. It's past tense... I have that feeling again.

I am not saying all Muslims are a threat to our homeland. I'm not saying they're all like Najibullah Zazi, arrested just today as part of a sleeper cell plotting to bomb our homeland. I'm not saying they're all like Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad who calls the Holocaust a myth and only yesterday tried to evangelize his fleeting audience here in our homeland. I'm not saying all Muslims secretly chant "Death to America" or hope to take over our homeland (as shown in the film Obsession. (Click on that link.) I'm not saying homeland security has anything to do with the feelings of insecurity that swept over me as I listened at that Islam on the Capitol website.

But I am saying this is my homeland; I have feelings for my homeland. I have feelings about the buildings of our Capitol and the flag that waves above them. I welcome those who cherish the historic America of our founding fathers, but I am cautious of those new to my homeland who wish to change it to their liking (just as I am cautious of those who only upon ascending to power find reason to be proud of this country). I have feelings for those who would drastically change or harm or "take over" my homeland.

For what it's worth, if 50,000 Muslims descend on DC Friday there's somethin' happenin' here.... unlike anything that has ever happened since Jefferson first penned "We the people..." used so freely in the artwork above.

Update: Friday evening: Sounds like this thing was a flop. Notice the difference between the projections of 50,000+ Muslims in this article the day before the event and this article about the few thousand who actually showed up. The event recieved scant press and caused little stir. I'm okay with that. The less attention the better.

I suspect the following video represents what is more likely to happen as the "take over" continues:

John Stossel Moves to Fox

I just recently learned that John Stossel of ABC News has left that network to begin a new weekly show at Fox. I plan to watch him there, but do you realize just how blatant the so-called main stream media (MSM) bias will become if the few reasonable voiced like Stossel leave? That sort of bias is the topic of his article this week.

"When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine.

"Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement.

"So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias?"

He explained his reasons for moving last week in last week's article.

"In my new job, I want to dig into the meaning of the words "liberty" and "limited government." For many years, through Republican and Democratic administrations, we have been losing something vital in America: the commitment to individual liberty and the understanding that as government grows, liberty shrinks."

Sounds like what I was saying in that last post. Good for you, John!

Monday, September 21, 2009

It's Not a Sermon. It's a Warning...


My cousin sent me this video clip. I know many people are inclined to dismiss "preachy" presentations. But rather than ignore this, take note of the following considerations:

First, Pastor Stephen Broden is not a Bible-thumping idiot; he does not fit the Hollywood stereotype so often embraced by those who misunderstand believers with a Biblical worldview. Second, he is not a racist simply because he strongly disagrees with the dramatic changes Obama and his handlers are foisting on America; Third, listen carefully to the implications of what Broder is saying. If you disagree with the premise of Broden remarks (i.e. that these recent events are a set-up for the ultimate clash of historic democratic values and socialism), ask yourself this: What part of bigger and bigger government sounds like the intentions of our founding fathers? In what ways does a nanny-state resemble the pursuit of happiness? The more the government supposedly "gives" the more it takes away--not only through taxes but also individual liberty.

Look at the generations who made this country great for 200 years. Did they take individual responsibility to maintain constitutional rights or did they just keep adding to the list of so-called "rights" and holding out their hand to the government to provide for them? (e.g. Healthcare is not a right. The fact that Obama's plan intends to "tax" (or fine) people for not buying into his program, confirms that it is not a right. Rights cannot be purchased. Sickness, accidents and death are a reality in this broken world. Because of that, healthcare is an important responsibility of each home, etc., but good health and living the longest-possible life are not constitutional rights nor can any government afford to create a world in which such things are promised by the State but funded by the tax payers. Such promises will only increase taxes and dilute the quality of existing health care services in the name of "fairness."

When the founding fathers said "all men are created equal," they did not mean it's the government's duty to put them all in the same mess. I explained this last October in "Thoughts on Home Ownership":

"Ironically, "freedom" and "equality" are conflicting ideals. The "freer" man is to pursue happiness the sooner he becomes less "equal" with those around him, because freedom allows each individual to rise above his current position; it allows for both self-improvement and self pity; it allows one man to build a tire factory, another man to sell rope, and yet another man to put up a tire swing. All three enterprises can be profitable in different ways, but the last one will likely put less in the bank. ... Governments should ensure that all starting lines are equal, but when they change starting lines to "equalize" outcomes, it underscores the conflict between the ideals of freedom and equality."

That was true of the "affordable housing" myth that treated home ownership as a "right" regardless of one's ability to pay for it, and it is equally true of healthcare. Broder does not say this directly in this speech, but what he does say is at the heart of why "gridlock" is more important than ever while America begins to see Obama's "change" for what it really is.

For further reading:

Saul Alinsky. Why some consider Alinsky controversial. More Alinsky commentary. Francis Schaeffer and his "Christian Manifesto."


Saturday, September 12, 2009

I Missed the Tea Party

I wasn't at this tea party, but some DC officials have reported that two million people showed up to protest run-away government spending. My guess is it was half that number.

If today's tea party gets any mainstream coverage, I suspect the liberal pundits will focus only on the most outlandish of the signs and quotes of the day, but I dare say, if they cared to be accurate, the vast majority of all those who cared enough to show up at the capitol were decent, fair-minded people.

If one considers the hatred and venom spewed on President Bush (and Sarah Palin for that matter), the worst of the signs were probably far less profain, but I do wish those who make "shocking" posters would ask themselves if they think they are helping or hurting the tea-party cause when they go too far.

Looking ahead to 2010, it is the vastness and volume of a million voices--not the venom of the thoughtless few--that will get the attention of elected big spenders. (I decided to write on this positive story and not the unbelievable exposed corruption of ACORN.)

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

What Obama Says vs. What He Does

By Thomas Sowell

In order to fully appreciate Thomas Sowell's latest op-ed, we must read these lines from his piece two weeks ago:

What [Obama is] trying to do is to create an America very unlike the America that has existed for centuries-- the America that people have been attracted to by the millions from every part of the world, the America that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.
This is the America for which Michelle Obama expressed her resentment before it became politically expedient to keep quiet.

It is the America that Reverend Jeremiah Wright denounced in his sermons during the 20 years when Barack Obama was a parishioner, before political expediency required Obama to withdraw and distance himself.

The thing most associated with America-- freedom-- is precisely what must be destroyed if this is to be turned into a fundamentally different country to suit Obama's vision of the country and of himself. But do not expect a savvy politician like Barack Obama to express what he is doing in terms of limiting our freedom....

Just as magicians know that the secret of some of their tricks is to distract the audience, so politicians know that the secret of many political tricks is to distract the public with scapegoats.... Barack Obama's escapes from his own past words, deeds and associations have been escapes worthy of Houdini.

Like other magicians, Obama has chosen his distractions well. The insurance industry is currently his favorite distraction as scapegoats, after he has tried to demonize doctors without much success....Obama even gets away with saying things like having a system to "keep insurance companies honest"-- and many people may not see the painful irony in politicians trying to keep other people honest. Certainly most of the media are unlikely to point out this irony.

And here excerpts from his current article:

What Obama Says vs. What He Does

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election?

If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be....There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening....

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing-- and how he has been doing it.

[End of Sowell's essays.]

And the White House wonders why so many people have already lost the trust they had in thier candidate last November; they wonder why some people bristled at the question originally given to teachers to ask after they made thier children listen to today's speech: "Now, What can we do to support the President?" The White House withdrew that question from the rubber-stamped lesson plans, but it tainted the intentions of the noon-day address. Don't get me wrong. I was not overly concerned about today's speech (though our school did not show it due to logistical issues).

Today's speech was innocent enough if one only considers it "words," and as President I think he is entitled to speak to kids about inspirational themes as he did today... but it is tomorrow's speech parents need to worry about. It will be just as charming, and millions of child-like followers will be asked to "support" him after he pulls the last rabbit from his hat.

Last November, Obama sold his goods as "Change You Can Believe In. Belief takes trust...and that's lacking. One thing is for sure: He does not promote change we can THINK about, because he doesn't want America to think about what's really changing. He just wants us to clap at the end of his act.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Friday, August 21, 2009

Caring about Health and Life

The July post below this one was left on top of the blog for over a month. Each time I came to update or write a new post, I glanced over that post and thought it still summed up how I felt so well that I just left it alone. Who would have guessed that the vocal opposition in town hall meetings would have thrown the Democrats in such disarray? Here's to healthy obstruction!

In the meantime, though, I found the video news clip below about the state of Connecticut banning 3-D and 4-D ultra-sounds like the ones produced by Peek-A-Womb or similar providers.

A few years ago, when I first saw pictures produced by the new 3-D technology, I said to my wife, "This is going to really upset the pro-abortion activists. A picture's worth a thousand words."

I knew images like these would prompt reactions like what the mom in the video says: "I feel more like the baby is real...not just a blob."

I wonder if any other bloggers or media voices will raise the same question I have: Do the liberal lobbyists and legislators in Connecticut find the power of 3-D images of unborn babies a threat to their political agenda? Why would a state ban something with no medical evidence to support thier actions?

Well, let's consider this article written in the New York Times by Connecticut
Senator George C. Jepson: In 1990, Connecticut passed pro-abortion laws so "if Roe were overturned tomorrow, the status quo would be maintained without exception. As a result, Connecticut now ranks in the forefront of states protecting abortion rights."

The passage of that law, however, "was nevertheless supported by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford and the Pro-Life Council of Connecticut."


Pro-abortion Senator Jepsen explains: "For abortion opponents, the statutory standard for a fetus's viability is an important symbol - the first step in restricting choice. Drawing a line at viability implicitly acknowledges, as Roe did, that states can legislate legal protection for a fetus. There can be no question, however, that the legislation's intent and effect supports abortion rights.... We had aggressive, intelligent lobbying from the Connecticut Coalition for Choice."

I could be wrong, but I suspect many opponants of 3-D ultrasounds are not concerned about risks to the baby (after all they believe a woman has the right to kill it so why would they oppose her taking a picture of it alive and well?). No, the concern is about the powerful pro-life implications of the image. I can't help but think that the 1990 Connecticut lobbyists and legislators (who were willing to rest the abortion question on "viability" of the fetus) now find 3-D images disturbing because they put faces on the unborn. They help expectant mothers see first-hand a viable baby much earlier than was possible in 1990. Pro-abortion advocates may be afraid that the definition of viability will change from "able to live if outside the womb" to "clearly living and waiting to be outside the womb"? I wonder if they winced when they first saw the General Electric TV ad that said, “When you see your baby for the first time on the new GE 4D ultrasound system, it really is a miracle.”

Here's the clip that triggered these thoughts:


Thursday, July 16, 2009

Taking Action to Heart

I don't know if any other conservatives feel this way, but for several months, I come home from work and rather than turn on the news to hear the latest, I just skip it. It all seems so predictable (or should I say predicted?) that I can hardly stand to watch it unfold.

For decades America has complained about "gridlock" in D.C., but let's face it... it is gridlock that helps prevent a lot of stupid things from happening; it is gridlock that thwarts "change" that is not for the better. It's gridlock that allows "inaction" to impede ill-advised action. And, yes, I'm including ill-advised action of past Republicans, too, back when they had a little more say in Washington.

Both parties have managed to prove what Lord Action said more than a hundred years ago: "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern: every class is unfit to govern."

The problem we now face in America is that there is no gridlock, no checks and balances. Obama and his liberal hacks are free to force their agenda on the country even as his rating plummet. In fact, I think it is because of his falling numbers that the Democrats will act with all the more urgency. As I said a few posts ago, "Get it done now. Who cares if we get it right."

So I say Here's to gridlock! Here's to standing in the way. Here's to inaction. And who better to quote on this topic than Lord Action himself?

It was Lord Action who said:

"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Lord Action had several other thoughts that speak to the heart of this post. Such as: "There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” Have there ever been so many millions of blind Americans who have proven that heresy as now?

Here's another of his famous lines: "The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

Wisdom from the past is welcome seasoning for the present. This would be a good time to take many of Lord Actions words to heart, but I'll stop with "Socialism is slavery." Still true over a hundred years later.

So yes it is depressing to watch the news these days. Not because of the natural ebb and flow of politics as usual but because of what is grossly unusual, the gaudy parade of audacity dressed up in false hope, of "actions" that are more ill-advised than inaction.

I do not feel as though we are watching the strategic redirection of a great country but rather irreversible changes that will undo that country. Obama is not "building" with Lego blocks; he is playing with dominos and seems to be putting them in place for purposes that perhaps even he does not understand.


Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Since I posted the picture below, I also want to point out that I explained how it could be clarified by video even before the video surfaced. See update at the bottom of the post.

Never judge a man or woman on the basis of one snapshot. Have you ever noticed how many "unflattering" pictures were published of our former president and how so few (not including this misleading print) have surfaced of Obama? The same kind of "editing" bias occurs with photo journalism as with all journalism. The bias of the person who decides what the public sees or reads or otherwise has to live with will always influence decisions. It's true for photographers, editing managers, and Supreme Court justice nominations.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Oh Be Careful Little Eyes What You See...
President Obama and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy were waiting to take their places in a picture with junior G8 delegates for a photo in L'Aquila, Italy, yesterday, July 9, 2009.
In fairness to both presidents: we live in an age when every frame of motion is captured by rapid-fire cameras. What may look bad in a single frame may be quite innocent on video.

It's possible that both men are just making sure that the young ladies are careful with that first step onto the stage. That's a doozy!
(Wouldn't it be awful if the president had said "That's a doozy!" [referring to the step] and it was picked up by an off-camera mike? But like I said, unless the video confirms that both men forgot the admonition of that old Sunday School Song "Oh, Be Careful," I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that this is not what it appears to be.)

Update 8:00AM Friday Morning: We now know that the girl is a teenager from Brazil. (Thank Heaven she was not wearing a black beret.) I'm still reserving judgment until I see video of this same moment. Anything can look bad in a snapshot. Remember a few months back we saw a photo of Obama "bowing" to a Saudi King when none else in the room did. He denied it. But when the video came out, it clearly was a bow or bent-knee curtsy. Likewise, the video will reveal the truth of what might be called "The Snapshot Heard 'Round the World."

I have not yet turned on the radio or TV this morning, but I predict that the talk of the day--if this story has legs (as they say in journalism)--will not be about whether or not the peek happened. The act itself will be minimized to water-cooler talk about how everybody does it, "look don't touch" is okay, etc. It will be laughingly swept under the rug by the media boys and girls and late-night jokesters in Clintonesque fashion (If the snapshot were of George W. Bush there'd be no end to it even if the video proved his innocence!)

If that's the case, working women beware. Just when you thought you were "equal," the president will have inadvertently made ogling younger models of "the weaker sex" acceptable again.

So far, the "boys will be boys" tone has come through in the articles already printed in some parts of the world. Apparently, the bum story does have legs: I hope it's cleared up as the day goes on.

Article One: "Oh là là, President Checks Out Bum"
Article Two: "Quello sguardo "indiscreto" di Obama" (which I think means "Off-guard indiscretion of Obama")
Article Three: "Tail to the Chief"

Friday Night Update: ABC did Obama a favor and showed the video that I presumed would surface, and in this case... President Obama seems to have passed the test that former President Clinton [and French President Sarkozy] failed. As I originally said, with these new cameras that let the paparazzi take countless snapshots per second, a photo can catch a misleading and or unflattering fragment of time. See video here.

Monday, June 29, 2009

The other day I was talking with one of my family members who had asked me the simple question: "The Bible asks us to look out for the widows and the orphans and to care for those in need so why do you get so frustrated each day when you hear about Obama taking money from those who have it to give to those who don't?"

I answered as best I could by saying something like, "The Bible compels us as individuals to do those things voluntarily with the information we have on hand about those God brings into our lives. Scripture does not ask us to ignore all we know about human nature; it does not expect us to ignore all the wisdom found in the book of Proverbs about hard work and sloth and wise versus foolish uses of our resources. The Bible does not ask the same government that expels Him from its schools to create a dependent cast of society by keeping them on the dole. Scripture asks believers to do these things at a very local, individual basis, where a high level of accountability, love, and care can also be part of the equation. When a bureaucratic government attempts to do equalize the masses, that is a whole different process."

I did not have this parable to read at the time, but I think it would have answered the question even better. A friend sent this to me the other day.

Dinner with Obama:
A Parable (Author Unknown)

Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.

I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.

The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.

"Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."

"I don't appreciate..." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp.

"And his brother Eric is very thirsty." said the President.

I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind.

My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.

"Eric's children are also quite hungry."

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.
"And their grandmother can't stand for long."

I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President.

Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."

I wanted to shout- that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.

"Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a sub-prime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do."

My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine.

"By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars."

I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty dish which had been his Creme Brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I just played ... and lost?
What had I done wrong?

As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million beautiful white teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.

"You fool," he said. "You should have stopped me at the dinner roll!"

Friday, June 26, 2009

Who Cares if We Get it Right ...
Just Get it Through!

I'm sorry to have been away for so long from this blog. To be honest, I've taken a break from the daily fatigue of Obama's forced agenda. It's scary, folks. This is a president intent on irreversable "change" whether it's right for the country or not. As the global warming legislation heats up on the Hill, please tell your friends about this article in the Wall Street Journal.

"Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

"If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

"Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S....

"Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day....

"Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone."

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Let's Call the Whole Thing Off


"You say potato, and I say patoto. You say tomato, and I say tomoto..." Don't you just love that old Gershwin song? I typically don't tamper with classics, but it may be time to add another line to those lyrics. We all know that POTUS stands for President of the United States, but what does TOTUS stand for. It's obvious. In fact it's right there in our face every time we see Obama speak.

So I suggest we add "You say POTUS and we say TOTUS" to that old song.

(We may also want to delete the part about calling off the calling off.)

We all know that MSNBC has been in the tank for Obama ever since Chris Matthews first got a "tingle up his leg" while listening to his candidate read a teleprompter. So you know Obama is in for some tough sledding when even his favorite "news" network does a casual hit piece on him and his ubiquitous teleprompter.

I must admit, I had heard of TOTUS but not until this post have I visited the website.


Saturday, June 6, 2009

There is just too much to say this week. I don't know where to start. I said it way back in the archives, friends. Obama... (or should we say Barrack Hussein Obama, since he himself now proudly underscores the same Hussein moniker that conservatives were condemned for using during the campaign)...But as I was saying, back in the archives, I said that Obama seemed to be running not for President of the United States but President of the World (or some such position never filled by any man before).

Lots happening in my life right now, including taking my daughter to the airport today for a two-month mission trip to Croatia. We're sad but proud of her. Lot's of other things going on, too. It will be a week or so before I have time to write here. Maybe then there will be more obvious dots to connect regarding the act that is unfolding before us on the global stage.


Wednesday, May 27, 2009

That Cocky Lift of the Head...

In the comments of Memorial Day post below two readers pointed out that it was that lift of the chin, that arrogant "better than you" look that he has when he speaks that bothered them the most in President Obama's speech last Thursday in which he proudly pointed out how wrong the Bush national security efforts were for the eight years following 9-11 when we had no further attacks on our homeland.

I'll let these recently exhibited photos of "Barry the Freshman" speak for themselves. Since he was only 19 at the time, we may want to cut him some slack, but it is worth noting that that cocky lift of his head has been part of his "feeling cool" persona for many years.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

On This Memorial Day... Let's Not Forget

If you did not hear this entire speech, go to this link to watch the video clips in sequence (begin with part 2 since part 1 was above.) Please listen to that entire speech and then come back.

The full text of the speech can be read here.

In the hour prior to Cheney's address, President Obama gave an inspiring speech about ideals. Parts of his speech were like the Atticus Finch closing argument in To Kill a Mockingbird, but other parts of the speech were as Cheney said, "recklessness cloaked in righteousness." Never has a sitting president more unfairly and naively characterized a previous presidency and a congressionally-approved policy. But most Americans did not hear this excellent Cheney rebuttal, perhaps the most important speech of this former vice president's lifetime. They heard only liberal late-night pundits and tangled exchanges like this one when Cheney's daughter tries to untwist the continued spin of Obama and his puppet press:

Notice how many "jump cuts" happen to Liz Cheney. I wish I had her unedited comments. Second, notice how O'Donnel completely manipulates the facts (e.g. Cheney does not want more documents released, he wants the "whole story" of the documents Obama already released. O'Donnel kept saying "There is zero evidence that the three instances of water-boarding were effective..." Duh.... that evidence (the thwarted plans learned of by enhanced interrogation) is the part of the documents Obama refuses to release.) O'Donnel is just one in a media legion eager to say anything to reshape reality in Obama's favor.

Believing that we are at war and knowing that war is an ugly business, we can assume it is never pleasant to know the details. It was not meant to be shown on television, and is not fit for courtroom drama. It is not an abandonment of our ideals when we do not grant the rights of the U.S. Constitution to enemy combatants who hate us because of those rights and that constitution.

Never have two speeches more clearly presented different approaches on matters of national security, but I believe former Vice President Cheney won this debate hands down last Thursday. I say this out of respect for the generation who knows first-hand the ugliness of war and for those who currently serve. I say it because the respect I have for the people who protect us soars high above the feelings I have for the thousands of lawyers who will be steadily employed in defense of known terrorists if Obama get his way.


Update: Here is just one Pollyannish example of the kind of spin I knew would come from these two contrasting speeches. What the liberal cheerleader fails to note is that one of the worldviews prevented yet-untold attacks on this country; the other one hope people are basically good at heart and that the tens of thousands of militant Muslims who hate America will tap into their spark of divinity and start cheering for the Yankees.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Laughing Matters...

Update 5-17-09: Word to Biden. "Loose Lips Sink Ships!" But, hey, as long as you get a laugh, I guess the rest is just about national security. And then there's David Axelrod, Obama's campaigne cheif, who couldn't resist a joke connecting Miss California to a dog. I have not touched the Miss California story because it has saturated the news cycle (and she said nothing wrong in the first place), but I mention it here because Axelrod tried to make it a laughing matter.

I know that the speech at the Whit House Correspondents Dinner is a time when presidents have typically used self-deprecating humor, but if you listen carefully, this is different than such occasions in the past. Listen to how many seriously controversial issues Obama glibly mocks. Since my last post was about his Chief of Staff, I'll mention that at about the 3:20 mark on this video he confirms the reputation of Rahm Emanuel's foul mouth. He later seems to joke about seeking a gay marriage in Iowa and about "people of color." He is truly enjoying his close ties to the press.

Granted, this speech was written by writers, and Obama delivers it well for laughs, but at the 12:30 mark, his remarks turn serious toward the press in the room. He talks about the need for newspapers and complains about cable news (which means Fox News. He left talk radio alone since Wanda Sykes had already gone there as you'll see in the bottom screen.).

In the middle of these serious closing remarks (at 14:55), he says:"We look to you for truth even if it's always an approximation." And the room full of reporters whom he already revealed had "all voted for him" all laughed. But he was not trying to be funny. Truth to Obama is an approximation, a commodity forged when the heat of reality as he sees it is dipped into the "cool" he exudes.

But before all that, our president sat and listened to gay-activist-comedian Wanda Sykes completely twist the truth about some remarks made by Rush Limbaugh months ago when he said he hoped that the socialist ideas forced upon the nation in Obama's first 100 days would not succeed so that America could return to being a free enterprise country without the government taking everything over. In other words, "quit bailing out things doomed to fail. When government "fixes it" (ala the "affordable housing" fiasco) they ruin it."

Rush's true statement and the media's twisting of it has been written about ad nausium and every person in that room knows what was truly said and meant. They know Sykes is flat-out lying. Not to mention that nearly every news outlet in that room covered countless remarks against President Bush from antagonists who hoped his initiatives would fail, and that was never called treason. But that is because Bush was not the "Chosen One." That is the only explanation of why Sykes can get a presidential laugh from her public "hate crime."

It's shameless, but look at the audience reaction and the ever-cool smile on the president's face. I don't care what a person thinks of Rush Limbaugh, this is public hate in the face of the president. Is this what Obama means when he says "truth is an approximation"? That one of his followers can twist someone's words into a lie; repeat it often to the fawning press; laugh at it collectively; and thereby it becomes truth?

In fairness to Wanda Sykes, her opening 7 minutes poked playful fun at those in the room for fawning over Obama. She also lampooned Joe Biden, but is his endless blather a laughing matter? During a time of war "loose lips sink ships" is not funny.

I used to tell my students that you can tell a lot about a person's character when you take note of the things that make him laugh and the things that make him cry. Those emotions spring from the heart. (The same can be said of a room full of people.) Since we have not yet seen Obama "moved to tears" at the death of his grandmother, or at the bedside of a wounded soldier, or while handing a widow a traiangular flag. Thus far, we only have these "cool" occasions to go by, and that’s why his laughing matters
Since the president had a few laughs at our expense Saturday night, let's take a moment to have a few at his.


Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Shoud We Trust This Man?

The time I heard of Rahm Emanuel he was President Bill Clinton's campaign finance director who later became his senior advisor. Stories of his shrewd "craftiness" made him seem like an epic villain loved only by those who used him (not knowing it was the other way around).

Then in 2002, when Emanuel pursued the U.S. House seat in the 5th District of Illinois previously held by Rod Blagojevich, disgraced Governor of Illinois, my suspicions that Emanuel was a crooked Chicago insider only grew. (And grew deeper as he seemed embroiled in both the Blagojevich corruption and the merger of Clinton-Obama power in the 2008 campaign.)

My long affection for Israel and those who defend that state are a matter I'll take up in a different post. So why my feelings of distrust for a man whose Jewish roots go so deep in his father's homeland that some have alleged he has dual citizenship in Israel. But Emanuel's deep roots in Israel and Chicago's Jewish community have always seemed a bit self-serving. Once you know his background from, in, and with Israel (links above), he becomes even more mysterious in that his loyalties are hard to ascertain.
The fact that he is a "wait and see who's likely to win" politician was made clear in 2008 when he slithered from under the Clinton's rock (where he'd lived for over a decade) over to the Obama camp. And thus, he continues a long record of being a "master mind" behind people who hold enormous power on the world stage.

Considering what is waiting in the wings of that world stage; considering that Israel will be center stage; and considering that some would argue that the world stage is a place for puppets, it may be wise to follow the words and actions of this man who pulls so many strings.

Over the weekend, Emanuel seems to have given Israel a veiled threat that unless they appease the Palestinians, the Arab world will step back and let Iran "take her out."

This article in the Jerusalem Post said: "Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. The remarks were reportedly made in a closed-door meeting previous day with 300 major AIPAC donors on Sunday."
Next Day Update: "Obama Take Tougher Tone Against Israel"

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

One Way or the Other...

The Fox TV network has ruffled some feathers by turning down President Obama's request to show his prime-time news conference tonight, which marks his 100th day in office. (All other major networks will bump their primetime shows for the presser.)

Instead of the president, Fox viewers will see an episode of the Tim Roth drama "Lie to Me" at 8PM EST.

I trust you all fully appreciate how tempting it would be to say that, at that same hour, ABC, CBS and NBC will be airing a different program by the same name. (Or would it be "Lie to Us"?)
But I will resist that temptation, because it would be disrespectful and perhaps inaccurate, since so far Obama has done pretty much what he told "Joe the Plumber" he intended to do. [See this post from last November.] With Obama, it's not so much a question of lying--it's a question of smooth-tongued fast-talk to a nation in search of Big government cure-alls. Fox TV is simply saying that it doesn't want to be the fourth wheel on Obama's snake-oil wagon.
Like this L.A. Times blogger says, the choice makes perfect sense for Fox since their Fox News channel will take the market share of cable viewers. One way or the other, I think a lot of people will be watching "Lie to Me" tonight.

Update: Having now watched the press conference, I must change the "smooth-tongued fast talk" line. There is nothing fast about his talk when he is off the telelprompter. His answers stumble and stammer out with endless "uhs" between the words in such a way so as to seem "deep" and less like "snake oil" than molasses. The changes Obama has brought to this nation in 100 days have made our heads spin, but his talking about it tonight nearly lulled me to sleep.

Two things did jump out at me: This morning I said, "Obama has done pretty much what he told Joe the Plumber he intended to do." Tonight he said, "“The priorities that we’ve acted on are the things we said we would do during the campaign. It’s not like anybody should be surprised.” The other obvious observation from the presser is that Obama certainly still has the press "enchanted." I suppose things could be worse, and I fear that in the months ahead, we will see that group asking far more urgent questions. We'll see how the stumbling "ums" play out when the conference is not staged.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Hype You Can't Believe In

This short post is an add-on to last night's post below:

Just when I resurrect an old post about the meaningless question "Is the country headed in the right direction?" I see this article about that question the next day.

Talk about hype you can't believe in! The headline screams:

"AP Poll: Americans high on Obama, direction of US"

It then opens with the completely meaningless line: "For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future."

Now after reading that headline and opening sentance, would you not think that the vast majority of America is confident in our direction and giving Obama credit for it all? Think again. Based on the actual facts of the article the headline should have been:
"80 % of American Concerned about Obama's Reckless Spending and Debt"
Fewer than Half of Americans Think Country Headed in Right Direction"
"Obama's 'Wrong Direction' Fail to Break 50% in first 100 Days"

As I have always said, the "Wrong Direction" question is a useless assessment of anything because it does not define terms or what to change, but if the A.P. is going to use it to write a headline, it should at least reflect the fact that 3 to 4% of the 51% who voted for Obama do not think he is going in the right direction; less than half of the country is "high on Obama."; less than half think we're going in the right direction. Here's what the article with the false headline actually said.

"_More than 90 percent of Americans consider the economy an important issue, the highest ever in AP polling.

_Nearly 80 percent believe that the rising federal debt will hurt future generations, and Obama is getting mixed reviews at best for his handling of the issue.

And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track."

website tracking statistics
Flat-Panel Television