Hooray For CHANGE!

Archive for the ‘Int’l Relations’ Category

The recent spin out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson, is enough to make anyone get dizzy and vomit.

On June 15, POLITICO’s Chief White House Correspondent, Mike Allen, interviewed Schultz at Playbook Breakfast, an event series hosted by POLITICO. During this morning conversation about policy, politics and the news of the day, Schultz was posed a question, “At what point do Democrats take responsibility for the economy?”

The former Florida Congresswoman who, according to Project Vote Smart, has never held a private sector job said, “We are clearly responsible… the last year of the Bush presidency we lost 3.7 million jobs… we created a million jobs in the private sector in just the last six months, 2.1 million in the last 15 months… the manufacturing sector has had 15 straight month of growth, we rescued the American automobile industry and made sure Americans continued to have a choice about the kind of car they want to drive… If it were up to Republicans, particularly Republican candidates for President, they would’ve pushed the American car industry off a cliff and said good luck to you later… that’s 1.4 million jobs… Yeah, we own the economy.”

And then, of course, she had to throw in for good measure that we ought “not go back to the policies of the past, the Bush administration, that put us in this mess”

I found that the Democrats stating that they created 2.1 million jobs since Obama took office rather strange since the unemployment rate has dropped from 7.6 percent to 9.1 percent during that same period of time, so I had to look at this further.

Back in October 2010, Schultz stated that Obama was on pace to “have created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush Presidency.” This was echoed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in January 2011 who stated adamantly that President Obama and the Democratic Congress have created “more jobs in 2010 than President Bush did over eight years.” When pressed, she clarified that she meant private-sector jobs only

The Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees, unless, of course, the DNC Chairperson and House Minority Leader are cherry picking their information and comparing apples to oranges. Here is an accurate accounting, or as Bill O’Reilly says, a “No Spin” look at the private sector job creation by Bush in his eight years as President and Obama in his first twenty-nine months as President:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the first year of the Obama. Schultz and Pelosi omit this fact and want the naïve voter to only hear the sound bites, “the Bush presidency lost 3.7 million jobs” and “we created 2.1 million private sector jobs in the last 15 months,” and, of course the old favorite, “we can’t afford to go back to the policies of the Bush administration.”

Here are the cold hard facts:

The fact is that during the Obama administration’s first 28 months, there was a net loss of 2.5 million jobs because the workforce population grew by 4.8 million people.

The fact is that Bush only created 188,000 private sector jobs in eight years, but that he was saddled with a tech bubble bursting in 2000-2001 leading to a recession, the 9/11 attacks at the end of 2001, and the housing bubble bursting in 2007-2008, leading to the recession all through 2008.

The fact is that the Republican controlled Congress between 1994 and 2005 gained about 18.5 million private sector jobs.

The fact is that Democrats controlled Congress from 2006 through 2011, lost approximately 5 million private sector jobs.

The fact is that comparing Bush’s best job growth period with Obama’s best job growth period, Bush bests Obama by approximately 6 million private sector jobs.

The fact is that the average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.2 percent.

The fact is that the average unemployment rate under Obama is 9.4 percent.

These are the indisputable no spin facts… like them or not.

Aside from all the spin the DNC is giving to the Democrats use as ammo against the Republicans lately, the do have one fact correct. Democrats claim they own the current economy… they absolutely do.

Democrats own a 9.1 percent unemployment rate.

Democrats own a 16 percent unemployment rate for African Americans.

Democrats own the fact that the average unemployed person has been out of work for 39.7 weeks.

Democrats own inflation, which just hit a 2-1/2 year high

Democrats own the rising core inflation (up 1.5 percent versus the expected 1.4 percent in May)

Democrats own the weakening of the average hourly earnings (when adjusted for inflation earnings have dropped to 1.2 percent)

Democrats own the rising food costs

Democrats own rising gasoline and energy costs

Democrats own the weak dollar (dropping over 6.5 percent in value in 2011)

Democrats own the 32nd straight month the federal government has been in the red

Democrats own a housing crisis that is now worse than the Great Depression

Democrats own the $14 trillion in debt ($1 trillion in just the last 7 months)

Democrats own the possibility of a debt downgrade

Democrats own the misery index… now at a 28 year high.

Democrats own the stagflation that has just arrived

Yes, Debbie Schultz and Nancy Pelosi are right, the Democrats are clearly responsible and they own this economy. Please, let’s not forget that in 2012.

Between 2002 and 2008, the Left in America maintained a consistent assault against President George W. Bush which included a number of pejoratives, most notably calling him a “NeoCon.” Even my Democrat friends would look me straight in the eye and say, “Bush… that, that NeoCon!” And I would reply, “Wait! What exactly is a NeoCon?” And they didn’t know. All they knew was that it wasn’t good. But where are all those Democrats now that Barack Obama is in office? Because Obama is the greatest NeoCon of all.

So, what is a NeoCon anyway? It’s a term we’ve all heard from time to time, but what does it mean? And why did it become so prevalent during the Bush years? Is it really a word designed to demonize or does it have a valid and constructive meaning? And if Bush was such a terrible NeoCon, then why isn’t Obama receiving the same treatment?

The term, NeoCon saw tremendous growth in the American lexicon during the Bush years. Google showed an increase from 26,300 search results for the term in 2002 to 1,610,000 by 2008.

UrbanDictionary.com, a Web-based dictionary containing of over 10.5 million user-created definitions of slang words and phrases which are regulated by volunteer editors and rated by site visitors, has seven definitions of “NeoCon” created between 2004 through 2006:

In short, the term NeoCon became a derogatory term that described Bush, Conservatives, Right Wingers and Republicans as no good low life lying rotten inbred war-mongering blowhard lemmings who are criminally insane spenders and the lowest forms of life around… and, oh yes, Nazis in pinstripe suits.

By 2008, the Left had successfully demonized Bush as a war mongering nation building “NeoCon.” Whichever Republican won the nomination would simply need to be tied to Bush and victory would come easy for whoever the Democrat nominee was… even if it was a former community organizer with no executive experience whatsoever. And that is exactly what happened.

Since, Obama took office in 2009, the “NeoCon” chatter began to get quiet. After all, the Democrats had a Supermajority in Congress and a Democrat President… there was no Republicans to call a NeoCon anymore. Google search results for “NeoCon” dropped by 130,000 hits… almost ten percent (10%).

So, what is a NeoCon?

The term was created and used by the Left as a tool to verbally assault those moving from the Left to the Right. Its roots go as far back as 1883 when a periodical called Today, featured an excerpt of Karl Marx’s book Captial, that discussed “the principles of neo-Conservatism as expounded by the late Lord Beaconsfield…” Lord Beaconsfield was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1874 to 1880 and it was said that he started his career somewhat on the Left and ended it as a staunch Conservative.

The term remained somewhat dormant for the next century until socialist Michael Harrington wrote an article for Dissent Magazine in 1973 titled, “The Welfare State and Its Neoconservative Critics.” The term, neoconservative, maintained the same meaning during this time as a former Leftist who had moved Right; however, it was now being related to those Democrats who supported a “socially progressive” domestic policy (support for a welfare state and a mixed economy) as well as strong foreign policy that supported the Vietnam War in spite of the Democrat party’s growing opposition.

In other words, it referred to those Democrats moving away from the political party with an agenda that saw a strong domestic policy that included a large federal government playing a central role in the American economy as well as having an aggressive foreign policy that resulted in the spread of democracy all across the globe.

In 2002, Bush gave a State of the Union address which was a response to the 9/11 attacks and outlined what would later be coined the Bush Doctrine, “I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” Bush’s aim was simply to protect America and promote democracy around the world. And the term NeoCon was given new life once again.

Bush, with the full consent of Congress, sent Troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons were not to spread democracy. The U.S. went into Afghanistan as a reaction to 9/11 and went into Iraq because of a looming threat of another such attack. The democratization of these states was not the primary goal, rather a by product of the primary goals.

On the domestic front, President Bush’s policies grew the government and increased spending. From education to domestic security to space exploration to agricultural subsidies to Medicare, Bush expanded public spending by seventy percent (70%), more than double the increase under President Clinton; however, he opposed many a “socially progressive” ideas such as creating a welfare state or a mixed economy.

Bush’s domestic agenda didn’t matter. The Left in America focused on his foreign policy and suggested that Bush was not simply protecting America from those who have and would do us harm, but that he was nation building, using armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy. This was enough to begin the propaganda that Bush was an imperial president… a NeoCon.

If Bush was such a terrible NeoCon, then why isn’t Obama receiving the same treatment?

On the domestic front, the first twenty months of Obama’s presidency saw him add as much debt as Bush created during his entire presidency… and his spending plan calls for the doubling of the national debt in five years and tripling it in ten years. This spending increase doesn’t comes from defense spending, it comes from socially progressive plans that included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending ten percent (10%) for the last half of fiscal year 2009… not to mention increases of nondefense discretionary spending another twelve percent (12%) for fiscal year 2010. Add on Obamacare and the numbers are ridiculous.

And Obama’s foreign policy? He failed to bring home the Troops in Iraq as promised, he increased the number of Troops in Afghanistan, he did not close Gitmo as promised, and he – without Congressional approval – attacked Libya. Why did he attack Libya? Was it in our national interest? No. Was the United States under imminent threat? No. Obama unconstitutionally attacked Libya because Qaddafi did not step down when Libyan protesters were calling for a regime change, but rather began a military campaign against those Libyan protesters.

This wasn’t any different than any other countries holding major protests in the Middle East. At that time Algeria saw 8 deaths, Bahrain 22 deaths, Djibouti 2 deaths, Jordan 2 deaths, Oman 6 deaths, Syria 100 deaths (1,300 deaths and 10,000 arrests as of June 13, 2011) and Yemen 122 deaths, Iran 3 deaths (1,500 arrested), Morocco 6 deaths, Saudi Arabia 2 deaths (100 arrested), Sudan 1 death and Western Sahara 1 death.

Yet, Obama attacked and continues an assault on Libya. Why? According to his March 28, 2011 speech, he stated that “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom… Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean…. America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.” So, it was clearly a humanitarian effort. But why Libya and not the other dozen Middle Eastern countries that were doing the same thing to its people?

Obama is clearly working with the protestors to bring democracy to Libya. He is nation building. Obama is acting as an imperial president.

But where is the Left protesting Obama? Where are the new UrbanDictionary definitions of NeoCon? Where is Cindy Sheehan camping out these days? Where is Code Pink? Where is MoveOn? Where is the Mainstream Media on this issue?

So, in the end, for all the heat Bush took for being a “NeoCon” between 2002 and 2008, Obama has actually lived up to the title. His domestic policy has stayed solidly Left wing with the greatest increases in socially progressive spending of any President ever and his foreign policy has moved more to the right and become increasingly hawkish. Attacking the Libyan government in an effort to help the protesters democratize the nation is the true essence of a NeoCon.

Quite objectively, Obama just might be the greatest NeoCon this country has ever seen.

I recently received a barrage of Facebook posts from my Leftist friends regarding Jon Stewart of the “The Daily Show” and his rant on the so-called hypocrisy of Sean Hannity and Fox News over the rapper Common’s invitation to the White House. Democrats accusing Republicans of hypocrisy… how ironic.

My first reaction to the story was that my friends don’t understand the definition of hypocrisy. Quite simply, hypocrisy is the act of stating beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not actually personally hold or possess. In other words, it is saying one thing and doing the opposite.

So, when Hannity and Fox News was critical of the White House for inviting a rapper whose contribution to American culture include rap lyrics that support cop killers, call for the killing of cops, call for the killing of a U.S. President, and are otherwise racist and sexist, what did Hannity and Fox News do in contradiction to make themselves hypocrites? Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Zip.

Jon Stewart mentioned many things he felt were hypocritical, but they weren’t…. they were more ironic. For example, Fox News ran a series of interviews with its pundits highlighting Common’s cop killer lyrics in his music, followed by a happy birthday message to Ice-T, who also had cop killer lyrics in his music. That is not saying one thing and doing the other… that’s just ironic.

Stewart’s closest and best example is some footage he shows of President George W. Bush honoring Johnny Cash at the National Arts & Humanities Awards in 2002. But this missed rising to the level of hypocrisy as well because it wasn’t comparable. First, the footage Stewart showed was from CSPAN and not Fox News. Second, the event took place at the Constitution Hall, not the White House. Third, Common’s controversial lyrics are a call to action (I got the black strap to make the cops run, when we roll together with a strapped gun, we’re going to be rocking them to sleep”), whereas Johnny Cash’s controversial lyrics were of a fictional story (I shot a man in Reno, just to see him die). And lastly, there was no commentary from Fox News or Sean Hannity regarding the 2002 event to use as a comparison. File this one in the false analogy section.

To borrow from George Orwell, “It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors.”

Hypocrisy is not irony. Hypocrisy is not a false analogy. People are free to espouse their opinions. It’s when their opinions are contradictory to their actions that hypocrisy is born. Here are some real life examples:

• Democrats give passionate speeches on raising and paying taxes because it is America’s “patriotic duty;” however, so many Democrats fail to pay their own taxes or find ways to reduce their taxes:
  A. Timothy Geithner failed to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes he owed
  B. Tom Daschle failed to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes
  C. Charles Rangel failed to report $75,000 in rental income
  D. John Kerry purchased a $7 million yacht and moored it in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts so that he could avoid paying $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000

• Obama promised to use public funding in the general election if the Republican candidate would do the same. McCain used public funding, but when Obama realized that he could raise more than triple the public stipend, he reneged on the deal.

• Defending his Libya policy, President Obama declared, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.” Yet, he has turned a blind eye to all the atrocities happening in Ivory Coast, Syria and North Korea.

• The Left spoke of the immorality of waterboarding the “principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, yet champion the morality of murdering head of al-Queda, Osama bin Laden.

• The Left often compared President Bush or Governor Walker to Hitler, but comparing Obama to Hitler is “controversial” and deserves harsh criticism.

• The Left lambasted “war monger” President Bush for invading Iraq even with Congressional authority, they then cheered on Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama as he fired over 100 missiles into Libya without Congressional authority and is complicit in the active pursuit to assassinate it’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi.

• Obama voted with several other Democrats against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator during Bush’s presidency, but now as President himself facing the same issue, he is asking Republicans to vote to raise the debt ceiling.

• Obamacare mandates that everyone in the country have health insurance or be subject to a fine and even imprisonment. Health insurers and companies that provide health insurance to its employees must meet certain federal mandates, yet Obama has provided over 1,300 different waivers (including several unions and at least four different states) that would exclude the entities from the requirements.

• In 2007, Obama said that the U.S. should begin pulling out one to two combat brigades each month, with all troops out by the end of 2008. After being elected, he said he would have all troops out of Iraq by August 31, 2010. After two and a half years as Commander in Chief, there are still approximately 50,000 American soldiers in Iraq with yet a new promise to bring them home by the end of 2011.

• Obama singed an executive order barring officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues “for as long as I am president.” He also barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years; however, within two weeks of signing his own executive order, he appointed more than 17 lobbyists to his administration.

• In 2008, Obama stated, “I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all… The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.” And even after becoming President, he continued the same rhetoric that he would “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts.” And that “In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition… And that’s completely unacceptable.” Shortly thereafter, it was revealed that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded a no-bid contract worth $568 million and that Checchi & Company Consulting, a Washington-based firmed owned by Democratic donor Vincent Checchi, was awarded a no-bid contract of more than $24 million to train lawyers and judges in Afghanistan.

• The Left feigned “outrage” when energy executives met in secret with Vice President Dick Cheney and the public questioned their influence on the President’s energy plan. The Bush administration claimed “Presidential Communication Privilege,” and never released the names. However, where are all the Leftists now that President Obama has done the exact same thing with Obamacare. Fourteen different executives involved with the drug, medical, and hospital industries, went to the White House to advise Obama on the health care reform bill. When asked for the names, the Secret Service cited “Presidential Communication Privilege” for their decision not to disclose this list.

• Obama claims that this is the most transparent administration in history; however, his administration has censored nearly 200 pages of internal emails about their efforts to make government more transparent.

• In 2005 Obama criticized Bush for making recess appointments, particularly when Bush bypassed the Senate when he appointed John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; however, Obama appointed a controversial pro-labor radical, Craig Becker, to the National Labor Relations Board as a recess appointment.

• Those on the Left have pushed for major bans on smoking, yet work tirelessly to pass smoking illegal drugs.

• Democrats are critical of abortion-seeking women from getting mandatory ultrasounds prior to their procedure, yet endorse bills that would force every single person to be an organ donor. Is it your body or not?!

• Those in the Democrat Party, a political party with a long sad racist history voted year after year for candidates like Robert “KKK” Byrd and even have major KKK leaders running as Democrat candidates in current elections, like John Paul Rogers running for Mayor in Wales, Florida, call Republicans racists.

• Former Democrat Rep. Paul Kanjorski wrote an op-ed in the NYT, “We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.” Kinda hypocritical for a guy who said just a couple months prior, “That [Rick] Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”

• Democrats promote and force “green initiatives” on the People, however, they fly in large private jets all across the country (Pelosi), live in mansions that require the same amount of electricity to power an entire city block (Kerry), and enjoy keeping their gas guzzling limos running while they give speeches because they don’t like the weather outside and want to be comfortable when they get back in their luxury mobiles (Gore).

• Obama went to El Paso, TX last week and gave a speech on immigration that complained about “politicians” blocking comprehensive immigration bills; however, his own administration has used the legal system to block Arizona’s immigration bills and in 2007 he voted for amendments that killed a bipartisan Kyl-Kennedy immigration bill.

One last bit about the real hypocrisy surrounding the White House poet slam.

Obama, in the past, has lamented those U.S. states that banned interracial marriage at the time of his birth. Also, when he was asked in 2007 about the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage, he said, “…we’ve got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law.” Clearly, he is an advocate of interracial marriage.

And not to be left out of the conversation, Jon Stewart was critical of Bob Jones University on his show in 2000 because it banned interracial dating and he recently aired a skit in which an interracial couple began to “make a baby” on his desk as the segment ended and they went to commercial. Seemingly, he approves of interracial relationships.

However, absent from Stewart’s hypocritical piece was the fact that Common and Jill Scott, another poet invited to the same White House event, are both openly against interracial relationships. Jill Scott has said, “These harsh truths lead to what we really feel when we see a seemingly together brother with a Caucasian woman and their children. That feeling is betrayed.” And Common has said, “I disagree with [mixed race relationships]. It’s a lack of self-love. It’s a problem.” Yet, all this is overlooked. Talk about hypocrisy.

So where’s their outrage? Why is Stewart feigning outrage at his notion that Hannity and Fox News are hypocritical when he clearly – and hypocritically – omits the elephant in the room… the blatant hypocrisy of Barack Obama, the product of an interracial relationship, inviting those opposed to interracial relationships to the White House?

I don’t know either. I just know it’s ironic.

Fox News confirms that Osama bin Laden , the Saudi Arabian–born leader of Al Qaeda and most dangerous terrorist in the world, is dead and that he was killed in a firefight with U.S. Special Ops Team in Pakistan.  Drudge states that the USA has the body.  CBS News states the body is in Afghanistan. A BC News states that he was killed during a U.S. military strike.

Here is the story as we know it… A tip last August led to months of intelligence work that determined bin Laden was hiding in a luxury compound deep inside Pakistan.  President Obama determined the intelligence was sound and authorized an operation to bring bi Laden to justice last week.  A small team of Americans went after bin Laden in Abbottabad, a remote city about two hours north of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan.  A firefight ensued at a secluded residence on a large plot of land on the outskirts of town where bi Laden was shot in the head.   Aside from bi Laden, three adult men were killed, including one of bin Laden’s sons and two couriers.  No Americans were killed in the action.

President George W. Bush released the following statement on the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden:

Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude. This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.

President Obama’s Speech:

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory — hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda — an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I‘ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Over the years, I‘ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.

So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Quick analysis: Other than reminding the American people that Obama is the Commander in Chief and making sure it was abundantly clear that he gave the okay to take action, the speech was fine.  We did notice that Obama brought back the “War on Terror,” a phrase the administration scrapped in early 2009.  It was replaced with  “Overseas Contingency Operations.”  Obama claimed getting bin Laden was his top priority; however, has claimed securing the southwest border has been “a top priority” since he took office and that his “top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American” in fact, CBS News did a great story on all of Obama’s “Top Priorities,” which include the following:

FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: “…that’s something that’s going to be a top priority.” (4/27/10)

ENERGY SECURITY: “And that’s why my energy security plan has been one of the top priorities of my Administration since the day I took office.” (4/28/10)

EDUCATION REFORM: “To train our workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we’ve made education reform a top priority in this Administration.” (2/24/10)

STUDENT LOAN REFORM: “This is something that I’ve made a top priority.” (2/1/10)

EXPORTS BY SMALL BUSINESSES: “This is going to be a top priority.” (12/3/09)

HEALTH ASSISTANCE TO 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS: “I’m not just talking the talk, we’ve been budgeting this as a top priority for this Administration.” (2/3/10)

END HOMELESSNESS AMONG VETERANS: “I’ve also directed (Veterans Affairs) Secretary Shinseki to focus on a top priority: reducing homeless among veterans.” (8/17/09)

HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS: “Our top priority is ensuring the public safety. That means appropriate sheltering in place or if necessary, getting as many people as possible out of harm’s way prior to landfall.” (5/29/09)

H1N1 FLU VACCINATIONS: “And throughout this process, my top priority has been the health and the safety of the American people.” (5/1/09)

SUPPORT FOR MILITARY FAMILIES: “These military families are heroes too. And they are a top priority of Michelle and me. And they will always have our support.” (5/30/09)

STRENTHENING TIES WITH CANADA AND MEXICO: “We’re going to make this a top priority…” (10/16/09)

CONSUMER PROTECTION: “During these challenging times, the needs of American consumers are a top priority of my Administration.” (2/11/09)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: “So this is going to be a top priority generally improving our environmental quality.” (11/5/09)

We also notice that he mentioned God a few times… one time saying “God bless the United States of America,” a phrase his pastor for twenty years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, wouldn’t give his approval.

Give Obama credit for being President at the time the credible tip came in and that it was pursued.  Give the CIA credit for doing an amazing job and not blowing it.  Give the men and women in our Armed Forces all the credit in the world for doing the heavy lifting… getting the job done.  They are the real heroes today.

This is proof positive… Triangulation has begun.  Look for more cues of Obama upsetting his radical leftist base and moving more to the middle.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) budget model predicts the U.S. budget will be unsustainable within twenty-six years. In other words, it is impossible for the American economy to continue past 2037.  House Budget Chairman Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said President Barack Obama’s budget strategy is to “do nothing, punt, duck, kick the can down the road” while the debt remains on track to eventually hit 800% of GDP.

Greece recently teetered on the brink economic collapse when its government debt hit 120% of GDP.  Riots in the streets ensued for weeks and Greece was eventually bailed out by the EU.  What will happen when the U.S. debt is at 800% of GDP and there is nobody there to bail out our federal government?  What happens then?  And how can we begin to resolve the problem?

Republicans recently went to battle with Democrats over the 2011 budget they failed to pass by the September 2010 deadline.  The reason why Democrats didn’t want to pass the budget in 2010 is because the dialogue around the election centered on our public debt and government restraint… and Obama’s plan had increased his prior year’s budget by $79 billion, which would keep the U.S. running another $1.65 trillion in deficits.  Any Democrat who would vote for the 2011 budget prior to the 2010 election would be at an even greater risk of losing their seat during the midterms.  As it turned out, Democrats suffered one of the greatest defeats since 1938.

So, the Democrat budget of 2011 became the Democrat-Republican budget.  Republicans passed a non-binding resolution on January 25^th that placed the Fiscal Year 2011 funding levels at previous 2008 levels, which put them on record fulfilling their campaign promise to pass $100 billion in deficit reductions by their first year.  This would never be passed in the Senate and never signed by Obama. So, they had their work cut out for them.

After a series of continuing resolutions cut $10 billion from the budget, the final budget needed to be passed before April 8, 2011 or a government shut down would take place causing a furlough of 800,000 government employees.  With just hours remaining before the deadline, a deal was reached averting the shutdown. The deal included $38.5 billion in cuts from what had been budgeted for 2010.

The total budget Obama proposed was $79 billion more than the prior year’s budget… and Republicans were able to avoid that budget and force a budget with $48.5 billion in total cuts.  The budget deal was hailed as a victory for Republicans and provides the much needed momentum going into the 2012 budget.

Democrats felt they had some victories too.  Republicans failed in eliminating a few social programs which included Planned Parenthood, the NEA, the NEH, NPR and PBS.  Just about all Democrats, many Independents and a few Republicans wondered why Republicans targeted these organizations.  After all, they are non-partisan organizations that barely make a dent in the budget, right?

Planned Parenthood, an organization that advocates and assists young women with having abortions, gave political contributions in the amount of $1,062,536 (roughly $99.4%) to Democrat candidates during the last two election cycles.  Its annual budget is $1.04 billion of which approximately $350 million comes from government grants and contracts.  Why is the federal government helping fund abortions?  Why are American tax dollars being funneled through this organization and doled out to Democrats?  And even if the government defunded Planned Parenthood, isn’t it conceivable that this organization could survive either on a $690 million dollar budget or by additional private funds?  It seems to me the only people supporting government funding of Planned Parenthood are the folks on the receiving end of the 99.4% of Planned Parenthood’s political donations.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is a federal government agency that supports and funds art projects in the United States.  Being a federal agency, they are not allowed to provide campaign contributions to politicians or advocacy groups.  It has a long and controversial history of funding.  For example, the NEA partially funded Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, a photography which depicted a plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of urine.  Also funded by the NEA was Robert Mapplethorpe’s The Perfect Moment, which included a series of homoerotic photographs and child pornography.  I’m not sure why people, especially Democrats, feel it’s necessary for American taxpayers to fund blasphemy, pornography and child exploitation, but they do.

In 2009, The White House teamed up with NEA to “tackle some of the nation’s toughest issues: education; health; energy and the environment; community renewal; and safety and security.”  Communications Director Yosi Sergant directed artists in a conference call to create works of art promoting Obama’s domestic agenda.  Naturally, the White House’s attempt to try and leverage federal dollars to get artists and cultural organizations involved in promoting their ideological agenda is an abuse of taxpayer dollars, so Yosi Sergant was fired.

NEA’s budget is $167.5 million a year and its Chairman is Rocco Landesman was appointed by Obama in 2009.  Rocco has a long history of donating campaign contributions to Democrats and, in fact, gave $6,900 to Obama’s victory fund and Obama for America in 2008.

The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is also a federal government agency like the NEA, but they support research, education, preservation, and public programs in the humanities (ie. the languages, literature, law, history, philosophy, religion).  They also receive $167.5 million annually in tax payer dollars.  Although less controversial than the NEA, the NEH is still a federally funded partisan organization.  While the current Chairman, Jim Leach, is a former Republican congressman from Iowa…. He did endorse Obama in 2008.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a non-profit corporation funded by the federal government to help promote public broadcasting.  Most of the public broadcasting licenses are locally licensed, but the two best known public broadcast networks are Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).  The budget for CPB is about $445 million a year of federal tax dollars.  Although the chairman of CPB, Patricia Harrison, is a Republican, she has not made any campaign contributions to Republicans in over a decade. Furthermore, her appointment was designed to quell a brewing controversy over the left wing bias of both PBS and NPR.

NPR, which receives well over $90 million, from the CPB directly and indirectly through member stations, is another example of a federally funded tool for Democrats to further empower and enrich themselves.  A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 61% of NPR’s audience describes itself as “progressive.” In terms of party affiliation, 40% of NPR listeners described themselves as Democrats, while only 14% called themselves Republicans.  This is because the biased socio-political content of these programs attract left wing listeners.  Perhaps if Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck all had shows on NPR, the study would have different results.

Last month NPR came under more political controversy.  James O’Keefe, a political provocateur best known for bringing down ACORN, sent partners “Simon Templar” and Shaughn Adeleye to secretly record their discussion with NPR’s outgoing senior vice president for fundraising, Ronald Schiller. In that discussion, Schiller made disparaging remarks about the Tea Party and right wingers, as well as controversial comments regarding Palestine and funding for NPR.  Schiller immediately resigned, and NPR conveniently disavowed Schiller’s comments.

PBS, which receives well over $282 million from CPB, also has its share of controversy and left wing bias.  In 2005, former CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson characterized the popular Bill Moyer program, NOW, as “the image of the left-wing bias” on PBS.  Tomlinson commissioned a study of the program which revealed support for his criticisms… that NOW presented topics with a bias which went unchallenged by a balancing point of view on public broadcasting’s Friday evening line-up.  Why were tax dollars being used to promote an unbalanced and biased television program on PBS?

Also in 2005, federal tax dollars were spend on an episode titled “Sugartime!” of the popular children’s animated series, Postcards from Buster.  The cartoon, intended for children ages 6-12, chronicles the travels of an eight year old bunny around North America.  This particular episode, which aired in New York (WNET) and Los Angeles (KCET), showed Buster in Vermont with a pair of animated lesbian bunnies. Rightfully so, parents were upset at the subversive introduction of sexuality to such young children paid for by viewers and non-viewers like you.

So, where does our federal tax dollars for PBS eventually end up?  One shining example is Boston’s PBS station, WGBH.  Headquartered is an opulent $85 million building in Brighton, it includes a 200-seat amphitheater, amazing atrium and other amenities. Four WGBH vice presidents and producers made more than $300,000 and another 10 made more than $200,000 in pay and benefits; 145 of the station’s 950 employees earned more than $100,000; Ex-WGBH president Henry Becton Jr., the station’s existing Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees of WGBH Educational Foundation, made $160,873 in total compensation for working just 24 hours a week; And those that run the company, well, they received more than $200,000 in bonuses in 2009.

For the record, Sesame Street, a popular PBS children’s program, made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from 2003-2006.

The bottom line is that the above-mentioned organizations will receive over $1.1 billion this year from federal tax dollars… and approximately $15 billion over the next decade.  These organizations are also controversial and partisan (there are no government funded gun rights groups or pro-life groups that exist).  And the organizations could very well exist in the private market without the help of the federal government.  So why are we funding these programs that we can’t even afford?

The 2012 budget fight has already begun.  Obama has proposed a plan that will add another $1.1 trillion more to the national debt.  He says his plan will reduce the deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next decade.  But then again, this is the same President who said he would cut the deficit by half by the end of his first term… and so far it looks as though he’s on course to triple it.  Under Obama’s plan, federal funding for Planned Parenthood, NEA, NEH, NPR and PBS will continue as strong as ever.

On the Republican side of the isle is Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity plan which cuts government spending by $5.8 trillion over the next decade and limits government spending to below 20% of the economy.  It also substantially changes federal payments under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, eliminates the subsidies to be provided through new insurance exchanges under last year’s major health care legislation, leaves Social Security as it would be under current law, and sets paths for all other federal spending (excluding interest) and federal tax revenues at specified growth rates or percentages of gross domestic product (GDP).  Hopefully, it ends for good federal funding of Planned Parenthood, NEA, NEH, NPR and PBS.

Republicans and Democrats go into another budget battle this week.  Which side are you on… prosperity in 2037 or economic collapse in 2037?

Obama’s reelection team sent the announcement to their supporters this morning via email, along with a snazzy campaign launch video titled, “It Begins With Us.”  The video features real people from political battleground states North Carolina, Nevada and Colorado as well as a few others from Michigan and New York providing interviews about the upcoming election and their support for Obama.  As a former member of the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC) and producer of campaign videos, I took great interest in this video and this is my critique.

At their core, campaign videos can take two different approaches, they can go positive about their candidate or they can go negative about their opponent.  When taking the positive approach one must think of the filmmakers as police officers trying to talk a suicidal person off the ledge… even in amidst tragedy, chaos and depression always use positive phrases and never use any negative words.  In other words, it’s okay to bring up depressing news, but it needs to be done in a careful and methodical way as to not conjure up anything negative in the viewer’s mind.

Unfortunately for Obama, his campaign launch video is fraught with negative sound bites.

Right out of the gate Ed from North Carolina reminds the viewer that “the last couple elections that we’ve had have been, um, almost turning point campaigns.”  That sound bite harkens the viewer to two specific elections… 2008 and 2010.  In 2008, Obama, riding a wave of Hope and Change, won the election with 52.9% of the vote.  But just two years into his presidency, the citizens of the United States went back to the ballot box and rejected Obama’s Hope and Change marking the greatest midterm landslide defeat for a President since 1938.  Without uttering the details, Ed from North Carolina reminded the viewer that Republicans gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives (recapturing the majority), six seats in the Senate, six governorships, as well as 680 seats in state legislative races.

The next interviewee is Gladys of Nevada who claims she is “nervous.”  Being nervous invokes an uneasiness or apprehension toward something.  It is the opposite of being confident and bold.  In past political arenas, nervousness about a campaign reminds one of Walter Mondale running against Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Bob Dole running against Bill Clinton in 1996.  It’s definitely not a word a campaign wants associated with their candidate.

Katherine of Colorado appears next talks about “the changes we’ve seen the last two and a half years.”  Which any informed person knows have not been positive changes.  Aside from the highly unpopular and unconstitutional Obamacare bill being passed vis-à-vis backroom shenanigans, sweetheart deals, middle of the night votes and other high jinks, or the unconstitutional attack on Libya, or all the broken promise that stretch from Gitmo to Iraq and back, what positive changes is Katherine talking about?  Troubling unemployment numbers?  The looming inflation?  The weakening dollar?  Soaring food, gasoline and energy prices?  One of the most depressed housing markets in history?  Or is she referring to the massive spending and skyrocketing deficits in our government?  While I give the filmmakers credit for using positive language, it does more harm in the end because the obvious contrast between the statement and the truth.

Next is Mike from New York, representing Obama’s base… the naïve first time voter.  He discusses the energy and hope for this country that Obama “had for this country” a few years ago and that he plans to help reelect him based on that platform now.  The fact that it is past tense, referring to an expired enthusiasm, isn’t going to help Obama next year.

Alice from Michigan is the next interviewee who starts off her sound bite with “Unfortunately…”  She’s only talking about Obama not being able to spend the time and energy to reelect himself so it is intended to be a call to action for those Obama supporters watching the video; however, I couldn’t get past the negative word “unfortunately” being so prominently exclaimed at the start of her segment.

From this point forward, the individuals are recycled.

Gladys mentions how American voters all have the same concerns, “we want jobs to be out there and we want people to have homes and we want people to have opportunity.”  Yet, these are the areas where Obama has failed the most.  Obama promised the American people that if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed, unemployment would not exceed 8% and it has been over 8% ever since.   And wanting everyone to have homes?  With millions of Americans unemployed and banks tightening their regulations on loaning money, there are no loans available to the average American looking to have a home.  Housing prices see the biggest drop in over twenty-five years which CNBC described as “depression territory” in January 2011.  This would be like Jimmy Carter running his reelection campaign on gas prices and his handling of the Iran hostage crisis.

And we revisit Ed from North Carolina who delivers the best line of the whole video while shaking his head, “I don’t agree with Obama…”  Did they just not have any other sound bites available to use?  Of course he goes on to say that he doesn’t agree with Obama on everything and he respects and trusts him, but when he says “I don’t agree with Obama,” the damage is done.

At this point it doesn’t matter that they suggest more things need to be done or that politics is how we govern ourselves and that it really takes place at the grassroots level.  It doesn’t matter because the viewer is reminded of recent major Republican victories, negative changes the last two years, Obama’s shortcomings, and that he had enthusiasm years ago, but unfortunately, we don’t agree with Obama now.

Currently, the video, “It Begins With Us,” has 71,771 views on YouTube which include 1,470 likes and 1,022 dislikes.  That is in contrast of his “Barack Obama at the 2008 DNC” video two and half years ago which has 952,132 views with 3,267 likes and only 241 dislikes.  If “dislikes” on YouTube are future indicators of anything, I think the Obama campaign really has something to be nervous about in 2012.

By contrast, in 1984 America was emerging from a recession as President Ronald Reagan began his reelection campaign bid.  One of the great political commercials ever created, “Morning In America,” (formerly titled “Prouder, Stronger, Better”) aired in support of Reagan.  There was not one negative connation in the entire commercial.  In fact, it contained statements like:

• “Today more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country’s history.”
• “With interest rates at about half the record highs of 1980, nearly 2,000 families today will buy new homes, more than at any time in the past four years.”
• “This afternoon 6,500 young men and women will be married, and with inflation at less than half of what it was just four years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future.”
• “…our country is prouder and stronger and better.”

There are stark differences between Reagan and Obama and those differences are manifested in their own promotional media during their midterm elections.  Reagan gave America a reason for optimism.  Obama just gave vacant hope and quite a bit of frustrating change.

So, if you find yourself on a ledge thinking you might want to jump, I sincerely hope that the filmmakers of “Morning in America” come to your rescue.

Cross-posted at HollywoodRepublican