We must vote for those candidates of any party that reflect these values: hard work, self-determination, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and honesty. Look to the character of anyone you chose to support. Their past does matter if they haven't learned from it. Their personal life is as relevant as their public one. We must be able to trust those who will be advising and leading us on what our country must do next. -Glenn Beck

Monday, November 22, 2010

TSA "Patdowns"

The backlash at the new TSA screening techniques has been interesting to watch. Especially now that with video cell phones and YouTube, we're seeing and hearing about more stories like this one:

Based on how liberals generally respond to opposition, the solution to this obvious problem would be simple: Ban Cell Phones at Airports

If you haven't read it yet, you need to read Ann Coulter's latest column:

Napalitano: The Ball's In My Court Now

For somebody who is constantly referred to as a crazy extremist, Ann Coulter seems to exercise some real common sense.

The problem isn't with the TSA -- They are just following orders. The problem is with the liberal philosophy that everything in life needs to be "equal". And because it is impossible to make everybody equally happy, they need to make everybody equally miserable.

In the area of airline travel, they're doing an amazing job.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Coincidence? I think not.

The day following the "schellacking"...

Stocks climb to the highest in Two Years

Hmmmmm... Does this say anything about how the economy feels about the liberal agenda? (Just imagine if Republicans had taken control of the Senate as well.)

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Where Did President Obama Go Wrong?

I read an article this morning entitled "Am I The Last Person in America Who Still Adores President Obama?". Curtis Sittenfield, who wrote the article, appears to be in complete disbelief that so many people have turned on the President. He seems to believe that the people who have turned are the equivalent of fair weather fans in sports, and he wants them to hold on through these tough times just like you would through a rebuilding year.

In 2008, President Obama won the Presidential Election with 68% of the electoral vote and 53% of the popular vote. Since that time, his approval rating has dropped from around 45% to around 30% today. Those that "strongly dissaprove" of his performance has increased from 15% in January 2009 to roughly 45% now.

What happened? Where did this backlash come from? Obama was elected on the expectation of bringing hope and change to this country. But as it stands on this election day, what he appears to be bringing is the largest political swing of power in recent history. The voters are sending a message this election.

Sittenfield seems to indicate that the reason for the backlash is that President Obama didn't follow through on his promises, like closing down Guantanamo Bay. That may be an issue for some, but I think there are three major reasons that President Obama has fallen out of favor with the American people.


I believe the first major blow was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a.k.a. "The Stimulus Package.") One of the major talking points for President Obama during his campaign was how George W. Bush had spent this country into a record deficit because of the War on Terrorism. Then, not two months into office, he passed a bill that shattered any record Bush had set. Americans do not appreciate hypocrisy.

President Obama justified the spending bill as being necessary to save the economy, and the people took his word. But then news stories about $233,000 going to the University of California to study why Africans vote (5 U.S. jobs created), or $1.5 million going to Penn State University to study plant fossils in Argentina (3 U.S. jobs created), or Crouse Hospital getting $360,000 to change to "green" light bulbs, among hundreds of others like those, started appearing. Americans do not appreciate waste.

That was amplified with the highly-visible "Cash for Clunkers" program, where many Americans who were struggling to make ends meet and could barely afford a car watched as perfectly functional cars were destroyed. $3 billion was spent on the Cash for Clunkers program. $3 billion! With that same amount of money, President Obama could have given 60,000 unemployed workers $50,000 each (roughly the median income of an American family.) Americans can sense when someone has an agenda they are pushing.

The original Stimulus package cost the American taxpayers $787 billion. That's $787,000,000,000. At $50,000 per household, that should have created at least 15,740,000 jobs. (More, if you consider that many families have two income earners.) To put that into perspective, that means that Obama could have handed a $50,000 check to every single person (man, woman, and child)who lives in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, and Arizona. Every person in those 5 states. Americans understand how much $50,000 is and how hard it is to come by.

That would have been okay, had jobs actually been created. But after the stimulus bill was passed in 2009, America lost 4,000,000 jobs. No problem -- Blame Bush. Which worked... for the first year. But Americans don't appreciate excuses, and after the first year, the "Bush's fault" excuse grew tired.

The logic that Sittenfield uses, and that I have heard from so many people, saying: "As far as I can tell, the economic stimulus package might not have been perfect, but it prevented something bad from being even worse" has to be the craziest logic I've ever heard. The liberals have been using it since January 2009. I've taken a number of economics courses, and "Jobs created... OR saved" was a term I'd never heard before President Obama. We always spoke in terms of tangibles: "Jobs created." (Incidentally, had I known we could just make stuff up, I would have much done better on my exams.)

CUSTOMER: "You're charging me $1,000 for a sandwich?"
RESTAURANT OWNER: "I could have charged you $1,500."
CUSTOMER: "Oh, man! Close call. Thank you."

The American people gave President Obama the benefit of the doubt with the stimulus package. But now, almost two years later, the stimulus package has been exposed for what it truly was: An opportunity for the Democrats to push through their liberal agenda. Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's former chief-of-staff summed it up when he said, "Never let a crisis go to waste." The American people do not appreciate being played.


Next, in the midst of an economic crisis, record unemployment, and a diminished stock market, President Obama decided that the most important issue to tackle was universal health care. The Democrats announced a $940 billion health care bill. This was while people were still stinging from the $787 billion stimulus bill. But President Obama assured the people that this new $940 billion bill would lower the deficit by $130 billion.

(If anybody would like to use this logic and give me $940 in return for the $130 I'll give you, I'm in.)

Almost immediately following the discussion of a health care bill, there was severe public backlash. I have never seen anything like it. 54% of the American people (roughly the same amount that voted for Obama in the first place) strongly opposed the Health Care bill. Only 32% approved (the other 15% being undecided.)

You'll remember that this was the summer of 2009, where senators and representatives were afraid to travel back to their constituents because of the backlash and uproar at town hall meetings and the floods of letters, e-mails, and phone calls that were coming in. The "people" in "We the people..." were furious.

In my recollection, there has never been an issue that caused such a heated debate. So what was President Obama's strategy with the majority of the Americans opposing the health care bill? Just ram it through. Speak of consensus, and then exclude Republicans from taking part in discussions. Blame the Republicans for impeding, even though there was nothing the Republicans could do to stop the Democrats because they had the majority in the House and Senate.

And thus, in an ironic twist of fate, the Democrats created the Tea Party. The Tea Party name was taken from the Boston Tea Party, where a group of people protested about taxation without representation. These people spontaneously came together, without a leader (or even a community organizer), bonded by a fury deep down inside that something wasn't right. They had strongly opposed the health care reform, and their elected public representatives had given them the legislative equivalent of the finger.

The public got the distinct feeling that, in this Democratic government, their views were not being represented. Furthermore, their representatives' motives were suspect. There seemed to be too many career politicians who had lost touch with the people.

I have never seen anything like the first Tea Party protest last year. It just came out of nowhere. As much as the media tried to characterize the protesters as the extreme right, the reports I saw showed people of different backgrounds, genders, ages, and races who were sick of the government. It was one of the most impressive things I've seen as I got a sense that the people of this country truly care and are in control.

Had Obama not pushed through the health care bill, there would be no Tea Party, and I don't believe they would be in jeopardy of losing the majority in the House and Senate.


President Obama completely discounted the Tea Party movement as a bunch of wackos. The problem was that many of those wackos voted for him.

The Tea Party movement is not Republicans vs. Democrats. In my home state of Utah, Senator Bob Bennett was elected in 1992, and it was basically a given that he would win each election after that. But in the Republican primaries for the current election, it was a shock that he was defeated. This defeat came because he was not representing the views of his constituents.

The Tea Party is not a political party. It's a movement. A grassroots movement, meaning there is no person at the head controlling it. Nobody can claim being the leader, because it is not an organization. People are simply sick of business as usual. The Tea Party movement doesn't care if the candidate they put up for the primary loses, but they will not stand for business as usual.

And yet, President Obama carries on with business as usual. He continues to discount the Tea Party movement instead of listening to them, which creates even more furor. He continues to blame Bush for the current problems, nearly two years after he was sworn into office. He recently refered to his fellow Americans as "enemies", because they are Republicans.

Who is in charge of PR for President Obama?? As a graduate in Public Relations, this kind of stuff kills me. It was reported today that the U.S. Taxpayers will spend $200 million per day for President Obama's trip to India. $200 million per day! (That is 4,000 jobs at $50,000/year per day.) I have no idea how that is possible, and I really hope it's not true. But it's in the news, and the American people are reading it.

The most important quality of a leader is to lead by example. If I (heaven forbid) were the President, we would be doing a video conference with Mumbai. We would cut out elaborate and unneccesary expenses. And I guarantee that the First Lady would not be taking a $160,000 vacation to Spain. There has to be somebody in that White House that could have said, "You know, Montana is really nice this time of year. Lots of pretty places to see and places to relax with your friends. Plus you would be spending money that benefits the local U.S. economy. Probably a much better option from a PR perspective."

President Obama gives the impression that he simply doesn't care. He doesn't care about the opinion of the majority in the United States. He doesn't care that he has ruined the career of many long-term Senators and Representatives by forcing them to push through the Health Care bill in a move that was simply political suicide. He doesn't care about the uproar that bill has started. He doesn't care to act like he's doing something about the oil spill, even if he really has no control. He doesn't seem to care about constantly making excuses. He doesn't care that he's already played golf more times than highly-criticized President Bush played in his entire time in the White House. He just continues with his agenda, pursuing business as usual, completely out of touch with the average American. He seems to be a PR advisor's worst nightmare.


So, Curtis Sittenfield, there is your explanation as I see it. The passionate feelings in this election against President Obama and the Democrats has nothing to do with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or Guantanamo Bay or the Oil Spill (although they do add fuel to the fire.) The disapproval we see is because the President hypocritically spent an astronomical amount of money we don't have to push his agenda, and then spent another astronomical amount of money we don't have to ram through health care reform despite the strong opposition, and he is simply out of touch with the American people.

President Obama and the Democrats are in serious trouble in this election, and they have nobody to blame but themselves. It will be be interesting to see how things turn out tonight after the vote. One thing is for sure -- The American people are back in control.