The Trick or Treat Media

The media has been full of tricks if you’re a conservative and treats if you’re a liberal this week of Halloween.  But this year the scary holiday has taken a more frightening turn in the Northeast as Hurricane Sandy slammed the east coast.

Our thoughts and prayers are turned to those in harm’s way dealing with the aftermath of this terrible storm.  We praise those good souls who are at the ready and hurrying to the aid of those in great need whether physically, emotionally, or spiritually.  God Bless them all.

Unfortunately we are in a political season and presidential campaign where one side has openly stated “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

No sooner had Hurricane Sandy come ashore did some in the media find a story they thought could damage Mitt Romney’s bid at the Presidency with the election only a week away.

MSNBC  followed the Democrats lead singer Bill Clinton who basically said the storm (Sandy) and the President’s response to it showed the real difference between Romney and Obama.  MSNBC then proceeded to explain why Romney isn’t ready for Hurricane Sandy, as if Romney was the current President.  The Huffing and Puffington Post ran a piece completely devoid of facts accusing Romney of wanting to completely abolish FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) using an editorial from the NYT as “proof” and a silly story by another HuffPO contributor that claimed Romney never contacted a Massachusetts Mayor when her town saw flooding from the Green River and 75 homes in a trailer park were flooded.  As if that was a major statewide disaster…

The New York Times then chimed in with its own op-ed explaining to all of us simpletons how Big Government is necessary for Big Storms.  Tell that to the people of Joplin, Missouri who were mobilizing and rebuilding after devastating tornadoes ripped it apart and before Big Government had time to put on its pants for work.

The misinformation of the media aside, the real story of serious cuts coming to FEMA is being ignored because it isn’t politically beneficial to the President.  The reality is President Obama’s budget sequestration proposal (try as he might to deny it’s his) will cut FEMA to the bone.

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

The Federal Emergency Management Agency Will Be Hit With $878 Million In Cuts.
FEMA’s Disaster Relief Funding Will Be Hit With The Largest Cut At $580 Million
FEMA’s State & Local Programs Would Receive $183 Million In Cuts
What’s more, the OMB report explains just how devastating the Obama sequestration will be in other areas, along with FEMA:

“On the non-defense side, sequestration would undermine investments vital to economic growth, threaten the safety and security of the American people, and cause severe harm to programs that benefit the middle-class, seniors, and children.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s ability to respond to incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events would be undermined.”

Let us review.

FreedomWorks.com blogged on this as well reporting The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler said the idea of sequestration was “a White House gambit”.  Bob Woodward’s book called The Price of Politics stated members of the Obama administration proposed the idea to Senator Harry Reid.

“Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger. It seemed tough enough to apply to the current situation. It would require a sequester with half the cuts from defense, and the other half from domestic programs.”  (Excerpt from The Price of Politics)

But many in the media would have you believe it’s Mitt Romney and the Republicans who want to rid the world of FEMA, when in fact they simply want more control given to local and state government at the first response level.

But that headline isn’t nearly as attention grabbing as “Romney to Shut Down FEMA!”

Silly media, tricks are for kids, treats are for Halloween.

Related articles

• GOP strategist: Romney ‘right on the button’ in knocking FEMA (rawstory.com)
• Republican Strategist Agrees With Romney That FEMA Should Be Shut Down (alan.com)
• FEMA: Did Mitt Call for its Abolition? And Why Does Barack Want to Cut Its Funding? (reason.com)
• NYTimes uses Sandy to make the case for big government, against Romney (theblaze.com)

Conservatism is Calling

Perpetuating the Lie that Romney is a Liar

My liberal friends like to remind me often that my candidate for President, Mitt Romney, is a liar.  They then parade the fact checkers out as proof to their premise that Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon, habitually breaks the 9th commandment.

The most recent accusation came in the form of this article at ThinkProgress.org with the headline: “At The Last Presidential Debate: Romney Told 24 Myths In 41 Minutes”  If you’re not familiar with ThinkProgress, I would characterize ThinkProgress.org as the Liberal equivalent to Ricochet.com on the right.  If you’re not familiar with either one you’re not missing anything but extreme partisanship, hyperbole, and group think (My opinion of course).

So I decided to go through these 24 myths and research their explanations to see if  the man I think is best suited to preside in this nation is indeed a dirty rotten scoundrel and a liar.

This will be a rather long post as I am including each “Myth” and the explanation given by ThinkProgress with my retort underneath in bold italics.  Bear with me as I hope this exercise will show that the true “Myth” is in our perception of another’s words as seen through our own world view.  This is not to say that President Obama and Mitt Romney have been 100% accurate in the debates or on the campaign trail when addressing each other or the issues, but it is to say that both men are explaining their positions in the best light possible and their opponents in the worst.  That’s politics and by its nature that is going to include elaborations, hyperbole, and yes  inaccurate depictions from each.

I think overall the fact checkers bring it all back to reality, but that doesn’t mean you should never check the fact checkers too!

The 24 “Myths” as presented by ThinkProgress.org

1) “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” Romney has his geography wrong. Syria doesn’t share a border with Iran and Iran has 1,500 miles of coastline leading to the Arabian Sea. It is also able to reach the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal.

Geography gaffe, not a lie.

2) “And what I’m afraid of is we’ve watched over the past year or so [in Syria], first the president saying, well we’ll let the U.N. deal with it…. Then it went to the Russians and said, let’s see if you can do something.” While Russia and China have vetoed multiple resolutions at the U.N. Security Council on Syria, the United States has also been working through the Friends of Syria group and other allies in the region. Obama’s approach “would essentially give U.S. nods of approval to arms transfers from Arab nations to some Syrian opposition fighters.”

I see a very sharp difference of opinion here but nothing to indicate a whopper being told. TP does not refute Romney’s initial premise, rather they try to clarify Obama’s position.

3) “Former chief of the — Joint Chiefs of Staff said that — Admiral Mullen said that our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. This — we have weakened our economy. We need a strong economy. We need to have as well a strong military.” If Romney is worried about the national debt, why does he want to increase military spending from 3.5 percent of GDP to 4 percent? This amounts to a $2.1 trillion increase over a ten-year period that the military says it does not need and Romney has no plan to pay for it.

Again sharp difference of opinion nothing more.

4) “[W]hen — when the students took to the streets in Tehran and the people there protested, the Green Revolution occurred, for the president to be silent I thought was an enormous mistake.” Obama spoke out about the Revolution on June 15, 2009, just two days after post-election demonstrations began in Iran, condemning the Iranian government’s hard-handed crackdown on Iranian activists. He then reiterated his comments a day later in another press conference. Iranian activists have agreed with Obama’s approach.

Obama made two statements, a few brief words, and did nothing more, in Romney’s opinion and that of many others in this country, it could be seen as relative silence on the issue. I disagree here with Romney’s interpretation because Obama did acknowledge the situation if barely, but this doesn’t meet the definition of a lie.

5) “And when it comes to our economy here at home, I know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay.” The Washington Post’s in-house fact checker tore Romney’s claim that he will create 12 million jobs to shreds. The Post wrote that the “‘new math’” in Romney’s plan “doesn’t add up.” In awarding the claim four Pinocchios — the most untrue possible rating, the Post expressed incredulity at the fact Romney would personally stand behind such a flawed, baseless claim.

Here’s the problem with this one. We’re talking about projections and estimates. One side says they believe their projections and estimates to be accurate and the other side says they don’t. As I’ve read the pros and cons on Romney’s plan it has become very apparent that both sides rely heavily on semantics and varied interpretations of the studies attributed. Frankly this is a Nancy Pelosi moment. “We won’t know what Romney’s jobs plan will do until we implement it”.  No lie just a lot of guesswork and pontificating.

6) “[W]e are going to have North American energy independence. We’re going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and our renewables.” Romney would actually eliminate the fuel efficiency standards that are moving the United States towards energy independence, even though his campaign plan relies on these rules to meet his goals.

An argument about different environmental opinions on standards and not explained very well here.  Not a lie though.

7) “[W]e’re going to have to have training programs that work for our workers.” Paul Ryan’s budget, which Romney has fully endorsed, calls for spending 33 percent less on “Education, training, employment, and social services” than Obama’s budget.

So spending less means no training or education possible?  More money doesn’t necessarily mean higher quality. #7 is a joke and Think Progress is showing its stripes here. 

8) “And I’ll get us on track to a balanced budget.” Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut plan and his increases to military spending could explode the deficit.

Same Princeton economist and others EconomistsForRomney.com refute this opinion. again no lie here folks.

9) “Well, Republicans and Democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principles that focused on having great teachers in the classroom.” Education experts have faint praise for his proposals while he was governor. “His impact was inconsequential,” said Glen Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. “People viewed his proposals as political talking points, and no one took Romney seriously.”

Think Progress doesn’t like his proposals on education. Imagine that! Now a quote Think Progress surely could have found to balance it’s report “Governor Romney’s education reform plan addresses the single biggest challenge for our state’s economy, which is supplying the pipeline of skilled workers that technology employers need for sustained future growth,” said Massachusetts High Technology Council President Christopher R. Anderson. “The Governor’s plan rightly focuses on attracting and retaining the best math and science teachers, while giving them the support and tools they need to prepare students for the competitive global economy.”  No lie here but some serious bias on the part of TP in my opinion.

10) “So I’d get rid of [Obamacare] from day one. To the extent humanly possible, we get that out.” Romney cannot unilaterally eliminate a bill passed by Congress and his plan to grant states waivers may also be a non-starter.

Correct.  As Romney stated, he’ll get rid of Obamacare “to the extent humanly possible” TP confirms that.  Where’s the whopper?

11) “Number two, we take some programs that we are doing to keep, like Medicaid, which is a program for the poor.” Medicaid isn’t just a program for the poor. While it provides health coverage for “millions of low-income children and families who lack access to the private health insurance system,” it also offers “insurance to millions of people with chronic illnesses or disabilities” and is “the nation’s largest source of coverage for long-term care, covering more than two-thirds of all nursing home residents.” Medicaid is also a key source of coverage for pregnant women.

Semantics. Medicaid is more than just a program for the poor, OK…but not going into more detail certainly isn’t a lie. 

12) “[W]e’ll take [Medicaid] for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently.” A Congressional Budget Office analysis of Paul Ryan’s proposal to block grant Medicaid found that if federal spending for Medicaid decreased, “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” As a result, enrollees could “face more limited access to care,” higher out-of-pocket costs, and “providers could face more uncompensated care as beneficiaries lost coverage for certain benefits or lost coverage altogether.”

Very tricky handling of this by TP. Romney says give it to the states to run, but doesn’t say cut federal funding. TP turns to “what ifs” by pointing to Ryan’s budget proposal, which is just that, a proposal. Muddy analysis by TP, but yes you could accuse me of splitting hairs. Still no lie being told here.

13) “Our Navy is old — excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917…That, in my view, is making — is making our future less certain and less secure.” The U.S. Navy is smaller than it was in 1917, but it is not making America less secure. The navy has actually grown in the sheer number of ships under Obama and Romney’s plans to increase shipbuilding is unrealistic. As one historian told PolitiFact, counting the number of ships or aircraft “is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades.” Romney’s comparison “doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’” he said.

According to NPR, analysts are divided on whether there is a need for a larger Navy.  However, in the same Politifact report used to glean the historian’s quote it says “In recent years, the number of active ships has fallen low enough to approach its 1916 level.  In both 2009 (the most recent year of the Heritage report) and 2011, the number was 285.  So Romney has a point. However, even using this metric — which, as we’ll argue later, is an imperfect one for measuring military strength.” So they’re arguing a perspective of “perfection”?  Really?   A lie?  No.

14) “And then the president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.” Obama never embarked on an “apology tour.”

I concede. It is clear the President never used the words “sorry” or “apologize”  and did give praise to America while at the same time knocking America for sins perceived by Obama. It’s obvious Romney and others interpreted this as being apologetic to gain favor of other nations and therefore labeled it an Apology Tour. I think he should have changed the title and focused on what I see as a weakness in Obama and the First Lady.  That being their apparent lack of belief and conviction in US exceptionalism in the world.

15) “And I think that when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel, that they noticed that as well.” They haven’t noticed because it’s not true. Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak told CNN, “President Obama is doing . . . more than anything that I can remember in the past [in regard to our security].” “When I look at the record of President Obama concerning the major issues, security, I think it’s a highly satisfactory record, from an Israeli point of view,” said Israeli President Shimon Peres.

TP quotes two Israeli Liberals, Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres to bolster their premise and the Obama narrative that Obama is doing so much more for Israel than ever before. This one made me laugh out loud honestly. If you’re up on recent headlines you probably chuckled too. Read up on Barak and Peres and see where their political ideologies lie and you’ll see why TP didn’t want to mention Israel’s Prime Minister or conservative Jews at all. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US Ambassador Dan Shapiro recently engaged in a sharp, un-diplomatic exchange in September over Netanyahu’s frustration with the Obama Administration’s Iran policy, according to US congressman, Mike Rogers of Michigan who attended the meeting.  It is very clear Israels highest officer is not happy with Obama’s policies concerning Israel.  Of course liberals are going to say what liberals want to hear.  Think Progress not being very balanced or objective here and ignoring the other side completely.

16) “And — and — we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they — they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer.” Obama hasn’t wasted time on Iran. In July 2012, Obama signed into law the most effective sanctions ever put into place against Iran, targeting the country’s oil and financial sectors. These sanctions were imposed unilaterally by the U.S. and come in addition to the four rounds of sanctions the UN has enacted since 2006. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the sanctions “very effective,” and Romney has said he would continue them if elected.

The fact is Iran is moving forward with its nuclear plans regardless of what you believe those plans to be.  I give the President credit for what he has done with sanctions.  This seems to be nothing more than bickering about whether Obama wasted time or not. Silly.

17) “I would tighten those sanctions. I would say that ships that carry Iranian oil, can’t come into our ports. I imagine the E.U. would agree with us as well.” Almost no Iranian oil has come into the United States since Ronald Reagan signed an executive order in 1987 banning all U.S. imports from Iran. The nation received a small amount of oil from Iran after the first Gulf War, in 1991.

TP is right on this one. Wondering where Romney got his info here.  Can’t find an explanation at this point.  Still, he is offering his opinion, right or wrong.  Not a lie.

18) “I see jihadists continuing to spread, whether they’re rising or just about the same level, hard to precisely measure, but it’s clear they’re there. They’re very strong.” Obama’s policies appear to have gravely weakened al Qaeda Central, the lead arm of the organization in Pakistan and Afghanistan principally responsible for 9/11.

Obama himself has fallen back on the rhetoric that Al-Qaeda is no longer a threat and is subsiding. We know that isn’t true. All TP dare say is Obama’s policies “appear” to have weakened Al-Qaeda. Much different from the language being used only weeks ago.  Analyst Seth Jones is leading the argument that al-Qaeda is doing better than we realize, that “the obituaries are premature”

19) “It’s not government investments that makes businesses grow and hire people.” The Romney campaign routinely touts government military spending as a way to create jobs and boost businesses.

Governments administer. It is with rare exception that government creates anything or even manages anything well. When government tries to do what the private sector does it generally does it less efficiently and more costly and there is plenty of proof to back that up. Romney is right on that one.  If you live around a military base you’ll see the effect of military spending on business and business creation in the private sector. This is just another item where TP sees the world through a different lens. No lies here.

20) “My plan to get the [auto] industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. It was President Bush that wrote the first checks. I disagree with that. I said they need — these [auto] companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy.” Romney’s plan for the auto bailout would have ensured the collapse of the auto industry. In his editorial titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” Romney advocated for letting the private sector finance the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler. Auto insiders, however, have said that plan was “reckless” and “pure fantasy.”

TP is the liar here. They mention Romney’s Op-Ed but fail to reveal the truth of it, just as Obama ignored and refuted Romney in the debate. The facts as presented by ABC News. Romney DID in that original Op-Ed, at the very end, say that there should be post-bankruptcy guarantees for financing. “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk,” he wrote. It is not clear if such post-bankruptcy guarantees could have freed up pre-bankruptcy financing. And it is not something Romney has advertised on the campaign trail. But it is accurate. By the way GM builds more automobiles OUTSIDE the US than in it and its CEO was in China just last year touting his plan to bring more work to China. Listen in to GM’s CEO Dan Akerson addressing reporters in Shang Hai China: 

21) “Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks is great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not.” Ryan’s plan, which Romney has endorsed, “could cut spending on non-defence-related research and development by 5%, or $3.2 billion, below the fiscal-year 2012 budget, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Over the long-term, Ryan’s small-government approach would shrink funding for research and development to historically small sizes.”

Cutting spending doesn’t eliminate research or the need for it.  That’s just a dumb argument.

22) “One is a path represented by the president, which at the end of four years would mean we’d have $20 trillion in debt heading towards Greece.” The U.S. is not headed down a path like that of Greece. Greece, contrary to popular belief, had a revenue problem rather than a spending problem. While its spending was high compared to US standards — 50.4 percent of GDP compared to 38 percent of GDP in the US — its spending was average among European nations. As CAP’s Michael Linden and Sabina Dewan note, “Over the past 10 years, Greece has consistently spent less, as a share of GDP, than the European Union as a whole.” However, it generated less that 40 percent of GDP from revenue — one of the lowest rates in the EU.

All TP does here, is attempt to explain away Greece’s problems so they don’t look anything like ours.  Romney is not the first to use this analogy. Yes we can go the way of Greece.

23) “I was in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle.” Given Romney’s 844 vetoes as governor, Massachusetts legislators dispute this claim. As the New York Times has noted, “The big-ticket items that Mr. Romney proposed when he entered office in January 2003 went largely unrealized, and some that were achieved turned out to have a comparatively minor impact.”

Important distinction TP refuses to acknowledge, the line-item veto. Yes Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and yes, the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously. But it’s ridiculous to say Romney did not get things done as governor working with that overwhelming majority of Democrats.  Romney got praise and criticism from both parties in Massachusetts which I believe shows he was bipartisan.  Even Ted Kennedy praised him.  In 2006, Kennedy had only praise for Romney: “To our governor, and to our Senate president and our speaker, we all say, ‘Well done.’  TP’s perception is the myth here.

24) “We should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment, and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure that we — we push back and give them more economic development.” Romney’s website promises to “Reduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million.” “Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America’s interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid,” it says. In November of 2011, Romney said he would start foreign aid for every country “at zero” and call on them to make their case for U.S. financial assistance.

TP seems to be contradicting its own premise here. Romney is saying he wants to reduce and redirect foreign aid and TP says Romney wants to reduce and redirect foreign aid… maybe you can figure out what point they’re trying to make here.  Bottom line, no lies.

What we have here are 24 points where liberals simply differ in ideology and perspective from conservatives and where a conservative articulated his ideas and opinions including those inevitable mistakes and inaccuracies due to being a human and not a computer.  That doesn’t stop Think Progress from using a misleading headline leaving the lazy reader who doesn’t go through all 24 points to assume Romney is the guy my Facebook friend Tom calls “disgraceful” and a “habitual liar”. I think Tom spends a little too much time at ThinkProgress.org.  Time to round out your daily reading my friends.

I fear too many “fact checkers” are what has been termed Vigilante Fact Checkers.  Atossa Araxia Abrahamian wrote, “The vigilantes work with a very different goal. They’re guerrillas; they live to pounce, to catch their enemies at their most vulnerable moments, and to parade their heads around on a stick, declaring smugly: untruth!”

Read more of Abrahmian’s article 

When a lie is exposed and proven to be an intentional attempt to mislead by any political figure I am all for making it clear and shouting it to the rooftops.  I just happen to believe most of the statements being touted as lies these days are no such thing and we need to hold to the definition of the word, taken in the proper context, and not rely solely on our perception of it.

Lie – Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

If you know the intent of another’s heart, you have a sense the rest of us don’t possess.

Related articles

• Romney Told 24 Myths in 41 Minutes (readersupportednews.org)

Where Have I Heard That Before?

President Obama says all the right things.  And guess what?  We heard all these things in 2008.

The President’s problem isn’t what he says, it’s what he does.

Do you really believe saying the same things now that you said four years ago will make the next four years any better than the last?

Barack Obama’s Founding Fathers

In an article for publication in TheBlaze.com written in September 2012, conservative author Dinesh D’Souza argues, “Throughout his formative years and even later, Barack Obama sought out mentors who could teach him chapter and verse of the anti-colonial ideology. This is the ‘dream from his father’ that Obama refers to in his own autobiography. Since the father wasn’t around – having abandoned Obama at an early age – Obama sought out surrogate fathers, and together they form a group I call ‘Obama’s founding fathers.’”

When presidential biographers set out to understand what makes their subjects tick, the first topic delved into will be the friends, family, mentors, and colleagues with whom a president shared various stages of his life. Thus, when one views the Commander in Chief’s style of governing through the lens of his role models, a clearer picture comes into focus.

It would be naive to say Barack Obama’s associations with these men had no impact or influence on his own ideas, values, or political leanings.

The group of mentors, termed Obama’s Founding Fathers, is listed below with a brief paragraph on each and a link to a full discourse on each man’s life, ideology, and connection with President Barack Obama.

Dr. Roberto Unger

Hailing from the world’s sixth largest economy, the Roscoe Pound Professor of Law at Harvard University has authored over two dozen books on social theory, legal and economic thought, political alternatives and philosophy in the vein of the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School.

Unlike the “father of Communism,” however, Unger believes not in a synchronized mass-nationalization of a country’s means of production, but rather in a world-wide revolution that is achieved subtly and in stages, whereby institutions are “reformed” or replaced one-by-one.

Read More About Dr. Unger

Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Most Americans know the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for his fiery sermons that were incessantly played by media during the 2008 campaign. You may recall his quotes about God damning America and his accusation that the U.S. government used HIV “as a means of genocide against people of color.” But the majority of Americans likely don’t know much about Wright’s personal background and — considering the media narrative and his refusal to speak with reporters — learning about his life and influences is somewhat challenging.

Wright has become more noticed for his controversial comments and fiery sermons — many of which are rooted in black liberation theology. Among his most bizarre — and inflammatory — comments is the insinuation that the U.S. government purposely spread HIV to kill off African Americans.

Read More About Rev. Wright

Bill Ayers

“Guilty as sin, free as a bird.” That is a term all-too apropos for unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, a man who set off explosives at the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a police station, two Army recruiting stations and a New York judge’s home while his entire family slept inside. He is the founder and leader of the now-defunct radical group, The Weather Underground, of which three members perished while building additional bombs that were, ironically, intended to cause harm to others. He is also the man who happened to help launch an ambitious community organizer’s political career into the stratosphere right from his apartment on Chicago’s South Side.

A very interesting relationship between President Obama and the man who hosted a parlor meeting for the young community organizer in his Chicago home nearly 20 years ago.

Read More About Bill Ayers

Edward Said (Saw-eed)

Prior to his death in 2003, Said was the leading anti-colonial thinker in the United States. Obama studied with Said at Columbia University and the two maintained a relationship over the next two decades.

Obama’s connection to Said is probably the most dubious of his various “Founding Fathers.” That’s not to say Said was an unimportant figure in Obama’s life, but unlike people who Obama did explicitly rely on for personal aid (Bill Ayers), or who influenced him in childhood (Frank Marshall Davis), Said lacks the visceral personal connection of his peers. Indeed, it’s arguable that the real “Founding Father” is less Said himself than his successor at Columbia, Rashid Khalidi, who has been well-documented as a close friend of Obama’s.

The Los Angeles Times has reported that Obama spoke at a banquet honoring Khalidi and was apparently Khalidi’s “frequent dinner companion.” Their basis for this is a video showing Obama’s speech honoring Khalidi which the Times has declined to release to the public, citing confidentiality concerns.

Read More About Edward Said

Frank Marshall Davis

Imagine an American man so staunch in his Marxist ideals, that during the Cold War he made the FBI’s security index as a high risk person. This meant that if an armed conflict were to have escalated between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, Davis could have been apprehended on charges of potential treason. Now, imagine that that man is not the character of a James Bond movie, nor simply a relic of the 1960s radical past, but rather the primary role model, father figure even, of the adolescent who would one day go on to become the leader of the free world.

Kengor, along with other experts have agreed for some time that Davis was one of the president’s earliest mentors and that the “Frank” mentioned no less than 22 times in the print-version of Obama’s 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father” was none other than the infamous Communist agitator. To illustrate just how influential the Marxist-radical was to Obama, it should be noted that “Frank” appears in all three sections of “Dreams,” and at each milestone and pivotal moment of Obama’s life as detailed in the book.

Curiously, despite being such a key influence in a young Obama’s life, author Jack Cashill, along with Kengor, noted that “Frank” had actually “disappeared” from the 2005 audio version of “Dreams,” which was narrated by Obama himself. After re-listened to the entire audio book in September 2012 and comparing it to the unabridged print-edition, Kengor confirmed that the audio version had indeed been scrubbed of all references to Davis.

“Every reference to ‘Frank’ everywhere in the book, from every section—and there are many of them—are gone,” Kengor told TheBlaze in an email.

The Random House website reveals that all audio versions of “Dreams,” along with Obama’s subsequent book, “The Audacity of Hope,” are only available in the abridged format. But if Davis was important enough to erase from the pages of Obama’s history, who, exactly was he?

Read More About Frank Marshall Davis

Related articles

• Documents: Despite Obama’s 2008 claims, political relationship with Rev. Wright began as early as 1987 (nalert.blogspot.com)
• Obama’s Political Relationships With Wright, Pfleger, and Ayers Go Back a Quarter of a Century (moonbattery.com)

Business Owners Share Concern for Economy With Employees, Seen as Threats by the Left.

Recently some business owners have shared their concerns with the economy and its effect on their business with employees.  Included in those company-wide emails are their concerns and personal opinions about President Obama’s chances for a second term and what, in their opinion, that could mean for their companies and their ability to operate at current levels.

Some on the left have pounced on these emails as evidence of a heartless group of business people in corporate America who could care less about the people who work for them and only focus on how many dollars they can stuff in their own pockets.

I’ve posted two emails that have been made public of two business owners who sent them to their employees.

I encourage you to read them entirely before making any judgement.  I believe you will see concern not only for their companies but also for their employees, especially those who have worked for them for many years.  The spin coming out from the left on these letters is at best dishonest and worst malicious.

You read. You decide.

Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can’t tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn’t interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the “1%” and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I’m building. I’m sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don’t see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.

I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn’t eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I’m the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I’ve made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn’t. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don’t pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that’s what happens to me.

Here is what most people don’t understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don’t want you to know that the “1%”, as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, “democracy” will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It’s quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn’t? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the “1 percenters” are bad, I’m telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the “1%”; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

E-mail from Arthur Allen to ASG Software employees

Subject: Will the US Presidential election directly impact your future jobs at ASG?  Please read below.

To all ASG employees,

We have been stuck in an extremely sick global economy, but as we should all know by now, the global economy largely depends on the US economy. This sick global economy has been negatively influencing ASG since December 2008. No one could have ever have dreamed that the US economy would still be sick 4 years later, but it is. We have a chance, as individuals, to help turn the sick US economy into a healthy economy, and positively influence the global economy as well. This chance comes on November 6th, when we elect a new President and administration. The US and the world need to elect individuals who have business experience. Neither the world nor the US can stand to elect politicians any longer. In my view, and in the view of most business leaders, if you give politicians 100 questions, they will give you back 100 wrong answers simply because they have no basis for making those decisions. Would you hire a person with no experience to do brain surgery? Of course not, but that’s what the US voters did in 2009. Why does the world keep hiring politicians to run our global economies when they have no experience? It just makes no sense, and yet the world keeps doing it over and over again. Let’s take the lead on November 6th and show the world how it should and can be done.

Many of you have been with ASG for over 5, 10, 15, and even 20 years. As you know, together, we have been able to keep ASG an independent company while still growing our revenues and customers. But I can tell you, if the US re-elects President Obama, our chances of staying independent are slim to none. I am already heavily involved in considering options that make our independence go away, and with that all of our lives would change forever. I believe that a new President and administration would give US citizens and the world the renewed confidence and optimism we all need to get the global economies started again, and give ASG a chance to stay independent. If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th, and we lose our independence as a company, I don’t want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come. Remember, in the world of business, companies are consolidators or they get consolidated; so far ASG has been a consolidator, completing over 60 acquisitions in our 26 year history. When we buy a company, we eliminate about 60 percent of the salaries of the employees of that company. If we lose our independence and get consolidated, the same thing would happen to ASG’s employees.

I am asking you to give us one more chance to stay independent by voting in a new President and administration on November 6th. Even then, we still might not be able to remain independent, but it will at least give us a chance. If we don’t, that chance goes away.

I apologize for writing such a blunt email, but for those of you who have known me for years and years, you know that this must be serious, and it is. I am going to follow this email with an email to All Sales, offering all of our help to assist them in making Q4 the best quarter in ASG history. Business is hard to find, but it is out there if Sales just goes and gets it.

Mr. Allen

Related articles

• If You Are Unemployed – This Is the Reason You Are Not Working – Businesses Are Afraid of President Obama (bonjupatten.com)
• Small Business Optimism Dropped Sharply Last Month (inc.com)
• Anti-Obama CEO On His Employees: ‘They’re Like My Children, And I’m The Jewish Mother’ (huffingtonpost.com)

43% of Congress Vulnerable to Campaign Donation Fraud

The Government Accountability Institute, comprised of a team of investigative researchers and journalists, have published a report titled America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent  Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections?

The report states that an alarming number of congressional and senatorial representatives with an online donation page do not have proper security on those sites to prevent donations to their campaigns from foreign sources.  The report also found third-party political fundraising organizations funneling money to campaigns also lacked the industry standard, anti-fraud, credit card security features to block fraudulent and international donations.

The report was not partisan in its reproach.

Both parties and specific candidates were named as having more problems than others, including Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama.  However, the Obama campaign does show a much higher rate of vulnerability than that of his counterpart Mitt Romney.

Given the state-of-the art digital sophistication of the President’s re-election campaign—including social media, micro-targeting and data-mining—its online donation system contains at least three major security vulnerabilities:

1. THE ABSENCE OF THE INDUSTRY-STANDARD CVV AND UNKNOWN USE OF AVS ANTI-FRAUD SECURITY FOR ONLINE CREDIT CARD DONATIONS.

2. THE PRESENCE OF A BRANDED, MAJOR THIRD PARTY-OWNED WEBSITE (OBAMA.COM) REDIRECTS ITS 68% FOREIGN TRAFFIC TO A CAMPAIGN DONATION PAGE.

3. ACTIVE FOREIGN SOLICITATION USING INDISCRIMINATE EMAIL SOLICITATIONS AND EXPOSURE TO SOCIAL MEDIA.

The Obama campaign lacks the industry-standard level of credit card security for donations, but uses it for merchandise purchases:  to purchase Obama campaign merchandise, the campaign requires buyers to enter their credit card CVV security code, but does not require the credit card security code to be entered when making an online campaign donation. By Gai’s estimates, the Obama campaign’s failure to utilize industry-standard protections potentially costs the campaign millions in extra processing fees.

Obama.com was purchased by an Obama bundler in Shanghai, China with questionable business ties to state-run Chinese enterprises: in 2008, Obama.com was purchased by an Obama fundraiser living in Shanghai, China, whose business is heavily dependent on relationships with Chinese state-run television and other state-owned entities.

68% of traffic to anonymously registered Obama.com is foreign (compared to just over 11% for the Romney website): according to industry leading web analytics site markosweb, an anonymously registered redirect site (Obama.com) features 68% foreign traffic. Starting in December 2011, the site was linked to a specific donation page on the official barackobama.com campaign website for ten months. The page loaded a tracking number, 634930, into a space on the website labeled “who encouraged you to make this donation.” that tracking number is embedded in the source code for Obama.com and is associated with the Obama victory fund. in early September 2012, the page began redirecting to the standard Obama victory fund donation page.

To see the highlights and Key Findings of the report CLICK HERE.

To see the full report CLICK HERE.

Related articles

• Obama bundler tied to Chinese government? (hotair.com)
• Hypocrisy on Those Foreign Campaign Contributions (nationalreview.com)
• Hope and shady campaign change: Buzz builds about Obama camp’s donor scandal; Update: Breaking news on potential for illicit foreign donations (twitchy.com)