October 31, 2012

Obama Record Too Poor to be Ignored

By Donald G. Mashburn

If voters follow three basic rules in the November 6 election, and act objectively and wisely, America’s future will be in good hands. The rules are simple:

1. Vote.

2. Vote informed. Base your vote on readily available factual information, not Party affiliation, hearsay, or election-year claims of what is “going” to be done, but hasn’t been done.

3. Review and memorize the most important aspects of the incumbent’s record and the experience of the challenger.

To comply with the first rule, you only need to decide to do it and follow through.

To handle the second and third rules, you need a relatively small amount of readily available information that is factual and that is supported by available records and reports, all of which are critically important.

You should remember that if you’re not informed, your vote could actually be harmful. Remember, too, that being exposed to information but refusing to absorb it, think about it, and use it to act rationally and objectively is no better than not having the information in the first place.

A reasonable place to start is with a list of a few basic facts on the nation’s economic health during Barack Obama’s first four years in office:

First, in looking at the overall economy, you should realize that this nation is floundering in the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression that started more than 80 years ago.

Unemployment is running a reported 7.8 percent, but when the data include those who have given up finding a job, the real unemployment rate is around 10.5 percent.

Today, just days before we cast our votes for president, between 22 million and 23 million Americans are out of work. They could be hardworking, productive workers if work was available for them, but oppressive, politically driven policies, and an ineffectual, partisan U.S. Senate, controlled by Democrats, have slowed our economic recovery to a crawl.

The take-home pay for those who are working has decreased by a reported $4,300 a year for each working family.

After nearly four years of Obama as president, 2.5 million more women are in poverty.

Recent gasoline prices have been running about double what they were when Obama came into office.

Obama’s policies, actions, and rhetoric have combined to shackle oil industry development. He has falsely claimed credit for the nation’s increase in oil production, but the facts are that the increases in oil production are due to drilling on non-federal lands. The ugly truth about the Obama administration is that it has been, and still is, anti-oil, and has blocked oil development on large areas of federal land where oil companies already held leases for which they had paid the government large sums of money.

The Obama administration has run annual deficits averaging $1,274 billion per year!

In the four Obama years, his administration has added $5,095 billion to our national debt.

At this writing, the national debt under Obama has increased from some $10.6 billion to around $15.7 billion; and in the event Obama is reelected, our debt could reach $20.0 billion while he’s in office, even if Obamacare can be brought under control.

Voters should ask themselves if they want to vote for four more years of the same, or worse,

Voters should ask themselves if they can vote for the president who presided over such a poor record, and has produced little but words and more words.

Voters should ask themselves if, based on the national economy’s weakness under the Obama stewardship, can the nation afford, or perhaps even survive, another four years with Obama as president.

The Obama record is too poor to be ignored by voters come Election Day, November 6.

Obama Insults Americans’ Intelligence

By Donald G. Mashburn

The first presidential debate showed that President Barack Obama apparently believes Americans are gullible enough to swallow anything he dishes out. In the October 16 debate with Mitt Romney, Obama claimed that the day after the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, he, Obama, called it an “act of terrorism.”

The president made no such clear statement. What he did was make a general statement that referred to the original 9/11 attack on the U.S. and other terror attacks, as he said, “No acts of terrorism will ever shake the resolve of this great nation ….” Note that he referred to “acts,” plural, and was not referring to the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including our American Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

Even a casual listener, or a reasonable reader of his statement, would know that his reference to the “acts” to which the president referred, did not label the attack as an “act of terrorism” which he now claims to have done. The proof of that is the organized effort of the administration to claim the embassy attack was the result of demonstrations over a video viewed as offensive by Islamists.

Just how organized was it? Organized enough that in the days following the five days following the Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made multiple television appearances to persuade the public that the organized attack on the U.S. Benghazi consulate was nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration by local extremists against a video they claimed was offensive to Muslims. The administration’s line was that the Benghazi attack on Americans in Benghazi was spreading reaction to earlier demonstrations in Cairo triggered by the offensive video.

But Ambassador Rice’s cover statements, and the Obama administration’s official stance for some two weeks seemed to ignore the fact that the Benghazi attack occurred on September 11! Remember the term, “9/11,” Mr. President, and Madam Ambassador?

How disconnected can a president and a UN ambassador be?

Obama’s disdain, however, for the intelligence of Americans seems to have no limits. During the presidential debates and campaign speeches, the president has repeatedly claimed, he has kept his promises. But a look at the record quickly shows just how dismal the Obama record is on promise-breaking.

He promised families making less than $250,000 a year they would not “see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax.... Not any of your taxes.” Yet, since he became president, Obama tax increases have included a cigarette tax and increases in other fees and taxes.

But worse than these, are the onerous taxes, penalties, and increased costs of being covered by the Obamacare health plan. Still worse than any of the identifiable taxes and penalties are the unfunded requirements imbedded in the voluminous regulations of the socialistic health plan that claims to cover “everyone,” but which will leave an estimated 30,000 Americans without healthcare coverage.

Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay. It’s still open – and needed.

He promised to develop workable, comprehensive immigration laws, a promise he has broken, like so many other. Worse, he has made no serious attempt to address immigration laws.

Obama many other pie-in-the-sky promises have gone with the hot wind – or presidential breath – of the current campaign for four more years. Notable among his broken promises are his claims that he would lower the price of gasoline (it has just about doubled).

He said he would reduce unemployment to 5.4 percent, but the suspect, subject to revision, “official” rate is 7.8 percent. However, the real unemployment rate – including those who have quit looking for a job is around 10.5 percent, which like gasoline prices is twice as bad.

But perhaps the worst insult to voters’ intelligence came just days before the November 6 election, when the president told a crowd of supporters: “I don’t want your vote just because of what I have done. I want your vote just because of what I’m gonna do.”

Translation: Don’t look at my sorry record of the past four years. Just swallow my latest list of promises and elect me for four more years, based on my words!

Just how dumb does this president thinks Americans are? Every American should be offended by this low regard for voters’ intelligence.

Liberal Media Mislead Readers on Romney

By Donald G. Mashburn

The liberal media is up to its old tricks of misleading the public during election cycles. Only this time, it’s worse. In its September 22 edition, The Huffington Post, a liberal Internet publication, ran under “Latest Headlines,” a misleading teaser sub-heading, “Romney’s Fake Gift to The Treasury.”

Fake? Not according to the story itself, written by Ryan Grim, which reported that GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney announced the day before that he would not take advantage of all the charitable deductions available to him on his 2011 tax return.

Romney’s trustee, Brad Malt, explained that on their 2011 tax return, the Romneys would not list all the charitable deductions they would be entitled to under tax laws. Trustee Malt then explained – unnecessarily – in a note, according to Grim’s article, that the Romneys “limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor’s statement in August … that he’d never paid lower than a 13 percent tax rate.”

The Grim article reveals a number of things about the way the liberal media often slants – and sometimes outright misrepresents the facts, even when the facts are trivial and of no significance.

First, it was downright dishonest to run the teaser sub-head, “Romney’s Fake Gift to The Treasury.” There was nothing “fake” about the Romneys’ handling of their charitable contributions. The contributions, whether fully used or not, are what they are. To baldly refer to them as “a fake gift to the Treasury” is dishonest on its face. It’s outright lying in a headline.

Even if the Romneys do amend their return, or claim the charitable deductions, nothing has been “faked.” It’s their right to abide by the letter and intent of the tax laws. The tax code provisions are available to all taxpayers, and they’re there for a purpose. That fact is referenced in the article on Huff Post, but facts don’t fit a headline intended to mislead the reader.

And the HuffPost wouldn’t want to be caught saying that Romney complies with the tax laws. An honest statement doesn’t lend itself to a false headline, or to influencing the ignorant and uniformed that the liberal trash-media pander to.