by Austin Hill
It’s “game on” for the politics of retaliation.
While campaigning in the swing state of Ohio, President Obama’s supporters began to boo last Friday when he uttered the name “Mitt Romney.”
“No, no, no,” the President shouted, “don’t boo. Vote. Voting is the best revenge…”
Those who support the President’s re-election are to seek revenge on others. That’s quite a directive from the President of the United States, and it is quite a departure from the candidate of four years ago who promised to unite all Americans in the pursuit of higher purposes.
But it is nonetheless an example of that for which President Obama has become known -turning American against American. It’s more than an “our campaign versus theirs” remark. The implied message is that I will be made to feel better, if you are sufficiently maligned and impugned.
In particular it is meant to convey that if my government punishes you by taking away more of your money, then my life will somehow become more wonderful. It is a false premise that has emanated throughout Mr. Obama’s campaign for re-election and throughout his nearly four years of policies as well.
Reaction this weekend to the President’s “revenge” admonition was eerily similar to that which followed his famous “you didn’t build that” vitriol aimed at business owners last spring. Romney and Ryan made it a talking point from the stump, while the President’s surrogates went in to the usual “he was taken out of context” and “what he really meant was” explanations.
But consider how the President’s propensity for “revenge” on certain categories of Americans is at the epicenter of his economic ideas and rhetoric. Even back four years ago when he was promising to “bring us all together,” candidate Obama nonetheless consistently expressed disdain - and yes, an attitude of revenge – towards successful business enterprises.
Speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers in August of that year, then-Senator Obama went-off with a tirade about how American oil companies were making too much money! As the crowd cheered him on, he said, in part:
“…You’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…they..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”
From there, Senator Obama went on to introduce his new “energy policy.” He wanted to raise taxes on oil companies (because, obviously, it is unfair if a company is “too profitable”), and use that “extra” tax revenue to give “working Americans” a thousand-dollar voucher that they could use to make gasoline purchases.
Senator Obama made no mention of the untold numbers of shareholders who invest their money in oil companies, nor any reference to the men and women who invest their talents and efforts into oil companies. And he certainly made no reference to fact that that oil companies actually provide us all with an essential product. No, Barack Obama is not given to such essential truths. Americans in 2008 were feeling fearful about the economy, and oil companies were enjoying success all at the same time – it was an opportunity to gin-up the desire for “revenge” that couldn’t be ignored.
Fast-forward to 2011. After signing landmark bills that sought “reforms” (read “revenge”) on banks, credit card companies, and – of course- health care providers, President Obama was feeling the heat over an economy that was still was not producing the much-needed job growth that had been promised. And while much of the business community had at that point refrained from admitting that we had a problem in Washington, DC, Las Vegas-based hotelier Steve Wynn finally broke the silence.
In July of that year, Wynn stated on a corporate conference call with his “Wynn Resorts” corporation what millions of us knew in our hearts.: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America…”
After acknowledging the Obama-driven “fear” among America’s entrepreneurs and investors, Wynn further states that “the guy (President Obama) keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they’re holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it…It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman… And I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States… until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs…”
And here we are, two days away from another election. Those with the means of investing and growing the economy are indeed “on the sidelines,” shielding themselves from the President’s “revenge,” and we all are suffering as a consequence.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Entrepreneurs Weigh-In: What Do We Need Over The Next Four Years?
by Austin Hill
“…What the hell is he doing asking for another four years?”
Governor Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) was speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney in Virginia last week. He was talking about, and to, Barack Obama. “…If you don’t think you can change Washington from inside the White House, let’s give you the plane ticket back to Chicago you’ve earned.” With President Obama and his challenger running so close – and with so many states in-play – fiery rhetoric from the campaign trail is to be expected.
Yet Governor Christie raises a legitimate question. Besides the obvious reasons – first term Presidents are eligible to run for a second term (and most of them to), and President Obama thinks he is better suited to be President than Mitt Romney –what, really, is another four years of Barack Obama supposed to be about?
Americans who are the least bit interested in anything remotely resembling economic recovery and prosperity – yes, even Democrat Americans – should take a look at the facts. The evidence is overwhelming that President Obama’s policies over the last three and a half years are stifling our economy now, and will likely send us in to a slowdown in 2013.
That’s not mere partisan political rhetoric. Last week Reuters business news reported that Americans will face a “tougher 2013,” economically speaking, and they identified two of President Obama’s policies as the direct reason for the added difficulty.
For one, payroll taxes are set to rise on January 1. President Obama agreed to a temporary payroll tax cut back in 2009, but he insists that it needs to be raised again, and has insisted that he’ll let this lower payroll tax rate expire at the end of this year. According to the analysis reported by Reuters, this will take an estimated $125 billion out of our private sector economy, and will likely mean less consumer spending, less profitability for businesses, and a lower GDP.
And then there’s Obamacare. The President himself isn’t even trying any longer to pretend that his “health reform” law isn’t a tax, and thoughtful analysts in the world of business news can’t pretend either. According to Reuters, the new taxes on healthcare providers, insurance companies, and employers that provide health insurance to their workers will cause healthcare costs to shoot up nearly 7% in 2013 alone. This, combined with already stagnant wages, and the estimated $125 billion taken out of private household budgets because of the President’s payroll tax increase, all add up to more economic hardship for middle and lower income Americans.
In the same week, CNN Money published a report entitled “Entrepreneurship Is Weaker Than Ever.” The report noted that across the country, local government regulations are damaging small businesses and new start-ups. But it also claimed that “uncertainty in the market” – fears of rising taxes, IRS agents penalizing individuals and businesses for alleged Obamacare violations, and the lack of investment capital – were creating huge disincentives for would-be business owners to jump in.
And then there was The Atlantic, and Yahoo! Finance, that both jointly published an in-depth article with a striking title: “What Kills Small Business? Let’s Ask Them.”
The article states that “69 percent of small business owners and managers say that complicated government regulations are ‘major impediments; to the creation of new jobs.” The article also provided this analysis:
“When over two-thirds of job creators tell us how to create jobs in an economy that desperately needs them, candidates and elected officials should not only listen, they should also tell us precisely where they stand on these ideas. How government regulates commerce -- and not just whether government regulates commerce -- should be a major issue in this election. It would tell us a lot about how the candidates, if elected, would make critical day-to-day decisions that shape law, regulation, and, ultimately, the economy.”
These are some powerful words. And they are not emanating from “conservative” media outlets – if The Atlantic has any ideological leanings, it’s generally regarded as “left of center.” And while Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer is well known for her unquestioning support of President Obama and the Democrat Party, even the business news division of her media content operation can’t ignore that the President that she has helped to bankroll is doing serious damage to the economy (that’s how bad things have become).
Back in January of 2011 (after the President’s self-described “shellacking” at the polls in November of 2010), President Obama spoke at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and tried to convey that he really does support free market enterprise, stating that “we’re going back to Thomas Edison’s principles… We’re going to build stuff and invent stuff…” The sad irony was that the speech was made days before the Obama Administration officially outlawed one of Thomas Edison’s greatest inventions, the incandescent light bulb.
Now, as he campaigns for re-election, the President clings to his “Forward” and “We can’t go back” phrases, and reminds us that he killed Osama bin Laden. Yet the stifling of our economy from the Obama Administration’s legacy of threats and fees and fines and taxes and bans on businesses, is undeniable.
Entrepreneurs and business owners are crying-out to be saved from the Obama oppression. Do American voters care?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
“…What the hell is he doing asking for another four years?”
Governor Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) was speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney in Virginia last week. He was talking about, and to, Barack Obama. “…If you don’t think you can change Washington from inside the White House, let’s give you the plane ticket back to Chicago you’ve earned.” With President Obama and his challenger running so close – and with so many states in-play – fiery rhetoric from the campaign trail is to be expected.
Yet Governor Christie raises a legitimate question. Besides the obvious reasons – first term Presidents are eligible to run for a second term (and most of them to), and President Obama thinks he is better suited to be President than Mitt Romney –what, really, is another four years of Barack Obama supposed to be about?
Americans who are the least bit interested in anything remotely resembling economic recovery and prosperity – yes, even Democrat Americans – should take a look at the facts. The evidence is overwhelming that President Obama’s policies over the last three and a half years are stifling our economy now, and will likely send us in to a slowdown in 2013.
That’s not mere partisan political rhetoric. Last week Reuters business news reported that Americans will face a “tougher 2013,” economically speaking, and they identified two of President Obama’s policies as the direct reason for the added difficulty.
For one, payroll taxes are set to rise on January 1. President Obama agreed to a temporary payroll tax cut back in 2009, but he insists that it needs to be raised again, and has insisted that he’ll let this lower payroll tax rate expire at the end of this year. According to the analysis reported by Reuters, this will take an estimated $125 billion out of our private sector economy, and will likely mean less consumer spending, less profitability for businesses, and a lower GDP.
And then there’s Obamacare. The President himself isn’t even trying any longer to pretend that his “health reform” law isn’t a tax, and thoughtful analysts in the world of business news can’t pretend either. According to Reuters, the new taxes on healthcare providers, insurance companies, and employers that provide health insurance to their workers will cause healthcare costs to shoot up nearly 7% in 2013 alone. This, combined with already stagnant wages, and the estimated $125 billion taken out of private household budgets because of the President’s payroll tax increase, all add up to more economic hardship for middle and lower income Americans.
In the same week, CNN Money published a report entitled “Entrepreneurship Is Weaker Than Ever.” The report noted that across the country, local government regulations are damaging small businesses and new start-ups. But it also claimed that “uncertainty in the market” – fears of rising taxes, IRS agents penalizing individuals and businesses for alleged Obamacare violations, and the lack of investment capital – were creating huge disincentives for would-be business owners to jump in.
And then there was The Atlantic, and Yahoo! Finance, that both jointly published an in-depth article with a striking title: “What Kills Small Business? Let’s Ask Them.”
The article states that “69 percent of small business owners and managers say that complicated government regulations are ‘major impediments; to the creation of new jobs.” The article also provided this analysis:
“When over two-thirds of job creators tell us how to create jobs in an economy that desperately needs them, candidates and elected officials should not only listen, they should also tell us precisely where they stand on these ideas. How government regulates commerce -- and not just whether government regulates commerce -- should be a major issue in this election. It would tell us a lot about how the candidates, if elected, would make critical day-to-day decisions that shape law, regulation, and, ultimately, the economy.”
These are some powerful words. And they are not emanating from “conservative” media outlets – if The Atlantic has any ideological leanings, it’s generally regarded as “left of center.” And while Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer is well known for her unquestioning support of President Obama and the Democrat Party, even the business news division of her media content operation can’t ignore that the President that she has helped to bankroll is doing serious damage to the economy (that’s how bad things have become).
Back in January of 2011 (after the President’s self-described “shellacking” at the polls in November of 2010), President Obama spoke at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and tried to convey that he really does support free market enterprise, stating that “we’re going back to Thomas Edison’s principles… We’re going to build stuff and invent stuff…” The sad irony was that the speech was made days before the Obama Administration officially outlawed one of Thomas Edison’s greatest inventions, the incandescent light bulb.
Now, as he campaigns for re-election, the President clings to his “Forward” and “We can’t go back” phrases, and reminds us that he killed Osama bin Laden. Yet the stifling of our economy from the Obama Administration’s legacy of threats and fees and fines and taxes and bans on businesses, is undeniable.
Entrepreneurs and business owners are crying-out to be saved from the Obama oppression. Do American voters care?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Could This Be Like Nixon In 1972?
by Austin Hill
President Richard Nixon won a second term in the White House, by being the avenger of left-wing cultural chaos.
Will challenger Mitt Romney win a first term as President, because he provides a similar alternative?
This year’s election will mark the fortieth anniversary of another historic contest. In November of 1972 President Richard Nixon defeated his opponent George McGovern in the Electoral College by a landslide margin of 49 states to 1. Setting the U.S. presidential record for the widest margin of victory among the popular vote, Nixon received nearly 18 million more votes than McGovern.
While Nixon is most often remembered for his downfall and near-impeachment following his second inauguration, his re-election victory – and the cultural conditions that led up to it – was nonetheless dramatic. And in an age where overwhelming majorities believe that America is “heading in the wrong direction,” it’s worth noting how concerns of “right and wrong” shook the election of 40 years ago – and how these concerns might play out this year.
During Nixon’s first term, a great awakening began among a broad sector of the American population. After decades of having been disengaged from politics and public policy debates, and without much in the way of formal organization, millions of faith-based Americans—at that time mostly white, middle-class, Protestant and evangelical Christians—had become increasingly alarmed at the cultural trends and growing civil unrest of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The challenges to marriage and Judeo-Christian sexual norms posed by the so-called “sexual revolution;” the youthful rebellion against societal authority
structures brought about by the so-called “hippie” culture; and the Vietnam
War protests by the first generation of American youth who thought it was something less than “honorable” to fight on behalf of the country—all these developments and others proved to be quite unnerving to these millions of Americans.
In the midst of this upheaval, Nixon delivered an important address to the nation during his first term in office, on November 3, 1969. In the speech, Nixon famously made reference to a so-called “silent majority” of Americans—people who supposedly agreed with him on issues of culture, “law and order,” and his desire to fight back against Communism, even though the views of this “silent majority” were largely ignored by political, media, and academic elites.
In using the “silent majority” language, Nixon sought to politically awaken and unify this huge chunk of the American population that had little or no voice in American media and who often did not vote. This sector of American society was very real, and very frustrated by what they believed was a degradation of America and its institutions. Nixon successfully conveyed that he understood those frustrations, and the bond he created with the “silent majority” helped bring about his landslide re-election.
So does today’s cultural upheaval compare to that of 40 years ago? There’s no doubt that the United States of 2012 is quite different from the country Nixon served.
In 1972 the nation’s population was slightly over 200 million, while today there are over 314 million of us. In 1972 over 80% of the American population was White and of European descent. Today, according to some demographic reports, Whites make up as little as 74% of the population, while there is universal agreement that this majority is rapidly eroding.
In 1972 roughly 90% of Americans identified themselves as Christian. Today that figure is approximately 73%, as other religions, and a preference for no religious affiliation at all, become more prevalent.
So the United States of 2012 is more racially and ideologically pluralistic than was Nixon’s America. Yet concerns about the degradation of America are as prevalent today as they were in 1972. And while the radicalized influences that sought to upend the foundations of America were playing out on college campuses and in local communities across the country forty years ago, today they are in the White House, itself, and Americans sense the dangers that this poses.
Despite his promises of unifying America, President Barack Obama has exacerbated our divisions and violated many of our common understandings of right and wrong. When Arizona and Alabama sought two years ago to clarify the rule of law as it regards legal and illegal immigration, our President sided with the U.N., China, the dictator of Venezuela and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in opposing these two states, and then punished the residents there with costly federal lawsuits.
When South Carolina and Florida pursued voter ID laws so as to prevent non-citizens from voting, President Obama sued them to prevent the laws from being implemented. When Ohio sought to streamline early voting for military service personnel, President Obama sued Ohio to stop the troops from voting.
President Obama praises government employees, but calls private business owners “greedy.” As his policies have expanded government dependency, removed the work requirement for welfare, decreased the workforce participation rate and run-up over $5 trillion in deficit spending, he insists that he is moving our country “forward.”
Mr. Obama has undercut our nation’s ally Israel in the Middle East, but calls militant Islamists in the region our “friends” – even as they kill American civilians, military personnel, and a U.S. Ambassador (Christopher Stevens). And while his predecessor oversaw the construction of an offshore detention center (Guantanamo Bay) in which to detain and interrogate foreign terror suspects, President Obama has sought to welcome those very dangerous characters into the domestic U.S. and grant them access to American courts.
Indeed, we are surrounded by left-wing cultural chaos. What was once wrong is now right, and right is now wrong, in Obama’s America. If Mitt Romney can continue to convince America that he is as keenly aware of America’s degradation as millions of the rest of us are, he may find a majority of us standing with him in November.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
President Richard Nixon won a second term in the White House, by being the avenger of left-wing cultural chaos.
Will challenger Mitt Romney win a first term as President, because he provides a similar alternative?
This year’s election will mark the fortieth anniversary of another historic contest. In November of 1972 President Richard Nixon defeated his opponent George McGovern in the Electoral College by a landslide margin of 49 states to 1. Setting the U.S. presidential record for the widest margin of victory among the popular vote, Nixon received nearly 18 million more votes than McGovern.
While Nixon is most often remembered for his downfall and near-impeachment following his second inauguration, his re-election victory – and the cultural conditions that led up to it – was nonetheless dramatic. And in an age where overwhelming majorities believe that America is “heading in the wrong direction,” it’s worth noting how concerns of “right and wrong” shook the election of 40 years ago – and how these concerns might play out this year.
During Nixon’s first term, a great awakening began among a broad sector of the American population. After decades of having been disengaged from politics and public policy debates, and without much in the way of formal organization, millions of faith-based Americans—at that time mostly white, middle-class, Protestant and evangelical Christians—had become increasingly alarmed at the cultural trends and growing civil unrest of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The challenges to marriage and Judeo-Christian sexual norms posed by the so-called “sexual revolution;” the youthful rebellion against societal authority
structures brought about by the so-called “hippie” culture; and the Vietnam
War protests by the first generation of American youth who thought it was something less than “honorable” to fight on behalf of the country—all these developments and others proved to be quite unnerving to these millions of Americans.
In the midst of this upheaval, Nixon delivered an important address to the nation during his first term in office, on November 3, 1969. In the speech, Nixon famously made reference to a so-called “silent majority” of Americans—people who supposedly agreed with him on issues of culture, “law and order,” and his desire to fight back against Communism, even though the views of this “silent majority” were largely ignored by political, media, and academic elites.
In using the “silent majority” language, Nixon sought to politically awaken and unify this huge chunk of the American population that had little or no voice in American media and who often did not vote. This sector of American society was very real, and very frustrated by what they believed was a degradation of America and its institutions. Nixon successfully conveyed that he understood those frustrations, and the bond he created with the “silent majority” helped bring about his landslide re-election.
So does today’s cultural upheaval compare to that of 40 years ago? There’s no doubt that the United States of 2012 is quite different from the country Nixon served.
In 1972 the nation’s population was slightly over 200 million, while today there are over 314 million of us. In 1972 over 80% of the American population was White and of European descent. Today, according to some demographic reports, Whites make up as little as 74% of the population, while there is universal agreement that this majority is rapidly eroding.
In 1972 roughly 90% of Americans identified themselves as Christian. Today that figure is approximately 73%, as other religions, and a preference for no religious affiliation at all, become more prevalent.
So the United States of 2012 is more racially and ideologically pluralistic than was Nixon’s America. Yet concerns about the degradation of America are as prevalent today as they were in 1972. And while the radicalized influences that sought to upend the foundations of America were playing out on college campuses and in local communities across the country forty years ago, today they are in the White House, itself, and Americans sense the dangers that this poses.
Despite his promises of unifying America, President Barack Obama has exacerbated our divisions and violated many of our common understandings of right and wrong. When Arizona and Alabama sought two years ago to clarify the rule of law as it regards legal and illegal immigration, our President sided with the U.N., China, the dictator of Venezuela and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in opposing these two states, and then punished the residents there with costly federal lawsuits.
When South Carolina and Florida pursued voter ID laws so as to prevent non-citizens from voting, President Obama sued them to prevent the laws from being implemented. When Ohio sought to streamline early voting for military service personnel, President Obama sued Ohio to stop the troops from voting.
President Obama praises government employees, but calls private business owners “greedy.” As his policies have expanded government dependency, removed the work requirement for welfare, decreased the workforce participation rate and run-up over $5 trillion in deficit spending, he insists that he is moving our country “forward.”
Mr. Obama has undercut our nation’s ally Israel in the Middle East, but calls militant Islamists in the region our “friends” – even as they kill American civilians, military personnel, and a U.S. Ambassador (Christopher Stevens). And while his predecessor oversaw the construction of an offshore detention center (Guantanamo Bay) in which to detain and interrogate foreign terror suspects, President Obama has sought to welcome those very dangerous characters into the domestic U.S. and grant them access to American courts.
Indeed, we are surrounded by left-wing cultural chaos. What was once wrong is now right, and right is now wrong, in Obama’s America. If Mitt Romney can continue to convince America that he is as keenly aware of America’s degradation as millions of the rest of us are, he may find a majority of us standing with him in November.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Get A Grip: Americans Must Demand Better Government In November And Beyond
by Austin Hill
Barack Obama is beating Mitt Romney.
Wait- Romney and Obama are tied in Pennsylvania.
And how about all those bungled calls from the NFL fill-in refs?
Americans are seriously pre-occupied as we enter the fourth quarter of 2012. Obsessions about the football season and “Dancing with The Stars” are a pleasant diversion from our present hardship and gloomy future, and frustrations over the logic-defying presidential polls makes for interesting talk show fodder.
But after the election – and after the close of 2012 – Americans will need to grapple with myriad problems in our government. Whoever wins the White House will face an avalanche of trouble in the months ahead, and the ways in which these problems are addressed will reverberate for generations.
Americans must begin to see through the rhetoric of politicians and the slant and soundbytes of the media, and demand better government from those elected to serve. The “pass the bill and then figure out what’s in it” approach is unacceptable. So let’s start with our “get a grip” agenda with this: Americans must sober-up about our economic and fiscal condition.
At present it would seem that we’re taking the upcoming election about as seriously as a football game. Team Obama has the home field advantage, while Romney and company are the visitors trying to upset Obama at his homecoming. The make-up of the Congress will then round-out each team’s roster, but the “players” are thought to be all essentially the same.
Yet America is in serious trouble. Private industry is suffering shell shock from the flurry of demands and restrictions placed upon it in the last three years, most of which have stemmed from environmental constraints, so-called “banking reform,” mortgage restrictions, and Obamacare. Our currency is being debased by the minute, as our government’s debt exceeds 70% of our GDP and the Federal Reserve continues to print money while keeping interest rates artificially low.
President Obama is committed to making matters worse- he promises higher taxes and more government spending, and has offered no vision for undoing the disastrous and damaging components of Obamacare. Mr. Romney is moving in the correct direction by proposing an expansion of free trade and modest spending cuts, but does not (and in political terms perhaps cannot) come close to where we must go.
So Americans must decide – do we want prosperity and opportunity for the long-term, or do we want the short-term yet unsustainable pleasure of politicians satiating our petty jealousies towards “rich people” and dolling-out lots of free goodies? If it’s the former we want, then we’ll have to seriously change some things: freeze income tax rates where they are; cut corporate taxes; raise the Social Security eligibility age to 72 (for, say, American workers age 45 and younger) and allow for private investment of portions one’s withholdings; gut Obamacare and start over; and cut taxes on small businesses and restrictions on small business lending.
And here’s another agenda item: America must begin utilizing its own resources again. While the currencies of Europe, Japan and the U.S. have fallen in to varying levels of disrepute over the past four years, the dollars of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have remained relatively strong. And these three countries share something else in common as well- they all harvest and export their own natural resources.
Canada exports oil and natural gas. Australia exports iron ore. New Zealand uses its land to produce and export food, wood products and heavy machinery. Americans must decide – do we want to be more prosperous and secure, or do we want to feel like we’re doing something nice for plant and animal life by not using our natural resources?
A radical environmental agenda has co-opted the national dialog to the point that we only talk about drilling and refining when gasoline surpasses four dollars a gallon. And as for manufacturing and farming – plenty of us blindly accept the notion that these endeavors do nothing but rape and pillage the earth and consume “too much” energy (if you don’t believe this, ask a farmer in California). It’s time to utilize our resources and unshackle our farmers and manufacturers – and to do this we have to demand change with our government.
And agenda item number three: Americans must respect private enterprise as the necessary engine of our sustenance, instead of allowing it to be co-opted for political agendas. President Obama’s “renewable energy” agenda sounds noble and makes people feel good. But after running up untold billions of dollars in debt with the financing of “green energy” companies (over 80% of which were headed-up by Obama campaign donors), there has been no such energy produced and a majority of these companies have already lapsed into bankruptcy. What masquerades as the “green energy industry” is nothing more than debt for future generations spent financing the President’s environmental politics of today.
A similar phenomenon took hold last decade. Despite President Bush’s attempts to slow things down, both Republican and Democrat leadership in the Congress enabled the cheap credit, lax lending, and “affordable housing” policies that supposedly drove “home ownership” to an all time high (it’s hard to say no when “everybody gets a house”). It made the politicians popular in the short-run, but it drove us to the brink when the bubble burst. Government co-opted the real estate and lending industries, and it failed us in painful ways.
We are not helpless victims of politicians. But will we demand better?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Barack Obama is beating Mitt Romney.
Wait- Romney and Obama are tied in Pennsylvania.
And how about all those bungled calls from the NFL fill-in refs?
Americans are seriously pre-occupied as we enter the fourth quarter of 2012. Obsessions about the football season and “Dancing with The Stars” are a pleasant diversion from our present hardship and gloomy future, and frustrations over the logic-defying presidential polls makes for interesting talk show fodder.
But after the election – and after the close of 2012 – Americans will need to grapple with myriad problems in our government. Whoever wins the White House will face an avalanche of trouble in the months ahead, and the ways in which these problems are addressed will reverberate for generations.
Americans must begin to see through the rhetoric of politicians and the slant and soundbytes of the media, and demand better government from those elected to serve. The “pass the bill and then figure out what’s in it” approach is unacceptable. So let’s start with our “get a grip” agenda with this: Americans must sober-up about our economic and fiscal condition.
At present it would seem that we’re taking the upcoming election about as seriously as a football game. Team Obama has the home field advantage, while Romney and company are the visitors trying to upset Obama at his homecoming. The make-up of the Congress will then round-out each team’s roster, but the “players” are thought to be all essentially the same.
Yet America is in serious trouble. Private industry is suffering shell shock from the flurry of demands and restrictions placed upon it in the last three years, most of which have stemmed from environmental constraints, so-called “banking reform,” mortgage restrictions, and Obamacare. Our currency is being debased by the minute, as our government’s debt exceeds 70% of our GDP and the Federal Reserve continues to print money while keeping interest rates artificially low.
President Obama is committed to making matters worse- he promises higher taxes and more government spending, and has offered no vision for undoing the disastrous and damaging components of Obamacare. Mr. Romney is moving in the correct direction by proposing an expansion of free trade and modest spending cuts, but does not (and in political terms perhaps cannot) come close to where we must go.
So Americans must decide – do we want prosperity and opportunity for the long-term, or do we want the short-term yet unsustainable pleasure of politicians satiating our petty jealousies towards “rich people” and dolling-out lots of free goodies? If it’s the former we want, then we’ll have to seriously change some things: freeze income tax rates where they are; cut corporate taxes; raise the Social Security eligibility age to 72 (for, say, American workers age 45 and younger) and allow for private investment of portions one’s withholdings; gut Obamacare and start over; and cut taxes on small businesses and restrictions on small business lending.
And here’s another agenda item: America must begin utilizing its own resources again. While the currencies of Europe, Japan and the U.S. have fallen in to varying levels of disrepute over the past four years, the dollars of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have remained relatively strong. And these three countries share something else in common as well- they all harvest and export their own natural resources.
Canada exports oil and natural gas. Australia exports iron ore. New Zealand uses its land to produce and export food, wood products and heavy machinery. Americans must decide – do we want to be more prosperous and secure, or do we want to feel like we’re doing something nice for plant and animal life by not using our natural resources?
A radical environmental agenda has co-opted the national dialog to the point that we only talk about drilling and refining when gasoline surpasses four dollars a gallon. And as for manufacturing and farming – plenty of us blindly accept the notion that these endeavors do nothing but rape and pillage the earth and consume “too much” energy (if you don’t believe this, ask a farmer in California). It’s time to utilize our resources and unshackle our farmers and manufacturers – and to do this we have to demand change with our government.
And agenda item number three: Americans must respect private enterprise as the necessary engine of our sustenance, instead of allowing it to be co-opted for political agendas. President Obama’s “renewable energy” agenda sounds noble and makes people feel good. But after running up untold billions of dollars in debt with the financing of “green energy” companies (over 80% of which were headed-up by Obama campaign donors), there has been no such energy produced and a majority of these companies have already lapsed into bankruptcy. What masquerades as the “green energy industry” is nothing more than debt for future generations spent financing the President’s environmental politics of today.
A similar phenomenon took hold last decade. Despite President Bush’s attempts to slow things down, both Republican and Democrat leadership in the Congress enabled the cheap credit, lax lending, and “affordable housing” policies that supposedly drove “home ownership” to an all time high (it’s hard to say no when “everybody gets a house”). It made the politicians popular in the short-run, but it drove us to the brink when the bubble burst. Government co-opted the real estate and lending industries, and it failed us in painful ways.
We are not helpless victims of politicians. But will we demand better?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
What About Biden: Is America’s V.P. Ready To Lead?
by Austin Hill
The Republican convention ends. The polls tighten. Romney visits storm-ravaged Louisiana. President Obama visits military families in Texas.
And then the American news media was disrupted with this wacky little headline: “Biden Does Retail Politics, Kisses Supporter On Lips.”
Last Friday afternoon, in the midst of all the other important things going on in the world, Vice President Joseph Biden made a “surprise” campaign stop in Canfield, Ohio. Standing around greeting attendees at the annual Canfield Fair, Biden served-up his usual repertoire of everyday-guy quips and goofy-uncle type witticism. According to one reporter he shook hands with a young boy sporting a short “buzz” style haircut and told him “I used to have hair like that. Look what happened…”
Mr. Biden has provided lots of comic relief during his term as Vice President, a term that bears a striking contrast to the unusually stoic and substantive eight years of Dick Cheney. But what if the unthinkable were to happen and Joe Biden had to step-up and be President? Is America ready for a Biden Presidency? And is Biden up to the task?
Presidential elections are not won or lost according to the number two nominee on the ticket. But Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan is most certainly being viewed through the “what if he became President?” filter. It is likewise fair and reasonable to raise these same types of questions of Joe Biden – even if he is the incumbent.
So let’s put Joe Biden in his proper vice presidential context, and begin with some facts about the office. Of the forty-seven vice presidents who have served in the U.S., only fourteen have gone on to be President. Out of those fourteen, only five of those VPs actually got elected president; the rest of them ascended to the presidency as a result of a President’s death or resignation, and then either refused to run again for their own term, or ran for their own term and lost.
This is to say that being Vice President of the United States is in some respects a “dead end job.” VP’s can certainly leverage their stature for great professional pursuits when they leave office (Vice Presidents Dan Quayle, Al Gore and Dick Cheney have all done well for themselves), but in terms of political pursuits, it’s usually the end of the road.
To this end, it’s interesting to note some of the visceral rejections that presidential candidates have received when extending a running mate opportunity. For example, when former -U.S. Senator Harry Truman was initially contacted and asked about being FDR’s vice presidential running mate, Senator Truman replied “tell him he can go to Hell.”
Similarly, many of the men who served as Vice President lamented the dull and boring nature of the position. John Adams, America’s first Vice President, once noted that “my country, in its wisdom, contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” Thomas Marshall, the 29th Vice President serving under President Woodrow Wilson, commented about his service on the Smithsonian Institute’s Board of Regents (one of the tasks of the Vice President) saying “it’s an opportunity for the Vice President to compare his fossilized life with the fossils of all ages.” And George H.W. Bush, Vice President to Ronald Reagan, once noted about the VP’s job of attending the funerals of foreign dignitaries, “you die, I fly…”
This is to say that, according to many of the men who have served in the office, being Vice President is not only a dead-end job, but it can also seem quite boring. Yet Vice President Biden seems thrilled with the job-why is this so?
Most who observe him carefully laugh at Mr. Biden’s propensity for gaffes. He famously mispronounced candidate Obama’s last name back in 2008, introducing him on stage as “Barack America.” He has publicly used racial humor, noting once that “in my hometown in Delaware you can’t go in to a 7 Eleven or a Dunkin Donuts without hearing an Indian accent.” And he recently drew fire when speaking to a largely African-American audience, suggesting that Republicans want to be slave owners, and, as he stated, “want to put y’all back in chains.”
But Vice President Biden is not just famous for gaffes. In 2010, during a White House reception, he was caught on microphone responding to a question about how he likes being Vice President. “It’s easy!” Mr. Biden exclaimed, “You don’t have to do anything! It’s like being the grandpa, and not the parent…”
Do the gaffes - and the exuberance over not having to “do anything” – really add-up to a presidency? These remarks can easily be dismissed as “missteps.” Yet the “mis-stepping” has at times spilled over in to areas of foreign policy. Speaking with PBS Television’s “The News Hour” on January 27th of 2011, Mr. Biden emphatically insisted that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was not a dictator and should not resign his presidency, despite calls to the contrary from the Muslim world. Eight days later on February 4, President Obama announced America’s new, official foreign policy stance with Egypt, which was completely contrary to the stated positions of his Vice President, and called on Mubarak to resign so as to make way for the more radicalized Muslim Brotherhood government.
Gaffes, offensive jokes, a love of doing nothing and bungled foreign policy pronouncements – these are all a part of Joe Biden’s service as U.S. Vice President. Voters should be cognizant of this baggage, before they go to vote in November.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
The Republican convention ends. The polls tighten. Romney visits storm-ravaged Louisiana. President Obama visits military families in Texas.
And then the American news media was disrupted with this wacky little headline: “Biden Does Retail Politics, Kisses Supporter On Lips.”
Last Friday afternoon, in the midst of all the other important things going on in the world, Vice President Joseph Biden made a “surprise” campaign stop in Canfield, Ohio. Standing around greeting attendees at the annual Canfield Fair, Biden served-up his usual repertoire of everyday-guy quips and goofy-uncle type witticism. According to one reporter he shook hands with a young boy sporting a short “buzz” style haircut and told him “I used to have hair like that. Look what happened…”
Mr. Biden has provided lots of comic relief during his term as Vice President, a term that bears a striking contrast to the unusually stoic and substantive eight years of Dick Cheney. But what if the unthinkable were to happen and Joe Biden had to step-up and be President? Is America ready for a Biden Presidency? And is Biden up to the task?
Presidential elections are not won or lost according to the number two nominee on the ticket. But Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan is most certainly being viewed through the “what if he became President?” filter. It is likewise fair and reasonable to raise these same types of questions of Joe Biden – even if he is the incumbent.
So let’s put Joe Biden in his proper vice presidential context, and begin with some facts about the office. Of the forty-seven vice presidents who have served in the U.S., only fourteen have gone on to be President. Out of those fourteen, only five of those VPs actually got elected president; the rest of them ascended to the presidency as a result of a President’s death or resignation, and then either refused to run again for their own term, or ran for their own term and lost.
This is to say that being Vice President of the United States is in some respects a “dead end job.” VP’s can certainly leverage their stature for great professional pursuits when they leave office (Vice Presidents Dan Quayle, Al Gore and Dick Cheney have all done well for themselves), but in terms of political pursuits, it’s usually the end of the road.
To this end, it’s interesting to note some of the visceral rejections that presidential candidates have received when extending a running mate opportunity. For example, when former -U.S. Senator Harry Truman was initially contacted and asked about being FDR’s vice presidential running mate, Senator Truman replied “tell him he can go to Hell.”
Similarly, many of the men who served as Vice President lamented the dull and boring nature of the position. John Adams, America’s first Vice President, once noted that “my country, in its wisdom, contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” Thomas Marshall, the 29th Vice President serving under President Woodrow Wilson, commented about his service on the Smithsonian Institute’s Board of Regents (one of the tasks of the Vice President) saying “it’s an opportunity for the Vice President to compare his fossilized life with the fossils of all ages.” And George H.W. Bush, Vice President to Ronald Reagan, once noted about the VP’s job of attending the funerals of foreign dignitaries, “you die, I fly…”
This is to say that, according to many of the men who have served in the office, being Vice President is not only a dead-end job, but it can also seem quite boring. Yet Vice President Biden seems thrilled with the job-why is this so?
Most who observe him carefully laugh at Mr. Biden’s propensity for gaffes. He famously mispronounced candidate Obama’s last name back in 2008, introducing him on stage as “Barack America.” He has publicly used racial humor, noting once that “in my hometown in Delaware you can’t go in to a 7 Eleven or a Dunkin Donuts without hearing an Indian accent.” And he recently drew fire when speaking to a largely African-American audience, suggesting that Republicans want to be slave owners, and, as he stated, “want to put y’all back in chains.”
But Vice President Biden is not just famous for gaffes. In 2010, during a White House reception, he was caught on microphone responding to a question about how he likes being Vice President. “It’s easy!” Mr. Biden exclaimed, “You don’t have to do anything! It’s like being the grandpa, and not the parent…”
Do the gaffes - and the exuberance over not having to “do anything” – really add-up to a presidency? These remarks can easily be dismissed as “missteps.” Yet the “mis-stepping” has at times spilled over in to areas of foreign policy. Speaking with PBS Television’s “The News Hour” on January 27th of 2011, Mr. Biden emphatically insisted that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was not a dictator and should not resign his presidency, despite calls to the contrary from the Muslim world. Eight days later on February 4, President Obama announced America’s new, official foreign policy stance with Egypt, which was completely contrary to the stated positions of his Vice President, and called on Mubarak to resign so as to make way for the more radicalized Muslim Brotherhood government.
Gaffes, offensive jokes, a love of doing nothing and bungled foreign policy pronouncements – these are all a part of Joe Biden’s service as U.S. Vice President. Voters should be cognizant of this baggage, before they go to vote in November.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
The Quest For A Reason To Re-Elect The President
by Austin Hill
Have you heard the latest from the Obama re-election team?
Mitt Romney doesn’t have enough of his money taken from him in taxes. Paul Ryan wants to give rich people a tax “break.” Mitt Romney cut jobs when he was an executive at a private equity firm. Paul Ryan wants to cut school lunches for needy children.
You’ve probably seen and heard it all before. Romney and Ryan are scary, “extreme,” and out of touch, according to Team Obama. The President, Vice President, and all their operatives and surrogates are committed to getting the word out.
But while the President and his friends are adept at making rhetorical attacks on Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, it’s an infrequent occurrence when they offer any reasons why the President should be re-elected. So what, really, is the case for an Obama re-election victory? We know why the President dislikes the Romney-Ryan ticket (and Republicans, generally). But why do we need another four years of Barack Obama as our President? “Because Mitt Romney is terrible,” seems to be the implied answer.
Try searching for remarks from the President about what he intends to do in a second term, and you won’t find much. This is because he hasn’t said much on the topic. Most of the President’s comments these days are disparaging remarks about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and not about his agenda - although he did note in an Associated Press interview on August 25th that if he is elected to a second term, he believes there are Republicans in the House and Senate who will compromise and work with him to “get things done” for the country.
I did, however, receive a recent email update from the Obama campaign, a portion of which read like this: “President Obama believes the only way to create an economy built to last is to build it from the middle out and not from the top down. His economic plan is to restore middle-class security by paying down our debt in a balanced way that ensures everyone pays their fair share. Yet the President also wants to still invest in things we need to create jobs and grow our economy over the long term, things like education, energy, innovation, and infrastructure.”
This little blurb should raise some big questions. First, we should all ask “who is seeking a ‘top-down’ approach to the economy?” The answer, of course, is the President himself.
Within less than two years of taking office, President Obama successfully put in to place a system of tremendous governmental control over the otherwise private economy. By the middle of 2010, the President had become a de-facto C.E.O. over huge chunks of the economy, with the power to hire and fire executives, establish compensation limits for executive management, and to determine what products and services are produced. Insurance companies, car manufacturers, lending institutions and energy producers – President Obama has successfully forced his will upon them all.
So has all this governmental control created an economy that is “built to last?” We should also ask the Obama campaign emailers “how does the extra $6 trillion in U.S. government debt (roughly the amount of federal debt increase since the President’s first day in office) help pay down the debt?” And what about the $813 billion stimulus bill of 2009 – that was supposed to be an “investment” in innovation, infrastructure and education – where did that money go? Wasn’t that supposed to be “invested” in important things? And what happened to “shovel ready jobs” – were there any “created?”
A quick check of Democrats.org, the national party’s website, also reveals a list of other specific policy ideas that the President allegedly supports, yet he isn’t talking about them these days. One such policy has to do with energy independence, as the Democrats claim that “President Obama knows we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices,” and that President Obama is focused on “developing all of America’s natural resources...”
Of course, the President himself said late last year and earlier this year that he is committed to an “all of the above” approach to energy policy, implying that he’s okay with petroleum-based energy, along with the alternative energy development that he’s promoted.
This sounded great- but the President isn’t saying this anymore. This is probably because an “all of the above” approach to energy, we now know, means “anything except Big Oil” within the Obama worldview – hence the President’s veto on the Keystone XL Pipeline project that could have reduced America’s reliance on oil from other continents and could have created jobs from the Canadian border all the way down to Texas. The President and his friends would prefer to ignore this here within the last ten weeks of the election cycle, so they simply don’t talk about it – better to remind everyone about the scary and terrible Romney and Ryan.
Historically, Americans haven’ been content to merely vote against a particular idea or candidate – they generally prefer to vote for someone or something, even if they are choosing the lesser between two “evils.” Will President Obama defy the odds this year – or will Americans be more scrutinizing?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Have you heard the latest from the Obama re-election team?
Mitt Romney doesn’t have enough of his money taken from him in taxes. Paul Ryan wants to give rich people a tax “break.” Mitt Romney cut jobs when he was an executive at a private equity firm. Paul Ryan wants to cut school lunches for needy children.
You’ve probably seen and heard it all before. Romney and Ryan are scary, “extreme,” and out of touch, according to Team Obama. The President, Vice President, and all their operatives and surrogates are committed to getting the word out.
But while the President and his friends are adept at making rhetorical attacks on Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, it’s an infrequent occurrence when they offer any reasons why the President should be re-elected. So what, really, is the case for an Obama re-election victory? We know why the President dislikes the Romney-Ryan ticket (and Republicans, generally). But why do we need another four years of Barack Obama as our President? “Because Mitt Romney is terrible,” seems to be the implied answer.
Try searching for remarks from the President about what he intends to do in a second term, and you won’t find much. This is because he hasn’t said much on the topic. Most of the President’s comments these days are disparaging remarks about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and not about his agenda - although he did note in an Associated Press interview on August 25th that if he is elected to a second term, he believes there are Republicans in the House and Senate who will compromise and work with him to “get things done” for the country.
I did, however, receive a recent email update from the Obama campaign, a portion of which read like this: “President Obama believes the only way to create an economy built to last is to build it from the middle out and not from the top down. His economic plan is to restore middle-class security by paying down our debt in a balanced way that ensures everyone pays their fair share. Yet the President also wants to still invest in things we need to create jobs and grow our economy over the long term, things like education, energy, innovation, and infrastructure.”
This little blurb should raise some big questions. First, we should all ask “who is seeking a ‘top-down’ approach to the economy?” The answer, of course, is the President himself.
Within less than two years of taking office, President Obama successfully put in to place a system of tremendous governmental control over the otherwise private economy. By the middle of 2010, the President had become a de-facto C.E.O. over huge chunks of the economy, with the power to hire and fire executives, establish compensation limits for executive management, and to determine what products and services are produced. Insurance companies, car manufacturers, lending institutions and energy producers – President Obama has successfully forced his will upon them all.
So has all this governmental control created an economy that is “built to last?” We should also ask the Obama campaign emailers “how does the extra $6 trillion in U.S. government debt (roughly the amount of federal debt increase since the President’s first day in office) help pay down the debt?” And what about the $813 billion stimulus bill of 2009 – that was supposed to be an “investment” in innovation, infrastructure and education – where did that money go? Wasn’t that supposed to be “invested” in important things? And what happened to “shovel ready jobs” – were there any “created?”
A quick check of Democrats.org, the national party’s website, also reveals a list of other specific policy ideas that the President allegedly supports, yet he isn’t talking about them these days. One such policy has to do with energy independence, as the Democrats claim that “President Obama knows we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices,” and that President Obama is focused on “developing all of America’s natural resources...”
Of course, the President himself said late last year and earlier this year that he is committed to an “all of the above” approach to energy policy, implying that he’s okay with petroleum-based energy, along with the alternative energy development that he’s promoted.
This sounded great- but the President isn’t saying this anymore. This is probably because an “all of the above” approach to energy, we now know, means “anything except Big Oil” within the Obama worldview – hence the President’s veto on the Keystone XL Pipeline project that could have reduced America’s reliance on oil from other continents and could have created jobs from the Canadian border all the way down to Texas. The President and his friends would prefer to ignore this here within the last ten weeks of the election cycle, so they simply don’t talk about it – better to remind everyone about the scary and terrible Romney and Ryan.
Historically, Americans haven’ been content to merely vote against a particular idea or candidate – they generally prefer to vote for someone or something, even if they are choosing the lesser between two “evils.” Will President Obama defy the odds this year – or will Americans be more scrutinizing?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Mormonism Or Marxism: Which Would You Prefer In The White House?
By Austin Hill
Is a Romney nomination inevitable?
No.
But former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is looking very strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, where presidential primary voting begins this week. Likewise, a current Rasmussen poll shows Romney with a six percentage point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election match up.
So things are looking very good for Mitt Romney, as he seeks the Republican nomination for the presidency. And this means that Americans will likely have to answer an important question in 2012: which would you prefer at the White House -Mormon theology, or Marxist liberation theology?
I wish I didn’t have to ask this question. But as Romney gets closer to the presidency, the criticisms of his church affiliation and theological convictions will get louder. And if you’re troubled by Mitt’s Mormonism, you should be even more concerned about the religious affiliations of our current President.
As for Mr. Romney, he has thus far run a good campaign and has managed to mostly stay out of theological debates. But in the last presidential election cycle the “Mormon thing” proved to be unavoidable, and as primary voting begins in religiously conservative regions of the country, his Mormonism will become a big deal again.
Given this certainty, here’s some advice for Governor Romney: don’t repeat your mistake of 2008 of trying to convince “them” that you are one of “them.” The more you stand in front of conservative Evangelical and Catholic audiences and ascribe terms like “born again” and “Christian” to yourself, the more they’ll be saying “oh no you are not!”
Leave the theological battles over “who is really a Christian” to other people, Mr. Romney, and talk to us instead about the values and policy ideas that America so desperately needs.
When questions arise about your church, tell us, Mr. Romney, why your Mormonism matters: your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance of human liberty (I love your church’s “Choose The Right” motto – try telling us why it is so important that each of us have the freedom to “choose”); and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our values are more universal and uniting.
On this point, you might borrow from former President George W Bush. In a little-known March 2001 speech, Bush spoke at the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. Bush, of course, is a Methodist-turned-Evangelical, yet he was still warmly received at the ceremony by the Catholic hierarchy.
And Bush didn’t try to pretend that he was Catholic, either. “I may not be a parishioner…” he stated as he began his remarks, “but I’m a sojourner with you…” He then brilliantly went on to say that we are “one” with our values, and that the Pope was a great teacher of those values. To those who would prefer to bash Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism?
For the record, Barack Obama hasn’t been known for regular church attendance since moving-in to the White House (this puts him in good company with many of our previous Presidents). Yet his decades-long affiliation with the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a central outlet of liberation theology, is quite well documented.
This is to say that President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, and superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off of other people’s largess. These sorts of ideas -which are inherently economic in their nature -are prevalent in governments throughout the third world, Latin America, and parts of Europe. And they are blessed and affirmed in churches that espouse liberation theology – which is all a part of our President’s religious background.
Are there theological differences between Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and the Evangelicalism and Catholicism that a majority of Americans embrace? Yes, there absolutely is.
But it is also true that the Mormon Church movement is an American-born religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to be safe-guarded.
President Obama’s liberation theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of a free society be corrected.
I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the Marxism that presently inhabits the White House. But will Americans be willing to honestly examine them both?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Is a Romney nomination inevitable?
No.
But former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is looking very strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, where presidential primary voting begins this week. Likewise, a current Rasmussen poll shows Romney with a six percentage point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election match up.
So things are looking very good for Mitt Romney, as he seeks the Republican nomination for the presidency. And this means that Americans will likely have to answer an important question in 2012: which would you prefer at the White House -Mormon theology, or Marxist liberation theology?
I wish I didn’t have to ask this question. But as Romney gets closer to the presidency, the criticisms of his church affiliation and theological convictions will get louder. And if you’re troubled by Mitt’s Mormonism, you should be even more concerned about the religious affiliations of our current President.
As for Mr. Romney, he has thus far run a good campaign and has managed to mostly stay out of theological debates. But in the last presidential election cycle the “Mormon thing” proved to be unavoidable, and as primary voting begins in religiously conservative regions of the country, his Mormonism will become a big deal again.
Given this certainty, here’s some advice for Governor Romney: don’t repeat your mistake of 2008 of trying to convince “them” that you are one of “them.” The more you stand in front of conservative Evangelical and Catholic audiences and ascribe terms like “born again” and “Christian” to yourself, the more they’ll be saying “oh no you are not!”
Leave the theological battles over “who is really a Christian” to other people, Mr. Romney, and talk to us instead about the values and policy ideas that America so desperately needs.
When questions arise about your church, tell us, Mr. Romney, why your Mormonism matters: your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance of human liberty (I love your church’s “Choose The Right” motto – try telling us why it is so important that each of us have the freedom to “choose”); and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our values are more universal and uniting.
On this point, you might borrow from former President George W Bush. In a little-known March 2001 speech, Bush spoke at the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. Bush, of course, is a Methodist-turned-Evangelical, yet he was still warmly received at the ceremony by the Catholic hierarchy.
And Bush didn’t try to pretend that he was Catholic, either. “I may not be a parishioner…” he stated as he began his remarks, “but I’m a sojourner with you…” He then brilliantly went on to say that we are “one” with our values, and that the Pope was a great teacher of those values. To those who would prefer to bash Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism?
For the record, Barack Obama hasn’t been known for regular church attendance since moving-in to the White House (this puts him in good company with many of our previous Presidents). Yet his decades-long affiliation with the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a central outlet of liberation theology, is quite well documented.
This is to say that President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, and superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off of other people’s largess. These sorts of ideas -which are inherently economic in their nature -are prevalent in governments throughout the third world, Latin America, and parts of Europe. And they are blessed and affirmed in churches that espouse liberation theology – which is all a part of our President’s religious background.
Are there theological differences between Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and the Evangelicalism and Catholicism that a majority of Americans embrace? Yes, there absolutely is.
But it is also true that the Mormon Church movement is an American-born religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to be safe-guarded.
President Obama’s liberation theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of a free society be corrected.
I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the Marxism that presently inhabits the White House. But will Americans be willing to honestly examine them both?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
