theTRUTHandCOMMONSENSE: 47 % QUESTIONOur increasingly weak and often corr...

theTRUTHandCOMMONSENSE: 47 % QUESTION Our increasingly weak and often corr...: 47 % QUESTION Our increasingly weak and often corrupt media has one again made a hurricane out of a drop of water by twisting truth and tot...

47 % QUESTION
Our increasingly weak and often corrupt media has one again made a hurricane out of a drop of water by twisting truth and totally disregarding common sense. Anyone with a little bit more than air between their ears understand exactly what Governor Romney was talking about and also realizes the context of the situation he was in.
But it’s done and a big deal has been made of it. How should Gov. Romney respond today; First, I don’t believe that he should apologize for something he did not do or mean? I believe that he should use the same technique of the adversary to respond. Here is what I mean:
Look……When you referred to “frustrated Bible reading and gun carrying folks”, were you discounting all rural, church going, second amendment advocates as not part of your constituency? Or, when Joe Biden referred to Republicans as “they are going to put you back in chains” people, was he discounting all Republicans as your constituency?
I would like to hear his answer and see his face to this question. I think America would love to. I hope that someone close to the Governor makes the suggestion. It would be a great moment of the election.

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF – IRAN 1979 – EGYPT 2012
Some 34 years ago the US had a strong ally who was leading his country Iran on a track to modern times. The Shah of Iran understood that his country needed to embrace western civilization in order to promote a better life and improve the standard of living for his people. He had his own war on terror fighting highly violent extremist internally, so yes his security forces had to step on some toes.
On the other side of the ocean was an amateur president (previously a peanut farmer) who thought that it was more important for his own ego and to satisfy his liberal supporters to promote the overthrow of such a tyrant. The rest is history and we now face an Iran leading the war on terror against our peaceful nation and ready to produce a nuclear weapon.
In 2011 we had another powerful US ally in whose country and army we have invested almost 100 billion dollars. Mubarak, as did the Shah, understood that Egypt’s path to progress required an alliance with the USA and western civilization. The largest country in the Arab world had a treaty of peace and recognition with Israel that helped provide some tranquility in the region for decades.
On the other side of the ocean we have an amateur president (previously a social worker) who thinks that it is more important to his ego and progressive supporters, to pander and appease Arab extremist, because this will result in them loving us and recognizing that we Americans are nice and good people who just want to be their friends. So please put your nukes away and be friendly with Israel.
If America does not wake up and elect a real strong leader who will consider our interest and national security before celebrity, soon there will be an Israel surrounded by two hostile Arab nations with nuclear weapons whose leaders have sworn to the destruction of the Jewish State. This is a disaster of Biblical proportions and the media chooses to ignore and distort for the sole purpose of protecting their false idol.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF WEAKNESS IN FOREIGN POLICY
The tragic events in Libya and the violence in Egypt bring to the forefront the importance of making foreign policy part of the discussion in the presidential campaign.
Joe Biden in his speech made a point that Obama is a very strong and steady commander in chief. Of course as usual the media sang their amen’s and the naïve public came to judge that this president has a solid foreign policy, as opposed to an inexperienced Romney. I hope that we can promote an intelligent, honest and truthful discussion about foreign policy and history.
There has been a historical consistency in the approach to foreign policy practiced by the Democrat and Republican parties. We can be sure that whoever wins the elections and however the Foreign Policy and National Security team looks like afterwards, we can be assured that this historical difference will continue to exist.
Democrats will continue to emphasize being liked versus being respected. They will negotiate from an assumption of moral equivalence, even when dealing with thugs and uncivilized savages. Republicans will place more emphasis on negotiating from strength and understanding American Exceptionalism and its history as a beacon of peace and freedom.
In the last few decades we saw the result of the Regan doctrine. His most memorable achievements of course the fall of Communism and the unification of Germany, as well as,the resulting freedom in Eastern Europe. As often and as much as he was criticized for his support of the Contras and other Democratic movements in Central America, the future of Democracy in the area is now more optimistic as a result of Regan’s support and understanding.
In contrast we look back at the ultimate result of Jimmy Carters abandonment of the Shah of Iran. The Country is now controlled by Ayatollahs and is today the number one threat to world peace, it’s also the center of power of our enemies on the war on terror. Carter also created the Arafat myth and gave legitimacy to corrupt terrorist in peace negotiations, weakening Israel's position forever. In Central America Carter abandoned a 50 year staunch US ally in favor of a Communist Dictator, causing instability and death for decades.
The media beloved Bill Clinton allowed the rise of a powerful enemy in Afghanistan that resulted in the rise of Al-Qaida the training of thousands of dangerous jihadist whose major feat resulted in 9/11.
So, is there a difference in the foreign policy philosophy that Obama and Romney will implement? You can bet your life and that of millions of others that there is. Should we be discussing this issue honestly and openly? You bet. But, will the Obama protecting liberal media engage. Not so sure that’s a winning bet.
I think in the name of truth and common sense that this outrage needs to be pointed out. We live in the greatest Nation in the world but sadly the media has become as corrupt and partisan as in a third world country. Let’s hope that this will change someday and the sooner the best.

ROMNEY'S ELECTION STRATEGY
Laura Ingraham; who I respect and love dearly asks to rate The Romney campaign. I am going to say a C+ and here’s why:
Obama and the Democrats have launched not only a very personal and mean campaign, but also one that is full of misinformation, distortions and often outright lies. They are counting on an uninterested, uninformed and sometimes fanatical electorate. The Romney response has been soft, reactive and unclear.
The Obama administration has failed miserably at keeping its promises and it has failed to address the problems of the economy. Instead it has engaged in an ideological move to a progressive socialist government. Anyone that knows history understands that a misinformation and demagoguery campaign is the norm of any socialist movement.
So, Romney has at his disposal a plentiful well of facts and issues to break down and destroy Obama. However, they have chosen to play the Obama’s game, using a same level response and staying constantly on the defense.
My advice would be to play your own game. Take each failure and misrepresentation and respond with a simple and logical add and media strategy. For example; The Bain attack has been not only untruthful, but also illogical and simply ridiculous. Yet, the attack has been somewhat successful and the public for the most part still does not understand the issue. To claim that venture capital is any different than pure investment and that it is somehow selfish and greedy and that it has any relationship to eliminating or outsourcing jobs is completely absurd. Just imagine an economy without investors willing to put their money into risky situations. Initial Private Offerings of untested businesses simply doesn’t happen, so how would the economy move forward. Without venture capitalist there is no private enterprise. The Government and Banks would have to take all risk. This is simple fact, yet the Romney campaign has not been able to make this clear and even unmask the lie and use it to their advantage.
There are many similar examples where the Romney campaign could use the truth combined with simple unquestionable logic instead of just a stated complaint where it’s one camps word against the others. Romney needs to have more confidence that the public can be educated and persuaded versus bullied and demagogue by one side or the other.
In short I believe that the use of logic persuasion, without getting complicated, would be more successful than just denial and outrage.

THE CLINTON YEARS

THE CLINTON YEARS
Getting older has one advantage; some crucial facts of history are still in your memory, as opposed to most voters today, which only have a version of history that the media geniuses have provided and continue to harp.
This is how I remember the Clinton years:
It was the age of the most significant technical revolution of our times. It was the age of Microsoft, Intel and the beginning of the internet revolution. The economic growth and wealth creation was so powerful that government could do nothing to slow it down. The Reagan economic policies had taken effect, taxes were low and entrepreneurs were thriving. The Cold war was over and international optimism was great, the wall had been torn down and Europe was exploding particularly Eastern Europe.
So yes Bill Clinton was able to preside without a government deficit. Even a lawyer with good social skills could have balanced the budget under those circumstances. But remember that it was private enterprise that ruled and was responsible for the boom. Good solid foreign policy and a vision of strength and optimism kept us in the right environment.
Now let’s go back to Clinton. His first major move was to assign his wife the task of implementing socialized healthcare. Fortunately this attempt failed miserably thanks to a Republican congress. And what about congress? Well Newt Gingritch and the Contract with America came along, to insure that the budget was kept in balance and that the last few remnants of the FDR, Johnson and Carter nanny state got cleaned up with welfare reform.
So OK, let’s give credit where credit is due. Bill Clinton had the sense to sign bills that were proposed by Republicans. He decided that it was smarter to go along for the ride and join the team of success. But in my memory it was more about having more fun smoking cigars with under age inters in the oval office than bringing people together.
Yes it is great fun and a boost to Bill’s ego to make a speech about what a great economist and Arithmetician he was. The fact is he became good at it after the fact. He spent most of his real Presidency defending his strange behavior and yes convincing the world that he did not have sex with that woman.
I admit that the press has done a great job reinventing history and creating an image of good old Bill that has made him a very popular President. They have also done a great job demonizing George W. Bush and have managed to sell the idea that all of Obama’s troubles are a result of his policies and those Republican big spenders and war mongers.

Let’s be real, the truth is that the recession was the result of a long coming Real Estate bubble (and Democrats are not innocent bystanders) further complicated by mistakes made by very large banks. Also complicated by the come to Jesus reality of Europe’s Socialist agenda. And by the way, do you even remember that Bush inherited a recession driven by the tech bubble burst and yes I almost forgot 9/11 complications. The media conveniently forgot about that because good old George took care of business and never whined about it. As opposed to Barack whining about his troubles on and on and on.
I wish the media got their act together and started providing news, as opposed to, selling their liberal agenda. But that will never happen. So for now let us hope that the country can get away from the fog and put a competent leader in office. As Clint Eastwood would say; “Fire the empty chair”.

REDISTRIBUTION - BAD IDEA
DNC started and as expected was well choreographed. It was a good show and the keynote speech, as well as, Michelle Obama’s speech were both good and well delivered. But do they pass the fact test. We have already learned this morning that even some of their media allies are questioning lots of the claims made.
But beyond the sales pitch, what are more significant to me are the contradictions. Reminiscent of the Republican convention, we heard lots of personal stories of struggle and success. However, that is where the similarity ends, the government not each individual becomes the driver of success. Here we celebrate success because the community and the government provides for it.
The main theme of the DNC is that the success of the middle class is what will drive growth and prosperity. This of course is to boost the populist theme.
The truth is that they have it upside down. Growth and prosperity improves the lives of all classes rich or poor. No class in particular creates prosperity. It is the innovation and drive of entrepreneurs that improves the lot of all classes.
This idea that a government in charge of fairness and redistribution is old tried and failed. It reminds me of the story of the little girl who wants to be President and when asked why, she answers, I want to give food and homes to the poor and the homeless. That’s a noble cause and you don’t have to wait until you are President. Why don’t you come over to my house and I will give you money if you mow the lawn. You can then take that money and give it to the homeless to buy groceries. She looked perplexed and said why the homeless guy doesn’t come over to your house, does the work and buys his own groceries. The man said, welcome to the Republican Party.
The idea that you can keep taxing the rich and redistributing the income to the less fortunate, as noble as it sounds, does not and has never worked. All you have to do is look across the ocean to Greece or Spain; both Countries have stagnant growth, huge deficits and unemployment over 20%, precisely because they tried this concept. The argument that you can raise taxes and automatically increase revenues is like saying to airlines or to any business, raises your prices and your income/profit will grow indefinitely. It just does not work that way.
If Obama is reelected and this big government, attack business and success ideas continue, we will make the European crisis look like paradise.