Today, though, I am about to write what may be my most extreme, most political, most unbelievably inflammatory piece ever. Yes, even more inflammatory than the "How Dare..." series. You've been warned.
Romney's official Twitter posted this on Tuesday:
BarackObama’s defense cuts are making our future less certain and less secure. We can’t afford four more years.Now, I happen to agree with this statement, and I'll tell you why: It Is Accurate.
Those who have followed me and/or read my writing in the past will know that while I am not a fan of President Barack Obama, I do give credit where it is due. He brought up a few excellent points during his last presidential debate; he's recognized certain failures within his administration; and he's been quite the charmer when it comes to foreign rulers, if we're to believe the larger portion of the Press. However, the President's major abilities are far simpler and easier to enumerate and quantify: He's got charisma, and he can deflect.
When everything else is said and done, these two are all that Obama has going for him. He does not have a fiscal record better than Romney; he does not have a domestic record that is better than his predecessor; and he does not have a foreign policy worth trumpeting. This is to say nothing regarding the outright lies he has told from day one of his bid for Illinois state office to the present time.
So, when I see comments like this:
Douglas Brinkley recounts an episode at the close of his interview with Obama, in which the president called Romney a "bullshitter" ...Beautiful Thank You Mr. President...Or like this:
Like me I think most of the rest of the world is horrified at the idea of Romney becoming president...Or this:
Yesterday I cast my vote for President Obama and Joe Biden to serve a second term as our leadership.To be perfectly honest, I think these people ought to be examined for terminal deficiency or charged with felonious stupidity. Why, you ask? Because they have not come even close to doing a brief history check. If they had, they would have seen the reality of our current situation, and it would have shown in their statements. They would have come forward with an opinion based upon an informed position; not a regurgitation of Rachel Maddow's nightly talking points.
I could not be more proud. Casting my vote for a true leader, a true Commander in Chief, and great American President.
Speaking of "responsible" journalism, stories such as FiveThirtyEight's don't help matters. Note:
Mitt Romney clearly gained ground in the polls in the week or two after the Denver debate. However, the FiveThirtyEight forecast finds a slightly favorable trend for President Obama over the past 10 days. ...The question, rather, is whether Mr. Romney is gaining ground relative to the post-Denver polls — or if, as Wednesday’s polls seemed to imply, the race instead may have ticked back slightly toward Mr. Obama.This, of course, leads to such informed opinions as:
I'd made up my mind some time during the last ice age and nothing President Obama has done has dissuaded me from that choice. Nothing Mitt Romney could have done, I think, to have convinced me to vote for him.The accenting in the above quote is my own, and strictly to prove a point: Where is the intelligence of the voting public? Why are we not seeing individuals who can speak of current events with an authority that comes only from being knowledgeable and informed? In short:
Why Are The Majority Of Voters In The US Apparently All Morons?!
Apparently, a history lesson is in order, and the pathetic part of all of this is that this is recent history. Let us pull back the curtains to 2008, around the time of the last election.
On November 7, 2008, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported 10.1 million people unemployed. The unemployment average stood at 6.5% overall; this included 11.1% unemployment for blacks, 8.8% unemployment for hispanics, and 5.9% unemployment for whites among other factors. Underemployment was at a fourteen year high: 11.8%. If this is beginning to ring bells, it's only because Barack Obama, during his campaign for 2008, made this one of the central factors of his run. See the video for yourself:
He also spoke about energy costs: the cost of gas on drivers, fuel for home heating, and electricity. The cost of gas had hit an all time high that year of just over $4.11 per gallon. In a trend begun prior to the election, it had a fallen below $1.87 by November 26, CNN reported. Then-Senator Obama stated that he did not take money from big oil companies; that he wanted to institute a windfall profits penalty; create 5 million new jobs; and invest $150 billion dollars in alternative energy. As always, you can get it from the horse's mouth, as the saying goes:
So- There's our history lesson. Everyone caught up and wondering what this has to do with anything? Good. Let's turn our attention to the here and now...
President Obama has received nearly $5k from gas and oil companies; over $450k from electric companies; and well over $8 million from various lawyers and law firms, many of which represent these same companies. Incidentally, at the time the advertisement shown was airing, Obama had taken almost $1 million dollars from gas and oil companies. According to Consumer Energy Report, Obama has presided over the highest gas prices in history, which includes the rationing periods during the Great Depression and during the sixties and seventies even after adjusting for inflation. Today, October 25, 2012, AAA's DailyFuelGauge reports gas prices averaging $3.599 a gallon for regular unleaded. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), people are paying $4.11 for diesel as of 10/22.
As for the national debt, President Obama has added over six trillion dollars to the sum he once called "out of control" since taking office on January 20, 2009. The current debt, as of today, is $16,194,791,826,674.89, compared with the figure it was when he swore his oath at noon on the 20th of January: $10,626,877,048,913.08. (Remember, the debt continues to be paid down, little by little, every year; thus those who would point to my statement and the seemingly dissimilar amounts here listed and boo are only showing their ignorance.)
Moreover, in 2010 alone, the much maligned Guantanamo Bay facility, or Gitmo as everyone now knows it, was granted $139 million dollars; and despite Obama's pledges on the campaign trail, and contrary to what is reported in the mainstream press, he has made no effort to actually close it. Granted, I stand against the idea of its closing in the first place, so in this regard I applaud him. The point is, however, that he is continuing the same thing for which he railed against Bush.
Further, as pertains to the national debt, our operations in Iraq cost between $5.12 to $2.8 billion every two weeks from the end of fiscal 2008 to now. The cost of the Libyan invasion? Nearly $2 billion dollars. The cost of being in Afghanistan rose to $6.7 billion just between 2009 and 2010. This is money spent on operations Obama promised to end within a specific time period while in office. He's now facing his reelection bid with people still in Afghanistan, still in Iraq, and now with loss of life coming from other parts of the world.
Finally, there is the funding for programs such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has had a total of $840 trillion dollars allocated to it as of this last budget passing. Or the much touted and debated American Care Act, now known as "Obamacare," which the Congressional Budget Office estimated in March to increase state spending for Medicaid and CHIP benefits alone by about $73 billion dollars. On this subject, the National Review Online had this to say:
Even Jonathan Gruber of MIT, one of the architects of both Obamacare and Romneycare, now admits that many individuals will end up paying more for insurance than they would have without the reform — even after taking into account government subsidies — and that those increases will be substantial. According to Gruber, “after the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent.”
Now, as far as unemployment goes, President Obama has been saying this campaign that he is presiding over an administration that has spent less, (which we've shown to be a lie already), and that has created more jobs which has decreased unemployment. However, the President has apparently not read the most recent reports: As of August, 40% of those unemployed had been so for more than six months. Unemployment in August was 14.1 percent for African American workers, 10.2 percent for Hispanic workers, and 7.2 percent for white workers. Unemployment numbers sat at 8.1% in August, and did manage to drop to 7.8% by October- But still higher than his predecessor.
Now, all of this information begs the question: Exactly what has President Obama done that is different from the things which everyone so hated under Bush? The answer, I'm afraid, is not a great deal. As shown, he has not done right by the economy, and you will never get me to believe that the economy takes a back seat to, say gay marriage, animal rights or even climate change in 2012. The economy is THE most important issue in the United States today, and it would appear that the majority of the United States agree with me on this.
So, if you are a US citizen that is a part of the majority concerned about the economy over everything else; if you are not a moronic voter; if you've been paying attention to everything taking place with this administration, from the non-transparency to the economic time-bombs disguised as legislation; then you now know the one thing you CANNOT do when you go to the polls:
You cannot vote for Barack Obama.
We cannot afford the next four years.
We cannot afford the next four years.