The State of the Union 2012 Predictions

Americans watching tonight's State of the Union address will likely walkaway thinking things in this country are absolutely great after hearing President Obama's speech, that is until they return to their daily lives and see the truth at the gas pump, on their grocery receipt, and in the unemployment lines.  President Obama is poised to take credit for a whole host of fictional economic data and even some policies he had nothing to do with.

What he'll say: "Under my presidency, the economy has added 3.2 million new private sector jobs."

The Truth:  When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.7%.  Today, the unemployment rate is 8.5% having reached a high of 10.2% after congress passed a $1 trillion dollar stimulus package the President said would insure the unemployment rate never surpassed 8%.  If the workforce or the number of people who were working or looking for employment were the same today as it was when Obama took office, the real unemployment rate would be 10.9%.

What he'll say:  "I've agreed to cut $2 trillion dollars from the deficit."

The Truth:  When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion in 8 years. When Obama took office, the national debt was $10.7 trillion, today it is $15.2 trillion. That's a difference of $4.5 trillion in just 3 years and just a couple of weeks ago Obama asked for another $1.2 trillion.


What he'll say: "Thanks to me, American oil production is the highest it’s been in eight years."

The Truth:  The House Natural Resources Committee reports the Obama administration is attempting to take credit for policies enacted under his predecessor [1].  In fact, the number of onshore oil leases granted by the Obama administration is the lowest it's been in over two decades.  As for offshore drilling in the gulf, thanks to a moratorium put into affect by the Obama administration oil production fell by 300,000 barrels per day, a total projected decline of more than 120 million barrels of oil through 2012.  On top of that, President Obama killed the Keystone pipeline project which would have further lessened the country's dependence on foreign oil and created more than 20,000 high paying, mostly union jobs and an estimated 100,000 new spin-off jobs.

What he'll say: "My foreign policy is a success. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq."

The Truth:  In August, 2008, then President George W. Bush and Iraqi negotiators agreed to a complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011 [2].  Still, more than 16,000 Americans remain in Iraq, a number which includes troops, security contractors, and State Department workers.

What he'll say: "What’s at stake is the very survival of the basic American promise that if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own a home, and put a little away for retirement."

The Truth:  There has never been an "American promise".  The American Dream is the idea that every American has the CHANCE to achieve success and prosperity.  In the United States no one is entitled to a home, a retirement, or anything else they haven't earned through the sweat equity of their labor.  In fact, under President Obama the American Dream is becoming even harder to attain.  Price of gas has jumped 83%, ground beef 24%, and bacon 22% just to name a few of the everyday expenses the average American is struggling to afford under Obama's America which has seen a record number of Americans become dependent on welfare programs like food stamps just to get by [3].

Unfortunately for us, the State of our Union is anything but strong.

Newt’s Waterloo

By calling for a watered down version of amnesty, Newt reminded conservatives last night why he is not the right man for the job. Up until then he had done a good job of convincing people to forget he is a man of low moral character, decidedly non-constitutional, and an embracer of establishment Republican policies that are bad for this country. In a state like Iowa, that has been hard hit by illegal immigration, Newt killed any chance he has of taking the state.

Many Newt supporters will try and say that what Newt is calling for is not amnesty, that it is compassion. Conservatives understand how difficult it will be on families if someone's parents or grandparents are deported. But it is important to remember that these people broke the law. They knowingly took the risk of deportation and breaking up their families to come here in the hopes of benefitting from our welfare state and higher wages.

If those people are deported, they must look to themselves to blame for breaking up their family. By offering them a chance to remain here legally, you only encourage further illegal immigration. You tell the world's poor that if you can get here, if you can remain hidden long enough, have a few kids, join a church, you are home free.

It's no different than the signals we send the world with regards to nuclear weapons. We go on and on about not letting countries like Iran have nukes. But once they do get a nuke, like N. Korea, we leave them alone. Meanwhile, when countries like Libya come forward and say they want to work with the US, open up their doors to inspectors, and disband all efforts to get nukes, we reward them by invading their country and overthrowing their government a few years later.

The world has lost faith in our government. We rarely stand behind our word and we refuse to enforce our immigration laws. We've become a joke. Newt's plan simply reinforce that perception.

The JFK Assassination: 48 Years Later and We’re Still Asking Why?

On Nov 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated.  "Why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public... keeps 'em guessing to prevent them from asking the real question, why?"  Lines made famous by X, one of the characters in Oliver Stones’ film JFK are just as relevant today as they were in 1963.

Why was Kennedy assassinated?  A better question might be why all the efforts to keep Oswald's communist connections suppressed while perpetuating proven false conspiracy claims about magic bullets and grassy knolls?

Lee Harvey Oswald was a self proclaimed Marxist.  At the age of 16 he contacted the Socialist Party of America.  In Oct. 1959, he defected to the Soviet Union.  In April 1963, Oswald opened a New Orleans branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and granted two honorary memberships to Gus Hall and Benjamin Davis, senior members of the American Communist Party.  Prior to assassinating President Kennedy, Oswald planned and attempted to carry out a failed assassination plot against Major General Edwin Walker, an out spoken critic of organized labor and rabid anti-communist.  Recently released CIA documents concerning LCIMPROVE detail Oswald's involvement with Soviets in an effort to out American intelligence officers.

Oswald was one of the most successful members or a long line of socialist/communist traitors that have been attacking this country from within for more than a hundred years, attacks that began in April 1919.

In April 1919 at least 36 mail bombs were sent to a supreme court justice, the governor of Mississippi, the US Attorney General, the Postmaster General, congressmen, senators, other justice officials, newspapers, and businessmen like John D Rockefeller and JP Morgan.  The bombs were sent by a group of Bolshevik communist members of the organized labor movement and were intended to be delivered and detonated on May 1st, a day celebrated as an international day of socialist revolution.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Americans have been less vigilant towards the spread of communism.  Today we have self-proclaimed socialists like Congressmen Rev. Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO) serving in the federal government.  Even our educational system is overrun by socialists who teach our children that capitalism is evil. 

On this, the 48th anniversary or the assassination of President John F Kennedy, it is more important than ever to recognize that the very real socialist threat to the American way of life still exists and is growing ever more influential.

The Separation of Church and State Myth: Part 3 – Devine Providence and the Great Seal of the United States

On September 6, 1774, a motion was made for the first Continental Congress to begin the next day’s meeting with a prayer.  A handle full of objections were made.  Samuel Adams arose and said according to John Adams’ diaries,  “I am no bigot, and could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country.”

As John Adams further noted in his diaries, the objections to the prayer were made not for belief that religion had no place in government, but because not all in attendance were of the same faith.  “[W]e were so divided in religious sentiments -- some were Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Presbyterians, and some Congregationalists.”

As a result of Sam Adams’ declaration the motion carried. “Resolved, that the Rev. Mr. Duché be desired to open Congress tomorrow morning with prayer, at Carpenter's hall, at nine o'clock.”

On September 7, 1774, the first Continental Congress opened with the follow devotion:

"O Lord! our  heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth, and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all kingdoms, empires, and governments. Look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American States who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor, and thrown themselves on thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on thee … All this we ask in the name, and through the merits of Jesus Christ thy Son and our Savior. Amen"

It would take nearly two years for that same Congress to declare our independence from Britain. “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States [emphasis added].”

The founding fathers believed that they had been called to a higher purpose by God, that Devine providence guided their labors in creating this new country.  Benjamin Franklin spoke of this before the Continental Congress.

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel"

While serving on the first committee, Benjamin Franklin suggested in August 1776, a scene from Exodus be used for the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States:

Pharaoh sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his head and a Sword in his hand, passing through the divided Waters of the Red Sea in Pursuit of the Israelites: Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Cloud, expressive of the divine Presence and Command, beaming on Moses who stands on the shore and extending his hand over the Sea causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh.

Along with the imagery from Exodus (pictured above), Franklin suggested the motto, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,” be inscribed with it.  Even though Franklin’s suggestion was recommended by the committee it was not used on the final version.  However, Thomas Jefferson became so enamored with it that he took the motto for his own private seal (pictured below).

It is believed that Franklin’s motto inspired the motto that ultimately became selected for the Great Seal, “Annuit Coeptis,” or God has favored our undertakings.

The Separation of Church and State Myth: Part 2 – Jefferson’s Church in the U.S. Capitol

It comes to many as a great surprise when they discover that the U.S. Capitol doubled as a church each Sunday from the end of 1800 until after the Civil War.  It’s a further shock to the system when they discover that it was Thomas Jefferson himself that gave approval to use the building as a church.  He even attended church services there regularly during his administration.

On December 4, then Vice-President and President of the Senate Thomas Jefferson joined with Speaker of the House Theodore Sedgwick to give approval for the capitol building to be used as a church.  At the time, Thomas Jefferson was also the President-Elect.

Thomas Jefferson road to church at the capitol on horse back.  In fact, he arrived in the same manner to worship at the capitol church just two days after he wrote the now infamous letter that contained the “wall of separation of church and state” language that many anti-religious groups try and hold up as proof the founding fathers wanted a government free from any kind of religiosity.

Washington insider and social critic Margaret Bayard Smith wrote of Jefferson’s attendance at the Capitol Church, "Jefferson during his whole administration was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first day sabbath [sic], and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him."

Other presidents also worshipped at the U.S. Capitol, including Madison, John Quincy Adams, and Abraham Lincoln.  President James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, during his administration would arrive at the Capitol to worship each Sunday via a horse drawn carriage.

Throughout the following decades the US Capitol was used as a church for many denominations.  The first Catholic service was held on January 8, 1826.  The first woman to preach in the church was Dorothy Ripley who did so on January 12, 1806.  On February 12, 1865 Henry Highland Garnet became the first black person to preach a sermon at the Capitol.

Other federal buildings were also used at the time to hold services.  The Treasury Building once housed a four hour communion service in 1804 and also served as the regular church for several denominations.  In his diary, President John Quincy Adams wrote about a church service preached before an overflow audience in the Supreme Court Chamber.  The First Congressional Church met in the Hall of Representatives from 1865 to 1868 where more than 2000 worshipers recognized the Sabbath each week, making it the largest Protestant audience in the United States at the time.

The Separation of Church and State Myth: Part 1 – The Aitken Bible

While you are not likely to find accounts of the Aitken Bible in your history books, the very real existence of it provides a little insight into how the founders of the United States viewed the so-called separation of church and state.

In 1782, the Continental Congress of the United States authorized the printing of 10,000 copies of the first English edition of the Bible printed in America.  In authorizing Robert Aitken to print his version of the Holy Bible they also granted him the authority to print the following recommendation from Congress.

Whereupon,
RESOLVED,
THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper [emphasis added].

To understand the origins of the Aitken Bible we have to go back to 1777.  With supplies of Bibles in the US being cut off by the British, the Continental Congress began searching for ways to find alternative sources.  Two motions were presented before the congress to import Bibles from other countries.  Neither motion succeeded.

Sensing an opportunity, a printer by the name of Robert Aitken who was already printing copies of the Journals of Congress produced his own version of the Holy Scripture.  He presented his version to congress in 1781 along with his petition asking them to inspect and authorize his work.

On September 12, 1782, Congress granted Aitken their authorization to print his version of the Bible.  At the same time Congress provided their recommendation of the Aitken Bible to those living in the United States.

Unfortunately for Aitken, his Bible was a commercial failure.  He later petitioned congress to purchase the remaining supply and distribute them to soldiers.  The new petition was denied.

What the Herman Cain Sexual Harassment Story Reveals About the State of American Journalism

Lippmann and Dewey argued over what they believed the role of journalism was in American society.  After reading and listening to the coverage of allegations of sexual harassment by GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, one can’t help but wonder what they would think of the state of journalism today.

According to the book The Elements of Journalism there are nine elements that must be followed by journalist in order to fulfill their duties.  These are:

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
3. Its essence is discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the news significant, interesting, and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

Knowing that the first element of journalism is truth and that in order to supply the truth a journalist must verify their sources because providing false information would be detrimental to the public, how can anyone label the coverage of this sexual harassment scandal as journalism?

First, Politico provides us with anonymous allegations about alleged acts that were not overtly sexual in nature but offended the anonymous accusers just the same.  Politico reports each received a settlement in the five figure range, but refuses to elaborate on any specifics of the allegations.  Then the Associated Press treats us to more claims from another anonymous accuser who states she was going to file a complaint with Cain’s employer but decided not to because the two other women above were pursuing claims against him at the time.

Then comes Sharon Bailek along side her attorney Gloria Allred who has a long past of representing opportunists like those that jumped on the train of women Tiger Woods had affairs with or those who were offended by a professional baseball coach’s use of a bat in a lewd way.  Together, they spent the next 12 hours making the rounds on all the major talk shows.  No doubt, Allred is already busy shopping around her client’s book deal.  Finally, CNN treated us to yet one more anonymous account of sexual harassment, but this anonymous account doesn’t comes from the accuser, but from the anonymous friend of the anonymous accuser.

Let’s go back to the first accusers.  Politico saw fit to run with a story sourced anonymously and has refused to provide any specifics under claims that the women involved signed non-disclosure agreements with their employer.  But why didn’t Politico, who admittedly knows the identity of these two women, investigate them at all?   Anyone can make an allegation, as we saw when Larry Sinclair accused then candidate Barack Obama of a homosexual relationship.  In that story the media thoroughly investigated Larry Sinclair and found him not to be a credible source and dropped the story before it ever began.  In Cain’s case, Politico appears to not have done any investigation of the two women what-so-ever, because had they done so, they would have no doubt uncovered the fact that one of them has a history of shaking down her employer’s for quick settlements.

Karen Kraushaar, who was labeled by Politico as, “very reliable,” was outted by the blog The Daily.  Only after Ms Kraushaar’s identity was revealed did the AP release details about her past settlements with other employers.

It should also be noted that the National Restaurant Association, the company that settled with Cain’s anonymous accusers, has released the women from the duties of their non-disclosure agreement.  Even though they are now free to talk, they have still refused to elaborate on their claims.

When we look at the one accuser of Cain’s who did come forward publically, Sharon Bailek, we see again the media committing journalistic malpractice as they giver her every possible outlet to tell her story, but not once do they investigate it.  Only after numerous media reports were out did we start hearing about eye witness accounts that directly contradicted Sharon Bailek’s claims.

Herman Cain even held a press conference on the claims made by Bailek where he flat out denied the allegations and vowed to take a lie detector test.  To date, none of Cain’s accusers have been willing to submit to the same lie detector test.

Because the “journalists” covering this story willfully withheld information or flat out refused to investigate their sources they have left the public with only two possible beliefs.  Either Herman Cain systematically sexually abused women for a brief period in the middle of his adult life, never before nor after, or the allegations are completely false.

Now knowing the nine elements of journalism, we can’t help but ask why Politico, the AP, and CNN did not investigate the sources of their stories?  Did they offer their sources a chance to take a polygraph?  If so, what were the results?  When did the AP know about Karen Kraushaar’s history of settlements with her employers?  Why did they wait so long to report it?  Why hasn’t the media asked Bailek to take a lie detector?  Why haven’t they asked her if she is shopping around a book deal or if she will take a vow not to profit from her story in anyway?

They haven’t done any of these things because the state of journalism in America is dead.  Journalists today are more concerned with their exclusive than they are with the truth.  The big problem with that is that the very people journalists claim to help are the very ones being hurt, the American people.

Barack Obama accused by two men of inappropriate behavior

During Barack Obama’s tenure as the president of the Harvard Law Review in the late 1980s, at least two male student editors complained to colleagues and senior university officials about inappropriate behavior by Obama, ultimately leaving their positions at the journal, multiple sources confirm to THE KANSAS CITIAN.

The men complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Obama that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the university that gave them financial payouts to leave the journal. The agreements also included language that bars the men from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Obama and his administration repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the journal. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which men leveled complaints.

THE KANSAS CITIAN has confirmed the identities of the two male journal editors who complained about Obama but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told THE KANSAS CITIAN the president indicated to White House staff that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the university’s general counsel had resolved the matter.

Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review from late-1988 to mid-1989. THE KANSAS CITIAN learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former university officials, current and past students and others familiar with the workings of the journal at the time Obama was there.

In one case, THE KANSAS CITIAN has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the university formally resolved the matter. Both men received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

On the details of Obama’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two men, THE KANSAS CITIAN has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the men upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned journal events and at the journal’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made men who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

UPDATE: Third man comes forward to AP. 

The AP:

A third former editor says he considered filing a workplace complaint over what he considered aggressive and unwanted behavior by Barack Obama when he worked under the president in the 1991 at the University of Chicago. He says the behavior included a private invitation to his apartment.

He worked for the University of Chicago when he was a Visiting Law and Government Fellow. He told The Associated Press that Obama made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that the two editors of the Harvard Law Review had settled separate harassment complaints against him. The employee described situations in which he said Obama told him he had confided to colleagues how attractive he was and invited him to his apartment outside work. He spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he feared retaliation. The White House declined to comment.

More People Speaking Out Against Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall St Movement

Tivol Ads Target Niche Gay Marriage Demographic

A new Census report showed same-sex couples make up only one half of 1 percent of US households. Meanwhile, gay marriage has been put up to a vote 31 times across the US and has lost every single time.

Tivol's marketing team doesn’t seem to be very smart... they’re targeting the smallest of niche markets while potentially upsetting a huge segment of the population.