There's supposed to be a war on women raging in the Republican Party according to the Democrats. I happen to be a GOP woman and am still wondering why I'm not being attacked by my fellow conservatives. I guess I just don't get out enough.
From what I've been able to glean this so-called war is really about getting somebody reelected. Of course the person I am referring to is President Obama. He doesn't have a sound presidential record to campaign on. The economy has gotten worse, not better. His signature bill, (Obamacare), that has been disliked by the majority of Americans since it was voted into law is in front of the Supreme Court because twenty six states have filed suit contending it is unconstitutional. Gas & oil prices have doubled under his term, and instead of promoting American oil excavation he has curtailed such endeavors. He has stalled the potential fuel relief, and potential employment that the Keystone pipeline would offer. He has enacted cap & trade policies which influence electricity prices, not to mention the people in coal industry related jobs who are out of work because the Obama Regime has targeted the coal industry. I could also include failed government crony-capitalism investments that have failed, (Solyndra), along with all the other mistakes and missteps this president has made.
When you are trying to get reelected you might be able to slough off one mistake, or even two, but when everything you've done negatively impacts the lives of the American people you can't run on your record. You have to develop a new game plan, and Mr. Obama's game plan is very simple. Divide and Conquer. He understands that a house divided against itself can not stand, and as each day passes I become more convinced that he doesn't necessarily want this country as we know it to continue standing. He is pitting republicans against democrats, well that isn't new. He has tried to segregate the top 1% money makers in this country from the other 99%. He has represented the US as being anti-semitic in his foreign policy. Every stance he takes breeds controversy, contention, and ire. If he isn't trying to invoke a second civil war in this country his actions sure do contradict his intentions.
His latest gambit targets women, (mostly because of the high percentage of women who vote democrat). According to Obama and the DNC the GOP doesn't respect women. I beg to differ. If a woman wants to start a business in this country, and become successful in doing so she isn't going to go to the democrats for advice, or leadership. The party that promotes private enterprise, less government restrictions, and lower taxes is the republican party. That same woman would go to the democrats if she wanted a government-run business that didn't really belong to her.
Most conservatives feel very strongly that everyone should be responsible for their actions. Most of us believe in the sanctity of marriage, but do not oppose divorce for those who seek it. Some are opposed to divorce for personal and religious reasons. The majority support strong laws when it comes to dead-beat divorced parents who don't take care of their young. Some, because of religious views don't believe in contraception. Some admit their religion is opposed to contraception, but personally ignore the mandate. Some conservatives have no personal opinion for, or against contraception. There's two things most GOP supporters will agree upon when it comes to contraception: 1- The constitution prohibits the government from mandating any religious practice. 2- The people's money (taxes) should not pay for contraception.
Women are responsible, pragmatic individuals who don't believe the people of this country are responsible for the outcome every time someone chooses to have sex. Politicians can spin it however they want, but the truth of the matter is that the war is about government interference in personal and religious practices. It has nothing to do with women and the GOP.
The best way for me to not get side-tracked in this election is to stay focused on what's really important to me. I want to see American business flourish again. I want to see everyone who wants a job to have one. I don't want to worry anymore about how much the policies of the Obama Regime and the Hitler Regime have in common. I want to know that the constitution is being protected by government officials, and that the American people are keeping an eye on them. I want to be able to say God bless America no matter where I am.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
To Label Or Not To Label
Two hundred thirty six years ago this coming July our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal. If President Lincoln were to utter those words today he'd say that all men and women were created equal. I wonder if we don't actively work against that equality by the stupid things we say and do.
We have become a people who likes to pigeon-hole everyone by assigning labels. Back in Lincoln's time those individuals that we now call African Americans were slaves. Instead of integrating them into this great society as citizens with equal standing we had to overcome our irrational fears and prejudices. After all the struggles we still segregate them by calling them African Americans. We didn't stop there. Now we have Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and so on and so forth.
I blame the census as the number one cause of this type of racial segregation followed very closely by politicians, the media, and the school system. Every ten years everybody in this country is supposed to fill out the census forms to let the government know how many of us there are. They ask what nationality you consider yourself to be, (i.e. Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, African American, etc.). If it's really necessary for the government to know this information, a better question would be: 'What country did your ancestors come from?'. Our nationality, (unless you aren't a citizen by birth), is American. We are supposedly the great melting pot of humanity, but our government seems to think it's necessary to keep us separated and labeled. Perhaps if we quit thinking of each other in terms of skin color we'd finally lose the racial prejudice that still exists. I might add that the bigotry between the races exists among all the races, not just a select few.
Race isn't the only pigeon-hole that we get shoved into. Religion is another favorite. There's Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist to name but a few. These religions are broken down into smaller categories trying to define who we are: Orthodox, Fundamentalist, New Age, etc. Let's not even get into the labels we put on people who are active versus those who are less active versus those who are involved in a religion in name only. All this pigeon-holing has created even more bigotry and hatred. Just as one race sees itself as different from another, being defined as to what kind of person you are by a religion pits one person against another.
I remember a story I heard in Sunday School, (aha you've already labeled me a christian), about these two little old ladies walking down the street. They were considered very righteous by everyone who knew them, but if they had a fault it would have been their propensity to discuss the faults of others. Okay, so they were gossips, (that's a label). This particular day as they walked along the street the subject of their discussion was another woman who lived in the neighborhood. She, (unlike them), didn't attend church. She was known to smoke, and drink alcoholic beverages, and was seen with a different man every night, and it was common knowledge that those men paid for her company, (you just decided I am either a Mormon, or a Baptist, maybe a Muslim, but the Sunday School phrase kind of throws that last option off). Anyway, the ladies talked about how terrible it was that such a person should be living in their midst and how she was dragging the morals of the community down. Just then they saw her coming down the street towards them and hurriedly they decided to cross the street rather than take the chance of having to speak to her. Her low-life, immoral behavior might somehow rub off. As they neared the middle of the street a car careened around the corner speeding directly at the two ladies who didn't move so fast in their golden years. From out of nowhere two hands grabbed them and gave them a mighty shove. They were thrown out of the way of the racing car with only skinned up knees and a couple of bruises to testify of their near death experience. The person who shoved them to safety lay still and lifeless on the cold pavement. This guardian angel was none other but the same woman that the two little old ladies had crossed the street to avoid. They'd have to make a new pigeon-hole for this heroic, non-church-going lady of the night.
We are labeled by what kind of job we have, (Boss/Labor), what neighborhood we live in, (Haves/Have-nots), how much education we have, (Grad/Drop-out), how much money we have in the bank, (Fat Cat/Poor Man), if we have an accent, (Local/Foreigner), if we're pretty (Beauty Queen), or homely, (Ugly Duckling), if we're good at sports,(Jock), and if we're whizzes when it comes to the computer, (Geek). The labels never stop, but the labels have next to nothing to do with who the person is. I have only one solution. It starts with me. Since I'm the only one who can do anything about me, I have to work on un-labeling everyone I know, and just let them be people. Maybe after a time I can learn to accept people for who they are. Maybe it will catch on and a bunch of us can start a new trend. We'll do majestic things, help to change the world to a place full of peace and love instead of distrust and hate. We'll call ourselves the un-labelers. Oh oops that's another label. I'm working on it
We have become a people who likes to pigeon-hole everyone by assigning labels. Back in Lincoln's time those individuals that we now call African Americans were slaves. Instead of integrating them into this great society as citizens with equal standing we had to overcome our irrational fears and prejudices. After all the struggles we still segregate them by calling them African Americans. We didn't stop there. Now we have Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and so on and so forth.
I blame the census as the number one cause of this type of racial segregation followed very closely by politicians, the media, and the school system. Every ten years everybody in this country is supposed to fill out the census forms to let the government know how many of us there are. They ask what nationality you consider yourself to be, (i.e. Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, African American, etc.). If it's really necessary for the government to know this information, a better question would be: 'What country did your ancestors come from?'. Our nationality, (unless you aren't a citizen by birth), is American. We are supposedly the great melting pot of humanity, but our government seems to think it's necessary to keep us separated and labeled. Perhaps if we quit thinking of each other in terms of skin color we'd finally lose the racial prejudice that still exists. I might add that the bigotry between the races exists among all the races, not just a select few.
Race isn't the only pigeon-hole that we get shoved into. Religion is another favorite. There's Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist to name but a few. These religions are broken down into smaller categories trying to define who we are: Orthodox, Fundamentalist, New Age, etc. Let's not even get into the labels we put on people who are active versus those who are less active versus those who are involved in a religion in name only. All this pigeon-holing has created even more bigotry and hatred. Just as one race sees itself as different from another, being defined as to what kind of person you are by a religion pits one person against another.
I remember a story I heard in Sunday School, (aha you've already labeled me a christian), about these two little old ladies walking down the street. They were considered very righteous by everyone who knew them, but if they had a fault it would have been their propensity to discuss the faults of others. Okay, so they were gossips, (that's a label). This particular day as they walked along the street the subject of their discussion was another woman who lived in the neighborhood. She, (unlike them), didn't attend church. She was known to smoke, and drink alcoholic beverages, and was seen with a different man every night, and it was common knowledge that those men paid for her company, (you just decided I am either a Mormon, or a Baptist, maybe a Muslim, but the Sunday School phrase kind of throws that last option off). Anyway, the ladies talked about how terrible it was that such a person should be living in their midst and how she was dragging the morals of the community down. Just then they saw her coming down the street towards them and hurriedly they decided to cross the street rather than take the chance of having to speak to her. Her low-life, immoral behavior might somehow rub off. As they neared the middle of the street a car careened around the corner speeding directly at the two ladies who didn't move so fast in their golden years. From out of nowhere two hands grabbed them and gave them a mighty shove. They were thrown out of the way of the racing car with only skinned up knees and a couple of bruises to testify of their near death experience. The person who shoved them to safety lay still and lifeless on the cold pavement. This guardian angel was none other but the same woman that the two little old ladies had crossed the street to avoid. They'd have to make a new pigeon-hole for this heroic, non-church-going lady of the night.
We are labeled by what kind of job we have, (Boss/Labor), what neighborhood we live in, (Haves/Have-nots), how much education we have, (Grad/Drop-out), how much money we have in the bank, (Fat Cat/Poor Man), if we have an accent, (Local/Foreigner), if we're pretty (Beauty Queen), or homely, (Ugly Duckling), if we're good at sports,(Jock), and if we're whizzes when it comes to the computer, (Geek). The labels never stop, but the labels have next to nothing to do with who the person is. I have only one solution. It starts with me. Since I'm the only one who can do anything about me, I have to work on un-labeling everyone I know, and just let them be people. Maybe after a time I can learn to accept people for who they are. Maybe it will catch on and a bunch of us can start a new trend. We'll do majestic things, help to change the world to a place full of peace and love instead of distrust and hate. We'll call ourselves the un-labelers. Oh oops that's another label. I'm working on it
Thursday, March 8, 2012
2012 Primary Totals & Averages
I decided to talk about the outcome of the 2012 GOP elections because the media is doing such a lousy job of just reporting the news. To be candid I must admit that I am a Romney supporter. My findings might be slanted in his favor, but on balance since the media does everything it can to negate and diminish Romney's accomplishments maybe that's okay.
The following chart shows the results of the twenty two state GOP contests held through Super Tuesday March 6, 2012.
First Place: Mitt Romney has won fourteen states. Rick Santorum has won six states. Newt Gingrich has won two states. Ron Paul has won no states.
Second Place: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum came in second seven times. Mitt Romney has come in second six times, and Newt Gingrich came in second two times.
Third place: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum came in third seven times, Newt Gingrich has come in third five times, and Mitt Romney came in third in two states. I didn't award a third place in Virginia because Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did not qualify for the state's ballot, and both got zero votes.
Fourth Place: Newt Gingrich has come in fourth thirteen times. Ron Paul has come in fourth eight times. Rick Santorum has come in fourth two times, and Mitt Romney came in fourth in none of the states.
7,881,788 votes have been cast in the twenty two GOP primaries, averaging 358,263 voters per state. Romney has averaged 39.54%, Santorum has averaged 24.85%, Ron Paul's overall average is 17.5% and Newt Gingrich is last with 14.98%.
Mitt Romney has averaged 145,288 votes per state with a total of 3,196,326 votes. Rick Santorum averages 88,988 votes per election (1,957,727 total), followed by Newt Gingrich (1,827,336 votes) averaging 83,061 votes per state, and finally Ron Paul has an average of 40,927 votes with a total of 900,339 votes.
The following chart shows the results of the twenty two state GOP contests held through Super Tuesday March 6, 2012.
First Place: Mitt Romney has won fourteen states. Rick Santorum has won six states. Newt Gingrich has won two states. Ron Paul has won no states.
Second Place: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum came in second seven times. Mitt Romney has come in second six times, and Newt Gingrich came in second two times.
Third place: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum came in third seven times, Newt Gingrich has come in third five times, and Mitt Romney came in third in two states. I didn't award a third place in Virginia because Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did not qualify for the state's ballot, and both got zero votes.
Fourth Place: Newt Gingrich has come in fourth thirteen times. Ron Paul has come in fourth eight times. Rick Santorum has come in fourth two times, and Mitt Romney came in fourth in none of the states.
7,881,788 votes have been cast in the twenty two GOP primaries, averaging 358,263 voters per state. Romney has averaged 39.54%, Santorum has averaged 24.85%, Ron Paul's overall average is 17.5% and Newt Gingrich is last with 14.98%.
Mitt Romney has averaged 145,288 votes per state with a total of 3,196,326 votes. Rick Santorum averages 88,988 votes per election (1,957,727 total), followed by Newt Gingrich (1,827,336 votes) averaging 83,061 votes per state, and finally Ron Paul has an average of 40,927 votes with a total of 900,339 votes.
Date | State | Gingrich | Paul | Romney | Santorum |
01/03 | IA | 13.3%-4th | 21.4%-3rd | 24.5%-2nd | 24.6%-1st |
| 01/10 | NH | 9.4%-4th | 22.9%-2nd | 39.3%-1st | 9.4%-3rd |
01/21 | SC | 40.4%-1st | 13.0%-4th | 27.8%-2nd | 17.0%-3rd |
01/31 | FL | 31.9%-2nd | 7.0%-4th | 46.4%-1st | 13.4%-3rd |
02/04 | NV | 21.1%-2nd | 18.8%-3rd | 50.1%-1st | 10.0%-4th |
02/07 | CO | 12.8%-3rd | 11.8%-4th | 34.9%-2nd | 40.3%-1st |
02/07 | MN | 10.8%-4th | 27.1%-2nd | 16.9%-3rd | 44.9%-1st |
02/11 | ME | 6.2%-4th | 35.7%-2nd | 39.2%-1st | 17.7%-3rd |
02/28 | AZ | 16.2%-3rd | 8.4%-4th | 47.3%-1st | 26.6%-2nd |
02/28 | MI | 6.5%-4th | 11.6%-3rd | 41.1%-1st | 37.9%-2nd |
03/03 | WA | 10.3%-4th | 24.8%-2nd | 37.6%-1st | 23.8%-3rd |
03/06 | AK | 14.1%-4th | 24.0%-3rd | 32.4%-1st | 29.2%-2nd |
03/06 | GA | 47.2%-1st | 6.6%-4th | 25.9%-2nd | 19.6%-3rd |
03/06 | ID | 2.1%-4th | 18.1%-3rd | 61.6%-1st | 18.2%-2nd |
03/06 | MA | 4.6%-4th | 9.5%-3rd | 72.2%-1st | 12.0%-2nd |
03/06 | ND | 8.5%-4th | 28.1%-2nd | 23.7%-3rd | 39.7%-1st |
03/06 | OH | 14.6%-3rd | 9.2%-4th | 37.9%-1st | 37.1%-2nd |
03/06 | OK | 27.5%-3rd | 9.6%-4th | 28.0%-2nd | 33.8%-1st |
03/06 | TN | 23.9%-3rd | 9.0%-4th | 28.1%-2nd | 37.2%-1st |
03/06 | VA | 0%-4th | 40.5%-2nd | 59.5%-1st | 0%-4th |
03/06 | VT | 8.2%-4th | 25.5%-2nd | 39.8%-1st | 23.7%-3rd |
03/06 | WY | 0%-4th | 2.5%-3rd | 55.7%-1st | 30.5%-2nd |
| All | 14.98% av | 17.50% av | 39.54% av | 24.85% av | |
| Total Votes | 1,827,336 | 900,399 | 3,196,326 | 1,957,727 | |
| Average Votes | 83,061 av | 40,927 av | 145,288 av | 88,988 av | |
| Gingrich | Paul | Romney | Santorum |
Saturday, March 3, 2012
When Did Name Calling Become Acceptable?
I want to offer full disclosure before I start on my latest rant. I acquired the use of naughty words in my vocabulary in the eighties, developed the skill through the nineties, and have spent the last fifteen or so years trying to eradicate them from my life. I have to admit it's far easier to learn foul language than it is to quit using it. Based on my life experience I know how easy it is to take the road we're used to rather than the one less traveled.
I watched Sean Hannity last night on the Fox News Network. The focus of the show covered liberal media versus conservative media. Sean wanted to know why it is okay for liberal television hosts to use vile words when describing people, and it's not okay for conservative hosts to do the same. My reaction to Sean's question comes with another question. Why is it okay for anyone to publicly say vile and disgusting things about anyone? I realize that the censorship levels of network television are decidedly more lax than are the rules of what's allowed on so-called public airways. I also understand that these rules are determined by what the public says is acceptable. I guess my real question then is; 'Why do we citizens think it's okay for anyone to publicly use profanity, vile name-calling, and outrageous insults?'
The issue came up on the Hannity show because of two events that occurred this week. On Rush Limbaugh's radio program he called a woman who appeared before congress over the current contraception issue a slut. The other thing that happened was conservative media publisher Andrew Breitbart died, and a lot of public figures made nasty comments about him. More to the point regular everyday folks left rude and incendiary comments on places like Twitter and Facebook concerning both subjects. Contrary to popular opinion hate speech is acceptable in our society by just about everyone.
We all say, "oh how sad", when a teen commits suicide because a bunch of school bullies made the kid's life unbearable at school, and on-line. We blame the parents, the school, and the on-line social sites. Why don't we look in the mirror, and accept a good deal of the blame for our own involvement? If you think I'm wrong go on-line, find articles covering the election and the candidates, and read some of the comments left behind by visitors. They range from argumentative to horrifically vile. Our world has changed. We no longer have debates about issues. Today it's quite fashionable to attack the person who voices opposition to what we believe, rather than arguing the issue. The enemy becomes anyone who disagrees, or has a differing point of view.
If it can be proved in court that a person physically attacked someone else because of a skin color, or sexual preference prejudice, that person can be charged not only with assault, but with committing a hate crime as well. There is no difference between students tormenting the fat kid, the shy kid, the homely kid, the black kid, or the gay kid. The attack happens because someone is perceived as different, and thereby becomes a target. They're all crimes based on hate. Perhaps we've reverted back to the days when citizens gathered to watch Christians being fed to the lions, betting on the outcome, and feeling superior, and self righteous.
The media from both sides of the aisle plays this game everyday in the public square. Concerning Mr. Breitbart's death Rolling Stone ran an article entitled, 'Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche'. We should all be shocked, but further investigation proves that during his career this same Mr. Breitbart made a great many public comments that were just as shocking, and vile about those he opposed. Fans of Mr. Breitbart have emailed Rolling Stone with complaints, and even threats. Those who opposed Mr. Breitbart's work when he was alive have filled the airwaves and the internet with nasty comments about the man's life and his death. It makes me think of the Queen's famous line in Alice In Wonderland. "Off with their heads".
The only way this kind of behavior can be stopped will be when and if the public rises above the need to belittle those we disagree with and says 'ENOUGH'. Boycotting advertisers, changing channels, and unsubscribing are some of the tools that can be used to bring a wayward media back into line, but that won't happen until the public has had enough, and right now the public seems to be not only eating it up, but are also eager participants. It's kind of like when the kids are supposed to be in bed and asleep and you hear them laughing and giggling, and jumping on the bed. You call out to them to get to bed, and it gets quiet for a while. Pretty soon the noise begins again. Depending on your patience, coupled with your energy level you'll eventually be forced to actually get up and go into the kid's room to make them understand that when you say get to bed you really mean it. Hopefully the day is near at hand when we, (the real silent majority), who find this vicious, nasty talk unacceptable, and offensive no matter who it's coming from will get out of our comfortable easy chairs and tell the world to knock it off, and let them know we really mean it. Until that day comes it's okay to remind people, (whenever we get the chance), in a very polite, no-nonsense way that profanity, name calling, and general hate messages are not appropriate under any circumstances.
I watched Sean Hannity last night on the Fox News Network. The focus of the show covered liberal media versus conservative media. Sean wanted to know why it is okay for liberal television hosts to use vile words when describing people, and it's not okay for conservative hosts to do the same. My reaction to Sean's question comes with another question. Why is it okay for anyone to publicly say vile and disgusting things about anyone? I realize that the censorship levels of network television are decidedly more lax than are the rules of what's allowed on so-called public airways. I also understand that these rules are determined by what the public says is acceptable. I guess my real question then is; 'Why do we citizens think it's okay for anyone to publicly use profanity, vile name-calling, and outrageous insults?'
The issue came up on the Hannity show because of two events that occurred this week. On Rush Limbaugh's radio program he called a woman who appeared before congress over the current contraception issue a slut. The other thing that happened was conservative media publisher Andrew Breitbart died, and a lot of public figures made nasty comments about him. More to the point regular everyday folks left rude and incendiary comments on places like Twitter and Facebook concerning both subjects. Contrary to popular opinion hate speech is acceptable in our society by just about everyone.
We all say, "oh how sad", when a teen commits suicide because a bunch of school bullies made the kid's life unbearable at school, and on-line. We blame the parents, the school, and the on-line social sites. Why don't we look in the mirror, and accept a good deal of the blame for our own involvement? If you think I'm wrong go on-line, find articles covering the election and the candidates, and read some of the comments left behind by visitors. They range from argumentative to horrifically vile. Our world has changed. We no longer have debates about issues. Today it's quite fashionable to attack the person who voices opposition to what we believe, rather than arguing the issue. The enemy becomes anyone who disagrees, or has a differing point of view.
If it can be proved in court that a person physically attacked someone else because of a skin color, or sexual preference prejudice, that person can be charged not only with assault, but with committing a hate crime as well. There is no difference between students tormenting the fat kid, the shy kid, the homely kid, the black kid, or the gay kid. The attack happens because someone is perceived as different, and thereby becomes a target. They're all crimes based on hate. Perhaps we've reverted back to the days when citizens gathered to watch Christians being fed to the lions, betting on the outcome, and feeling superior, and self righteous.
The media from both sides of the aisle plays this game everyday in the public square. Concerning Mr. Breitbart's death Rolling Stone ran an article entitled, 'Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche'. We should all be shocked, but further investigation proves that during his career this same Mr. Breitbart made a great many public comments that were just as shocking, and vile about those he opposed. Fans of Mr. Breitbart have emailed Rolling Stone with complaints, and even threats. Those who opposed Mr. Breitbart's work when he was alive have filled the airwaves and the internet with nasty comments about the man's life and his death. It makes me think of the Queen's famous line in Alice In Wonderland. "Off with their heads".
The only way this kind of behavior can be stopped will be when and if the public rises above the need to belittle those we disagree with and says 'ENOUGH'. Boycotting advertisers, changing channels, and unsubscribing are some of the tools that can be used to bring a wayward media back into line, but that won't happen until the public has had enough, and right now the public seems to be not only eating it up, but are also eager participants. It's kind of like when the kids are supposed to be in bed and asleep and you hear them laughing and giggling, and jumping on the bed. You call out to them to get to bed, and it gets quiet for a while. Pretty soon the noise begins again. Depending on your patience, coupled with your energy level you'll eventually be forced to actually get up and go into the kid's room to make them understand that when you say get to bed you really mean it. Hopefully the day is near at hand when we, (the real silent majority), who find this vicious, nasty talk unacceptable, and offensive no matter who it's coming from will get out of our comfortable easy chairs and tell the world to knock it off, and let them know we really mean it. Until that day comes it's okay to remind people, (whenever we get the chance), in a very polite, no-nonsense way that profanity, name calling, and general hate messages are not appropriate under any circumstances.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The Moral Decay Of Rick Santorum
Today is February 28, 2012, the day that Michigan and Arizona Republicans go to their polling places to cast their ballots for their choice of the Republican presidential nominee. The Michigan primary is an open primary where anyone Republican, Democrat, or Independent can vote. If this contest was like the one in 2008 Democrats would be voting for the Democrat nominee, and Republicans would be voting for the Republican nominee, and citizens unaffiliated with either party could cast their vote for whichever candidate they wished. In this 2012 election the Democrats have an incumbent president who is running for reelection. He has no opposition, and so the Democrats have the opportunity to play games at the Republican primaries and help their candidate win in the general election by voting for the Republican candidate they think would be the least likely to defeat their man. It's unethical, dishonest, and slimy, but some think winning the election is worth any cost.
An interesting situation arose yesterday when it was discovered that a Republican candidate, Rick Santorum, who has portrayed himself as the social conservative in this election, and has campaigned against moral decay, and promoted christian values was making robo-calls to Michigan Democrats telling them to vote for him. This action may profit him to some degree with a few votes, but I wonder if in the long run such underhanded chicanery won't cause him more harm. Mark 8:36- For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
I think what bothers me most about this whole thing is that this man who supposedly represents the moral, and ethical values of very conservative christian Republicans is sending the message that conservative Christians are willing to do, or say anything to win, even if it involves throwing integrity out the window. It reminds me of the scandal that broke years ago when a bunch of evangelical preachers came under national scrutiny because of extramarital affairs, and immoral behavior. The Santorum request of the Michigan Democrats, in my opinion, is a request that asks these people to participate in something that is dishonest and unethical. They may choose to do so, and are responsible for their decisions, but by asking them to do an under-handed thing Santorum is in effect trying to lead them astray. Isaiah 9:16- For the leaders of this people cause them to err, And those who are led by them are destroyed.
Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a Romney supporter, but at one point I actually considered Santorum as my second choice. At first I thought he was who he portrayed himself to be. Over time and a good deal of research I have changed my mind about his qualifications as the man to lead this country. This latest action on his part only cemented my resolution that he is not qualified, and now I am convinced he has the morals of an alley cat. He may not be one who sleeps around, but since all sin is equal in the eyes of God someone who plays fast and loose with honesty and integrity is just as wicked as an adulterer. I don't expect perfection in a candidate. We all fall short of the glory. Candidates make mistakes all the time when it comes to stating what they believe to be facts. Those are honest mistakes, but Santorum is purposely trying to mislead people, and that is not an accident, a slip of the tongue, or even an embellishment of truth. It's an outright dishonest act, and worst of all it's a lie that tries to get others involved in the telling.
An interesting situation arose yesterday when it was discovered that a Republican candidate, Rick Santorum, who has portrayed himself as the social conservative in this election, and has campaigned against moral decay, and promoted christian values was making robo-calls to Michigan Democrats telling them to vote for him. This action may profit him to some degree with a few votes, but I wonder if in the long run such underhanded chicanery won't cause him more harm. Mark 8:36- For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
I think what bothers me most about this whole thing is that this man who supposedly represents the moral, and ethical values of very conservative christian Republicans is sending the message that conservative Christians are willing to do, or say anything to win, even if it involves throwing integrity out the window. It reminds me of the scandal that broke years ago when a bunch of evangelical preachers came under national scrutiny because of extramarital affairs, and immoral behavior. The Santorum request of the Michigan Democrats, in my opinion, is a request that asks these people to participate in something that is dishonest and unethical. They may choose to do so, and are responsible for their decisions, but by asking them to do an under-handed thing Santorum is in effect trying to lead them astray. Isaiah 9:16- For the leaders of this people cause them to err, And those who are led by them are destroyed.
Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a Romney supporter, but at one point I actually considered Santorum as my second choice. At first I thought he was who he portrayed himself to be. Over time and a good deal of research I have changed my mind about his qualifications as the man to lead this country. This latest action on his part only cemented my resolution that he is not qualified, and now I am convinced he has the morals of an alley cat. He may not be one who sleeps around, but since all sin is equal in the eyes of God someone who plays fast and loose with honesty and integrity is just as wicked as an adulterer. I don't expect perfection in a candidate. We all fall short of the glory. Candidates make mistakes all the time when it comes to stating what they believe to be facts. Those are honest mistakes, but Santorum is purposely trying to mislead people, and that is not an accident, a slip of the tongue, or even an embellishment of truth. It's an outright dishonest act, and worst of all it's a lie that tries to get others involved in the telling.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
It's Still About The Economy
A certain segment of the Republican party wants to make the 2012 election about social issues. The Obama administration would be very happy if the election was focused on social issues rather than on his presidential record when it comes to the economy. Polls show that the major problems facing this country, (as viewed by the American people), is about the economy. Social issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, and the environment are not considered to be pressing issues by most Americans. I did some on-line research, and here's what's going on in the country both economically and socially based on Gallup polls ranging from 1 to 10 year studies:
•Only 13% of Americans are satisfied with the nation's economy.
•Unemployment has decreased from 10.3% in Feb 2011 to 9% in Feb 2012.
•In the spring of 2011 60 to 69% of Americans favor off-shore drilling with 77% saying gas prices are extremely important.
•The majority (56%) still favor nuclear power plants and think U.S. nuclear power plants are safe.
•Raising the debt ceiling is still viewed as unfavorable by 42%
•Over 40% of Americans believe that the health spending bill (Obamacare) will make things worse.
• 50% of Americans think abortion should be legal only under some circumstances
• 64% think Gay rights should be legal
• 60% find same sex marriage morally acceptable
• 41% favor developing fossil fuel over saving the environment
• 48% think the environment is getting worse down 20% from 2008
• 43% believe that global warming statistics are exaggerated
ECONOMY
January 23, 2012
Americans' satisfaction with the state of the nation's economy has dropped by 23 percentage points since January 2008 to 13%, according to a Jan. 5-8, 2012 Gallup poll.
These figures represent both the lowest rate of satisfaction and the biggest decline seen for any of 24 issues measured in the survey.
Attitudes toward the moral and ethical climate and the size and power of the federal government are similar to each other. Slightly fewer than 3 in 10 Americans are satisfied with each, down from about 4 in 10 in
2008, the last presidential election year and the last time Gallup measured satisfaction on all 24 items.
Americans' satisfaction with the size and power of government has declined fairly steadily since January 2002, just months after 9/11 and at a time when Americans were positive about most things relating to the government. Confidence in the economy has dropped sharply since 2008 after fluctuating between 2002 and 2007. Confidence in the moral and ethical climate was flat through January 2008, before falling to the new low.
At least half of Americans are also satisfied with the influence of organized religion, the opportunity to get ahead through hard work, the state of race relations, the quality of the environment, the nation's gun laws, and the nation's policies to reduce or control crime.
Satisfaction has been stable on all of these except satisfaction with the opportunity to get ahead through hard work, which has fallen 15 points since 2008, paralleling the sharp decline in satisfaction with the economy.
Unemployment
March 3, 2011
Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, hit 10.3% in February -- up from 9.8% at the end of January. The U.S. unemployment rate is now essentially the same as the 10.4% at the end of February 2010.
February 2012
Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a sharp deterioration in job market conditions since mid-January. The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January.
This is consistent with a similar decline in Gallup's Job Creation Index to +13 in the second week of February, from +16 for January. It is also consistent with an economy that continues to struggle with modest growth, particularly as gas prices surge. Further, it suggests that it is premature to assume the condition of the economy will not remain a major issue for Americans both financially and politically in 2012.
Energy
Off Shore Drilling
•Americans are deeply concerned about rising prices. April 2011 polling by AP-GfK/Roper shows that 77 percent say gas prices are extremely/very important to them, ranking fifth out of 14 other issues. Sixty-four percent told CNN/ORC pollsters in March that gas price increases had caused financial hardship for their household.
•After the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, 2010, attitudes towards offshore drilling soured. A plurality of 48% told AP-GfK pollsters in August 2010 that they favored "increasing drilling for oil and gas in coastal areas around the United States". 36% were opposed.
60% in a March 2011 Gallup poll favored increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in coastal areas; 37% were opposed.
In an April 2011 CNN/ORC poll, 45% strongly favored increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore in U.S. waters, up from 26% who gave that response in 2010. Overall, 69% in the new CNN poll favored increased offshore drilling and 31% were opposed.
Nuclear Power
•Attitudes towards nuclear power have grown more negative in the wake of the problems at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan.
While March 2011 Gallup polling shows more in favor (56 percent) than opposed (38 percent) to the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity, polling from CBS and CNN/ORC shows more opposition that support to building more nuclear power plants. Americans appear to believe that U.S. nuclear power plants are safe.
Debt Ceiling
July 12, 2011
Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure. This 20-percentage-point edge in opposition to raising the debt ceiling in Gallup's July 7-10, 2011 poll is slightly less than the 28-point lead (47% vs. 19%) seen in May.
Obamacare
March 24, 2011
• Two thirds of Americans believe the Democrats health spending bill would make things worse (37%) or make no difference (29%) for themselves and their families.
• A majority of Americans believe the bill will make things worse (44%) or maintain the status quo (13%) for the United States, while only 39% see any benefit for the country.
• Only a third (33%) see a benefit for middle-income families, while most believe those families’ situation will get worse (44%) or see no benefit (17%).
• Most Americans see no benefit for doctors and hospitals while a plurality believe the bill will make things worse for both.
• Despite all the tough talk about tacking insurance companies, only 51% believe the bill will make things worse for insurance companies.
• Most Americans believe the bill will help (34%) or maintain current status (18%) for pharmaceutical companies.
SOCIAL ISSUES
Abortion
2001 May 10-14- Legal under any circumstances- 26%, Legal only under certain circumstances- 58%, Illegal in all circumstances- 15%, No opinion- 1%
2011 May 5-8- Legal under any circumstances- 27%, Legal only under certain circumstances- 50%, Illegal in all circumstances- 22%, No opinion- 2%
According to these polls whether abortion should be legal or not hasn't changed much over a ten year period. The majority of people still agree that it should be legal in some circumstances down 8%.
Gay Rights
2001 May 10-14- Should be legal- 54%, Should not be legal- 42%, No opinion- 4%
2011 May 5-8- Should be legal- 64%, Should not be legal- 32%, No opinion- 4%
Same Sex Marriage
2001 May 10-14- Morally acceptable- 53%, Morally wrong- 42%, Depends on situation- 3%, (vol.) Not a moral issue- 1%, (vol.) No opinion- 1%
2011 May 5-8- Morally acceptable- 60%, Morally wrong- 36%, Depends on situation- 1%, (vol.) Not a moral issue- *, (vol.) No opinion- 3%
The Environment
•For only the second time since the question was asked in 1984, more respondents (41%) told Gallup that they would prioritize economic growth over the environment "even if the environment suffers to some extent."
•In a March 2011 Gallup poll, 48% said the quality of the environment nationally is getting worse. In 2008, 68% gave that response.
Global Warming
•When the Pew Research Center updated its yearly poll in January 2011, 26% said global warming should be a top priority. Only "dealing with obesity in this country" ranked lower out of the twenty-two issues Pew asked about.
•In a March 2011 Gallup poll, 43% said that what was said about global warming in the news was generally exaggerated. This is down slightly from 2010 (48%), but up considerably since the question was first asked in November 1997 (31%).
•Only 13% of Americans are satisfied with the nation's economy.
•Unemployment has decreased from 10.3% in Feb 2011 to 9% in Feb 2012.
•In the spring of 2011 60 to 69% of Americans favor off-shore drilling with 77% saying gas prices are extremely important.
•The majority (56%) still favor nuclear power plants and think U.S. nuclear power plants are safe.
•Raising the debt ceiling is still viewed as unfavorable by 42%
•Over 40% of Americans believe that the health spending bill (Obamacare) will make things worse.
• 50% of Americans think abortion should be legal only under some circumstances
• 64% think Gay rights should be legal
• 60% find same sex marriage morally acceptable
• 41% favor developing fossil fuel over saving the environment
• 48% think the environment is getting worse down 20% from 2008
• 43% believe that global warming statistics are exaggerated
ECONOMY
January 23, 2012
Americans' satisfaction with the state of the nation's economy has dropped by 23 percentage points since January 2008 to 13%, according to a Jan. 5-8, 2012 Gallup poll.
These figures represent both the lowest rate of satisfaction and the biggest decline seen for any of 24 issues measured in the survey.
Attitudes toward the moral and ethical climate and the size and power of the federal government are similar to each other. Slightly fewer than 3 in 10 Americans are satisfied with each, down from about 4 in 10 in
2008, the last presidential election year and the last time Gallup measured satisfaction on all 24 items.
Americans' satisfaction with the size and power of government has declined fairly steadily since January 2002, just months after 9/11 and at a time when Americans were positive about most things relating to the government. Confidence in the economy has dropped sharply since 2008 after fluctuating between 2002 and 2007. Confidence in the moral and ethical climate was flat through January 2008, before falling to the new low.
At least half of Americans are also satisfied with the influence of organized religion, the opportunity to get ahead through hard work, the state of race relations, the quality of the environment, the nation's gun laws, and the nation's policies to reduce or control crime.
Satisfaction has been stable on all of these except satisfaction with the opportunity to get ahead through hard work, which has fallen 15 points since 2008, paralleling the sharp decline in satisfaction with the economy.
Unemployment
March 3, 2011
Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, hit 10.3% in February -- up from 9.8% at the end of January. The U.S. unemployment rate is now essentially the same as the 10.4% at the end of February 2010.
February 2012
Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a sharp deterioration in job market conditions since mid-January. The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January.
This is consistent with a similar decline in Gallup's Job Creation Index to +13 in the second week of February, from +16 for January. It is also consistent with an economy that continues to struggle with modest growth, particularly as gas prices surge. Further, it suggests that it is premature to assume the condition of the economy will not remain a major issue for Americans both financially and politically in 2012.
Energy
Off Shore Drilling
•Americans are deeply concerned about rising prices. April 2011 polling by AP-GfK/Roper shows that 77 percent say gas prices are extremely/very important to them, ranking fifth out of 14 other issues. Sixty-four percent told CNN/ORC pollsters in March that gas price increases had caused financial hardship for their household.
•After the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, 2010, attitudes towards offshore drilling soured. A plurality of 48% told AP-GfK pollsters in August 2010 that they favored "increasing drilling for oil and gas in coastal areas around the United States". 36% were opposed.
60% in a March 2011 Gallup poll favored increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in coastal areas; 37% were opposed.
In an April 2011 CNN/ORC poll, 45% strongly favored increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore in U.S. waters, up from 26% who gave that response in 2010. Overall, 69% in the new CNN poll favored increased offshore drilling and 31% were opposed.
Nuclear Power
•Attitudes towards nuclear power have grown more negative in the wake of the problems at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan.
While March 2011 Gallup polling shows more in favor (56 percent) than opposed (38 percent) to the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity, polling from CBS and CNN/ORC shows more opposition that support to building more nuclear power plants. Americans appear to believe that U.S. nuclear power plants are safe.
Debt Ceiling
July 12, 2011
Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure. This 20-percentage-point edge in opposition to raising the debt ceiling in Gallup's July 7-10, 2011 poll is slightly less than the 28-point lead (47% vs. 19%) seen in May.
Obamacare
March 24, 2011
• Two thirds of Americans believe the Democrats health spending bill would make things worse (37%) or make no difference (29%) for themselves and their families.
• A majority of Americans believe the bill will make things worse (44%) or maintain the status quo (13%) for the United States, while only 39% see any benefit for the country.
• Only a third (33%) see a benefit for middle-income families, while most believe those families’ situation will get worse (44%) or see no benefit (17%).
• Most Americans see no benefit for doctors and hospitals while a plurality believe the bill will make things worse for both.
• Despite all the tough talk about tacking insurance companies, only 51% believe the bill will make things worse for insurance companies.
• Most Americans believe the bill will help (34%) or maintain current status (18%) for pharmaceutical companies.
SOCIAL ISSUES
Abortion
2001 May 10-14- Legal under any circumstances- 26%, Legal only under certain circumstances- 58%, Illegal in all circumstances- 15%, No opinion- 1%
2011 May 5-8- Legal under any circumstances- 27%, Legal only under certain circumstances- 50%, Illegal in all circumstances- 22%, No opinion- 2%
According to these polls whether abortion should be legal or not hasn't changed much over a ten year period. The majority of people still agree that it should be legal in some circumstances down 8%.
Gay Rights
2001 May 10-14- Should be legal- 54%, Should not be legal- 42%, No opinion- 4%
2011 May 5-8- Should be legal- 64%, Should not be legal- 32%, No opinion- 4%
Same Sex Marriage
2001 May 10-14- Morally acceptable- 53%, Morally wrong- 42%, Depends on situation- 3%, (vol.) Not a moral issue- 1%, (vol.) No opinion- 1%
2011 May 5-8- Morally acceptable- 60%, Morally wrong- 36%, Depends on situation- 1%, (vol.) Not a moral issue- *, (vol.) No opinion- 3%
The Environment
•For only the second time since the question was asked in 1984, more respondents (41%) told Gallup that they would prioritize economic growth over the environment "even if the environment suffers to some extent."
•In a March 2011 Gallup poll, 48% said the quality of the environment nationally is getting worse. In 2008, 68% gave that response.
Global Warming
•When the Pew Research Center updated its yearly poll in January 2011, 26% said global warming should be a top priority. Only "dealing with obesity in this country" ranked lower out of the twenty-two issues Pew asked about.
•In a March 2011 Gallup poll, 43% said that what was said about global warming in the news was generally exaggerated. This is down slightly from 2010 (48%), but up considerably since the question was first asked in November 1997 (31%).
Santorum & Democrats Together Again
I decided to do a little research about the Olympics since Rick Santorum and some Democrats have decided to make the Winter Olympics of 2002 an issue in this 2012 presidential election. The subject became an opportunity for these propagaters of speculation during the 10th anniversary celebration of the 2002 Olympics being celebrated in Utah this week. What I have gleaned from my research on this subject is that none of the individuals making negative comments about the problems, or the solutions involved have ever had any hands-on experience dealing with anything with the magnitude of issues Mr. Romney faced when he agreed to take on the Olympics in 2002. It appears to me that these individuals are hoping that their accusations will foster animosity and doubt towards Governor Romney, and discredit his accomplishments. Since these accusatory arm-chair quarter-backs have absolutely no credibility I am discounting their accusations to pangs of jealousy, and irrelevant political innuendo which does nothing but feed the press who is more than willing to report anything that further diminishes the solemn act of selecting the next President of the United States of America.
The Olympics In the 20th and 21st centuries
The host city for an Olympic Games is usually chosen seven years ahead of their celebration. The process of selection is carried out in two phases that span a two-year period. The prospective host city applies to its country's Olympic Committee; if more than one city from the same country submits a proposal to its NOC, the national committee typically holds an internal selection, since only one city per NOC can be presented to the International Olympic Committee for consideration.
The United States has hosted four Summer and four Winter Olympics, more than any other nation.
Summer Olympics
1904 - St. Louis, Missouri United States
1932 - Los Angeles, California United States
1984 - Los Angeles, California United States
1996 - Atlanta, Georgia United States
Winter Olympics
1932 - Lake Placid, N.Y., United States
1960 - Squaw Valley, California, United States
1980 - Lake Placid, New York, United States
2002 - Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics
In 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was on the verge of collapse. The event had been bogged down in a bid-rigging scandal, sponsors were fleeing, and the budget was bleeding red ink. The bribery scandal did present an image problem for the games. Then Utah Governor Mike Leavitt was determined to find the right person to lead the games out of doubt and into success. Thanks to his reputation as a superb manager, Mitt Romney was asked by the Governor to take over.
Romney got to work wooing corporate sponsors and repairing the image of the games. He hired his former Bain Capital partner Fraser Bullock to be his Chief Operations and financial Officer. After accepting the job, Fraser Bullock worked alongside Romney every day for the next three years. He remembers Mitt's frugal sensibility.
President Bill Clinton established a White House task force to coordinate federal involvement in the 1996 Atlanta, Georgia summer olympics which would have been selected as the host city in 1989 during George H.W. Bush's presidency, and the 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah winter olympics, which would have been selected as the host city in 1995 during Clinton's presidency.
In 1999 Mitt Romney wasn't a congressman, or a governor. He was a citizen with a great deal of business experience. He didn't have the ability to budget money for the Olympics in Congress. He didn't hold any office, and most assuredly didn't have the vote, but Rick Santorum was in Congress at that time. He could have stepped forward and started a campaign to stop federal funding of the Olympics, but he didn't. He and his crony democrat supporters should all be answering the questions where were they and what were they doing when the federal government chose to spend money to insure security, and preparations for the games. Santorum was also in office when money was allocated to pay for planning and security for the Atlanta games held in 1996.
The 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah Winter Olympic games were the first since September 11, 2001, which meant a higher level of security than ever before was provided for the Games.
The Office of Homeland Security (OHS) designated the Olympics a National Special Security Event (NSSE).
Aerial surveillance and radar control was provided by the Marines of Marine Air Control Squadron 2 det C, from Cherry Point NC.
When he spoke during the opening ceremonies, Jacques Rogge, presiding over his first olympics as IOC president, told the athletes of the United States, the host country:
"Your nation is overcoming a horrific tragedy, a tragedy that has affected the whole world. We stand united with you in the promotion of our common ideals, and hope for world peace."
Questions About Taxpayer Money Spent On Olympics
OLYMPIC GAMES
United States General Accounting Office GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
Preliminary Information on Federal Funding and Support to John McCain:
December 21, 1999
The majority of the federal funding and support agencies reported providing to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games held in Atlanta and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games is reported to be for infrastructure projects to prepare the host city for the Olympic Games—projects that will also benefit the host city and state after the Games are held. However, although the completion of these projects was generally accelerated because of the Olympic Games, most of the funding for these activities probably would have eventually been provided to the host city regardless of the Games, according to federal and state officials.
For example, federal funding and support for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta totaled about $605 million and involved 24 federal organizations. Of this amount, about $184 million was spent on activities provided during the planning and staging of the Olympic Games, including about $92 million for safety- and security-related services, which would not have been used for this purpose if the Games had not been hosted there. About $421 million was spent for highway, transit, public housing, and other capital projects related to preparing Atlanta for the Games. According to federal and state officials, most of the $421 million would eventually have been provided to Georgia, regardless of the Olympic Games.
About $1.4 billion in federal funding and support is planned or has been provided for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City and involves 18 federal organizations. Of this amount, about $272 million is planned or has been provided for activities during the planning and staging of the Olympic Games, including about $200 million for safety- and security related services, which would not have been used for this purpose if the Games were not being hosted there. About $1.1 billion is planned or has
been provided for highway, transit, and other capital improvement projects that appear to be related to preparing the host city for the Olympic Games. According to federal and state officials, most of the $1.1 billion would have been eventually provided to Utah, regardless of the Olympic Games.
Again I don't see Rick Santorum being involved in questioning the use of taxpayer money being spent on Olympics being held in the U.S.
The Olympics In the 20th and 21st centuries
The host city for an Olympic Games is usually chosen seven years ahead of their celebration. The process of selection is carried out in two phases that span a two-year period. The prospective host city applies to its country's Olympic Committee; if more than one city from the same country submits a proposal to its NOC, the national committee typically holds an internal selection, since only one city per NOC can be presented to the International Olympic Committee for consideration.
The United States has hosted four Summer and four Winter Olympics, more than any other nation.
Summer Olympics
1904 - St. Louis, Missouri United States
1932 - Los Angeles, California United States
1984 - Los Angeles, California United States
1996 - Atlanta, Georgia United States
Winter Olympics
1932 - Lake Placid, N.Y., United States
1960 - Squaw Valley, California, United States
1980 - Lake Placid, New York, United States
2002 - Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics
In 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was on the verge of collapse. The event had been bogged down in a bid-rigging scandal, sponsors were fleeing, and the budget was bleeding red ink. The bribery scandal did present an image problem for the games. Then Utah Governor Mike Leavitt was determined to find the right person to lead the games out of doubt and into success. Thanks to his reputation as a superb manager, Mitt Romney was asked by the Governor to take over.
"So I needed someone who could turn it around A person who could stand on the international stage and be viable and respected. A person who could turn the Olympics process itself around from just a dollar and cents point and then a person who raise and reignite the Olympic spirit again in Utah. And I think we got the right guy," said Leavitt."I'm immediately going to work with my staff as well to evaluate carefully the budgets that we have and make sure that we consider alternative budget levels, so that regardless of the revenue level we have, we spend within the amount of money that we take in. No shortfall, no shortfall is acceptable," said Romney in his acceptance speech to the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee.
Romney got to work wooing corporate sponsors and repairing the image of the games. He hired his former Bain Capital partner Fraser Bullock to be his Chief Operations and financial Officer. After accepting the job, Fraser Bullock worked alongside Romney every day for the next three years. He remembers Mitt's frugal sensibility.
"He turned what was a cost center into a profit center and that message permeated throughout our entire organization because we were poor. We didn't have any choice and we watched every penny," said Romney.Fraser Bullock maintains that Romney's strong personality and unyielding work ethic restored the image of the games.
"So he (Romney) hired his own team of several very capable marketing and sales people and he went around the country himself with those people to raise money himself. And so when I say he's relentless if it needs to get done, he hires good people, he does the best that he can - but occasionally he'll even step in and do it himself, because he will not fail," said Fraser Bullock.Tax Payer Money And The Olympics
President Bill Clinton established a White House task force to coordinate federal involvement in the 1996 Atlanta, Georgia summer olympics which would have been selected as the host city in 1989 during George H.W. Bush's presidency, and the 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah winter olympics, which would have been selected as the host city in 1995 during Clinton's presidency.
In 1999 Mitt Romney wasn't a congressman, or a governor. He was a citizen with a great deal of business experience. He didn't have the ability to budget money for the Olympics in Congress. He didn't hold any office, and most assuredly didn't have the vote, but Rick Santorum was in Congress at that time. He could have stepped forward and started a campaign to stop federal funding of the Olympics, but he didn't. He and his crony democrat supporters should all be answering the questions where were they and what were they doing when the federal government chose to spend money to insure security, and preparations for the games. Santorum was also in office when money was allocated to pay for planning and security for the Atlanta games held in 1996.
The 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah Winter Olympic games were the first since September 11, 2001, which meant a higher level of security than ever before was provided for the Games.
Aerial surveillance and radar control was provided by the Marines of Marine Air Control Squadron 2 det C, from Cherry Point NC.
When he spoke during the opening ceremonies, Jacques Rogge, presiding over his first olympics as IOC president, told the athletes of the United States, the host country:
"Your nation is overcoming a horrific tragedy, a tragedy that has affected the whole world. We stand united with you in the promotion of our common ideals, and hope for world peace."
Questions About Taxpayer Money Spent On Olympics
OLYMPIC GAMES
United States General Accounting Office GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
Preliminary Information on Federal Funding and Support to John McCain:
December 21, 1999
The majority of the federal funding and support agencies reported providing to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games held in Atlanta and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games is reported to be for infrastructure projects to prepare the host city for the Olympic Games—projects that will also benefit the host city and state after the Games are held. However, although the completion of these projects was generally accelerated because of the Olympic Games, most of the funding for these activities probably would have eventually been provided to the host city regardless of the Games, according to federal and state officials.
For example, federal funding and support for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta totaled about $605 million and involved 24 federal organizations. Of this amount, about $184 million was spent on activities provided during the planning and staging of the Olympic Games, including about $92 million for safety- and security-related services, which would not have been used for this purpose if the Games had not been hosted there. About $421 million was spent for highway, transit, public housing, and other capital projects related to preparing Atlanta for the Games. According to federal and state officials, most of the $421 million would eventually have been provided to Georgia, regardless of the Olympic Games.
About $1.4 billion in federal funding and support is planned or has been provided for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City and involves 18 federal organizations. Of this amount, about $272 million is planned or has been provided for activities during the planning and staging of the Olympic Games, including about $200 million for safety- and security related services, which would not have been used for this purpose if the Games were not being hosted there. About $1.1 billion is planned or has
been provided for highway, transit, and other capital improvement projects that appear to be related to preparing the host city for the Olympic Games. According to federal and state officials, most of the $1.1 billion would have been eventually provided to Utah, regardless of the Olympic Games.
Again I don't see Rick Santorum being involved in questioning the use of taxpayer money being spent on Olympics being held in the U.S.
Offend, Demonize, and Belittle
First they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was an ardent nationalist and prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Niemöller, like most of his compatriots, was largely silent about the persecution and mass murder of the European Jews. Only in 1963, in a West German television interview, did Niemöller acknowledge and make a statement of regret about his own antisemitism.
A "stereotype" is a generalization about a person or group of persons. Stereotypes are developed when we don't obtain all the information necessary to make fair judgments about people or situations. Society often creates and perpetuates stereotypes. These stereotypes lead to discrimination and persecution.
Some prejudice has been passed down from generation to generation. It is usually the case, however, that the passions of hatred against minorities by members of the majority are stirred up by charismatic leaders who exploit latent hatreds for their own political ends. These leaders are called "demagogues," and they depend upon propaganda and disinformation to achieve their ends. Many demagogues have been successful because people want to believe there is a simple cause of an existing problem. Through the use of propaganda techniques, persuasive arguments are made that one group or another is to blame for all the problems.
During the 2008 elections I surfed the net, and visited many forums where people were encouraged to express their opinions concerning the candidates, and the election issues. The one thing I noticed above all else was whenever someone spoke out against the policies, political track record, or ideologies of Obama his supporters invariably responded with accusations of racial bias. People who disagreed with Obama's stance on abortion, or any other political statement were called stupid, racist, and a host of other nasty expletives. It really didn't matter what the subject being debated was, the response was usually the same. There rarely appeared a comprehensive argument establishing the Obama supporter's basis for advocating his/her candidate. The mechanism used to defend their candidate was very simple: Offend, demonize, and belittle. I might add that this same rhetoric has been used in the Obama presidency: Target and offend a specific group or idea, demonize everyone who agrees with them, and belittle the intelligence of anyone who questions.
In 19th century Europe, Jews were classified as an "inferior" race with specific physical and personality characteristics. They were highlighted as a "foreign element," which could contaminate the native stock and culture and potentially dominate the population economically and politically. This long-standing history provided a seed-bed for the Nazi ideology and program of genocide. The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community. During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups because of their perceived "racial inferiority": Roma (Gypsies), the disabled, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others) as well as blacks. Others were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals.
In the 1800s another group was deemed a political threat to the powers that were. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints felt that Jackson County, Missouri was a place where they could settle and worship as they believed without persecution. However, Missourians hated the Mormons, (a bigoted label placed upon members of the church), mostly because they presented political opposition to those already inhabiting the area. The Mormons came in such a big group that the people who lived there originally thought they would hold political domination over the issues that required a vote. This is one of the reasons the people of Missouri tried to withhold the vote from the L.D.S. settlers at that time. The people of Missouri assumed these Latter Day Saints would vote in a block vote and decided to prevent them from doing so. This erupted in violence when the Missouri governor issued the famous “extermination order” which allowed the legal extermination of the Mormons, and they were driven again by mob violence in the dead of winter to Quincy, Illinois. This extermination order of Governor Boggs, and the era of the holocaust during the Nazi Regime have one very prominent concept in common. Both political entities ordered the extermination of a people.
The concept of equal rights for women is as old as the ancient Greeks; the Greek philosopher Plato advocated for equality between the sexes in his Republic. Few civilizations have even approached this equality, however, and it has only been in modern times that women have been granted legal rights which were routinely applied only to men. Actual equality in society has lagged far behind legal emancipation, many believe. The idea that all men and women are created egual is supposed to be the foundation of our Republic. Sadly, however, that equality is still a dream we are striving to attain. Women have had to fight for the right to vote, to own property, to go to school, to be paid the same as their male counterparts, and to serve in the armed forces, to name but a few. The plight of women seeking equality is mirrored by those who have suffered racial inequality.
Part of the problem is information handed down from generation to generation such as is the case of anti-semitism. Other prejudices are fostered by people being perceived as different from the majority. Skin color, religious beliefs, ethnic traditions, and lifestyle become the target of distrust simply because they are different. We end up with a socirety where one religion is pitted against another, wars are waged because of skin color, lifestyle choices become the target of hatred.
In this freedom for all society that our forefathers conceived the negative ramifications caused by fear and bias towards one another is usually propogated, and promoted by Demagogues with one ulterior motive; a power grab. If they can stir up emotions and fears among a group of people who in turn will rise against another group they have accomplished their goal. While the groups fight amongst themselves about who is right, and who is wrong the demagogues slide in under a cloak of darkness, (if you will), and win whatever power they sought.
Mr. Niemöller's words ring true today just as they did back in the day they were uttered. It is our duty, and our obligation as American citizens to speak out when we read or hear aspertions being cast because of religious, racial, sexist, or any other type of bigotry. It is also our duty and obligation to look around to find the demagogue behind the movement that creates such situations and to expose their ulterior motives. When the athiest comes to take away religion, or when a preacher comes to take away another's right to believe as they choose I will be there even though I may disagree with both of them. I will also defend the right of equality for everyone no matter their race, their sex, or their ethnic background. This is not a view limited to a right or left wing political belief. It is an American belief.
What’s In A Name? Why a Politician’s Character Matters
When I was a teen I was lucky enough to have a great grandfather who lived nearby. I was old enough, and he lived long enough for me to appreciate his wisdom. Grandfather died six months before his hundredth birthday. He told me that the only thing we truly owned in this life was our name. He went on to say that whatever we said, or did was a reflection on that name. I am not going to pretend that I have never tarnished my name, (I am no angel), but I remember grandfather’s words, and they constantly remind me that my name is all I really own. I also am not, nor do I ever plan to run for public office.
During this election cycle I have been amazed at the comments left on sites pertaining to the character of the candidates, and how some think the character of a man is unimportant. If character has no worth then why do we lock up thieves, and con-men? Why are there so many jokes about unethical lawyers, and used car salesmen? Why do very few people trust politicians? Somewhere along the line these professions developed an unsavory reputation. The names of the professions have become synonymous with lying, cheating, narcissism, and unethical. I know I’m old and the attitude of the world has evolved into something that would have been unacceptable in my younger years, and quite uncommon in my grandfather’s day, but where do we draw the line?
If a man cheats on his wife, and family, then he’s a cheater. If he does it repeatedly he’s a serial cheater. Someone who is prone to cheating might not consider cheating on their taxes as wrong. Keeping their promises might not be high on their list of standards to live by. It’s possible that they are the ones who would copy someone else’s test paper, drive away after hitting your car in the parking lot, or not taking an unpaid for item back to the store. How can anyone ever trust a known cheater? It’s true that a cheater can change. People do, but that person will spend the rest of their lives fighting the impulse to cheat. I just don’t think a person with such a character defect should be in a position, (such as President Of The United States), and have the power to affect the lives of so many people.
Another part of character is admitting when we are wrong, as well as standing up for what we think is right. I remember the show ‘Happy Days’ the character named Fonzie couldn’t bring himself to say the words “I was wrong”. The story-lines, and the ability of the actors to pull it off made the subject very funny, and somehow acceptable. We all recognized the trait within ourselves. When we were kids it was easier to deny stealing cookies out of the cookie jar, than to admit that we had broken the rules. I’m not so sure that fear of punishment was the only inducement to lie about our actions. I think it’s more about looking good at all costs. Being considered not stupid somehow trumps admitting to doing something stupid. On the other hand if a person believes something they’ve done was right, then they are bound to stand by their action, and defend it.
There is no difference between living your life by the standards you believe in, and standing strong when it comes to questions about your actions. Of course if your actions, or beliefs were underhanded, or devious, and caused harm to others then defending those beliefs, or actions is redundant. It seems today that the officials we’ve elected live in tremendous fear of being found out. They claim to believe in lower taxes until it comes time to vote. They tell you big government is their greatest adversary until you look at their voting record. They justify, explain, and defend their stupid actions. Very rarely do they admit that their actions over the years have cost the citizenry a secure future. I don’t recall ever hearing a politician admit that the earmarks they endorsed that brought home the bacon to their state hurt all the states. It’s a character flaw. Politicians should be bound by the doctor’s oath of ‘do no harm’.
After 9-11 we heard story after story of the brave men and women who ran into the burning, collapsing twin towers trying to help others. We wept as we heard the recorded phone calls made by passengers on United Airline’s Flight 93, and learned of their courageous actions to save the lives of those who were targeted in the attack on our nation. I never read a comment from anyone on any on-line forum, or news report that said the character of the 9-11 heroes wasn’t important. The names of all those who lost their lives that day are memorialized.
Today we honor the names of those who died, or who were wounded in combat. Everyone of these individuals showed a tremendous strength of character, and honored the only thing they most assuredly owned in their life; their name. Is it too much to ask that those already elected, and the campaign hopefuls display this same strength of character?
During this election cycle I have been amazed at the comments left on sites pertaining to the character of the candidates, and how some think the character of a man is unimportant. If character has no worth then why do we lock up thieves, and con-men? Why are there so many jokes about unethical lawyers, and used car salesmen? Why do very few people trust politicians? Somewhere along the line these professions developed an unsavory reputation. The names of the professions have become synonymous with lying, cheating, narcissism, and unethical. I know I’m old and the attitude of the world has evolved into something that would have been unacceptable in my younger years, and quite uncommon in my grandfather’s day, but where do we draw the line?
If a man cheats on his wife, and family, then he’s a cheater. If he does it repeatedly he’s a serial cheater. Someone who is prone to cheating might not consider cheating on their taxes as wrong. Keeping their promises might not be high on their list of standards to live by. It’s possible that they are the ones who would copy someone else’s test paper, drive away after hitting your car in the parking lot, or not taking an unpaid for item back to the store. How can anyone ever trust a known cheater? It’s true that a cheater can change. People do, but that person will spend the rest of their lives fighting the impulse to cheat. I just don’t think a person with such a character defect should be in a position, (such as President Of The United States), and have the power to affect the lives of so many people.
Another part of character is admitting when we are wrong, as well as standing up for what we think is right. I remember the show ‘Happy Days’ the character named Fonzie couldn’t bring himself to say the words “I was wrong”. The story-lines, and the ability of the actors to pull it off made the subject very funny, and somehow acceptable. We all recognized the trait within ourselves. When we were kids it was easier to deny stealing cookies out of the cookie jar, than to admit that we had broken the rules. I’m not so sure that fear of punishment was the only inducement to lie about our actions. I think it’s more about looking good at all costs. Being considered not stupid somehow trumps admitting to doing something stupid. On the other hand if a person believes something they’ve done was right, then they are bound to stand by their action, and defend it.
There is no difference between living your life by the standards you believe in, and standing strong when it comes to questions about your actions. Of course if your actions, or beliefs were underhanded, or devious, and caused harm to others then defending those beliefs, or actions is redundant. It seems today that the officials we’ve elected live in tremendous fear of being found out. They claim to believe in lower taxes until it comes time to vote. They tell you big government is their greatest adversary until you look at their voting record. They justify, explain, and defend their stupid actions. Very rarely do they admit that their actions over the years have cost the citizenry a secure future. I don’t recall ever hearing a politician admit that the earmarks they endorsed that brought home the bacon to their state hurt all the states. It’s a character flaw. Politicians should be bound by the doctor’s oath of ‘do no harm’.
After 9-11 we heard story after story of the brave men and women who ran into the burning, collapsing twin towers trying to help others. We wept as we heard the recorded phone calls made by passengers on United Airline’s Flight 93, and learned of their courageous actions to save the lives of those who were targeted in the attack on our nation. I never read a comment from anyone on any on-line forum, or news report that said the character of the 9-11 heroes wasn’t important. The names of all those who lost their lives that day are memorialized.
Today we honor the names of those who died, or who were wounded in combat. Everyone of these individuals showed a tremendous strength of character, and honored the only thing they most assuredly owned in their life; their name. Is it too much to ask that those already elected, and the campaign hopefuls display this same strength of character?
Is The Media Biased Against Romney?
The Center for Media and Public Affairs a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, which is affiliated with George Mason University did a study and produced a press release entitled: Study: TV News Bashes Romney, Boosts Horse Race. I knew there was bias against Romney in the news, but didn’t realize it was obvious to so many people.
According to the study: Frontrunner Mitt Romney is getting by far the most negative press of the GOP field, according to a new study of television news coverage by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. The study also found that the campaign horse race is getting over six times as much coverage as the candidates’ positions on policy issues. According to CMPA director and George Mason University professor Robert Lichter, “The media love a horse race and hate a frontrunner.”
This study covered 118 stories on the Republican primaries from January 1 to the January 10 (2012), New Hampshire primary on the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX (the first half hour of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report”, which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation). This is the first release from CMPA’s ongoing 2012 Election News Watch Project.
Bad News for Romney Mitt Romney was the only major candidate to receive a majority of negative evaluations by sources and reporters, on both the broadcast network nightly news and FOX “Special Report.” (We measured evaluative comments about the candidates’ behavior, past records, issue positions, personal character, etc. However, we excluded comments about how they were faring in the campaign horse race.)
Broadcast Results On the broadcast networks, evaluative comments of Romney were 78% negative vs. only 22% positive. By contrast, on-air judgments of Ron Paul were 73% positive vs. 27% negative, evaluations of Jon Huntsman were 71% positive vs. 29% negative, Rick Santorum’s evaluations were 56% positive vs. 44% negative, and comments about Newt Gingrich were 52% positive vs. 48% negative. Other candidates received too few evaluations to be statistically meaningful.
FOX Results Romney fared slightly better on FOX “Special Report”, than on the networks, with 63% negative vs. 37% positive evaluations. By contrast, Ron Paul fared less well than he did on the networks, with evenly balanced coverage — 50% negative and 50% positive comments. Rick Santorum did best on FOX with 63% positive vs. 37% negative judgments. These were the only candidates who received enough evaluations on FOX for meaningful analysis.
I knew that MSNBC was 100% in the tank for Obama followed closely by the other major networks, but was amazed at the negative attitude coming from Fox who supposedly is fair and balanced. According to the study 2/3 of the news reports concerning Romney on one Fox show “Special Report” was negative. That’s only one show. Fox runs 24 hours a day.
The New York Times ran an article on January 17, 2012 entitled ‘A Spare Lectern and Little Left to Chance at Republican Debate’. The article covered a debate prep session with Bret Baier and other Fox pundits involved in the debate. According to the Times article: “It is one of the quirks of the 2012 campaign: the number of debates seems not to have diminished their significance or the expectation that they should create a media moment. In fact, as the Republican field shrinks, Mr. Baier and Fox view themselves as one of the last lines of defense to fully litigate Mr. Romney’s record before millions of viewers.”
I found that last line especially interesting. Baier sees his job as someone who needs to fully litigate Mr. Romney’s record. The word litigate is defined as: ‘to make the subject of a lawsuit; contest at law.‘
To prove or disprove my theory that the media is showing extreme bias against Mitt Romney I did a search on google.com and used the search words Romney, CPAC. Here’s the list of article titles that came up today in that search:
CBS: Romney has to persuade voters — not tell them — he’s the right candidate
MSNBC: Romney retools stump speech to emphasize leadership
Daily Beast: CPAC’s Enthusiastic Crowd Polled for Romney and Cheered for Palin
Washington Post: Mitt Romney, CPAC and the chance of brokered convention
Chicago Tribune: At CPAC, It’s Rick vs. Mitt: Dueling GOP candidates make their conservative pitch
Associated Press: Romney Tops Santorum in CPAC Straw Poll
State Column: Rick Santorum: Mitt Romney rigged the CPAC straw poll
Talk Radio News: Why Mitt Romney Won The CPAC Straw Poll
Politico (blog): Romney worked the CPAC straw poll
CNN: Surging, stagnating, staying relevant in GOP race
The Guardian: CPAC settles for Mitt Romney’s ‘severe conservative’ routine
New York Post: Rick Santorum dismisses Romney’s Maine, CPAC wins; suggests Romney may have paid for CPAC votes
USA Today: Romney to stick with conservative message
Los Angelas Times: Santorum says he backs working women, hints CPAC poll was rigged
The Week Magazine: Mitt Romney’s disputed CPAC and Maine wins: What they mean
Christian Service Monitor: CPAC: After a tough week, Romney wins conservative straw poll
My research has convinced me that the media is indeed biased against Governor Romney. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. My next question is, why? This is supposition on my part, but I think I’ve figured it out. The media leans left and favors the democrat party. That is a given, and not even disputed anymore by anybody. Since there is only one democrat running for president in the 2012 election the media will report in favor of that democrat. This seems purely logical, right? If the media is targeting one republican candidate above the other candidates then they must figure that candidate to be their biggest threat when it comes to their candidate winning the election.
Since Governor Romney is the man receiving the negative attention from the media, it stands to reason that the candidate that the current occupant of the White House doesn’t want to run against is Romney. Promoting his competitors to win the republican nomination would be a slick way to prevent Obama having to face Romney in the general election. He might be forced to defend his record, instead of debating social issues with someone like Rick Santorum.
According to the study: Frontrunner Mitt Romney is getting by far the most negative press of the GOP field, according to a new study of television news coverage by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. The study also found that the campaign horse race is getting over six times as much coverage as the candidates’ positions on policy issues. According to CMPA director and George Mason University professor Robert Lichter, “The media love a horse race and hate a frontrunner.”
This study covered 118 stories on the Republican primaries from January 1 to the January 10 (2012), New Hampshire primary on the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX (the first half hour of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report”, which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation). This is the first release from CMPA’s ongoing 2012 Election News Watch Project.
Bad News for Romney Mitt Romney was the only major candidate to receive a majority of negative evaluations by sources and reporters, on both the broadcast network nightly news and FOX “Special Report.” (We measured evaluative comments about the candidates’ behavior, past records, issue positions, personal character, etc. However, we excluded comments about how they were faring in the campaign horse race.)
Broadcast Results On the broadcast networks, evaluative comments of Romney were 78% negative vs. only 22% positive. By contrast, on-air judgments of Ron Paul were 73% positive vs. 27% negative, evaluations of Jon Huntsman were 71% positive vs. 29% negative, Rick Santorum’s evaluations were 56% positive vs. 44% negative, and comments about Newt Gingrich were 52% positive vs. 48% negative. Other candidates received too few evaluations to be statistically meaningful.
FOX Results Romney fared slightly better on FOX “Special Report”, than on the networks, with 63% negative vs. 37% positive evaluations. By contrast, Ron Paul fared less well than he did on the networks, with evenly balanced coverage — 50% negative and 50% positive comments. Rick Santorum did best on FOX with 63% positive vs. 37% negative judgments. These were the only candidates who received enough evaluations on FOX for meaningful analysis.
I knew that MSNBC was 100% in the tank for Obama followed closely by the other major networks, but was amazed at the negative attitude coming from Fox who supposedly is fair and balanced. According to the study 2/3 of the news reports concerning Romney on one Fox show “Special Report” was negative. That’s only one show. Fox runs 24 hours a day.
The New York Times ran an article on January 17, 2012 entitled ‘A Spare Lectern and Little Left to Chance at Republican Debate’. The article covered a debate prep session with Bret Baier and other Fox pundits involved in the debate. According to the Times article: “It is one of the quirks of the 2012 campaign: the number of debates seems not to have diminished their significance or the expectation that they should create a media moment. In fact, as the Republican field shrinks, Mr. Baier and Fox view themselves as one of the last lines of defense to fully litigate Mr. Romney’s record before millions of viewers.”
I found that last line especially interesting. Baier sees his job as someone who needs to fully litigate Mr. Romney’s record. The word litigate is defined as: ‘to make the subject of a lawsuit; contest at law.‘
To prove or disprove my theory that the media is showing extreme bias against Mitt Romney I did a search on google.com and used the search words Romney, CPAC. Here’s the list of article titles that came up today in that search:
CBS: Romney has to persuade voters — not tell them — he’s the right candidate
MSNBC: Romney retools stump speech to emphasize leadership
Daily Beast: CPAC’s Enthusiastic Crowd Polled for Romney and Cheered for Palin
Washington Post: Mitt Romney, CPAC and the chance of brokered convention
Chicago Tribune: At CPAC, It’s Rick vs. Mitt: Dueling GOP candidates make their conservative pitch
Associated Press: Romney Tops Santorum in CPAC Straw Poll
State Column: Rick Santorum: Mitt Romney rigged the CPAC straw poll
Talk Radio News: Why Mitt Romney Won The CPAC Straw Poll
Politico (blog): Romney worked the CPAC straw poll
CNN: Surging, stagnating, staying relevant in GOP race
The Guardian: CPAC settles for Mitt Romney’s ‘severe conservative’ routine
New York Post: Rick Santorum dismisses Romney’s Maine, CPAC wins; suggests Romney may have paid for CPAC votes
USA Today: Romney to stick with conservative message
Los Angelas Times: Santorum says he backs working women, hints CPAC poll was rigged
The Week Magazine: Mitt Romney’s disputed CPAC and Maine wins: What they mean
Christian Service Monitor: CPAC: After a tough week, Romney wins conservative straw poll
My research has convinced me that the media is indeed biased against Governor Romney. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. My next question is, why? This is supposition on my part, but I think I’ve figured it out. The media leans left and favors the democrat party. That is a given, and not even disputed anymore by anybody. Since there is only one democrat running for president in the 2012 election the media will report in favor of that democrat. This seems purely logical, right? If the media is targeting one republican candidate above the other candidates then they must figure that candidate to be their biggest threat when it comes to their candidate winning the election.
Since Governor Romney is the man receiving the negative attention from the media, it stands to reason that the candidate that the current occupant of the White House doesn’t want to run against is Romney. Promoting his competitors to win the republican nomination would be a slick way to prevent Obama having to face Romney in the general election. He might be forced to defend his record, instead of debating social issues with someone like Rick Santorum.
Obama’s Real Intentions
According to Reuters, “In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years — $1.3 billion — despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.”
After reading the article, I asked myself why? I was under the impression that this country was in debt, and nobody in Washington, including the president, has made any serious headway towards designing, and passing a budget that would get us out of debt. There’s been a lot of bills coming out of the House that never seem to make it to the floor of the senate. There’s been a lot of press releases covering the White House, and congress concerning their intentions to get this country back on a sound fiscal base. However, I don’t recall actually seeing our government do anything but talk about it.
Perhaps the problem is we have too many talkers, and not enough doers. There seems to be some kind of criteria for elected officials to be good debaters. There doesn’t, however, seem to be a big vetting system on elected officials when it comes to being people who have a knack for actually accomplishing things.
Congressman Paul Ryan came up with a budget proposal many months ago that had all the facts and figures put together in a plan that could have worked. The democratic party ran negative ad campaigns against Ryan’s plan showing a Ryan look-alike pushing a granny off a cliff. Instead of looking at the plan and trying to work with it, the do-nothings wasted their time and energy denigrating the proposal. The president gave it a thumbs down, and everybody went on like we weren’t borrowing money from China, in debt over our heads, and slowly but surely heading down the same road as Greece.
Rep. Ron Wyden (D) and Rep Paul Ryan (R)
I was glad to note that Governor Romney had taken the time to look the plan over and applaud its ideas. I was also glad to see that Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who happens to be a democrat, had worked with Republican Rep. Ryan on the plan. Isn’t this what we elect these people to do? I don’t recall hearing any big announcements that more Republicans and Democrats are rolling up their sleeves, and working to turn the Ryan plan into a bi-partisan American plan. Too many officials on the Capitol Hill are too busy trying to one-up the other guy, to do what is necessary to save this nation. The worst offender, of course, is the president, who only seems to be able to come up with budget proposals that run us even deeper into debt.
This same president is running for reelection. Apparently, he is fighting for reelection on several fronts, all of which he has created, but they all lead to one goal. His over-all plan is to divide the country in as many ways as possible. He has labeled congress as the do-nothing bunch, and he’s run a year-long campaign of class warfare against American citizens. He is attacking those who’ve succeeded financially, and those who’ve been elected to make, and uphold our federal laws. He also promotes racial division at every opportunity. His latest campaign strategy involves pitting the federal government against religion, a clear violation of the United States constitution – the same constitution he swore to uphold.
President Obama has been in office three years, and ever since he and his Democrat allies lost total control of the House in 2010, he’s been campaigning, not leading. It is beyond unethical. It’s reprehensible. I believe Barack Obama’s ultimate goal is to divide the people of this nation so deeply that it creates another civil war. Should he succeed, the civil war won’t be north against south. It will be the republic against socialism, and it could lead to the ultimate collapse of the United States of America. A bankrupt and divided America cannot stand.
There is hope, however. I believe, with all my being, that electing Mitt Romney as our next president will resolve the dilemma we are facing. Romney has proven that he can work with elected officials who have a different point of view, and he has demonstrated the ability to get things done. The legislature in Massachusetts was 85% Democrat while Romney was governor. Romney was able to turn their financial debt around and the state coffers ended up with a surplus. Governor Romney didn’t spend his time trying to create rifts between the citizens of the state.
Another item in Romney’s successful history is how he saved the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. They were plagued with a horrible scandal, nearly bankrupt, and on the verge of being cancelled. Mitt came in, looked at all the problems, came up with solutions, and turned what would have been a devastating black-eye on our nation’s reputation into a successful, and very profitable adventure. As CEO of Bain Capital, he also demonstrated the ability to turn hundreds of troubled businesses around and make them profitable again. I believe with his talent for financial turnarounds, he will be able to push the reset button and get America back on track. I also believe that his strong love of country, and deep patriotism will help to heal the contention that the Obama regime has created.
I’ve looked over the other candidates, and although they all have good points, they all have one thing in common. They’ve all spent a lifetime of being part of the problem that exists in this nation’s capital, instead of the solution. Each has contributed some very positive things, but none of them have managed to step forward at any point in time and say enough is enough. The House freshmen last year made more headway than any of the other candidates did in their entire careers as elected officials. Perhaps that’s the problem. They all became career politicians instead of spending some time in Washington fixing a problem, and then going home as a citizen to live within the laws, and nightmares they helped to create.
Mitt has no desire to stay in Washington after his presidency. If elected for one, or the maximum two terms he’ll do his job and then go home. He won’t be hanging around trying to make money as a lobbyist, influence peddler, or anything else. That’s is the kind of attitude all politicians should develop.
After reading the article, I asked myself why? I was under the impression that this country was in debt, and nobody in Washington, including the president, has made any serious headway towards designing, and passing a budget that would get us out of debt. There’s been a lot of bills coming out of the House that never seem to make it to the floor of the senate. There’s been a lot of press releases covering the White House, and congress concerning their intentions to get this country back on a sound fiscal base. However, I don’t recall actually seeing our government do anything but talk about it.
Perhaps the problem is we have too many talkers, and not enough doers. There seems to be some kind of criteria for elected officials to be good debaters. There doesn’t, however, seem to be a big vetting system on elected officials when it comes to being people who have a knack for actually accomplishing things.
Congressman Paul Ryan came up with a budget proposal many months ago that had all the facts and figures put together in a plan that could have worked. The democratic party ran negative ad campaigns against Ryan’s plan showing a Ryan look-alike pushing a granny off a cliff. Instead of looking at the plan and trying to work with it, the do-nothings wasted their time and energy denigrating the proposal. The president gave it a thumbs down, and everybody went on like we weren’t borrowing money from China, in debt over our heads, and slowly but surely heading down the same road as Greece.
Rep. Ron Wyden (D) and Rep Paul Ryan (R)
I was glad to note that Governor Romney had taken the time to look the plan over and applaud its ideas. I was also glad to see that Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who happens to be a democrat, had worked with Republican Rep. Ryan on the plan. Isn’t this what we elect these people to do? I don’t recall hearing any big announcements that more Republicans and Democrats are rolling up their sleeves, and working to turn the Ryan plan into a bi-partisan American plan. Too many officials on the Capitol Hill are too busy trying to one-up the other guy, to do what is necessary to save this nation. The worst offender, of course, is the president, who only seems to be able to come up with budget proposals that run us even deeper into debt.
This same president is running for reelection. Apparently, he is fighting for reelection on several fronts, all of which he has created, but they all lead to one goal. His over-all plan is to divide the country in as many ways as possible. He has labeled congress as the do-nothing bunch, and he’s run a year-long campaign of class warfare against American citizens. He is attacking those who’ve succeeded financially, and those who’ve been elected to make, and uphold our federal laws. He also promotes racial division at every opportunity. His latest campaign strategy involves pitting the federal government against religion, a clear violation of the United States constitution – the same constitution he swore to uphold.
President Obama has been in office three years, and ever since he and his Democrat allies lost total control of the House in 2010, he’s been campaigning, not leading. It is beyond unethical. It’s reprehensible. I believe Barack Obama’s ultimate goal is to divide the people of this nation so deeply that it creates another civil war. Should he succeed, the civil war won’t be north against south. It will be the republic against socialism, and it could lead to the ultimate collapse of the United States of America. A bankrupt and divided America cannot stand.
There is hope, however. I believe, with all my being, that electing Mitt Romney as our next president will resolve the dilemma we are facing. Romney has proven that he can work with elected officials who have a different point of view, and he has demonstrated the ability to get things done. The legislature in Massachusetts was 85% Democrat while Romney was governor. Romney was able to turn their financial debt around and the state coffers ended up with a surplus. Governor Romney didn’t spend his time trying to create rifts between the citizens of the state.
Another item in Romney’s successful history is how he saved the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. They were plagued with a horrible scandal, nearly bankrupt, and on the verge of being cancelled. Mitt came in, looked at all the problems, came up with solutions, and turned what would have been a devastating black-eye on our nation’s reputation into a successful, and very profitable adventure. As CEO of Bain Capital, he also demonstrated the ability to turn hundreds of troubled businesses around and make them profitable again. I believe with his talent for financial turnarounds, he will be able to push the reset button and get America back on track. I also believe that his strong love of country, and deep patriotism will help to heal the contention that the Obama regime has created.
I’ve looked over the other candidates, and although they all have good points, they all have one thing in common. They’ve all spent a lifetime of being part of the problem that exists in this nation’s capital, instead of the solution. Each has contributed some very positive things, but none of them have managed to step forward at any point in time and say enough is enough. The House freshmen last year made more headway than any of the other candidates did in their entire careers as elected officials. Perhaps that’s the problem. They all became career politicians instead of spending some time in Washington fixing a problem, and then going home as a citizen to live within the laws, and nightmares they helped to create.
Mitt has no desire to stay in Washington after his presidency. If elected for one, or the maximum two terms he’ll do his job and then go home. He won’t be hanging around trying to make money as a lobbyist, influence peddler, or anything else. That’s is the kind of attitude all politicians should develop.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
A Conspiracy Theory Part 1
I've been watching the 2012 election with a great deal of interest this past many months and have come to some very startling, and saddening conclusions. I believe we are being played for fools, and perhaps we're too gullible to realize it.
Let's take a look at the last four candidates left in the Republican campaign to regain the White House. Alphabetically they are: Gingrich, Paul, Romney, and Santorum. Let's look at these candidates and see what they are offering.
Newt Gingrich The Man Who Would Be Emperor
Newt Gingrich, I beleive, started his campaign for president as a book and video promotion. I don't think he had any intention of really running for the office this election. He saw a golden opportunity to promote his books and videos on the campaign trail, and took it.
Newt has never run a national campaign before, but he's been around politics long enough to know that you have to get a campaign organized. You have to have people on the ground. You have to have a network, promotional items, advertisements, contact lists,command centers, transportation, plus a well thought out strategy. You need endorsements from people that the citizenry holds some regard for. Most of all you need financial backing, and a lot of it. Everything involved in running a successful campaign hinges on the behind the scenes organization. Instead of building such an organization Newt took a Caribbean cruise. Most of the staff he initially had quit in disgust.
What Newt had in his favor was the Fox News network singing his praises at every given opportunity. Let's not forget that Fox News has become the favorite network of most conservatives. Their motto of fair, balanced and unafraid has been sold, and the majority of Republican viewers have bought it. When Newt flopped Fox played it down. Day after day Fox pundits referred to him as the smartest man in the room, the greatest debater that ever was. We were inundated with them, and him comparing his life, his views, and his political career to that great conservative president Ronald Reagan. According to Fox Newt could do no wrong. He practically walked on water.
For years I've heard Hannity explain over, and over on his nightly show on Fox that Obama was never vetted. He has talked incessantly about Bill Ayers, Reverand Wright, and Obama's other questionable affiliations. Sean continually tells us how mainstream media never brought those things up during the 2008 campaign.
By the same token Hannity and the rest of the Fox news network doesn't talk about the things that Newt has said and done over the years. The accusations that Newt divorced his first wife after she'd been diagnosed with cancer to go marry his long-time mistress were skipped over. The fact that his ex-wife and children were penniless at one point and had to receive charitable aid from their church because Newt was a dead-beat dad wasn't brought up in Fox News conversations. No one reminded the public that Newt divorced his second wife after she was diagnosed with M.S. so that he could marry another woman he'd been having a long-time affair with. I don't recall Fox introducing Newt's excuse that having these affairs had made him more electable. Their only reference to the whole affair was that Newt had asked God for forgiveness. They down played the ABC with Newt's second wife where she told her side of the story. Most especially Fox never pointed out that while Newt was in charge of investigations concerning President Clinton's immoral behavior Newt himself a serial adulterer was carrying on his own affair while investigating the president's wrong-doings.
Newt's record as a congressman, and speaker of the house never came under scrutiny by any of the Fox teams. It has been questioned and published by various authors that Newt was brought up on ethics violations by the House. There are numerous accounts via old news footage, and public documents that Newt was found guilty of ethics violations by the house and in a majority vote was sanctioned and fined $300,000.00 by his fellow congressmen both Republican and Demmocrat. He says that it was all overturned, and that the $300,000.00 fine wasn't a fine at all but rather expenses being paid back. Nobody talks about Gingrich and the check kiting scandall. And noone calls a spade a spade when it comes to the influence peddling Newt was involved in during the fifteen years after he left the house.
When information about the real life and times of Newt Gingrich started coming forth via the internet, and other news sources, people began questioning his behavior. It was all brushed off with simple denials by Newt. "That never happened", he'd say. "That is a lie", he'd retort. Peers from his Congressional years began speaking out confirming the stories being reported were accurate. Videos from old newscasts, ads and documents showed up proving the allegations to be true. Newt just made more denials, and nobody, especially Fox, ever pushed him for the truth. Instead they aired campaign film clips of him everyday, and via their many programs kept his name floating in front of their viewers. The man called Newt got more free publicity than anyone I've ever seen.
It took several million dollars of ad campaigns by his opponents, some listless Gingrich debates, some very off the wall comments, and a loss in the Florida primary to force the man who talked himself into believing he would one day be emperor of the United States to expose his true self. By the end of the Nevada caucus he was running on very shaky ground.
He had no real support. His wild and wacky ideas such as starting a moon colony became a joke. He turned out to be a man who can only do well when things are going good. He accused debate moderators of being unfair, he said the crowds were too noisy, or too quiet. He called his opponents liars, accused them of being unconservative liberals, and was never called on the carpet for the lies he was spewing. When things got tough, he blamed it on everyone but himself, made a lot of excuses, and kept on talking without saying anything relevant. Reminds me a lot of President Obama. Newt's main foe in all this became Mitt Romney.
Mitt spent millions on ad campaigns that told the Newt story. His campaign had to spend the money, and redirect their campaign efforts to do the job that the media wasn't doing. Let's never forget that mainstream media in America is in the tank for the left, most especially President Obama. So, Newt had Fox News in his corner, Obama had the mainstream media protecting him, and Paul, Romney, and Santorum basically were on their own.
Speaking of Obama. I see his campaign team behind the rise and fall of Gingrich. I think initially their intention was to build Newt up and then bring him down during the general campaign. He was the ideal opponent for them to campaign against.
Everything there ever was, and ever will be about the man called Newt the Obama team already knew. He would have been the perfect candidate for Obama to campaign against. After a Newt nomination, it wouldn't take too many negative Obama ad campaigns to turn the most ardent conservative supporters away from that egotistical being who carries more baggage than all the airlines combined. Newt's defense would have been fits of anger, allegations of being treated unfairly by his opponent, by the media, by the elite D.C. insiders. He would have ended up standing alone on stage a lost and broken man wondering whatever happened to the idea of selling a few books and videos. In all this the Republican party would have lost another election.
The rise and fall of Newt gave Obama supporters some real entertainment, and welcome confidence. See, they can say, Republicans especially the conservative ones are stupid. It's so easy to defeat them. All you have to do is play the game. And play the game they did. Meanwhile Fox News is still waiting, and hoping their man Newt is going to make another comeback, and restore their faith in themselves. The conspiracy marches on.
Let's take a look at the last four candidates left in the Republican campaign to regain the White House. Alphabetically they are: Gingrich, Paul, Romney, and Santorum. Let's look at these candidates and see what they are offering.
Newt Gingrich The Man Who Would Be Emperor
Newt Gingrich, I beleive, started his campaign for president as a book and video promotion. I don't think he had any intention of really running for the office this election. He saw a golden opportunity to promote his books and videos on the campaign trail, and took it.
Newt has never run a national campaign before, but he's been around politics long enough to know that you have to get a campaign organized. You have to have people on the ground. You have to have a network, promotional items, advertisements, contact lists,command centers, transportation, plus a well thought out strategy. You need endorsements from people that the citizenry holds some regard for. Most of all you need financial backing, and a lot of it. Everything involved in running a successful campaign hinges on the behind the scenes organization. Instead of building such an organization Newt took a Caribbean cruise. Most of the staff he initially had quit in disgust.
What Newt had in his favor was the Fox News network singing his praises at every given opportunity. Let's not forget that Fox News has become the favorite network of most conservatives. Their motto of fair, balanced and unafraid has been sold, and the majority of Republican viewers have bought it. When Newt flopped Fox played it down. Day after day Fox pundits referred to him as the smartest man in the room, the greatest debater that ever was. We were inundated with them, and him comparing his life, his views, and his political career to that great conservative president Ronald Reagan. According to Fox Newt could do no wrong. He practically walked on water.
For years I've heard Hannity explain over, and over on his nightly show on Fox that Obama was never vetted. He has talked incessantly about Bill Ayers, Reverand Wright, and Obama's other questionable affiliations. Sean continually tells us how mainstream media never brought those things up during the 2008 campaign.
By the same token Hannity and the rest of the Fox news network doesn't talk about the things that Newt has said and done over the years. The accusations that Newt divorced his first wife after she'd been diagnosed with cancer to go marry his long-time mistress were skipped over. The fact that his ex-wife and children were penniless at one point and had to receive charitable aid from their church because Newt was a dead-beat dad wasn't brought up in Fox News conversations. No one reminded the public that Newt divorced his second wife after she was diagnosed with M.S. so that he could marry another woman he'd been having a long-time affair with. I don't recall Fox introducing Newt's excuse that having these affairs had made him more electable. Their only reference to the whole affair was that Newt had asked God for forgiveness. They down played the ABC with Newt's second wife where she told her side of the story. Most especially Fox never pointed out that while Newt was in charge of investigations concerning President Clinton's immoral behavior Newt himself a serial adulterer was carrying on his own affair while investigating the president's wrong-doings.
Newt's record as a congressman, and speaker of the house never came under scrutiny by any of the Fox teams. It has been questioned and published by various authors that Newt was brought up on ethics violations by the House. There are numerous accounts via old news footage, and public documents that Newt was found guilty of ethics violations by the house and in a majority vote was sanctioned and fined $300,000.00 by his fellow congressmen both Republican and Demmocrat. He says that it was all overturned, and that the $300,000.00 fine wasn't a fine at all but rather expenses being paid back. Nobody talks about Gingrich and the check kiting scandall. And noone calls a spade a spade when it comes to the influence peddling Newt was involved in during the fifteen years after he left the house.
When information about the real life and times of Newt Gingrich started coming forth via the internet, and other news sources, people began questioning his behavior. It was all brushed off with simple denials by Newt. "That never happened", he'd say. "That is a lie", he'd retort. Peers from his Congressional years began speaking out confirming the stories being reported were accurate. Videos from old newscasts, ads and documents showed up proving the allegations to be true. Newt just made more denials, and nobody, especially Fox, ever pushed him for the truth. Instead they aired campaign film clips of him everyday, and via their many programs kept his name floating in front of their viewers. The man called Newt got more free publicity than anyone I've ever seen.
It took several million dollars of ad campaigns by his opponents, some listless Gingrich debates, some very off the wall comments, and a loss in the Florida primary to force the man who talked himself into believing he would one day be emperor of the United States to expose his true self. By the end of the Nevada caucus he was running on very shaky ground.
He had no real support. His wild and wacky ideas such as starting a moon colony became a joke. He turned out to be a man who can only do well when things are going good. He accused debate moderators of being unfair, he said the crowds were too noisy, or too quiet. He called his opponents liars, accused them of being unconservative liberals, and was never called on the carpet for the lies he was spewing. When things got tough, he blamed it on everyone but himself, made a lot of excuses, and kept on talking without saying anything relevant. Reminds me a lot of President Obama. Newt's main foe in all this became Mitt Romney.
Mitt spent millions on ad campaigns that told the Newt story. His campaign had to spend the money, and redirect their campaign efforts to do the job that the media wasn't doing. Let's never forget that mainstream media in America is in the tank for the left, most especially President Obama. So, Newt had Fox News in his corner, Obama had the mainstream media protecting him, and Paul, Romney, and Santorum basically were on their own.
Speaking of Obama. I see his campaign team behind the rise and fall of Gingrich. I think initially their intention was to build Newt up and then bring him down during the general campaign. He was the ideal opponent for them to campaign against.
Everything there ever was, and ever will be about the man called Newt the Obama team already knew. He would have been the perfect candidate for Obama to campaign against. After a Newt nomination, it wouldn't take too many negative Obama ad campaigns to turn the most ardent conservative supporters away from that egotistical being who carries more baggage than all the airlines combined. Newt's defense would have been fits of anger, allegations of being treated unfairly by his opponent, by the media, by the elite D.C. insiders. He would have ended up standing alone on stage a lost and broken man wondering whatever happened to the idea of selling a few books and videos. In all this the Republican party would have lost another election.
The rise and fall of Newt gave Obama supporters some real entertainment, and welcome confidence. See, they can say, Republicans especially the conservative ones are stupid. It's so easy to defeat them. All you have to do is play the game. And play the game they did. Meanwhile Fox News is still waiting, and hoping their man Newt is going to make another comeback, and restore their faith in themselves. The conspiracy marches on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)