Archive for January, 2012

When Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, the price of gasoline was just $1.85 a gallon. Three years later, that same gallon is $3.39—an increase of over 80 percent—and the cost is expected to rise substantially in the coming year. Some experts predict that it will climb to $5.00 a gallon by the time of the election.

Despite the price nearly doubling, President Obama has refused to allow the Canadian Keystone Pipeline project to proceed, despite the fact that it would create 20,000 jobs immediately, while not costing the American taxpayer a dime. Additionally, the proposed pipeline would generate as much as 700,000 gallons of crude oil each day for Texas refineries. Such a project would definitely be a step in the right direction toward achieving energy independence.

With so much to gain and virtually nothing to lose, it simply doesn’t make sense for President Obama to put forth a roadblock, halting the pipeline, which ensures this much-needed oil will end up in China. Because of the jobs created, even the unions favor the project. To approve it and laud it, as an accomplishment of his administration seems like a no-brainer for Obama, right?

Most political commentators indicate that President Obama’s refusal is aimed at mollifying the environmentalists, which constitute a key support group for his reelection bid. By announcing that the Canadians can reapply for the permit once a thorough environmental study has been complete in three years, to many, Obama appears to be a wise guardian of America’s environment. Because he ruled against the interests of the oil companies, his “class warfare” supporters are also pleased with his decision. Opposing the oil lobby is “red meat” for Obama’s entire base—just like bashing the media is for conservatives.

It seems that everybody, regardless of political position, believes this was Obama’s motive, but what if it is more than that? What if that was just a ruse, camouflaging another, more sinister motive?

In politics, when in doubt, follow the money. Who benefits the most from the cancellation of the pipeline? The environmentalists gain nothing financially from it. Then, who does? The answer is obvious: OPEC.

If we don’t receive those 700,000 barrels of crude from Canada, those barrels have to come from somewhere. This means that Saudi Arabia and Venezuela will benefit the most, along with some others—all at the expense of Canadian and American jobs.

Although this is a particularly cynical view of President Obama, it does make sense, doesn’t it? It gives me no pleasure to make this analysis but, given Obama’s tepid support of Israel, as well as his positive position on the “Muslim Spring” in Egypt, Libya, and across North Africa, which undermines Israel’s security, I believe it is accurate.

Although Obama repeatedly says that he is the most supportive President of Israel in American history, his assertions are absurd, especially his position that Israel must return to its pre-war 1967 borders, which would make Israel indefensible to attack. Obama has consistently supported the agenda of Islamic nations over Israel, going so far as to bow to the King in Saudi Arabia in 2009, which no other American President would even consider doing.

Rejecting the pipeline weakens the United States and ensures that we remain dependent on OPEC. By not looking at the “money trail,” which most analysts haven’t, Obama’s position just seems irrationally cautious. If his position is viewed from a global perspective, however, taking into consideration that he favors the goals of the Islam at the expense of Israel, then it makes perfect sense.

It’s just not an answer most Americans are willing to accept. It’s hard to accept that we have a President who does not have our best interest as his own. I hope that I am mistaken, but I doubt that I am. Given his goals, it makes perfect sense.

Read Full Post »

As the results from the South Carolina primary came in, it became clear that Newt Gingrich not only beat Mitt Romney; he beat him handily. The political commentators on Fox and CNN attributed the win to Newt’s debate skills and his feistiness, coupled with his answers to slanted questions in both of the debates by members of the press who hoped for a “gotcha” moment. While all of this played into Newt’s victory, it wasn’t critical. It was superficial.

He won because he tapped into the the heart and soul of millions of Americans who feel increasingly disenfranchised. He clearly articulates the frustration of these people, but he does much more than that. He stirs them with something they have not had for nearly a quarter of a century: Hope. He believes in the American dream and is an unabashed proponent of it.

I suspect his victory is just the beginning. He is poised to have a groundswell of support that will quickly overwhelm his primary opponents and lead him to a head-to-head confrontation with President Obama. Because Newt shares the values of this generation’s “Silent Majority,” he will win like Reagan did—in a landslide.

For that to happen, several things must occur. First, he must make peace with the Republican establishment—all of whom are terrified that he cannot beat Obama. Newt can assuage their concerns by remaining humble and by staying on message. As his support grows, which it will all over America, the doom-and-gloom Republican establishment will come along.

Second, he must keep the focus on Obama’s record. When Newt’s tawdry past comes up, which it will constantly, he has to maintain an attitude of mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. He should not try to defend his failures but continue to explain that he has grown by them—never becoming angry by those who taunt him.

He might use this biblical example. Moses was ready to lead the children of Israel when he was forty. As his first act of leadership, he murdered a man and had to flee into the wilderness for forty years. When he was old, God was finally ready to use Moses. The same is true of Newt. His time has come.

Few believe Newt can be disciplined enough to stay on message. I’m not one of them. At the beginning of the 1980 contest, people feared Reagan couldn’t stay on message either. In fact, commentators referred to “Reagan’s gaffes” often but, when it really mattered, Reagan became tough. Newt can be just as tough, and it’s essential that he does. After all, it is for such a time as this that Newt has been raised up to lead.

Those who think Newt will be easy to defeat have no idea what they are up against.

Read Full Post »

On Real Clear Politics, President Obama’s approval rating stands at 45 percent. Occasionally, it gets down to 42 percent and as high as the low 50s. But, it has averaged about 45 percent for quite a while. While such a low rating might please many who want to see him defeated, it’s really not good news at all.

That he remains popular with so many people is more than concerning; it is disturbing. Based upon his dismal record, especially with the economy, his approval rating should be hovering in the mid-20s—not the mid-40s.

As a nation, we are in trouble. Here’s why: the electorate is clueless about our American heritage. This means those who approve of Obama have no basis upon which to judge his performance. In other words, millions support him simply because they don’t know enough not to.

But that’s not the only bad news. Even if Obama is defeated, that will only be a temporary correction to the problem. When the next Presidential cycle comes around, a candidate who does not value our heritage will be able to count on four-out-of-ten for support, which is a solid base. There are that many citizens in our society who have a worldview that differs dramatically from our Founding Fathers.

To get America back on the right path, a massive effort will be required to educate the culturally illiterate. Until they know who we are and what we have traditionally stood for, they will be rudderless and unable to resist the shifting winds of change, making our nation fundamentally unstable in the process.

For them, our national motto is not “In God We Trust.” It is “What Will You Do for Me?”

Read Full Post »

When Barack Obama took the oath office, every man woman and child in America owed over $31,000 in debt. That’s $31,000 for our national and does not include any personal debts. That’s a lot of money. Obama inherited a huge mess—no doubt about it. That certainly was unfair, but he did want the job.

Our total indebtedness was about 10 trillion. By breaking it down per person, it’s much easier to understand the enormity of our national debt problem. When you start talking about trillions, it’s hard to grasp, but everybody can relate to personal debt. When a newborn starts out $31,000 in the hole, that’s a devastating handicap.

That being said, When President Obama ran for office, he promised hope for the future and how things would change in our nation’s Capitol. Millions believed in his vision, and he easily won.

But what has he delivered in his first term? By continuing to break it down by individual, with the national debt now at 15.2 trillion and growing, each man woman and child owes over $49,000, and the number is growing daily. This additional $18,000 has come in the three short years. Plus, it’s increasing at an increasing rate.

We now face an unparalleled crisis in American history. But instead of admitting failure, President Obama believes he is no worse than the fourth best President in our history. When I first heard him say this on his 60 Minutes interview, I was shocked, but he believes it—heart and soul.

That’s when I knew there was no solution other than to vote him out of office. I believe it would be irresponsible for any well-informed American to vote for the continuation of his policies. To do so would be madness—as fatal as playing Russian Roulette with five of the six chambers loaded.

His leadership style is to be aloof, and he chooses to blame others for our plight, rather than pursuing policies that will heal the economy. He simply must be defeated. If he is reelected, by the time he is out of office, we will owe nearly 24 trillion, if he continues running up debt at the same rate. Here’s what that means: each person—man, woman, and child—would owe nearly $77,000 per person, which doesn’t take into consideration interest on the debt, which is now costing close to 100 billion per year.

By the time Obama will have completed his second term, a family of four will owe more than $300,000 in national debt. For that amount of money, they could own a very nice house.

In your heart, you know he is not going to change. We have to fire him. There’s no other choice. If he is allowed to continue, there will be nothing left when he’s done. So, whether you are conservative, independent, or progressive, abandon Obama and vote for America to survive.

—Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

Let me say that again—Mitt Romney can’t beat Barack Obama. It’s not going to happen, and the pundits that tout Romney as a the safe choice are wrong—dead wrong.

Romney may be handsome, articulate, and Presidential. He has a great smile, lots of money, and he carries himself well. Plus, he is disingenuous—just like most successful politicians. He is being extolled as the safe candidate—the one that will appeal to the large group of Independents who will decide the election. That’s Romney’s greatest asset—the perceived belief that he can defeat Obama.

Because of this assumption, millions of conservatives are expected to bite their cheeks and vote for him as the lesser of two evils. If this assumption was correct, it would be worth it, but the assumption is fundamentally flawed.

Romney has not been vetted—not like he will be by the Democrats when he is nominated.

Here’s the problem: Romney has an Achilles heel that will be exploited, making his nomination seem like a terrible mistake, which it will be.

Out of tolerance and the unspoken assumption that all faiths are equal, Romney’s Mormon convictions have not even been addressed let alone exploited. If we lived in a perfect society, they probably wouldn’t be, but negative ads are a way of life during elections, and Romney’s beliefs will become an issue. Obama and his PACs will undermine Romney’s candidacy, probably by innuendo.

When the American people discover Romney believes he and his wife will rule some planet in the galaxy as their reward for their lives on earth, his fortunes will plummet faster than Herman Cain’s. Romney will look wacky and unfit to have his finger on the nuclear button. Regardless of how destructive such attack ads will be, Obama’s people will make them. Like Sherman’s march to the sea, if scorching the earth is necessary for victory, they will do it. Make no mistake about it; that’s just the way it is.

And it will work. Obama will win the election and continue to lead this nation toward the cliff. We will be just like lemming, foolishly following our leader, headed toward certain destruction.

Romney will cry “foul” and “unfair,” but the damage will be done. Besides, after the way he eviscerated Gingrich, Romney’s moral outrage will seem like he is reaping what he has sewn.

The future of our nation is too important to allow this to happen. Now is the time to reassess his qualifications, vetting him as thoroughly as David Axelrod will. If we wait until next September, it will be too late. Romney is flawed—fundamentally flawed, and the Republican Party needs to nominate someone else.

Read Full Post »