Raising The National Debt Ceiling – Identifying Hostage Takers And Hostages

In the 2012 election campaign I mistakenly criticized Obama for “intentionally dividing, rather than unifying the nation, solely for the purpose of re-election.”  I failed to recognize his intention to govern for four more years by continuing to divide the nation in seven areas: age, economic status; gender, national origin; race; religion; sexual orientation.

Much in the economic news, again, are hated “one-percenters” – comprised, according to mainstream media, almost exclusively of corporate executives whose annual salaries have reached unconscionable and scandalously high multiples of their companies’ employees’ median income – who, also, have recovered from the great recession well ahead of middle-income Americans.  Obama’s end game appears to be a “maximum wage” for corporate executives that can’t exceed a yet-to-be Democrat-determined multiple of median employee income.

Obama pretends it is “us (the 99%) versus them (the 1%)” although he and Michelle qualify as one-percenters.  So, also do scads of professional athletes, models, TV & movie stars, other entertainers and personalities.  Are those one-percenters exempt from scrutiny and criticism since the vast majority of them contribute to and support the Democrat party and virtually all “progressive” causes?  Will these one-percenters also be subject to a maximum wage based on a yet-to-be determined Democrat formula?

The Associated Press recently identified “a rich-poor employment gap hitting (the) middle class” and claimed “the employment disparity between rich and poor households remains at the highest levels in more than a decade”.

During his re-election campaign Obama said his economic policies had driven the unemployment rate below 8%.  Now Obama, his mainstream media and other sycophants, say Republicans (especially in Texas) are at fault for creating minimum wage jobs of less than 30 hours per week.  It is understandable Obama prefers to attack job creation in Red States rather than admit the unemployment rate on his watch improved because hundreds of thousands of workers ended their job search rather than millions becoming gainfully employed.  In August 2013, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 219,000 from a year earlier. These individuals were not in the labor force (and) were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.

Also, per the table SSI Federally-Administered New Recipients, Calendar Years 1974‑2035more than 1,000,000 were added to SSI disability rolls each year in 2009 and 2010 – with that 1,000,000 annual increase projected each year through 2013 – further  reducing the unemployment rate.

The U.S. Debt Clock reports: “Official Unemployed” of 11.2 million; “Actual Unemployed” of 21.2 million; Disabled (SSI) of 14.2 million.  (09/21/2013)

Meanwhile, despite claiming to be focused on job creation, Obama remains irrationally opposed to developing vast U.S. fossil fuel reserves while touting alternative fuels.  He continues to raise the bar for approving the Keystone Pipeline although recent studies show the environmental impact of developing Canadian oil tar sands will be the same for North America whether the heavy crude is pipelined to the U.S. or shipped to China.

Obama ignores these facts; Keystone, if approved, would: create a substantial number of well-paying USA jobs; improve national security by lessening U.S. dependence on heavy crude from Venezuela and imports from other politically unstable countries; reduce our balance-of-payments deficit.

While holding the Keystone Pipeline hostage on environmental issues Obama, through the EPA, is hell bent on more stringent carbon emission controls for new energy plant construction.  Although new plants are the alleged targets, stricter emission controls on existing plants will increase energy costs for consumers in energy producing states especially the leading energy producing state, Texas.

One of Obama’s favorite claims is he wants “a fair deal for everyone”.  Before significant economic projects can start, an environmental impact study must be completed.  Environmentalists are then free to oppose and attack the study’s findings.

So, why doesn’t Obama require the EPA to conduct economic studies to determine the total cost of emission controls versus the benefits in terms of volumetric reductions of emissions?  In layman’s terms, what is the cost benefit ratio and do the results justify increased energy costs imposed on energy users most of whom, coincidentally, are taxpayers?  Of course, both industry leaders and energy consumers should be able to oppose the EPA findings just as environmentalists can oppose environmental studies.

Recently, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated entitlement programs are the crucial budgetary issue because they are unsustainable at present levels.  “The CBO’s new long-term projections show that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. Within 25 years, under laws currently in place: Federal debt is projected to reach 100% of GDP and, under an alternate scenario, could rise to 190% of GDP.”

Spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and insurance exchange subsidies will account for all of the growth in noninterest spending Major entitlement programs are predicted to grow to 14% of GDP — double their historical average of 7%.  Revenue is projected to increase from 17% of GDP in 2013 to 19.7% of GDP.  U.S. debt is on an unsustainable path if current laws remain unchanged.”

LBJ declared “war on poverty” about 50 years ago.  Medicare, a crucial component of LBJ’s war, currently has unfunded liabilities of $87 trillion not including almost $22 trillion for Prescription Drug liabilities. Social Security unfunded liabilities total $16.5 trillion.  Unfunded liabilities are neither included in the annual budget nor reflected in the national debt.  Indeed, Obama has yet to acknowledge these unfunded liabilities that in total saddle each U.S. taxpayer with an unfunded liability of $1,100,000.

Obama, continuing his Imperial Presidency – by resisting any and all attempts to lower the national debt via spending cuts rather than increasing the debt ceiling – accuses Republicans of holding the nation “hostage” by refusing to increase the debt ceiling as Obama dictates.

His terminology is confusing: kidnappers who take hostages typically demand money, or ransom, be raised and paid to them before they release hostages.  Perhaps, as President through contacts with the FBI, Obama is aware of situations where kidnappers freed hostages although no ransom was raised.  Or could the real hostage taker be Obama who, once again, is holding U.S. taxpayers hostage?



President Obama’s Double Standards When Muslims Murder Non-Muslims

Does President Obama have a different standard when Muslims murder and main non-Muslims in the USA?

The tragic murder of three people and wounding of 180 others, many grievously by two Muslim brothers with the 19-year old brother surviving his older brother has echoes of the 11/05/2009 Fort Hood massacre by U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan that caused 42 casualties,13 killed, 29 wounded.

In both cases, President Obama warned against “a rush to judgment”. Most recently: “That’s why we take care not to rush to judgment – not about motivations of individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people.”

A significant difference, concerning the Boston bombing: Obama said “the FBI was investigating the twin bombings as a terrorist act”.  He also admitted: “Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terrorism.” Obama never mentioned terrorism in connection with the Fort Hood massacre.

Although Major Hasan shouted “God is great!” in Arabic as he opened fire on unarmed military personnel at Fort Hood and despite presentations to other military psychiatrists wherein the Major justified Muslims killing non-Muslims – after Obama, as Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, visited Fort Hood and spoke to military personnel and their families – news media reported “motivation for the attack was unknown”.  Eventually, the DOD categorized the Major’s rampage – “the deadliest attack on a U.S. military base (13 killed, 29 wounded)” – as “workplace violence”.

It was also reported – about “the 19-year-old: who is accused of helping carry out the attack that killed three people and wounded 180 others, many of them critically, near the finish line of Monday’s race.” – “No motive has been revealed for Monday’s attack.”

Earlier this year, a military judge set Maj. Nidal Hasan’s court-martial for May 29, 2013 at the Texas Army post.  After about four weeks of jury selection, testimony is expected to begin July 1.  If the trial starts on schedule, it will be slightly more than three and one-half years since the major’s murderous rampage.

So, if the Boston terrorist is afforded the same legal protections – albeit in civilian rather than military court – and numerous trial delays as has the murderous major, his trial might begin by October 2016.  Obviously, when President Obama calls for “no rush to judgment” for murderous Muslims, his call is heeded in spades.

It’s appears Obama views Muslims murdering non-Muslims, even on U.S. soil, as a lesser crime wherein the perpetrators’ civil and legal rights take precedent over their victims and survivors rights to justice.  One might reasonably expect a U.S. President, who is Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, to want speedy justice for victims and survivors of the Fort Hood attack.

Now, it’s time to refute the President’s recent statement about not rushing to judgment: “That’s why we take care not to rush to judgment – not about motivations of individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people.”

By looking back at two situations, it’s obvious neither Obama nor supporters follow his high-minded advice.  In the first situation the President himself rushed to judgment. In the other, Obama failed to warn about rushing to judgment and allowed civil rights groups and mainstream media to convict an alleged killer in the court of public opinion.  In both cases, the victims were blacks; their alleged attackers were not black.

In July 2009, “President Obama said that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, ‘acted stupidly’ in arresting a prominent black Harvard professor … after a confrontation at the man’s home.”

Regardless of any subsequent actions to ameliorate his hasty statement, Obama clearly rushed to judgment about one policeman’s motivations as well as the mental acuity of Cambridge police.

When Trayvon Martin was killed February 26, 2012, did Obama warn against a rush to judgment against George Zimmerman?  Did he warn against pre-judging motivations of Zimmerman or local police?  If he did, his warnings were unheeded by civil rights activists and mainstream media who virtually lynched Zimmerman in the court of human opinion.

Eventually, a trial lawyer called for facts to decide the trial’s outcome. Mark NeJame, “a CNN contributor who has practiced law, mainly as a criminal defense attorney, for more than 30 years” wrote: “Although Trayvon Martin’s killing is a tragedy at the highest level, his death and the prosecution of George Zimmerman symbolize so much more.  The issues they raise belong in the public discourse, but should not influence or cloud the facts or outcome of the case.”

Finally, consider a “what if” regarding the Boston Marathon bombers.  What if – instead of two Muslim brothers allegedly killing three and wounding 180 others, some grievously – the two brothers were Anglo and Christian originally from Mississippi but Boston residents for about 10 years?

Mainstream media restrained by the same Political Correctness – that prevented the U.S. Military and FBI from acting upon Major Hasan’s radical statements and PowerPoint presentations to other military psychiatrists – have refrained from labeling the alleged perpetrators as “militant Muslims” or “radical Islamists’.

However, in our what if scenario, the Anglo brothers would be pilloried as “domestic militia”, “fundamentalist Christians”, “white supremacists”, “members of a vast right wing conspiracy” and “domestic terrorists whose objective was to destroy the venerable Boston Marathon”.  The Justice Department would try the case in federal court in order to seek the death penalty.  Liberals would call for the bombings to be classified as hate crimes so penalties could be doubled.

Liberals and their media counterparts may complain the “what if” scenario impugns their journalistic integrity.  But, if they have a scintilla of honest analytical reason remaining, they will admit a simple what if understates the delight and fervor with which they would attack the youthful, transplanted Mississippians if they were the actual culprits.

1 Comment

Obama – Dividing By Sexual Orientation

Challenge to 2012 Voters – Place National Interests Ahead of Personal Interests

Author’s Note: This article addresses seven segments – into which the President has divided the electorate – so it is presented in seven installments. This is the final installment.  (Articles were posted in alpha sequence by subject with one exception.)  The first six installments are accessible on this Patriot Statesman website.


It’s well established – one of Obama’s re-election campaign strategies is to divide the electorate into segments loyal to him and thereby conquer the Republican presidential candidate.  Obama’s carefully crafted divisions include: age; economic status; gender, national origin; race; religion; sexual orientation.  Each segment is addressed with questions and challenges directed to members of that segment.

Whatever the number of LGBTs in the USA, it’s likely the total population, exclusive of hot-button issues applicable strictly to sexual orientation, regarding broader issues – such as the U.S. economy, national security, defending the U.S. Constitution – fall into the normal “bell shaped curve of distribution” with extremes at both ends but the majority falling between those extremes.  Other articles accessible on this website examine those broader issues.

However, the article focuses on a much more critical factor for LGBTs.  If seriously concerned about sustaining freedoms associated with your sexually oriented lifestyle, you need to examine and respond to the most potent threat not only to your lifestyle but to life itself.  That threat arises from The Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law.

The Patriot Statesman website includes several of my articles about Islam.  The most recent is “Does Obama Deserve a Passing Grade on His Middle East and Islamic Countries Policies Including Troop Withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan?”  Following are information about the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law from that and other of my Patriot Statesman articles.

The Muslim Brotherhood

To understand the world view and goal of Islam, one must examine the Muslim Brotherhood now firmly in power in Egypt where the U.S. embassy was invaded 09/11/2012.  In Feb. 2011 Obama granted de facto recognition to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the U.S.  The Muslim Brotherhood was previously outlawed in Egypt because their 21st century objectives include: Goal: “a worldwide caliphate governed by Islamic law”; Motto: “Allah is our objective. The prophet is our leader. Jihad is our way.  Dying in the way of Allah is our greatest hope.”

Many citizens, who support Islam, do so as a religious freedom issue without understanding the totality of Islam which is comprised of religion, culture, economic, legal (primarily Sharia law), military and political components. Focusing on only one or two of those components can lead to blind spots concerning others.  I wrote to U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutcheson expressing my concerns about Sharia law.  She replied that I shouldn’t be concerned because “the U.S. Constitution protects us from Sharia”.

However – when the state of Oklahoma enacted legislation to prohibit the introduction of Sharia law into Oklahoma’s legal system – the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) instituted a lawsuit by an Oklahoma Muslim who claimed prohibiting Sharia law would violate his religious freedom.  A federal judge agreed and stayed the legislation.

Our most offensive freedom to Muslims is freedom of speech because – as evidenced by the recent uprisings and mindless mob violence – it doesn’t protect the prophet Mohammed, Allah or the Koran as they are protected under Sharia law.  Yet, freedom of speech permits U.S citizens and residents to burn the U.S. flag, create a Broadway play on “The Book of Mormon”, claim: there is no God, God is dead.

Freedom of speech also allows U.S. Muslims to propagate Mohammed’s teachings: Jesus is a minor prophet; wasn’t the son of God; wasn’t crucified; there was no resurrection – the core concept of Christianity.  Mohammed’s teachings offend some Christians but Muslims seek to prohibit any and all speech they deem critical of Mohammed, Allah, or their holy books. The question: does Muslim freedom of religion trump freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

Following the 09/11/2012 Muslim uprisings and attacks on U.S. embassies, Obama’s belated defense of our Constitutional freedom of speech – in his 09/25/2012 address to the UN – was unacceptable to Egyptian President, and Muslim Brotherhood member, Mohammed Morsi.  In his 09/26/2012 UN speech, “in a voice thin with anger Morsi declared: “We will not allow anyone to do this (insult Islamic sanctities) by word or deed.”  Morsi also said: “Egypt respects freedom of expression but not a freedom of expression that targets a specific religion or a specific culture.”

Here’s a valid test: for anyone who views Islam as a peaceful, tolerant religion; ask your “moderate Muslim” three questions. Do you agree:

  • Israel has the right to exist as a separate nation?
  • American Christians and Jews should be free to provide U.S. Muslims information about Christianity and Judaism?
  • Sharia law should be introduced into the U.S. legal system although it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution?

A truly moderate Muslim will answer: “Yes”, “Yes”, “No”. Immoderate Muslims will parse terms and words as President Clinton did with “Define ‘is’.”  Immoderate Muslims excel in avoiding and deflecting difficult questions.  That’s not surprising since Sharia law allows Muslims to tell non-believers one thing and fellow Muslims the exact opposite.

Sharia law

Muslims claim: Islam is the only true religion and Mohammed it only prophet; “Islamic law is perfect, universal and eternal.”  So, it’s necessary to have a basic knowledge of Sharia law. Following are some facts from “Sharia Law for Non-Muslims” authored by Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam.

Sharia law: Amazon.com: Sharia Law for Non-Muslims.

Sharia law:

  • allows the death penalty for apostasy; adultery, homosexuality;
  • defines non-Muslims as “Kafirs” who are inferior to Muslims. (Page 19)
  • is deadly for Kafirs, both female and male. Sharia allows Kafirs to be: lied to; mocked; plotted against; terrorized and beheaded. (Pages 18-19)
  • contains no freedoms of religion, press, speech, thought or artistic expression;
  • there is no equality of people; non-Muslims aren’t equal to a Muslim;
  • there are no equal rights for women; women can be beaten;
  • a non-Muslim cannot bear arms. (Page 3)
  • Muslims believe Sharia law is directly from Allah and must, therefore, prevail over the “man-made” U.S. Constitution. (Page 3)

Muslims tell Christians and Jews they are “People of the Book” but:

  • Christians – only those who believe Jesus was a man who was a prophet of Allah; there is no Trinity; Jesus was not crucified, not resurrected; that he will return to establish Sharia law.
  • Jews – must believe Mohammed is the last in the line of Jewish prophets.

Otherwise, both are also Kafirs to be treated the same as other Kafirs. Page 19


  • Do you agree Muslims’ right to religious freedom in the U.S. entitles them to introduce Sharia law into the U.S. legal system although Sharia denies non-Muslim citizens their rights of religion, press, speech and artistic expression?
  • Will you investigate Islam in its totality rather than believe the propaganda the Muslim Brotherhood while they seek to subvert from within?


  • Check out other Neil Stovall articles on the Patriot Statesman website.
  • Independently of local Muslims, investigate Islam in its totality. Also, confirm details  about Sharia law.
  • Can Obama be trusted with National Security if given more flexibility?  Watch this brief video to inform your decision.


Dividing By Race Especially African-Americans And Hispanics

A Challenge to 2012 Voters – Place National Interests Ahead of Personal Interests

Dividing by Race – Author’s Note: This article addresses seven segments – into which the President has divided the U.S. electorate – so it is presented in seven installments.  This is Installment Six.  Previous installments are accessible on the Patriot Statesman website. The seventh installment “Dividing by Sexual Orientation” will be posted soon.


It’s well established – one of Obama’s re-election campaign strategies is to divide the electorate into segments loyal to him and thereby conquer the Republican presidential candidate.  Obama’s carefully crafted divisions thus far include: age; economic status; gender, national origin; race; religion; sexual orientation.  Each segment is addressed with questions and challenges directed to members of that segment.

This article examines whether it is in the best interests of the U.S. for African-Americans and Hispanics to continue to support the President – due to his race and social programs that benefit them – while both races ignore his record on the economy, national security and dishonoring his oath to protect, defend and preserve the U.S. Constitution to the best of his ability.

In that context this article examines: current national debt; unfunded liabilities; national security, U.S. Constitutional issues.  However, this article focuses on the key factor of education that determines whether today’s youth – regardless of color, race, or national origin – have an opportunity of achieving middle class status.  So, Education is presented first; other factors follow; then “Questions” and “Challenges”.

Education, the key that unlocks many doors to determined youth with strong work ethics

Almost any classroom teacher can quickly recite the basic components of successfully educating students in grades Pre-K through high school..

  • Parental involvement that includes instilling in each of their children:
    • the necessity and value of high school graduation as a minimum;
    • self-discipline formed by parents enforcing discipline at home to assure proper classroom behavior;
    • accepting responsibility for individual decisions and actions.
    • Teachers who are qualified to teach required subjects and allowed to teach in the classroom rather than administer discipline to unruly students who disrupt other students and classroom learning.
      • What is not needed – activists such as Quanell X defending a 10-year old with a lengthy record of disruptive behavior that prevents teachers from teaching and other children from learning.
  • Principals and other administrators who foster an environment conducive to learning and who provide teachers the resources for basic learning and developing analytical skills in students.
    • Note: this doesn’t mean each student should have a smart phone.
    • Students should learn answers not how to find answers on a phone.

Both African Americans and Hispanics need to address systemic barriers to education they could solve with attitude adjustments, training and instilling a work ethic, rather than a welfare mentality, in their youth.

On June 5, 2012 Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institute testified before the Senate Finance Committee about poverty.  Mr. Haskins complete report is available at http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/06/05-poverty-families-haskins

However, the report is distilled in his following conclusions.

“Before reviewing these and other strategies for reducing poverty, I want to emphasize the importance of individual initiative in reducing poverty and promoting economic success.  My Brookings colleague Isabel Sawhill and I have spent years emphasizing the importance of individual responsibility in reducing poverty and increasing opportunity.

One of our arguments, based in part on a Brookings analysis of Census Bureau data, is that young people can virtually assure that they and their families will avoid poverty if they follow three elementary rules for success – complete at least a high school education, work full time, and wait until age 21 and get married before having a baby.

Based on an analysis of Census data, people who followed all three of these rules had only a 2 percent chance of being in poverty and a 72 percent chance of joining the middle class (defined as above $55,000 in 2010).  These numbers were almost precisely reversed for people who violated all three rules, elevating their chance of being poor to 77 percent and reducing their chance of making the middle class to 4 percent.

Individual effort and good decisions about the big events in life are more important than government programs.  Call it blaming the victim if you like, but decisions made by individuals are paramount in the fight to reduce poverty and increase opportunity in America.  The nation’s struggle to expand opportunity will continue to be an uphill battle if young people do not learn to make better decisions about their future.”

The U.S. Economy – Fact, the USA is not a rich nation:

  • Many citizens think the USA as a rich nation – that can afford to provide safety nets for all its citizens as well as for illegal immigrants – but the USA is actually a debtor nation.
  • At 6:40 p.m. (CDT) 10/10/2012 the “official” National Debt was $16.164 trillion while Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $15.409 trillion.
  • National Debt has increased by $6 trillion on Obama’s watch but the official national debt is dwarfed by unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.  At 6:45 p.m. 10/10/2012 unfunded liabilities for the two programs totaled $120.945 trillion (SS = $15.946 trillion; Medicare = $104.999 trillion.)
  • More striking are National Debt (ND) and Unfunded Liabilities (UL) per taxpayer: ND = $141,183; UL = $1,056,486.

National Security – The documentary movie “2016: Obama’s America” highlights one area – where Obama is eager to reduce expenses, the U.S. military in which there are high percentages of African Americans and Hispanics.  Obama proposed cuts starting with a 12% reduction in primary fighting forces. Those fortunate enough to continue military careers will face reduced pay raises and increased health care costs.

This is how Obama rewards an all volunteer military that fought, bled and died in two wars starting October 2001 in Afghanistan.  Casualties include an appalling number of maimed and wounded.  Many volunteers were reservists: careers were interrupted; jobs sometimes lost.  Repeated deployments of reservists & regulars were paid by heavy tolls on families, marriages and mental health.  Yet, Obama favors military spending cuts rather than reduce entitlement spending for civilians whose votes he covets.

Obama called for “an America where everybody gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules”.  But, as commander- in-chief of all U.S. military services, he doesn’t think military personnel deserve a fair shot although they have done considerably more than their fair share and have played by much more stringent rules than any other Americans.  Why don’t they deserve a “fair shot”?

The U.S. Constitution specifies three separate branches of government: Executive – headed by the President, executes laws passed by Congress; Legislative, enacts legislation and sends it to the President; Judicial, the Supreme Court rules on legislation when necessary to determine its constitutionality.  President Obama usurped:

  • judicial powers by ruling the Defense Of Marriage ACT (DOMA)  unconstitutional.  The U.S. Supreme Court alone decides constitutionality;
  • legislative powers with his Executive Order implementing the DREAM Act that Congress didn’t enact.
  • in so doing, he violated his oath to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution to the best of his ability,


  1. Are you concerned enough about your country to investigate and learn about this issue on which Obama chose to divide the nation?  Can you ignore Obama’s race and look at his actual record including support of same sex marriage?
  2. Do you understand the U.S. is a debtor nation not a rich nation and that current deficit spending on entitlement programs isn’t sustainable?
  3. Should a President – who has violated his oath to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution to the best of his ability – be rewarded with a second term?
  4. If a parent, will you accept your responsibilities to instill in your children self-discipline, the necessity and value of a high school education and a strong worth ethic rather than a welfare mentality?


  • Watch the You Tube video by Bishop E W Jackson “Exodus Now!  Blacks, Christians, Godly must leave the Democrat Party!” presents persuasive arguments for a mass exodus from the Democrat Party following their national convention.

  • Can Obama be trusted with National Security if given more flexibility?  Watch this brief video to inform your decision.

  • The Catholic Church has a powerful video “Test of Fire”.  Watch it by browsing

  • See the documentary movie “2016: Obama’s America”.  Decide if: Obama is: ignoring the U.S. Constitution; following a personal agenda rather than protecting U.S. interests and sovereignty.
  • If you can’t see the movie, visit the following website and read former P&G VP, Lou Pritchett’s “Open Letter to President Obama”.  It will help you make the same decision.



Memo To Obama/Biden Democrats: “Profit” Is Not A Four-Letter Word But “Loss” And “Debt” Are

My 08/19/2012 Patriot Statesman article, Obama’s Presidential Campaign Playbookstated in part:

Although I’m not privileged to have access to Obama’s presidential campaign playbook, many plays called by the Obama campaign are rather obvious.

Chapter I – Defending the President’s record while attacking the Republican nominee.

  • Obscure Obama’s actual record as President.
  • When impossible to obscure, spin Obama’s record to present his failed initiatives and policies as significant accomplishments.
  • Attack Romney with false accusations.
    • After they are discredited by the Washington Post and Annenberg Foundation, repeat the accusations in order to solidify them in voters’ minds.

The Obama Campaign’s use of the above plays were exposed by a group in Ottawa County, Michigan who accepted the task of informing residents about Romney’s real record at Bain Capital while comparing it to Obama’s real record in the White House.

Ottawa County Patriots created a billboard that compares the records of the two presidential candidates.

Romney’s Bain Capital invested PRIVATE money in:

  • AMC Entertainment
  • Burger King
  • Burlington Coat Factory
  • Clear Channel Communications
  • Dominos Pizza
  • Dunk n’ Donuts
  • Guitar Center
  • The Sports Authority
  • Staples
  • Toys Я Us
  • Warner Music Group”

Obama invested TAXPAYER money in:

  • Solyndra – BANKRUPT
  • Ener 1 – BANKRUPT
  • Beacon Power – BANKRUPT
  • Abound Solar – BANKRUPT
  • Amonix Solar – BANKRUPT
  • Spectra Watt – BANKRUPT
  • Eastern Energy – BANKRUPT

All of these companies were Obama campaign contributors.  http://lastresistance.com/253/romneys-free-market-vs-obamas-socialism/

Economics 101:

  • Companies that provide goods and/or services — at reasonable prices, control costs and are attuned to their customers’ needs – earn profits and distribute those profits to their owners whether individual, partners or corporations.
  • Government financed or managed companies provide goods and/or services based on political considerations rather than market–driven forces.  Without continued government subsides, such companies often operate at a loss; some go bankrupt and taxpayer investment losses add to the U.S. national debt.


Note: QED is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum”. It literally translates as “which was to be demonstrated”, and is a formal way of ending a mathematical, logical or physical proof.  Its purpose is to alert the reader that the immediately previous statement, which naturally was arrived at by

1 Comment