How Barack Obama Lost the Youth Vote

In 2008, Barack Obama won the Presidency partly due to his "celebrity" status with the 18-25 age block.  His speeches, his use of new technology, and his "hope and change" message won over the hearts and minds of this pivotal age group.  My how things have change four years later.

In a new study, the economic future for American college graduates is bleak and could spell electoral trouble for President Obama.  With these results, he could be a one-term President:

• 53.6% percent of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed,
• 85% percent of college graduates expect to move back home.

With a failing economy, those who are fortunate to find employment are less off than four years ago.  A pivotal question when deciding which Presidential candidate to vote for.  Here are some key metrics:

• Decline in starting salary for high school graduates is down for both men and women.  Men realized a $2,040 salary loss in 2011 versus 2007.  Women realized a $640 loss for the same period.
• Decline in starting salary for college graduates is down for both men and women.  Men realized a $2,400 salary loss in 2011 versus 2007.  Women realized a $1,740 loss for the same period.

These salary metrics paint a daunting picture for college graduates as both dollars and time invested does not match the starting salary success of years past.  This could be another blog topic - but with these numbers - is college worth it?  Not under President Obama.

With regards to the 2008 platform of "Hope and Change", young adults are not sold on the performance.  Young adults saddled by less job and income opportunities realized it was just smoke and mirrors and if these numbers hold through election day, it could spell trouble for President Obama.  Here is why:

• 82 percent think it's harder to find a job
• 75 percent think it's harder to save for the future
• 71 percent think it's harder to pay for college
• 69 percent think it's harder to buy a home

 Hardly a success story.  With these numbers President Obama should have the Mayflower Moving Company on speed dial.

Playing With Fire

Today President Obama shocked the world with strong suggestive directive towards Israel to revert back to pre-1967 borders (before the Six Day War).  By suggesting this, Obama effectively gave half of Jerusalem, the Wailing Wall, The Temple Mount, Old Jerusalem, The holiest Christian Church in the world, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the Hamas-Fatah terror alliance.  In short, this bombshell is a complete about face of U.S. policy that has existed since Israel was created under U.N. charter in 1948.  It didn't take long for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to respond back forcefully that Obama's suggested 'plan' was "indefensible". 

Obama's biggest problems lie ahead with possibly now an even more strained relationship with Israel.  And can you blame them?  Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold was very concered about this radical shift in U.S. policy.  His comments are found here, and echoes Netanyahu's comments on why reverting Israeli borders to 1967 borders.

As Netanyahu leaves Israeli for a trip to the U.S. to speak before a joint session of Congress, one can only wonder what he will state in his address.  From an ally who has a strategic relationship with the United States, one can only hope that Netanyahu addresses Congress with a message than contradicts today's remarks.  Netanyahu must lay out why Obama was wrong, and why the U.S.-Israeli relationship must remain intact.

Besides being damaging to a rock solid relationship, Obama's betrayal towards Israeli is causing political backlash at home. American Jews who traditonally vote Democratic could be on the verge of abandoning President Obama on this betrayal by a U.S. President who secured his job with their loyalty. Clearly this act of betrayal on Americans of Jewish faith is not the way to win re-election in 2012. Why Obama would risk this key demographic nearly eighteen months before the 2012 elections is mind boggling.

Obama also risks losing support of Christians who believe that Israel, as recognized Biblically, has a right to exist as its exists.  Whether the Arab world likes it or not, Israeli is the only nation that was divinely created:

Genesis 15: 18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: (the territory of) 19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Genesis 35:10-12 God said to him, "Your name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel." So he named him Israel. And God said to him, "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body. The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you."

Deuteronomy 34: 4 "This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, 'I will give it to your offspring'"

2 Chronicles 6:5-6 'Since the day that I brought My people from the land of Egypt, I did not choose a city out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house that My name might be there, nor did I choose any man for a leader over My people Israel; but I have chosen Jerusalem that My name might be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.'

Numbers 34: 1 ADONAI told Moshe 2 to give this order to the people of Isra'el: "When you enter the land of Kena'an, it will become your land to pass on as an inheritance, the land of Kena'an as defined by these borders. 3 "Your southern portion will extend from the Tzin Desert close to the border of Edom. The eastern terminus of your southern border is at the end of the Dead Sea. 4 From there your border turns, goes south of the 'Akrabbim Ascent and passes on to Tzin. From there it goes south of Kadesh-Barnea, on to Hatzar-Adar, and on to 'Atzmon. 5 Then the border turns and goes from 'Atzmon to the Vadi of Egypt and along it to the Sea. 6 "Your western border will be the Great Sea. 7 "Your northern border will be as follows: from the Great Sea mark a line to Mount Hor, 8 and from Mount Hor mark a line to the entrance of Hamat. The border goes out to Tz'dad. 9 Then the border goes to Zifron and finally to Hatzar-'Einan; this is your northern border. 10 "For the eastern border mark your line from Hatzar-'Enan to Sh'fam. 11 Then the border goes down from Sh'fam to Rivlah, on the east side of 'Ayin, then down until it hits the slope east of Lake Kinneret. 12 From there it goes down the Yarden River till it flows into the Dead Sea. These will be the borders of your land." 13 Moshe gave this order to the people of Isra'el: "This is the land in which you will receive inheritances by lot, which ADONAI has ordered to give to the nine tribes and the half-tribe. 14 The tribe of the descendants of Re'uven have already received their land for inheritance according to their clans, and so have the descendants of Gad and the half-tribe of M'nasheh. 15 These two-and-a-half tribes have received their inheritance on this side of the Yarden, across from Yericho and eastward, toward the sunrise."

For Obama to embark on a mission to betray Israel is playing with fire.  For one who claims is a Christian and follows the Bible, he must have failed to realize why Israeli exists and why its strategic relationship is so vital to both nations.  If Obama does not revert course, the path forward could be very uncertain and troubling for both nations.  Because the outcome for the United States should it betray Israel has already been defined:

Genesis 12: 3 "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Does Jobs Report Signal Double-Dip Recession?

Let's hope not, but the unemployment numbers are not encouraging.

First, the April 2011 unemployment rate jumped up to 9.0% (up 0.2 percent from March 2011).  This uptick means more and more Americans are out of work, based on report of unemployment benefits.  And the total unemployment numbers prove that, with 15.9% percent of the American out of work as of April 30, 2011.

Graphically, Obama's economic recovery plan is failing to deliver:

Official Unemployment Rate

Total Unemployment Rate

The political outlook for President Obama looks dire.  Historically, no President has won re-election with an unemployment rate above 7.2 percent.  If the election were held today, Obama would lose.

After Bin Laden

The death of Osama Bin Laden brings a lot of questions as to what the U.S. foreign and military policy should be in the wake of taking out the leader and financier of the al-Qaeda terrorist network. While the al-Qaeda terrorist network does have a chain in command, one can hope that with his death so went the financing. If that is the case, then the nearly War on Terror can be come to a close, or at the most redefined.

For starters, the U.S. must get out of Libya. Launching a military campaign against Libya was a failed mission from day one. Muammar Gaddafi was not a threat to the United States, and the Obama Administration knows this. Even more important than that, Obama failed to gain approval from Congress before launching a military campaign. Obama's hypocrisy on launching a military campaign against Libya has been widely reported and contradicts Obama's 2007 harsh criticism on former President George W. Bush's rush to war in Iraq, and the surge.

In addition, the United States has created a complete blunder in allowing NATO to dictate the military strategy in Libya. If the United States does not want to lead and has no strategy to win, then they should not be there in the first place. Mr. President, withdraw all U.S. military forces related to the military conflict in Libya now.

The second realignment of U.S. military forces abroad must consist of removing all U.S. forces from Iraq. By now, Iraq is stable and stand on its own two feet. The U.S. military should not be used for nation building and we Saddam Hussein is long gone. Mr. President, please bring our troops home from Iraq. The mission is done.

The final realignment deals with the nearly ten year-old conflict in Afghanistan. After the September 11, 2011 attacks, the right thing to do was to rid the world of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban who was given bin Laden cover. This month, the world received news that the supreme leader and architect of the al-Qaeda terrorist network was killed. This milestone should be the nail in the coffin in wides-spread terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. Let's hope the funds have dried up with bin Laden's death.

While there are still remnants of al-Qaeda that still exist, the U.S. foreign and military strategy in Afghanistan must be limited to monitoring to ensure that the al-Qaeda does not rebuild. Such monitoring can done via satellite and drones. What can be done is to withdraw all ground forces from Afghanistan. Further military operations can be done and should be done via naval aircraft carrier and battleship groups in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea.

Continuing military operations to current levels is no longer necessary, and continues to weaken the U.S. military. Many troops have been deployed to the Middle East many times, and for lengthy periods. As long as Obama, Defense Secretary Gates and General Petraeus allow three conflicts to occur at once and failing to define the mission at hand, there is no sense in allowing military operations to continue.

CATO Institute has recently launched two videos, of which echo a more sensible approach to U.S. Middle East strategy:





American forces should be commended for what they have accomplished, even dealing with vague objectives at times. Thank God for the U.S. military! For they heed the call when needed, and always complete the mission.

Obama's Hatred of Limited Government

When Obama has contempt for the framework of our nation, he has contempt for all America stands for.

Obama Doesn't Get It

President Obama's speech on the budget and deficit earlier today while again nicely delivered, failed to connect to reality.  Whether President Obama or his staffer wrote this speech, found here, is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the context of the speech is purely ideological, and is rife with platitudes.

The President's emphasis and usual scare tactics that the Republican proposals will hurt education, harm the environment are just that - party talking points.  Obama's continual denial to the state of America's fiscal affairs is telling of an ideologue who is hell bent on spending money at all costs to advance an ideological agenda.  Obama is still in denial that even the IMF is warning the United States to get its fiscal house in order.

But we all know that if America gets on a path to tighten its belt, Obama's remaking of America to a socialist nation is in jeopardy.  Hope and Change will be a failed marketing campaign to get elected, and Obama will have alienated the extreme progressive base that bought the false hope and misunderstood what change really meant to our liberties and freedoms.

The more troubling part of Obama's speech is that for being a lawyer who did have to study the Constitution, that the cuts Obama is balking of should really be deferred to each of the fifty states.  Since Obama is a Statist who feels a big, central federal government is the answer and cure all to every one's ills, the notion of the Tenth Amendment is a foreign and failed concept. 

The continual attacks by Obama and the Democrats on the producers of this nations is getting old.  The failure of the Democrats and Obama to connect reality that the top 2.5 percent of wage earners of this nation because of tax law, may be an owner of a small or medium-sized firm or family farm.  Raising their tax base, especially in an extremely soft economy as we have now, could break them.  A higher tax increase could also force them to layoff staff to make ends meet.  Regardless, Obama is diving the haves versus the have nots and this is nothing less than class warfare.

Obama and his (failed) economic team fail to realize that America's punitive tax code is hurting American businesses and American families.  No longer is it advantageous for Americans to set up new business, or expand existing ones, when the odds are stacked against thriving in an environment that punishes success.   No longer is it advantageous to take risks on innovation when the odds of recouping the investment costs and making a profit are slim or nil.

While Obama and his hired guns may not deal with reality, this does not mean that rest of us have to buy into a failed America.   Those that still believe in the American dream must open their eyes to ideas and a vision that America is still a great country, with the best talent and can thrive once again.  The opportunity to explore your dreams, and the freedom to enact on those dreams must never be trampled on.  Since Obama & Co is not going to help you, look elsewhere.  You really have no choice.

How Obama is Driving Up Gasoline Prices

No matter where you go - talking to friends or chatting at the water coller at work - everyone is complaining about the high gas prices.  It is no suprise that gasoline prices these days are causing families throughout the coountry headaches over how to budget their household finances. Let's look at some statistics to see what has happened.

- According to the Heritage Foundation gasoline prices rose 7 percent under George W. Bush versus 67 percent under Barack Obama during their first twenty-six months in office, respectively.
- Gasoline prices are 22 cents higher today than one month ago, and 81 cents than one year ago.

The AAA publishes its daily fuel gage report, and here it their price comparison:

To illustrate the trajectory that gasoline prices are headed, this chart represents and inverted hockey stick. 

A rational person needs to ask what is causing this.  To be blunt, Obama's policies are causing the spike in gasoline prices.  For starters, let's report that gas prices in Washington, DC was $1.68 on Inauguration Day (January 20, 2009).  Now, that gallon of gas costs $3.77,  and increase of 124%.  Let's see how Obama has driven up the cost of gasonline.

• Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, under Obama's order canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling.  One year, later Salazar did the same thing canceling over 61 leases in Montana.
• Obama Administration needlessly delayed offshore drilling preventing new rigs from becoming operational.
• Pushed for more taxes on American energy via Cap and Trade legislation.  When the Cap and Trade legislation died in the U.S. Senate, Obama insteaded settled for a carbon tax monitored and levied by the EPA.
• Imposed moratorium of offshore oil drilling following April 2010 BP oil spill.  A knee-jerk reaction to to a horrible event.
• Issuing new off-shore moratoriums preventing American oil from being extracted.

The net effect of Obama's energy policies is to limit the available resources for energy consumption thus driving the cost of oil and gasoline higher.  But more importantly, the policies are preventing America from being energy independent.

Harvard Prof: Obama Leading Us Back to Carter's 1970s

Not what you might expect coming out of New England, but Harvard professor Niall Ferguson said that President Obama is leading the nation back to former President Carter's 1970s.  That period in the late 1970S was riddled with high inflation, stagnant high unemployment and high energy costs. 

Niall Ferguson points out that that ""Best case, we're about to rerun the 1970s, only with Barack Obama instead of Jimmy Carter in the White House."

The premise behind Ferguson's claims stem from the rampant printing of money, and the rise of China as the world's dominant manufacturing power.  He questions the ability of the dollar to remain as the world's reserve currency.  As the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing ends in June 2011, there is a big unknown as to what the interest rates will be, and guess they will skyrocket up to counter-act the rise in wholesale prices. 


The rise of oil prices, part of it attributed to turmoil in the Middle East, but the other due to the low valuation of the dollar draws concern.  The high price of oil creates a huge uncertainty amongst American families and addes to the hidden cost of goods shipped around the globe.  Thus consumers are getting pinched twice - at the pump and at the store register. 

This does not bode well for consumer confidence, of which could be controlled if the Federal Reserve stopped overprinting money, and the U.S. Congress controlled fiscal spending.  The latter is a must, but highly doubtful with a Democratically-controlled Senate and President Obama in the White House.  They are armed to reject whatever the Republican-controlled House proposes, and have already have.  Look at what they have done with the passage of funding cuts of Planned Parenthood and NPR.  They have rejected them as unjust and barbaric. 

Until the political elite gets a grip on reality that the U.S. economy is on the verge of fiscal Armageddon, a return of Carter's 1970s is looking more likely a reality every day.  With the passage of every day and inaction by both chambers of Congress to use a hatchet to the fiscal budget and deficit, the U.S. careens down a road of no return where it just might be too late to save the republic.  Let's hope that is a wrong assessment, and that the political elite wake up to reality.

Obama's Deficit Problem

Nobody likes being lied to, but when President Obama speaks on the federal deficit by blaming his predecessor, you better know the facts.  Clearly, Obama either is that clueless or he is in serial denial.  But the facts report a different picture.

Yesterday Obama, while talking about the deficit stated:

Making these necessary investments would be hard at any time. But it’s that much harder at a time when resources are scarce. After living through a decade of deficits and a historic recession that made them worse, we can’t afford to kick the can down the road any longer. So the budget debate that we’re having is going to be critical here in Washington. And so far, most of it’s been focused almost entirely on how much of annual domestic spending — what in the parlance we all domestic discretionary spending — that we should cut. There’s no doubt that cuts in discretionary spending have to be a part of the answer for deficit reduction.

Based on this statement, it is obviously clear that Obama fails to see what affect this programs are having on the federal deficit.  The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports that Obama is directly responsible for the tripling deficit since he assumed office in January 2009.  And pictures don't lie.

 

Obama on the Deficit

What Obama's 'Hope and Change' Really Meant

It took more than two years for Obama's 'Hope and Change' to be defined with actually proof.  Sure, conservatives knew that that Hope and Change meant bigger government, higher taxes and more misery.  But with cold hard data, 'Hope and Change' has been defined.  And it ain't pretty.

Commodities up, unemployment up, household income down, higher poverty levels, more bank failures, higher national debt, lower standing globally in regards to economic freedom and diluted money supply that is sending gold through the roof. 

Simply put, America is barrelling toward collapse and the liberals are clapping and calling this "progress".  Well your so-called "progress" isn't paying the bills.  Not for the federal government, not for the state governments, and not for the American families who want just a piece of the American dream.

But at least we can now quantify what 'Hope and Change' really meant.  And we now know we don't embrace nor will tolerate it.

1979 Deja Vu

1979:  America was experiencing high unemployment and a stagnant economy
2011:  America is experiencing high unemployment and a stagnant economy

1979:  Oil and gas prices are rising
2011:  Oil and gas prices are rising

1979:  A Middle East country, Iran, was in the middle of a revolution spurned by its citizens
2011:  A Middle East country, Egypt, is in the middle of a revolution spurned by its citizens

1979:   President Carter was aloof in how to deal with the Iran cris
2011:   President Obama is clueless in how to deal with Egypt


Who would have thought that in 2011, a White House would not have learned how to deal with a nation undergoing an internal revolution.  The Obama White House, with President Obama on the sidelines and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton more interested in Haiti look more clueless than President Carter did thirty two years ago.

The parallels between Carter and Obama are startling.  Like Carter, if you were nation that was pro-American, Obama disliked you (or the leader).  In 1979, Iran was pro-American, just as much as Egypt is today.  In Egypt's case, the enemy is Hosni Mubarak who is both an ally of the United States and Israel.  And that could very well be the crux of the issue why Egypt is now in flames.

While Obama quietly ignores this crisis of an American ally, just like Carter did to Iran, American citizens must pray that if Mubarak must go - an ally replaces him.  But with opposition leader Mohammed El Baradei asking Mubarak to step down quietly, that may not be the case.  El Baradei, the former Director General of the UN'S International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  While at this position, El Baradei was criticized by former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and former Israeli Prime Minister and current Israeli President Simon Peres for being soft on Iran's developing nuclear programs.

Allowing El Baradei to assume control over Egypt could put the Middle East into chaos, as he has already proven to be soft on Iran.  Such as move could also be disastrous to Israel who has enjoyed a peaceful relationship with the Mubarak regime.  But as Obama announced today, the White House no longer backs Mubarak and asked for "an orderly transition to a government that is responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people."

The line in the sand has been drawn, and Obama turned his back on an ally.  Only time will tell what lies ahead for Egypt or the Middle East.

Analysis of the State of the Union Speech

Tonight's Status of the Union speech by President Obama signaled his move to the center.  Clearly, he has has to do this given the political losses suffered by the Democrats in the November mid-term elections.  The full text of the State of the Union Speech is here.

Three main themes come out of the speech - focus on business job creation, education and infrastructure spending.

President Obama's business job creation proposal signal a clear move to the center, if not to the right.  He proposal reviewing all government regulations to ensure they are not impairing job creation.  He proposed reducing the corporate tax rate, provided it was deficit neutral.   

President Obama focused on job creation via new green technology sector.   He said that job growth will come from innovation in clean, renewable green technology.  He set a goal to have one million electric cars on the road by 2015, and by 2035 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.

As an aside, electric vehicles through private innovation by Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Chevrolet are already being produced in the private sector without government subsidy.  President Obama's push for electric vehicles will hinge on public demand, and should not be hinged on government spending.  Our nation cannot afford that spending, and should let the free capitalist market dictate whether consumers want electric vehicles.  It is also surprising that diesel cars and clean bio fuels are not being pursued.

President Obama's next major focus was on education.  While he was correct that America's innovation hinges on education in science, technology, education and mathematics (STEM), he failed to encourage American students to enter these courses of study and careers in his speech. He did encourage Americans to heed the call of duty and enter the education field and become teachers.

Obama pushed the Race to the Top program, which really is their re- of No Child Left Behind.  Like No Child Left Behind, Obama's re-branded program Race to to Top pins federal funding on school performance.  This is not new.

What was new on education was the emphasis of education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics as this is key to innovation.  On this, Obama is correct.  He was also correct that we need more education in these core areas, if we are to reverse America's lagging performance in innovation.  He cited China as being the home to the largest private solar research facility and the home of the fastest computer.  Clearly, America must do better in innovation and focus on innovation to be a global leader in science, engineering and business development as a result of our innovation.

The next major focus of Obama's speech was infrastructure spending.  He cited that America's infrastructure is falling behind other global nations, which is true.  He stated our roads need repair, and we need to focus on high speed rail and high speed wireless Internet as our next major infrastructure push.

The need for high speed rail should be regional and centered around states with high population density, like in the Northeast.  He set a goal that with 25 years, 80% of Americans will have access to high speed rail.  While this may be a lofty goal and in same states and metropolitan areas needed, this may set up an eminent domain fight.  And state infrastructure planning, not federal must be involved. 

Obama's goal on high speed wireless Internet of having 98% of Americans having access to high-speed wireless Internet access within five years is not in the best interest of American taxpayer funding.  High speed Internet and high-speed wireless coverage is already the focus on major telecommunation giants such as Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint Nextel and Clear Wireless.  The American taxpayer should not fund taxpayer dollars to something that is driven by consumer demand.  All of these private wireless provers depend on having a dependable wireless infrastructure and have being using corporate profits to reinvest in the wireless infrastructure.  It needs to remain that way.

President Obama also focused on two smaller themes in speech.  He set the stage for the perhaps the political battle of 201 1, which is illegal immigration reform.  Health care reform was the battle of 2010, and illegal immigration reform will be the battle of 2011.  He stated students from abroad are being educated in our schools and universities and then the moving back to their native lands to compete against us.  Another blog post on this subject alone is in the works.

Obama finally got the message that America has a spending problem.  He warned Congress that it needs reduce the deficit.  Surprisingly, he asked for a review of all government agencies for overlap in function and will look to reduce duplication of duties.  He asked Congress to also look at streamlining the individual tax code.

Republicans responded with two separate rebuttals to Obama's speech.  The official response came from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), House Budget Chairman:



Tea Party ally and Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann gave the Tea Party response: