Louis R. Avallone

Category: Columns

  • Predicting the Future

    Predicting the Future

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    For centuries, man has sought to predict the future, whether by astrology, palm reading, tarot cards, tealeaves, or crystal balls. In more modern times, sociologists and statisticians have developed scientific methods for rationally predicting the future, through trend analysis and cyclical patterns, such as when interest rates are lower, the stock market rises, and bond prices go down (just as an example).

    It’s easy to understand why we are so fascinated by predicting the future. Comedian George Burns may have said it best, and most simply, “I look to the future because that’s where I’m going to spend the rest of my life.” It was Einstein who said he didn’t worry about the future because it comes soon enough.

    Of course, it has often been said that trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights, while looking out the back window. Incidentally, this also explains the kind of leadership coming out of Washington these days, and before long, it’s not unlikely that this foolish driving will simply get everyone stuck in the mud, on that country road, just spinning our wheels. And for those who have been stuck in the mud a time or two, spinning your wheels – only digs you in deeper.

    So, with all of that said, I am still going to share with you a method of predicting the future, regarding the path of our nation, and the leadership of those folks in Washington, for the next four (4) years. With this method, you will be able to predict the policies of this administration and amaze your friends, on a variety of important subjects, especially on those, which aren’t yet dominating our national conversation.

    Here is how you do it: Take any subject or issue, which this administration feels will advance their political agenda in Washington, and then find those instances in history where governments have instituted policies to address that same subject or issue. Now, make a list of those government policies that have failed.

    Now, by “failed”, I mean those government policies whose stated objectives were hardly achieved, and thereby the costs greatly outweighed the benefits. For example, foreign aid programs that don’t help many foreigners, increasing government spending for schools that don’t educate students very well, or welfare assistance to the poor that does not lift the poor out of poverty, etc.

    Once you have identified these “failed” policies of the past, you can now predict, with almost certainty, the position, and direction, of the Obama administration on that same issue. I’ll give you a couple of examples.

    Look at the European countries, and the results from generations of socialist government policies, nationalizing everything from banks, to automobile manufacturing, insurance, healthcare, education, and energy production. The economic competitiveness of these European countries pale in comparison to the economies of India, China, Japan, and Korea, where workers are more productive. The average German, for example, works just 1,535 hours each year or 22 percent less than the average working American.

    The Dutch and Norwegians put in even fewer hours, as do the British. In addition to this idleness, unemployment is even higher in European countries than it is in the United States.

    This makes the point, exactly, in terms of predictions: The Obama administration is following the same, failed policies of those European countries, including Greece, where entitlement, dependence on others, envy, irresponsibility, and lack of ambition have led to a lower quality of life for all, stemming from an inability to compete with more productive economies around the world.

    Here’s another example, with regards to foreign policy: Obama said, “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us” and that he would negotiate with Iran personally, saying “I’m not afraid of negotiating with anybody”. Well, history’s lesson on this foolishness is fatal. While England and France negotiated, Hitler continued to mobilize his military, and violated every agreement in the meantime.

    Iran is doing the same now, and is using negotiation to buy time for their deadly ambitions. And much like Hitler, they agree to negotiate, then violate the negotiated agreement, then refuse to negotiate, until the international community responds forcefully, and then they agree to negotiate (again). The merry-go-round starts all over.

    Still, today, our Iran foreign policy seems to be a Xerox copy of the failed attempts to deal with Germany, which led to World War II. What happened to the successfully proven foreign policy of America: peace through strength?

    Perhaps Obama’s interest in repeating failed government policies is because he believes that everyone, who has tried them before, just didn’t do them well enough. Maybe he thinks they weren’t smart enough to understand them, in the first place, but that if he tries them, he’ll get it right.

    Others say that Obama is just interested in re-making America into a European-like state. Maybe. But thus far, he seems only interested in those European policies that have failed.

    So now, at the end of this column, and unlike past centuries of mankind, you now have a reliable method of predicting the future, regarding the leadership of those folks currently in Washington. I can’t explain why they do what they do, but it reminds us all of one thing: We desperately must look to the successes of history, if we’re going to restore, anytime soon, our nation’s great future.

  • Gun Control

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    And so, there was President Obama, last week, at a press conference, surrounded by children, as he signed 23 executive orders to address gun violence, representing the most restrictive, federal gun control plan in decades.

    With the images of innocent, beautiful children, standing behind him, it calls to mind the political advice offered by Hitler, in 1925: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

    If you are drawing any comparison here, to folks in Washington, this all sounds like crazy, extremist talking points, except when you consider monsters like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, and Pol Pot, all sought out to confiscate guns when they first assumed power. In Russia, for example, the murder rate is 4 times higher than the U.S, and that’s with an entire generation of Russians, born and raised to adulthood, without their basic and traditional rights to self-defense. It is much easier, of course, to repress a mass population, when the people’s best defenses against government soldiers are limited to pitchforks and knives.

    Regardless of Washington’s intentions, most Americans actually support some gun control measures. In fact, most believe a strict background check should be required for anyone looking to buy a gun, as well as increased restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

    There’s lots of debate over the effectiveness of such added gun control measures. Supporters of the 2nd amendment might point to a Harvard University study which concluded that, as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases. Gun advocates can also rely on the data that shows how firearms are used defensively about 2.5 million times per year (which amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun), not to mention the reported 498,000 intruders frightened away, altogether, by a homeowner with a gun.
    Most everyone can acknowledge that greater gun control will not prevent a mentally unstable person, or someone just intending to do harm to others, from entering a school, or a theater, or a church, with a box cutter, pepper spray, knife, or even a bomb. Despite this, too many folks still say we need stricter gun control, and that we need to pass more, and even tougher, criminal laws, lock up the offenders, and throw away the keys.

    But we have enough laws, and the U.S. already has the highest incarceration rate in the world, yet we still don’t feel safe in our own neighborhoods, but it’s not because of law-abiding citizens owning guns.

    We feel so unsafe, though, that many Americans are willing to surrender more and more of their Constitutional rights to the federal government, including the dilution of the 2nd Amendment, and the right of self-defense, even when the cost outweighs the benefit.

    You see, the folks in Washington are peddling the politics of fear – and it’s a trap. Obama says, “If there’s even one thing that we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try.” Well, if he’s talking about banning so-called “assault” weapons, then you should realize those weapons are hardly used in crimes, comparatively speaking, and in fact, they are used in only one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes, and these weapons make-up only 1.7% of all firearms in circulation.

    You see, all this fuss about so-called “assault” weapons is more symbolic. It makes for good politics, but it might be considered also, by some, as a deliberate attempt to weaken the 2nd Amendment, or as Attorney General Holder said in 1995, as a first step to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

    But we’ve got bigger issue as Americans, for both gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts alike, and it’s this: If we accept the President’s proposition that Executive Orders, mandating anything, at any time, must tried “even if one life can be saved”, and without the “inconvenience” of requiring Congressional approval first, what’s next then? Can the federal government limit the number of miles you can drive in your car each day, since traffic fatalities are obviously higher when there are more miles driven? Under Obama’s ideology, the federal government could have an obligation to try and reduce traffic fatalities, “even if one life can be saved.”

    Could the federal government limit the number of hammers sold at hardware stores because hammers were used in over 600 murders last year? An Executive Order likewise may be needed to control hammers, “even if one life can be saved”. Do you see how far off the tracks that we’re getting here, by accepting the explanation of “even if one life can be saved”? Do you see how, before long, the folks in Washington will be telling you how many times a day to brush your teeth?

    If you want a hint of what may be in store, consider this: In a 2008 primary election interview, Obama said, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” Really? Well, that’s good to know, Mr. President, because most Americans have no intention of giving them to you either.

  • Hard Workers Should Reap Rewards

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    In a shopping mall, recently, I saw a young man wearing a Nike T-shirt that said, in large bold letters, “Hard Work Pays Off.” Obviously, this was a reference to the great preparation and training athletes undertake to play their sport successfully. Michael Jordan spent his off seasons taking hundreds of jump shots a day, for example. Award-winning pitcher Roy Halladay regularly puts in a 90-minute workout before his teammates even make it to the field. Another example are Olympic gold- medalists and No. 1-ranked duo Venus and Serena Williams, who were up hitting tennis balls at 6 a.m. from the time they were 7- and 8-years- old.

    Then there’s Kobe Bryant, the leading scorer in Los Angeles Lakers history, who just wants to be remembered as a hard worker, saying, “To think of me as a person that’s overachieved, that would mean a lot to me. That means I put a lot of work in and squeezed every ounce of juice out of this orange that I could.”

    So this got me thinking about “hard work.” There’s no one out there talking about how “lucky” Bryant is to have been the NBA scoring champion (twice) or to have led his team to win the NBA championship five times. There’s no one saying he’s made enough points now, even though he has already scored more than 30,000 points in his career and is ranked in the Top 5 of all NBA players in history for scoring. Despite his success, no one would even consider suggesting it’s unfair he scores so often or that history ought to be revised so that some of his points can be redistributed to his other teammates, who arguably deserve some of those points since Kobe didn’t score all those points on the court by himself.

    The same holds true for basketball great Michael Jordan. Even though he holds the NBA records for highest career regular season scoring average (30.12 points per game) and highest career playoff scoring average (33.45 points per game) and led his team to win the NBA championship six times, no one even questions the “fairness” of so many points being scored by a single player or that he received so many awards during his career, even though there were other players on the court with him that worked hard also and would have liked to have scored lots of points and won awards just the same.

    But while it seems ridiculous to consider redistributing a player’s points at the end of a game to lower-scoring players by taking points away from folks like Kobe or Michael (who obviously have more points than they know what to do with), this is precisely what some folks in Washington are doing by raising taxes on folks that have more “points” than most. And even though “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard,” none of that occurs to these same folks in Washington – and it may never – as long as the fallacy in raising taxes doesn’t matter to millions of voters, either.

    Can you imagine telling Kobe he needed to “get some skin in the game” right after he scored 81 points in a single game (the second-highest point total in NBA history)? Or that he needed to offer an attitude of “shared sacrifice,” so his teammates might have more opportunities to score the same amount of points that he does, even though he’s doing more than his “fair share” to make sure the team wins?

    As a coach, would you ever tell him that at a certain point he’s made enough points (like Obama said at a certain point, “You’ve made enough money.”)?

    Of course not. That’s ridiculous. But this is the essence of modern- day liberalism. It seeks to minimize the power and responsibility of the individual to affect its own success … or failure. Even an economics professor from Cornell University wrote in The New York Times recently that “talent and hard work are neither necessary nor sufficient for economic success.” You see what we’re dealing with here?

    But Michael Jordan explains his success this way: “I’ve missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”

    For Michael Jordan, success wasn’t rooted in the equality of the outcomes but rather in the equality of opportunities to fail. The folks in Washington just don’t get it – instead of incentivizing hard work, they virtually demonize it by taxing it.

    There’s a reason that hard work is at the root of success on the court or on the field whether you are Michael Jordan or Venus and Serena Williams. It’s because hard work works. Period. And you don’t have to dribble a basketball to figure out why.

  • Christmas on the Mind

    Christmas on the Mind

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It’s just so out of wack, isn’t it? I mean, good grief. Does hearing, “Peace on earth, good will toward men” really sounds oppressive? Does “Joy to the world” bring such despair to those who hear it? Is there such a scarcity of darkness in the world that a few twinkling lights might not brighten one’s day, or where the innocence of Santa Claus might not teach us all that it is in giving, that we receive?

    You see, even though Americans have celebrated Christmas for more than 200 years, there is a growing number of Americans continuing to confuse the freedom of religion (which was intended by our founding fathers), with the freedom from religion (which is something altogether different).

    For those folks promoting freedom from religion, we must hear the argument each year on why a Christmas tree is a “holiday tree”, or why seemingly benign Christmas carols cannot be sung in our schools, or why Christmas decorations are not permitted to be displayed in our public squares.

    For the fear that some may take offense at anything that does not harmonize with their own beliefs (or lack of thereof), these folks urge tolerance, ironically, through the intolerance of those with whom they disagree.

    But poll after poll has shown, however, that this fear is misplaced. According to the polling firm Zogby, 95% of Americans are NOT offended when they hear “Merry Christmas”. In fact, even 62% of non-Christians (including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists) all celebrate Christmas, in some form or fashion, plus more than half of self-identified atheists and almost 90% of agnostics.

    Interestingly, this misplaced fear of offending others, through religion, was the reason that the CBS network executives almost cancelled A Charlie Brown Christmas, back in December 1965. You see, the executives did not want Linus reciting the story of the birth of Christ from the Gospel of Luke. It was thought that viewers would not want to be preached upon by an animated cartoon, especially from Biblical passages. Yet 15 million viewers, or one-half of the television viewing audience, tuned in to watch A Charlie Brown Christmas when it first aired in 1965 and it has become the longest-running cartoon special in history, having aired now for forty-seven (47) Christmases, and receiving an Emmy and a Peabody award along the way. Those CBS executives just got it wrong when it came to religion.

    This is because, in the words of Charlie Brown’s creator, Charles Schulz, “There will always be an audience for innocence in this country”. Still, the religious celebration of Christmas faces trivialization. Just a couple of years ago, for example, even the White House was not planning to display the Nativity scene, which has been a longtime East Room tradition. Instead, according to the White House’s former social secretary Desiree Rogers, the “Obamas were planning a nonreligious Christmas.” Great. Whatever that means.

    Regardless of the Christmas plans in the White House, Christmas has marked a dramatic return for retailers who have now put the “Christ” back into “Christmas”, after an experimental hiatus where many of the stores instead emphasized “Happy This” or “Happy That”, instead of simply, “Merry Christmas” in all of their advertising.

    In fact, the percentage of retailers recognizing Christmas in their advertising has risen from 20% to 80% in recent years, but there are still companies that refer to Christmas, if at all, as nothing more than a tradition, such as Barnes & Noble, Old Navy, Radio Shack, and Victoria’s Secret. This just isn’t right.

    After all, according to the founder of the American Family Association, “Retailers which seek to profit from Christmas, while pretending it does not exist should realize they have offended the vast majority of Americans who enjoy Christmas”. (You can check out their “Naughty and Nice” list at http://action.afa.net/)

    I guess these “naughty” retailers expect you to leave the “Christ” part of Christmas in the parking lot. And no, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all is good with the world just because a store says “Merry Christmas”, instead of “Happy This” or Happy That”. The true Christmas spirit still comes from within because, Charles Schulz was right, “There will always be an audience for innocence in this country.” And that’s whether you call it a Christmas tree, or a Holiday Tree, or a Shoe Tree. As they say, Christmas is not a time nor a season, but a state of mind. Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year, everyone.

  • Can’t Have it Both Ways

    Can’t Have it Both Ways

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    To “have one’s cake and eat it too” is a popular figure of speech, intended to illustrate, of course, the futility of consuming a thing, while attempting to still preserve it. Or, to express it another way, “you can’t have it both ways”. Of course, that still doesn’t keep some folks from trying, but some folks might ought to let Mary Landrieu know that she may have eaten the last piece of that proverbial “cake” in Louisiana. Here’s what I mean:
    The oil and gas industry contributes nearly $70 billion to our state’s economy, and funds almost 14% of the state’s budget through royalties and other fees. It directly, or indirectly, supports nearly 320,000 jobs throughout the state.

    But the industry, and the thousands of Louisiana families whose livelihoods depends upon it, continue to suffer at the hands of an Obama administration intent on crippling our state’s economy, by making the oil and gas industry ineligible for the same federal tax incentives available to every other industry, and by increasing regulations through the EPA, effectively reducing drilling altogether. After all, according to Obama, why worry about an oil and gas industry that’s making record profits – especially when they’re not paying their “fair” share, right?

    Considering the oil and gas industry’s importance to our state’s economy, not to mention our national security, it is undeniably difficult to reconcile Mary Landrieu’s tireless campaigning for the re-election of President Obama while, at the same time, she laments his promises of increasing energy taxes on the oil and gas industry, as well as the White House’s de facto moratorium on drilling and exploration. She is willing to accept nearly $3 million in campaign contributions from this same “price-gouging” industry, even as her own “guy” (Obama) says she either needs to “stand with big oil companies”, or she “can stand with the American people.”

    And even if all of those contradictions weren’t enough, Mary Landrieu continues her religious support of the same Democrat Party that almost unanimously voted, in the U.S. Senate, to increase taxes on the oil and gas industry, not to mention her endorsement of the White House who literally holds Louisiana’s prosperity in the balance. In fact, Mary Landrieu is so committed to the Democrat Party that she votes along party lines almost 85% of the time.

    And to add insult to injury, and despite Louisiana’s conservative values, and the fact that 58% of Louisianans voted Republican in the November election, Mary Landrieu still finds it representative of her constituents for her to campaign for a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Virginia, explaining her support by writing, “We can’t let the Republican Party win control of the Senate.” Really?

    And now, with Democrats controlling both the Senate and the White House, the American Petroleum Institute is running commercials throughout the state, to encourage Senator Landrieu to stand for her constituents, and against the looming federal tax increases, and new regulations within the oil and gas industry, which are supported by the same Democrat Party, and White House, for whom Senator Landrieu so relentlessly campaigned.

    If Senator Landrieu “knows that jobs killing energy taxes hurt Louisiana’s economy”, as those television commercials explain, then why would she have worked so hard to elect a President who doesn’t seem to understand that raising taxes on the oil industry will lead to less oil on the market, leading to higher oil prices, and ultimately, higher gasoline prices for consumers, which then raises the cost of almost everything else, from chicken to cheese?

    If Senator Landrieu was “fighting for jobs”, why would she stand with a Democrat Party whose war on “big oil” extends well beyond federal tax increases, but will decrease “big oil” profits, as well? This won’t lead to more jobs, but it will decimate the pension funds and investment income of nearly 39 million senior citizens, not to mention the 76 million baby boomers approaching retirement, whose savings include mutual funds largely dependent on “big oil” profitability.

    Senator Landrieu isn’t much of a fiscal conservative, as she obviously revealed in 2003 when she said, “I think the whole trickle-down (economy) is hogwash…(w)e tried that and it didn’t work”. But I think she knows differently, deep down. It may just be more politics for her, than is practical for us, considering our state’s precarious position in this war on “big oil.”

    The problem is that Louisiana politics has moved on. The “every man a king” Democrat, or politicians that say one thing among their constituents, and another when they are back in Washington, is a tired, worn out template which is indicative of a politician more interested in the next election, than the next generation. And the fact that Senator Landrieu is the last Democrat in a statewide office is evidence of just how far Louisiana politics has moved on.

    Louisiana needs a U.S. Senator that stands with them 100% of the time, not with the White House, or the Democrat Party talking points. You can’t have it both ways. It’s like it says in the Bible, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other.” Senator Landrieu is a good and decent person, but the people of Louisiana deserve her undivided service; representative of our good values and irrespective of good politics – or even good “cake.”

  • Debate Not Hate

    Debate Not Hate

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    As this election season draws to a close, there are some who might say that America today is more polarized than at any time in its history. And this goes behind the mere partisan disagreements, or bickering, regarding taxes, healthcare, immigration, education, or even more fundamentally, the role of government itself.

    Although many Americans are divided on the issues today, the fact is…they always have been. Going back to the election of 1824, no President has ever been elected with more than about 60 percent of the American people’s support. It is expected (and encouraged) that Americans will disagree on what candidate should occupy the highest office in the land, but that alone doesn’t necessarily mean that America is polarized, or polarizing, which is altogether more sinister to our union.

    I’ll explain. You see, the polarization of America is defined by the extent to which public opinion is divided into the extremes, which is often encouraged by factions, within a political party, in order to gain dominance in their respective party. The casualties, unfortunately, are the moderate voices, which often lose power and influence, as a consequence.

    But unlike simple partisanship, polarization is more akin to when a candidate for public office is thought of as dishonest or evil, or when a candidates’ ideology is thought wholly wrong, while another’s ideology is considered free of error altogether. In other words, polarization is bad because it doesn’t allow compromise, whatsoever.
    And depending on when you are reading this column (before or after this November’s election), and whichever side of the aisle you may sit, or stand, it is more important than ever that Americans return to a healthy partisanship, at least, on the issues, not polarization; and come together as one nation, under God, and indivisible.
    How? Well, we can start, I think, with identifying some issues that we can all agree upon, that represent the best of America: The Bill of Rights. Hot dogs. Apple pies. Navy SEALS. Seinfeld (yadda yadda yadda). Steve Jobs. Disneyworld. Girl Scout cookies. Movie theater, buttered popcorn. Can we also agree that, sooner or later, the Monday after the Super Bowl must become a national holiday? Elvis. Free elections. Peanut M & Ms. Fresh, hot donuts.

    And while these are important issues on which we can all reach some consensus, there’s one more issue that requires our consensus as well, whether Democrat or Republican. It’s an issue that stands out as one of the fastest growing priorities in our nation today, with nearly 69% of Americans now calling it a “top priority”: It’s the federal budget deficit.

    It is so important, in fact, that the president of the Pew Research Center has said “In my years of polling, there has never been an issue such as the deficit on which there has been such a consensus among the public about its importance.” One problem is that the same percentage of the public who call this issue a “top priority”, are neither willing to reduce spending nor raise taxes to address the issue.

    So, what’s at stake? Well, our federal debt is near $16 trillion now, and by the time you finish reading this column, the U.S. debt will have grown by approximately $4.4 million. It’s difficult to gain perspective on the crisis, when the numbers become so large. Folks sometimes use analogies to illustrate the dilemma, such as by saying that if you were to spend a dollar every second, it would take you 32,000 years to spend $1 trillion (or a mere one-sixteenth of the debt).

    Others explain it by comparing the federal government’s finances to your own household budget. If you manage your finances, like Congress manages the federal government’s, then your expenses, for example, would be $38,200, with a household income of only $21,700. And then, to add to the irresponsibility, you will charge $16,500 this year, to your credit card, on which you already have an outstanding balance of $142,710. Crazy, right? But that’s what we’re doing every year.

    The national debt is a ticking time bomb. Many economists agree that there will be a point where the interest payments alone will make the debt unsustainable. And per the Congressional Budget Office, the consequences of unchecked government debt will be reduced income and living standards for all of us, and fewer government programs, and higher marginal tax rates.

    This debt will cause inflation, and that will decrease the dollar’s purchasing power, making everything more expensive, from milk to medicine, not to mention the losses that will be sustained by pension and mutual funds, which are already substantial investors in federal debt.

    This is, in part, why Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff said last year that, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt…”

    And that’s why, whether you are a Donkey or an Elephant, we must all find a way to solve this federal budget deficit, by electing statesmen concerned for the next generation, and not politicians concerned only for the next election.

    Thomas Jefferson said that, “The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions and make them one people.” Abraham Lincoln explained that, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. We must not remain a divided America; it encourages our enemies and weakens our courage. Now, who wants some apple pie?

  • Debate of Ideas

    Debate of Ideas

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Poll after poll, before the first Presidential debate on October 3, was all concluding the same: Obama would win the debates. In fact, just 2 days before the first debate, an ABC News/Washington Post national poll indicated that 55% of likely voters agreed that Obama would win that first debate, with only 31% saying that Romney would be victorious.

    But like Rocky Balboa, who almost always was told he didn’t have a chance, and shouldn’t bother, Romney came out swinging…and never looked back. He ignored the critics, and the polls, and left Obama looking dazed, and confused.

    MSNBC host Chris Matthews explained Obama’s stunned appearance, “He had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it.” Faithful Obama supporters like comedian Bill Maher even said Obama “looked tired” and “had trouble getting his answers out.”

    Obama would remain up against the ropes all night during that debate. Some say his poor performance was because he was tired, but some say it was his planned strategy – to make himself the underdog. Al Gore even suggested that the mile-high altitude in Denver may have had some effect on his seemingly diminished fighting spirit and general sluggishness to counterpunch Romney. Even Romney himself felt compelled to note Obama’s confusion during the debate, saying, “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

    But the criticism of Obama on his debate performance is really out of place. It’s not that he was not “on his game” or didn’t have that “eye of the tiger”, but rather his sluggishness and uncertainty, during the debate, was merely a reflection of the paralysis our nation is enduring under his policies, from the economy to national security.

    You see, despite the explanations and excuses, Obama’s performance (or lack thereof) was less about Obama’s debate acumen, and more about the simple truth that you can’t make chicken soup from chicken poop.

    I mean, what did folks expect from Obama during that debate, in the eleventh hour of his presidency? A miraculous makeover of the ill effects of his administration’s policies? That’s a tough one, considering his own vice-president recently confessed that the last 4 years of failed Democrat policies have “buried” the middle class. And that his administration is peddling an economic recovery that is the weakest since World War II; in an economy where household incomes have fallen 8.2% since he took office.

    Plus, there are now 23 million Americans who are unemployed (or underemployed), and of that total, 6.7 million have completely given up looking, but still want a job. Of course, you know that unemployment has been above 8% now for 43 straight months (and among African-Americans, the unemployment rate is even higher – 14.4%).

    So, how do you credibly defend your own policies in a debate of ideas, when your results are so abysmal? What do you do when there’s an additional $6 trillion in new national debt since you took office?

    What can you say to the American people when you are blocking a Canadian pipeline and choking the fossil fuels industry, all while the price of gasoline has nearly doubled under your watch?

    What debate maneuver would dress up the idea of accelerating the bankruptcy of the Medicare program, by raiding $716 billion from it and funding Obamacare instead?

    President John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” And the same is true here.

    You see, persuasiveness and platitudes make for entertaining political fodder, but they don’t change the facts. Animated stump speeches don’t help the 50% of college graduates this year who can’t find work. “Words” don’t provide the 47 million Americans on food stamps the means to move from poverty, to prosperity.

    Theoretical discussions about how our foreign policy “should” work doesn’t reduce the threat from a nuclear Iran or North Korea, nor from terrorist attacks against our embassies, or the murdering of Americans overseas.

    This is why the criticism of Obama’s debate performance is out of place. It’s not about his energy level, or enthusiasm. Nor was it his grasp of the issues, recall of the facts, or the lack of a teleprompter.

    It’s simply this: His policies are indefensible. And without a record to run on, and unless the American people will accept his “intentions” alone, to do good (once again), how much better could anyone have expected him to perform in a debate of ideas; especially when the only ones he has had, have turned out so poorly?

  • Distracted Voting

    Distracted Voting

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It is estimated that 400,000 people annually are injured in motor vehicle accidents involving a distracted driver. In fact, distracted driving is estimated to kill over 3,000 people each year. And according to the federal government, distracted driving is “any activity that could divert a person’s attention away from the primary task of driving,” such as texting, grooming, reading, etc. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called distracted driving a “national epidemic”.

    Well, there’s another growing national epidemic, and it’s estimated to have caused 23 million Americans to become unemployed and produce the lowest level of homeownership in United States’ history. It’s linked to declining household incomes, and the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, which has lost more than 83 percent of its value since 1970. It’s an epidemic that increases the national debt by $2 million every minute, and is associated with decreased national security. The epidemic? Distracted voting.

    Distracted voting is any activity that could divert a person’s attention away from the primary task of being an informed voter, knowledgeable of the facts, and aware of the issues. I’ll share with you a couple of examples.

    On the same day that demonstrators attacked the U.S. embassies in Yemen and Egypt, and killed the U.S. ambassador in Libya, and on the same day that demonstrators tore down the American flag at our embassy there, and replaced it with a black flag with Islamic text, our President still went ahead with his campaign appearances and fundraising in Las Vegas, all while a cheering, exuberant crowd welcomed him, almost as if nothing more significant had happened that day.

    Instead of considering the significance of the terrorist attacks on our embassies, or the loss of life, or the continuing vigilance needed to protect Americans, both here at home, and abroad, Obama instead spoke that night in Las Vegas about how our nation is divided between the rich and the poor, even though the incomes of nearly all Americans have increased sevenfold (after adjusting for inflation), over the last century. He talked about how he needed to raise taxes and redistribute wealth to make this country great again, even though millions of Americans already made this country great – many coming to this country with little more than the clothes on their backs, and yet they still built the world’s largest economy (and without an $850 billion stimulus).

    No, instead of that Las Vegas crowd wondering how the war on terrorism might be waged going forward, we instead are told of the Republicans “war” on women, because contraceptives might no longer be free. The Democrats portray Mitt Romney as a greater threat to women than the Taliban, meanwhile there are “real” wars on women being waged in the Middle East, where they are often and unjustly imprisoned, and tortured. In some countries, women can’t drive or vote, while in other countries, women are not allowed to work, or be educated after the age of 8.

    The attentive voter will know, however, that there is no “war” on women in this country. In fact, for every two men who will receive a B.A. degree this year, three women will do the same.

    Women now make-up a majority of the workforce and more than half of all are managers. In fact, a growing number of women are now out-earning their male counterparts and, as that trend continues, there will be a majority of working women who are out-earning their male counterparts.

    But is there really any big surprise why we have so many distracted voters in our nation? After all, with so many diversions to captivate our attention and occupy our minds, often with nonsense, it’s difficult to come home – pause – and give thoughtful consideration to nuclear proliferation. Or to the national security threat from our nation’s open borders. Or to the terminal consequences of increasing the national debt.

    It’s just not a priority when the children have their homework to finish, baths to take, and you have to balance the checkbook.

    Democrats in Washington are hoping it’s easier to process it all into easy campaign rhetoric: Rich versus poor. Men versus women. Citizens versus immigrants. Tolerance or appeasement versus peace through strength. Mitt Romney’s tax returns versus how much his wife paid for her blouse.

    Distracted voting is an epidemic in our nation. Did you know that only 2 in 10 Americans know that there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Senate? Or that only 4 in 10 of us know that there are 3 branches of government (and also can name each of them)? Or that 53% of Americans don’t know who is the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court or, for that matter; even name a single member of the highest court in the land? Or that a National Geographic poll revealed that 6 in 10 people, aged 18 to 24, could not find Iraq on a map?

    There’s something we can all do about distracted voting, though. Get informed, and get the facts. After all, it’s like Obama told us all last year that, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.” And he’s right. The problem is – it’s the Democrats in Washington doing the distracting – and they’re offering free admission to the circus, for everyone willing to listen.

  • Tell Me Lies

    Tell Me Lies

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Will Rogers once said, “If you ever injected truth into politics, you have no politics.” Unfortunately, he may be right. Of course, lies also have a devastating effect on others. Some psychologists explain that most folks lie because they believe they won’t be accepted by others – if they tell the truth about who they are. But do politicians lie because the public doesn’t want to hear the truth? Rome’s greatest orator, Marcus Cicero received this campaign advice from his brother in 64 B.C: “Candidates should say whatever the crowd of the day wants to hear.”

    But what about when a politician tells the truth, but the voters are inattentive, or hear only what they want to hear?

    Of course, it’s easier to focus on the “mistruths” of any politician. In Obama’s case: He repeatedly pledged to put the healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN (but didn’t). He promised to reduce the budget deficit by 50% by the end of his first term in office (it’s growing instead). He promised there would be no earmarks in his $787 billion stimulus bill (but there were). During the 2008 campaign, he claimed he didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was radical (even though he attended church services with Wright for 20 years).
    He promised he would have the most transparent administration (although he appointed 44 different “czars” to serve him, outside the glare of public scrutiny and Congressional approval). Then he promised that the “Recovery Act” would save or create jobs (yet unemployment has continued to rise to record levels). He said Obamacare would pay for itself (but Obamacare actually robs funding from Medicare in order to “pay for itself”, starting with $500 billion in 2013 and rising to $716 billion by 2022).
    He said the health care bill wouldn’t increase the deficit by one dime (yet it will actually add at least $340 billion to the national deficit over the next 10 years). He promised in 2009 that, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future” (but deficit spending during this administration has risen to over $5.1 trillion).

    So…what does all of this mean to the American people, like you and me? Well, in the words of Lenin, the former premier of the Soviet Union, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. This is why it’s important for folks like you and me, in a free society, to make sure that those lies stop.

    Our work is cutout for us because some folks in Washington definitely have this lying principle down pat, and they have a head start on us. But what happens when the lie isn’t so much in the words of the politician, but in the lies we tell ourselves about the politician?

    Consider Obama, for instance. Here are some examples where he just leveled with the American people, told it like it was and opened up:
    Remember in 2008, when Obama told Joe ‘The Plumber’ that, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”? Or how about when Obama said, right before his inauguration in 2009, “Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game.” Or in 2010 when he said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money” (even though poll after poll of likely voters believe the top earners should pay less taxes, not more). Or how about when he told us, “If you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it” (which is true, even though the government’s own estimates indicate that 14 million Americans will lose their current coverage as a result of Obamacare and 17% of all doctors with a private practice said they could close within a year if their financial condition doesn’t improve). Still, it’s the truth from Obama – we can keep our doctor or health plan (if they are still in business, that is).

    And of course, just last week, explaining his business acumen in aiding General Motors, Obama explained that the federal government wasn’t through in the private sector, saying, “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry” (even though General Motors still owes the taxpayers $42 billion).

    Then last month Obama said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that” (instead crediting government and luck for any success of business owners). He recently pitched himself to supporters by asking, “Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” (even though history is littered with failed nations wherever such socialism, or collectivism, has been practiced).

    The point of recalling these candid truths is that Obama has leveled with us, for all intents and purposes, in what he believes: redistribution of wealth through higher taxes, a single payer system where the federal government controls your healthcare, and more centralized control of the economy, through managing other industries now, such as banking and energy.

    And even though many folks, in 2008, might not have ever expected this type of “hope” or that kind of “change, the voters will only have themselves to blame this time, in 2012, for any “buyer’s remorse” of a second term for Obama. By then, the only lies left behind will be the ones that voters have told themselves.

  • American Spirit

    American Spirit

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    HITTING THE ROAD

    The road. Most people just want to get the show on the road. That’s usually where the rubber meets the road. Of course, it has often been said that, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there”. And the American poet Robert Frost wrote famously, “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I — I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.” But if the road to success is always under construction, maybe it will have a bigger tollbooth at the exit ramp now, if President Obama continues to have his way.

    No doubt, by now, you’ve heard Obama’s “roads and bridges” campaign speech from last month, wherein he explained that successful people owed a “toll” for traveling along the road to success. He said, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

    Well, I’m not sure Obama understands how out of touch that thinking is with the hard-working, enterprising, and risk-taking spirit that is embodied in the American people…and the American dream. Or the notion that our country still offers equality of opportunity…and more so than any other country in recorded history.

    These folks in Washington don’t understand that “big government” is not responsible for all business successes, even though Obama’s rhetoric makes it clear, for those who are successful, that they owe “big time” to “big government”.

    Of course, “big government” can effectively close the doors to businesses, with its heavy hand, through higher (and higher) taxes, increasing regulations, and by dividing the country so that it pits the “haves” versus “the have nots”. We’ve seen the failed, predictable results of such policies, time after time: record unemployment, decreased consumer spending, plummeting home prices, and declining wages.

    In all fairness, though, we should recognize that road and bridges, in high-income economies, are dramatically more advanced, than in middle and low-income economies. In fact, literacy, agricultural yield, and health care all improve with road density, or a more advanced road infrastructure, and this is true in nations all around the world.
    Even the elder President Bush (41) acknowledged the significant, transforming value of our modern-day interstate highway system, which unites us economically, politically, and socially, as never before. President Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs that, “(i)ts impact on the American economy – the jobs it would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open up – was beyond calculation.

    So, yes, Mr. Obama, roads and bridges are important (although well-meaning, and intelligent folks might disagree as to whether better roads and bridges lead to growth, or if it is the other way around). Arguably, the construction of a road by itself is not capable of developing a business, even though it may be a necessary element in doing so.

    And we can also debate whether or not the so-called “successful” among us (that Obama refers to so often), need to pay more taxes, since many pay a disproportionately high level of sales, property, and income taxes to fund the construction of public roads and bridges already.

    But of much greater concern is that the POTUS believes individual success is largely a product of luck, other people, and “big government”, instead of hard work, commitment, and ingenuity.

    This is like a student who did poorly on a test in school, and then blames, the teacher, or the difficulty of the test, for their own poor performance. This nation was not founded upon a principle of luck or blame, but upon the notion that we can all influence our success. This is a work ethic that understands if any of us did poorly on a test in school, then it’s simply because we didn’t study hard enough, and nothing more.

    Obama’s attribution of all good things to luck, or “big government”, is wildly out-of-step with most all Americans. In fact, only 14 percent of Americans believe that success is more a matter of luck, yet an overwhelming 63 percent of Americans believe that hard work usually brings a better life.

    And speaking of a better life, and “moving on up”, it hard not to mention that Sherman Helmsley passed away last month. He was an accomplished actor who portrayed George Jefferson, first on All in the Family, and then later, on The Jeffersons. George Jefferson was the son of an Alabama sharecropper, whose father died when he was 10, and who worked as a custodian, while his wife, Louise, worked as a housekeeper. They moved into a “deluxe apartment in the sky”, as George’s dry cleaning business grew. George didn’t attribute all good things to luck, and he brought to life, the American spirit, that it takes “a whole lot of trying to get up that hill”. As viewers, we wanted them to get their piece of the “pie”; the American dream.

    So, I can’t help but wonder what it would be like, if Obama could make a guest appearance on The Jeffersons, given Obama’s recent commentary on small businesses, and proceeded to explain to George, who started at the bottom, that “(i)f you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
    Oh lord. Weezie, you better get back in here. This isn’t going to turn out well.