Media Subtley Shapes Our Views, even when it isn’t obvious

When Democrats criticized Bush for real failures, for instance when then Senator Barack Obama said, “After seven years of an Administration that has stretched our military to the breaking point, ignored deplorable conditions at some VA hospitals, and neglected the planning and preparation necessary to care for our returning heroes, America’s veterans deserve a President who will fight for them not just when it’s easy or convenient, but every hour of every day for the next four years”, those Democrats were just looking out for the best interests of Americans, out of real concern. But Republicans pointing out failures of President Obama want only to selfishly “use the incidents at the hospitals as fodder for a broader political theme about incompetence in his administration”.

In this example it is subtle, but the media relentlessly molds their message to portray Republicans negatively. Otherwise, this would simply be Republicans rightfully criticizing Obama for failures in Veterans Affairs which caused Veterans to die while the buck stops at Obama. But Democrats have real concern for women’s health, and gay rights, and reducing violence–unlike those damn Republicans who just want to score political points! How shameful, using dead Veterans as “fodder” for an election! When Democrats used dead children as fodder for elections, they really cared.

Watch most mainstream news stations and read mainstream articles, and when you look for it, you see it. Democrats” concerns are given real attention, while Republican concerns are always cast as what is best for politics and winning elections. But I am not so much defending Republicans as condemning the media–both Republicans and Democrats shamelessly use terrible government actions as fodder for their re-election, and both Republicans and Democrats from time to time have real concern for the citizens if the US. And I don’t claim to know which one this case represents, and it is probably different for each individual offering criticism of the President.

But one thing I do know is that the media will relentlessly portray Republicans as selfishly acting out of political prudence, and Democrats selflessly acting for the greater good. The real story here is that politics is broken, and the government is incompetent. The Veterans need to be taken care of, because that was the deal when they put themselves in harms way. But to turn around and have the same failure of a government administer healthcare for the entire nation when they cannot even take care of the health of the people who protect this nation, is absurd. Even if Obamacare had the best intentions, which is does not, there is no chance of this government running a program of that size, magnitude, and importance appropriately.

It is time to drastically rethink our idea of the role the federal government should play in our lives. The federal government should not be something constantly on our minds, and on our backs. It was never meant to be a daily player in citizens lives, and a Constitutionally constrained government would return us to that paradigm.

Senator Paul: Obama Ignores Due Process by Assassinating Americans with Drones Abroad

Senator Rand Paul has expressed his opposition to an appointment by Obama of Judge David Barron to the 1st Circuit Court of appeals. Like his filibuster of the nomination of now CIA Director Brennan, Paul protests this nomination on the grounds that the appointee has no respect for the Fifth Amendment, which states (emphasis added):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment enumerates Americans’ right to due process if suspected of having committed a crime, which involves indictment, a grand jury finding enough evidence to pursue criminal proceedings. But an indictment is not a conviction, also an important part of due process before one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Yet President Obama has killed American citizens abroad with drones, without them being convicted of a crime. Judge David “Barron circulated a memo that authorized the extra-judicial killing of two American citizens, radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Islamic extremist Samir Khan. Both would be assassinated by a CIA drone the following year.”

Paul makes it clear that he has “no sympathy” for the suspected terrorists, but believes whole-hearedtly in the rule of law. If a justification can be made to kill an American abroad without due process, then how long before that same justification is made at home? Because these days all they have to say is “terrorism”, and people will throw away their rights, in the name of “security”. Sort of like the clamor to lynch the younger Boston Marathon bombing suspect after he was aprehended—but he is an American citizen, and has the right to a fair trial. (On a side note, the pursuit against the Boston Marathon suspects was also used to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the citizens of Watertown.)

Paul concluded:

The right to due process is not some negotiable aspect of our Constitution, subject to the whim of whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office.

The Bill of Rights existed long before President Obama was elected, and as long as I’m a U.S. Senator, I will fight to protect the basic rights and liberties that belong to all of us as American citizens.

When I talk with our brave young men and women who have sacrificed so much for their country, many of whom have lost limbs, they understand that they were fighting to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It dishonors their service and sacrifice to find that upon their return home, we are not honoring due process and the right to trial by jury.

Such legal protections are quintessential to our most basic freedoms, dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. Our constitutional rights are not negotiable.

 

Puppet Media and the Pulling of Their Strings for 2016

Since Barack Obama came onto the political scene about 9 years ago, there seems to have been a resurgence of the old progressive liberal agenda that hadn’t enjoyed such vigor since the days of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Other left wing figures in between were more coy about their goals, or in fact were not so hostile to the free market and individual rights. John F. Kennedy spoke out against raising taxes in a recession, touting lower tax rates as good for the economy. JFK was also a member of the NRA. Oh how things have changed.

We now have a President, and I unfortunately have a Senator, who openly ridicule job creators, insisting that their success was not due to their own hard work, but instead to the government, or luck, or some mixture. I’m talking of course about President Obama’s and Senator Warren’s similar remarks about how business owners “didn’t build that” and how “the rest of us” paid for the roads on which their goods were moved. Roads are important to businesses, but the idea that businesses couldn’t survive without government providing them roads is ridiculous. The first railroads in Great Britain were all built and run by competing private companies, and the first highway in Alaska was a private toll road. Businesses will find a way to move their goods, but what this Senator and President believe is that businesses should thank government for confiscating their money, and spending some of it on a road.

And as for the whole thing about “the rest of us” paying for the roads: corporations pay a 35% tax rate; the President, CEO, CFO, and all the employees of the company pay taxes out of their salary from the company; when moving the goods on the roads, the company is paying gas taxes; when buying the materials they need the company pays taxes, and that money being spent at other businesses will be taxed again. If the business increases in value, the stockholders and investors are taxed  on the capital gain. So who exactly is “the rest of us”? More likely, “the rest of us” have some of the company’s tax dollars spent on the goodies the politicians hand out for votes. Why else would our government be so concerned about assets and businesses based offshore? We wouldn’t want them here if it was just going to cost us more money to pave more roads for their benefit. Obviously the government wants their tax dollars, and thus understands that businesses pay for their own roads in effect. So let me be clear, crony capitalists and politicians are sitting back on the yacht that the rest of us paid for.

But why bring up this old issue of the insulting statements made by the President and one random Senator? Because this “random Senator” is shaping up to “pull an Obama” in 2016. Remember how you had never heard of Obama, and then all of the sudden the freshman Senator from Illinois was the President? He had not even been a Senator for 4 years when he was elected President, and the media made a bigger deal about the Republican Vice Presidential candidate’s short tenure as Governor of Alaska. The 2008 election was not about women, it was about race. And anyway, conservative women are not victims of the “war on women”.

It was all about race. If you didn’t like Obama, well you were just harboring racist feelings. And its not Fast and Furious, or the refusal to prosecute black panthers, or his career as a Wall Street defense attorney, or his investigations of reporters that made you dislike Attorney General Eric Holder, its just because he is black. But that card has been warn out over the past 6 years, and the “war on women” rhetoric has heated up. This strategy is out of the same playbook: make the establishment seem anti-establishment by playing the victim. A vote for Obama was “a vote against racism”. And this time around the Democratic nominee will garner “votes against sexism”. And naturally the pick would be Hillary Clinton; after all she is crazy far ahead in the polls, a strong independent woman, and everyone knows her name.

But there’s a hushed buzz running through the Democratic party and liberal circles that suggests Elizabeth Warren could “pull an Obama”, come out of nowhere and be the next President before we know what hit us. This is what happened with Obama and the media love fest surrounding him, and drowning out any critics. The old cry from the sheep herd of “four legs good, two legs bad” had turned into “four legs good, two legs better” within just a few nights. His lack of experience was not a concern, even though Palin (again the media focus being on the GOP Vice Presidential candidate) had more executive experience than Obama.

Fittingly, my favorite scene from the musical Chicago is when the lawyer plays the press like marionette puppets to seed the idea that his (very guilty) client is innocent of murder. At one point he says that the crime is “understandable, understandable”—a line repeated minutes later by a popular reporter. By the end of the number, all of the marionette reporters are repeating falsely that “they both reached for the gun”.

So who is pulling the puppet strings, we can’t be sure, but the video of the Chicago musical number is a good visual to think of anytime you hear a strangely harmonized chorus coming from the press. We are hearing whispers that some on the left wish Obama could sound more like Warren. Hillary Clinton had double the poll numbers of Barack Obama at this time before the 2008 presidential race. And as for the “war on women”, she can’t play the victim. The “war on women” meme doesn’t work so well when someone as extremely successful and powerful as Hillary Clinton is supposedly exploited. Everyone already thinks of her as controlling Bill Clinton when he was in the White House, so for the left’s intents and purposes, she cannot be the first woman president. She already broke the glass ceiling. But someone who is newer to the scene could still provide the wave of support to finally prove America has overcome its sexism, and install a “main street” American woman in the White House.

Anything that brings emotion into an argument is good for a liberal trying to win an election. The emotion surrounding racial issues in America helped people both ignore Obama’s lack of experience, and later ignore his failures and scandals as president, prompted by the media reaction (or lack of reaction) to each of those things. Likewise the emotion surrounding women’s issues will be exploited this next election, in order to take the debate away from the dishonesty of the candidate, questions about scandals that went unanswered, or logical shortcomings of the political platform. The left has been trying out their “war on women” meme for a couple elections now, finely tuning it to shift the focus of voters away from Obamacare and the economy. As this unfolds, it will be interesting to see what the puppet media does, and perhaps by tracing the strings back to the controlling hands, we can have a shot at exposing the puppeteer and his same old political song and dance.

Comcast buys-off Government to Kill Competition

image

Have you ever wondered why Comcast is such a terrible company? Why they have high prices, bad customer service, and you really don’t have any other options? This is because Comcast is a prime example of crony capitalism playing out. The company Comcast has bought off the right politicians in order to gain control over the cable industry, spending $19 million last year alone on lobbying, with 100 lobbyists on the payroll. A majority of Comcast’s $33 million worth of political contributions since 1989 have gone to Democrats, with President Obama number one on the receiving end. Comcast Foundation has disbursed $3 Billion to mostly left leaning political organizations since 2001. Other crony ties between government and Comcast include:

  • Comcast CEO Brian L. Roberts gives thousands in political contributions to Democrats, specifically Obama who he plays golf with
  • Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen has visited the White House 14 times since 2010, raised $2 million for Obama, is a former aide to Democrat Governor Ed Rendell, major player in Comcast Foundation (and $3 billion distributed)
  • Comcast owns NBC, MSNBC which are well known for left bias, and blatant support for Democratic politics, President Obama, and Hillary Clinton

Comcast is buying Time Warner Cable for $45 billion, which requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). But far from making sure the media stays absent of corruption, the FCC essentially ensures that the media and TV industry are in bed with the government. Just think of all the benefits and money politicians have gotten from Comcast, so it would only make sense that they will be rewarded. And if it costs that much for the FCC to approve one company buying another, how could any smaller companies compete with Comcast? FCC approval acts as a way for Comcast to crush their smaller competitors. In addition to Comcast having plenty of money to comply with the regulations of the FCC, the costs of which smaller companies cannot as easily absorb, the FCC could downright deny mergers of Comcast competitors, keeping companies that are not cronies of government smaller and less powerful. But why would the FCC play their game?

  • FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is a former lobbyist for the Telecom industry, and was appointed to his position in 2013 by President Obama, raised somewhere between $700,000 and $1 million for Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, personally maxed out personal donations to DNC
  • Time Warner Cable has given $29 million to politicians since 1989, over half being Democrats
  • CEO of Time Warner Robert Marcus has given $8,500 to Dems since 2010
  • Time Warner PAC supports Democrats through “DNC Services Corporation, the DCCC, and the DSCC”
  • “Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who has received donations from both companies, had to recuse himself from Senate business with the merger when it was revealed that his brother, Robert, was representing Time Warner.”

Knowing all this, it starts to become clear why Comcast pays so little attention to their customers: they don’t have to run a good business. Through positioning the company as friends of the government, they can get special treatment, while their competitors are disadvantaged by this relationship with government. Since 1972 cable providers have had to get a license from the FCC to provide this service. In 1992 Congress decided that prices were rising too quickly for cable, even though the number of channels was also increasing. They said that the high start-up costs of providing cable made it necessary for Congress to “solve” this problem with regulation. But more than 2 decades later, after the merger with Time Warner, Comcast will serve 33 million customers, one third of all cable and satellite TV subscribers in America.

One reason for this is that Congress does not know how to, or did not intend to actually increase competition in the cable industry. With price controls, it very well could have put Comcast competitors out of business. Those smaller companies may have charged slightly more for their service due to the higher start up costs, but provided better customer service, for instance. Since the FCC got to decide how much each company could charge, this favored large companies like Comcast whose competitors’ profits would be restricted. Another issue is that the FCC gets to force regulations on cable providers that could land small companies large fines that could bring down a business if they break one of the rules.

If violations of the rules are subsequently discovered, appropriate regulatory sanctions, including imposition of a monetary forfeiture and/or the issuance of a cease and/or desist order, may be employed.

Under a 1996 Act, small cable providers are exempt from price controls, but “A “small cable operator” is defined to include any operator that serves fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and that is not affiliated with entities that have gross annual revenues exceeding $250 million.” But even a company that brings in $250 million in revenue each year is still only 1/250 the size of Comcast as measured by revenue. This means that a company right on the edge of earning that revenue may need to restrict expansion in order to avoid coming under price controls, which effectively limits competition from growing in opposition to Comcast.

And a further issue with legislation regulating cable providers, is that it established minimum requirements that the cable operators must provide for their customers, in order to form “a standard for improving the quality of customer service rendered by cable operators”. Again, this means that smaller companies are forced to provide a certain level of services to their customers, even if the customers were happy paying less for fewer, or different, services. Large companies like Comcast could easily comply with these standards, while the regulatory costs on small competitors are restrictive.

Right now, because of the FCC and other government actions, consumers do not have the proper choices for cable providers, that would have naturally arisen, absent regulation which has favored large, government connected companies like Comcast, due mostly to contributions to politicians made by Comcast and those affiliated with the company. The merger with Time Warner will further exacerbate this dominance, which the government has contributed to by implementing regulation which favored the two companies, to the detriment of smaller companies which would otherwise be able to compete.

This is why we have essentially no options when it comes to cable providers: cronyism. So the next time you are sitting on hold with Comcast for an hour, only to be told that they can’t help you, just remember why you have no options. The government, the FCC, Obama, and many other politicians have worked hard to restrict your access to choices when it comes to cable providers. Yet another reason to restrict government size and control.

American Drone Takes Out Yemeni Wedding

droneWhile I try to sprinkle in some positive news and encouraging posts on this blog, unfortunately due to the nature of politics it can sometimes be a downer. But politics and government are some of the areas that interest me most, because there’s so much room for improvement, and therefore I find myself being the bearer of bad news quite often. It is always tempting to just shut out the bad and focus on the good, which is why I think a lot of people hold unrealistic views, not realizing how bad our government really has gotten. I named this blog after the need to pay attention to our government, and therefore hold them accountable, which is the responsibility of a free people who control their government. But unfortunately for many years things were good enough in the USA for the electorate to become, well, lazy and look the other way even as the most egregious violations by our government confronted us.

Too often we are presented with the opportunity to trade liberty for security, but some people do not realize what goes with that trade. Our security is the excuse our government uses to carry out drone strikes all over the world, often killing innocents and civilians, always killing without a trial. This is not a wholesale condemnation of actions that our government takes to actually keep America safe as the Constitution lays out. But it is safe to say that our government has gone beyond protecting our borders and repelling invasions, and the cold hard truth is that we are a part of every positive action our government takes on our behalf, and equally a part of every negative that we have allowed to be carried out by our government. So our duty as an electorate in a free state is to take back the reigns of control that have slowly been stolen by our government, and right the wrongs. That’s why, in order to be a vigilant voter, I must raise awareness and condemn the use of drone strikes for worldwide hits by our government.

Lies have been repeated, especially by President Obama, that drone strikes are precision hits that can take out even one individual with accuracy, and that only individuals whose guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt are targeted. According to The Atlantic, such is not the case.

“A U.S. drone mistakenly targeted a wedding convoy in Yemen’s al-Baitha province after intelligence reports identified the vehicles as carrying al Qaeda militants,” CNN reported, citing government sources in Yemen. “The officials said that 14 people were killed and 22 others injured, nine in critical condition. The vehicles were traveling near the town of Radda when they were attacked.”

Is America at war with Yemen? Why is okay for the U.S. to perform military operations in countries which we are not at war with, and have no agreements with to wage war on their population? Can we imagine the furor that would accompany any military operations of another country on America soil, let alone if those strikes included murdering innocent civilians? Add on the fact that it was a wedding where the civilians were murdered, and this starts to sound more like “Game of Thrones” than 2013 America.

And don’t be one to condemn entire nations’ civilians because of the actions of a small percentage of people, or even the government. Conversely, while it is our responsibility to ensure our government is being responsible militarily, we did not murder those civilians, and therefore retaliation on American civilians would be disgusting and unjustified. Likewise, even if the Yemeni government is funding terrorism, that is not sufficient reason to go around blowing up wedding parties because, like, maybe a few of them were terrorists.

“…Five of those killed were suspected of involvement withAl Qaeda, but the remainder were unconnected with the militancy, Yemeni security officials said.”

More than a dozen dead, many more injured, and an unknown number of survivors whose lives have suddenly taken a nightmarish turn the likes of which we cannot imagine, and all for the sake of five people suspected of ties to al-Qaeda. How many actual al-Qaeda terrorists would we have to kill with drones in Yemen to make the benefits of our drone war there outweigh the costs of this single catastrophic strike? If U.S. drone strikes put American wedding parties similarly at risk would we tolerate our targeted-killing program for a single day more? Our policy persists because we put little value on the lives of foreign innocents. Even putting them through the most horrific scene imaginable on their wedding day is but a blip on our media radar, easily eclipsed by a new Beyonce album.

Oh we took out 5 suspected terrorists? And how many more hundreds or thousands did we encourage to become terrorists with this single event? No, it is not justified to become a terrorist because of this, no, I am not making up excuses for current terrorists, nor apologizing for terrorist acts on Americans. What I am saying from a purely “let’s keep America safe” standpoint, is that what do we expect to come from treating civilians of other countries like this? Everyone who lost a loved one, or an eye, or a friend in that bombing will now live the rest of their lives hating America. They will have nightmares and PTSD and every ounce of rage that fills them will be focused on America. They will dream of revenge, they will become discouraged with their lives perhaps thinking, “Why bother planning for the future, why bother with a job, having children, love, or a wedding when it will all come crumbling down because of a government thousands of miles away”.

When people have no options they turn to crime. When people see no future, terrorism—a tight knit group of people whose mission you agree with, whose views you share that offer you the chance to avenge your loved ones—becomes a viable option. This does not justify terrorist actions, I am simply explaining how the “security” measures that America is taking are counter productive to our safety. So whether you care only about the security of Americans, or if you are like me and feel for the people that were murdered unjustly in our names, and feel for the couple whose wedding day included the murder and mutilation of dozens of their guests, friends, family, and loved ones, you should be condemning our worldwide drone war as loud as the next guy.

Obama claims that one needs to be an “imminent threat to Americans” in order to be taken out with a drone. It is tough to see how imminent a threat some guys attending a wedding would be. Obama says that these are “surgical” drone strikes and they make sure there are no civilians in the area before the attack is carried out. Well either someone’s not doing their job, or Obama is lying… again. Obama said:

Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

So it’s okay that we kill civilians because they did it first? This quote makes me wonder what the real purpose of these drone strikes are. Is the American military being used by Muslims to retaliate against their enemies? Why else would this be the focus of Obama’s justification, instead of the safety of Americans? The clear answer is that our government does not give us enough information about their drone strikes to justify them, and just expect us to swallow the “security” pill. None for me, thanks. I will continue to support rolling back our military ventures throughout the world in order to foster real security at home.

Before you vote in the next election, just remember that you are electing the person who will steer these drones. They will either be steered home, or continue murdering innocents along with their targets.

Obama Video Clips: Responding to NSA Snooping

“You can’t have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience, we’re going to have to make some choices” -President Obama. First of all, we do not have 100% security; Obama is acting like the USA has a zero crimes rate, and no terrorist attacks, and all that people have to put up with is a little intrusion into their internet history. On top of the crime and terror attacks, we have just learned that the government agency the IRS targeted conservative and Tea Party groups based on their political persuasions.

Is it really a stretch to think that another government agency would not target specific groups based on politics? With the IRS we have a chance of getting to the bottom of things, but any questions the NSA does not want to answer can just be brushed off as “classified information”. But don’t worry, they say, we have the proper oversight in place, and we do not target Americans–trust us. I guess Ben Franklin’s warning is falling on deaf ears these days, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Some variations of the quote include the phrase, “and will lose both”.

 

Watching the following clip brings to mind Saturday Night Live more-so than a Presidential Press Conference. “And if people can’t trust, not only the executive branch, but also don’t trust congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process, and rules of law, then we’re going to have some problems here” -President Obama. People should not be asked to blindly trust the sections of a government that have let them down on numerous occasions.

Is Obama saying that Tea Party groups should trust that the government will not target them because of their political beliefs? Should the press trust that the Justice Department won’t target them for saying negative things about the government? Should soldiers and ambassadors trust that America will keep them safe overseas, and not misrepresent events for political purposes? Trust is something that is earned, and being elected President or to Congress is not sufficient to earn the trust of Americans, nor should it be. A healthy skepticism of government will keep them honest, while blindly believing that the government will do the right thing leaves the door wide open for abuse of power, and the erosion of rights.

 

I found the following line especially amusing, in a depressing sort of way; “The people who are involved in America’s national security, they take this work very serious, they cherish our constitution. The last thing they’d be doing is taking programs like this to listen to somebody’s phone calls” -President Obama. And I am sure the last thing the IRS would be doing is auditing conservatives because they donated to a Republican. And probably the last thing the DOJ would be doing is tapping the phones of the press because they reported unfavorable things about the administration. In fact, I might go so far as to say the IRS and DOJ take their work very seriously, and cherish our constitution.

The government has proven to Americans beyond a reasonable doubt within the last few months that they cannot be trusted, that they will lie to make themselves look good and their opponents look bad, and that they have no problem harassing and suppressing media outlets and political groups for their own personal political gain. Obama can say what he wants, but his credibility is gone.

Obama: “I never want to make myself 100% clear”.

In a recent press conference President Obama joked to reporters, “I never want to make myself 100% clear”. Well, much truth is spoken in jest; clarity is Obama’s arch nemesis. If Obama were 100% clear about things, he would not have been able to flat out lie in a debate before the election, about who proposed the sequester. “First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed”, Obama said, “It’s something that Congress has proposed”. You can watch a white house official try to explain this particular lie in this video.

Clarity is not an asset to Obama. He does the best when not talking about specifics, but instead giving lofty sounding speeches that refer to world peace, neighborly love, and putting differences behind us. When it comes to the specifics, he needs to dodge as much as possible in order to conceal the fact that his actions as President take us in the opposite direction of the positive outcomes he describes.

In the same press conference, a reporter asks why Obama doesn’t just have the leaders down here and refuse to let them leave the room until a deal is reached. To this Obama answers, “I am not a dictator, I’m the President… I can’t have secret service block the doorway”. At this the members of the press in the room seem to get excited, perhaps annoyed that Obama is not a dictator, and mount a bit of protest, before being soothed by Obama’s calming words. The whole thing seemed like such a joke, that I could not help thinking of a South Park clip in which reporters question President Bush about the First Amendment.

South Park Clip- President Bush Questioned at News Conference over First Amendment.

We have a compound problem here. We have a President who will say anything to accomplish his political goals, and we have a media who essentially just report what the President says as truth, without doing any research. I think the fact that the media is so clueless at times allows Obama to get away with a lot of lying and misleading. Go and ask people who’s idea the sequester was, and I would be surprised if people knew Obama proposed the idea himself. Right now it is all too easy for the white house to control the narrative about what is going on in Washington. What gets me is that $85 billion of cuts has received so much attention, when every one of Obama’s budgets has added a trillion dollars or more to the national debt. Cutting $85 billion a year is a drop in the bucket, it is a distraction.