Wednesday, October 31, 2012

FOXNews.com: For once, Obama accepts presidential responsibility

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
For once, Obama accepts presidential responsibility
Oct 31st 2012, 19:30

Superstorm Sandy's October surprise has shifted our national discussion away from the state of our economy to the weather's terrible impact on some of our United States. But as Election Day looms and beleaguered east coasters eventually recover their electrical power, they—and the rest of the country—stand ready to reclaim a measure of political power with their votes.

If people enter the polling place with only one thought in mind, let it be this: whom do I trust more to take responsibility for the many problems and challenges we face as a nation?

A stark difference between President Obama and Governor Romney is that Romney is eager to take responsibility while Obama repeatedly pledges to take responsibility and then fakes it.

On federal relief for storm-damaged states, Obama has stepped up, as he should, with presidential leadership.

Wednesday's artful blend of optics and intervention in New Jersey also begs the question of where Obama's sense of responsibility has been in all of the previously mentioned disasters, ranging from lives shattered by the consequences of his decisions on the economy to lives lost in Libya.

-

But what about his other responsibilites as a leader? Switch to the policy disasters facing Americans: the feeble economy, 23 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, the tragic Benghazi attack, broken promises to cut the debt and deficits, scandalous crony capitalism including Solyndra, the Pandora's boxes of ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, Fast and Furious (and the list goes on) and leadership is missing. In all of the latter instances, Obama has defined himself with actions he has willfully taken and responsibilities he has either assumed or shirked.  

Like any leader—particularly a politician—Obama knows that he makes an indelible statement about his priorities and his acts of responsibility by where he chooses to be and what he says when he gets there.

Thus, on Wednesday, two days after Sandy hit the Northeast, Obama traveled to New Jersey. There he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Republican Governor Chris Christie, signaling presidential involvement in a recovery response to the hurricane. Obama's message:: I'm on top of this. I'm a Democrat working with a Republican. This is me and the federal government acting responsibly.

But this artful blend of optics and intervention in New Jersey also begs the question of where Obama's sense of responsibility has been in all of the previously mentioned disasters, ranging from lives shattered by the consequences of his decisions on the economy to lives lost in Libya.    

As a general principle, President Obama claims, "the buck stops with me," or "I'm ultimately responsible." While criticizing Romney, Obama even told ABC's Scott Thuman that, "…as president of the United States, it's pretty clear to me that I'm responsible for folks who are working in the federal government and you know, Harry Truman said the buck stops with you."

But does Obama truly take responsibility or fake responsibility? We've had four years of Obama shooting messengers (including Fox News) and blaming others (before it was Romney it was President Bush, Republicans and the Tea Party). We've had four years of Obama insisting that he knows best and that anywhere there have been "bumps in the road" it is because of potholes and craters made by others—never by him.

The president can't have it both ways. With leadership responsibility comes leadership accountability.

In his inaugural address, Obama said, "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility—a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task."

What is required of us, as voters, is to hold President Obama to account regarding his record of just talking about responsibility rather than seizing it for what we believe is the common good.

In the run-up to Election Day, we've had two natural disasters: superstorm Sandy and Barack Obama's buck passing about almost anything other than a hurricane.

It is time to clean up after both of them.

Jon Kraushar, a communications consultant to corporate and political leaders, is at www.jonkraushar.net.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Sandy's impact on the 2012 presidential race

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Sandy's impact on the 2012 presidential race
Oct 31st 2012, 21:52

What has been the impact of Hurricane Sandy on the presidential race?

It's too early to tell with any certainty, but one thing is clear ─  the whole question of economic leadership and stewardship of the country has been suspended while the nation's attention is riveted on the East Coast and on cleanup efforts.

The fact that Governor Chris Christie, a Republican from New Jersey, and President Obama have made common cause drives home─in ways that few could have thought possible a few days ago─the benefits of bipartisanship that Governor Romney himself has only recently begun to champion.

Put another way, the fact that the president─in real time, with real world challenges ─is demonstrating leadership can only be seen to rebound to his benefit. I wouldn't want to go too far in overstating the benefits of the hurricane to the President, but still, a narrative that had been developing that was negative to him has been arrested, if not changed.

To be sure, the campaign will begin again in earnest Thursday, and there's every reason to believe that voter attitudes will more likely than not return to where they were before the storm hit.

But that being said, President Obama has had two or three good economic days to buttress polls that had only been sinking.

The national polls, before the storm, had indicated that the race was a tie. The RealClearPolitics average shows the President less than 1 point behind Governor Romney, and the national polls being released daily have the Governor leading the vast majority of those surveys.

However, Wednesday,  the swing states, particularly Iowa and Ohio, have shown 5 point advantages for President Obama in the recently released Quinnipiac polls, which only suggest the difficulty of the challenge facing Governor Romney. To be sure, the Midwest ─Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ─have shown tighter polls, with the President's lead under 5 points, but it's much more likely than not that those states will, under current conditions, stay democratic.

The bottom line is that the President had a very, very narrow lead going into the storm, a lead that the storm almost certainly will only buttress.

This race is by no means decided─it is a cliffhanger to be sure─but the only way to see the events of the last three or four days is as a net positive for President Obama, and a continuing challenge for Governor Romney, who has not been clear on how best to respond to this national emergency.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: What Halloween does for kids

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
What Halloween does for kids
Oct 31st 2012, 20:00

Editor's note: This commentary originally ran in Fox News Opinion on October 31, 2011.

The seemingly endless wait for dark is one part of Halloween that has stayed vividly with me since childhood. Although our parents preferred we set out earlier, my older sister and I knew that walking house-to-house would be no good at dusk--there was nothing forbidden or dangerous in it. And so we would glance again and again at the sun, an intrusive guest over-staying his welcome.

Finally, when the neighborhood was puddles of streetlight, we would pull on our costumes and become monsters of one kind or another, rapidly growing too warm for the house, with a light sweat already under nylon gowns and rubberized masks.

We took turns sneaking into each other's room to scare and be scared. I enjoyed poking her with a plastic pitchfork and showing her gruesome wounds I had made with vampire blood from a tube. She would scream, laugh and inspect my injuries with real interest. Then, holding hands, we would venture together into the comfort of the night air.

Halloween is a kind way for children to confront, in fantasy, real doubts and fears we all share. It creates a waking dreamland in which the dark is populated with nothing worse than cartoon-like characters, death is a costume party with free candy, and horrible beings are just the-kids-up-the-street in disguise.

There was wonderful anxiety in those first steps off our flagstone walk. I was young enough to intermittently suspend disbelief and anticipate demons behind each tree. I could hear far-off disembodied footsteps and mischievous laughter. But I was dangerous, too, and this put me on par with boogieman. I was, to other devils, a kindred soul. I could walk through my nightmares with impunity.

Tests of courage waited at every turn: approaching a house without a lamp, leaving our cluster of six houses for the relative unknown a hundred yards away, talking to costumed witches and man-eating beasts and ghosts who initially refused to reveal their true identities. We would find them out by glancing at their sneakers or watches or loose wisps of hair. Some carried the same drawstring bags that usually held their books. If it was very cold, their coats gave them away instantly. It was a neighborhood-wide game of peekaboo, with friends good enough to cover themselves and play the terrifying products of our imaginations.

What joy it was to spot the evidence that uncloaked my next-door neighbor David. If he so much as grinned, I knew him; there was a gaping space between his square front teeth. He was shorter than I was and he had fought off the bullies who picked on me more than once. Even on this hellish night, full of sham death, I had a seemingly invincible ally.

On Halloween, little people are empowered to threaten bigger people with tricks and always come away with the goods. It is one of the precious times when children seem conscious of the advantages of childhood. "Too big" means you stay home and give away candy, instead of going out and filling a bag full. There is even a gradual rite of passage to young adulthood. For a few intermediate years, trick-or-treating with just a trace of costume, perhaps as an escort for the real children, is still within the limits of decorum.

And, for once, kids are just kids. Unlike having a tree on Christmas or Menorah on Chanukah, most everyone tricks or treats. The only obvious difference between people is between parents--nice ones give miniature boxes of Good and Plenty candy or little chocolate Hershey's bars, and less nice ones give out single sour fruit balls. My sister and I tried to save my mother from the sugar insensitivity of adulthood by tossing the right stuff in her grocery cart.

Neighbors who consistently abandoned their houses on Halloween risked permanent reputations. We fantasized life stories that would explain their meanspiritedness. There were rumors on my street that one woman was unable to bear children and that another's had run away.

Hints of actual danger reached us, but these seemed vague, like parts of the fantasy. My parents inspected our booty and made us throw away any unwrapped candy. We weren't to eat or drink anything en route. We were never to set foot inside a stranger's house. We heard of real monsters -- adults who put drugs in cider or cookies. To this day, I still wince at the panic it must be to bite into a razor blade concealed in an apple.

For me, the safety net started to fray when I was caught one Halloween by a group of grade-school enemies. They circled me on wheelie bikes, yelling slurs. I looked for David, but there were no pirates anywhere. I was alone. I was pushed here and there, then felt something break on my head as the boys finally sped away. I ran home crying, with egg streaming down my face and clothes.

I still remember feeling relieved when my mother, who I feared I had failed with my tears, smiled and told me that people paid good money for egg shampoos.

Reality, however, was not to be denied it's due. Not long after the night, a real boogieman visited our neighborhood. My sister and I knew from the pall that had descended on our enclave of six houses that something was very wrong.

We watched from a window as my father walked deliberately across the yard and into David's house next door. When he came back, he looked at my mother and whispered, "It isn't good." Then she started to cry.

David had a cancerous tumor growing in the bone in his leg. It meant he might die. It also meant that we might not be able to build the two-story clubhouse we had planned. The two threats were inextricably mixed in my young mind. Yet they were real, and they were palpable, and it really worried me that no one laughed at them.

I wasn't ready to confront the reality of death. As it turned out, my friend saved me, again. David lost his hair and couldn't eat from the battle, but he wrestled that cancer to the ground and survived. He let me believe years longer that death was an illusion, a weakling dressed to scare. To this day, I believe I hold his victory as a secret trump card, a little edge against all the horrors I now know are too real.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Good Bush economy attacked, bad Obama economy ignored by media

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Good Bush economy attacked, bad Obama economy ignored by media
Oct 31st 2012, 21:40

Twenty-three million people unemployed or underemployed, a $16-trillion debt and repeated trillion-dollar deficits.

Boo.

The scariest thing this Halloween has nothing to do with witches and goblins or even the Munsters remake (ugh). The scariest thing in America right now is the continued awful economy.

An incumbent president running for re-election in a down economy – we've heard that story before. Only when we heard it last time, George W. Bush was running for re-election in 2004 and the economy was in remarkably fine shape.

That horror story hasn't been told by the major media according to a soon-to-be-released report from the Media Research Center titled "Upside Down Economics." The report shows the reality of two different elections and how ABC, CBS and NBC chose to depict the Bush economy as doing badly and ignored or downplay the many faults of the Obama economic record.

Think back to September, 2004. Broadcast coverage criticized Bush on the economy despite economic growth of 3.3 percent, an unemployment rate of just 5.4 percent and gas prices a low $1.82. Even the $7.4 trillion federal debt is but a fond memory now.

To say Bush was depicted in scary terms is an understatement. His jobs record was actually compared to Herbert Hoover (never a good thing). ABC's Betsy Stark even warned of a recession in her "World News Tonight" report on soaring oil. She was a bit premature since it took more than three years for that recession to arrive.

NBC's "Today" highlighted a voter who condemned the President Bush in the harshest terms. "I really think Bush has ruined the economy. We've lost so many jobs, and I haven't seen him do anything to really fix it," the voter said, even though unemployment sat at a robust 5.4 percent.

The story eight years later has gone from trick to treat. In September (as this research was done) US unemployment stood at 8.1 percent, close to 3 percent higher than it had been under Bush at the exact same point in his term. Economic growth was downgraded to 1.3 percent, part of a continued decline. The tandem of unemployment and underemployment meant 23 million Americans were out looking for work.

But network journalists didn't dare depict that nightmare. ABC's professional Democrat George Stephanopoulos interviewed White House adviser David Plouffe on "Good Morning America," asking about the budget. He let Plouffe claim the administration had "cut over $3 trillion in spending, more than what was called for in the Bowles-Simpson plan," yet forgot to mention that the federal debt had ballooned to $16 trillion under Obama.

Also left out of that discussion was the fact that Obama's proposed budget didn't have a ghost of a chance. It didn't get any Republican votes in the Senate or any Democratic votes either.

Even gas prices, near and dear to American wallets, were downplayed. Gas was nearly 100 percent higher than it had been under Bush. Rather than media screams, journalists put on a positive spin on things. ABC's Diane Sawyer reflected that trend when she called for "relief is in sight and soon" on Sept. 4 as gas hit $3.84 a gallon – almost $2 a gallon higher than it had been on Bush.

Less than a week till the election and media honesty about the economy is as elusive as the Great Pumpkin.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Superstorm Sandy and hospital heroics

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Superstorm Sandy and hospital heroics
Oct 31st 2012, 22:12

By Monday, in anticipation of Hurricane Sandy, over two hundred patients were discharged or transferred from my hospital NYU Langone Medical Center and the Emergency Room was closed. The patients who remained there were all on the upper floors, well out of range for any potential floodwaters.

I wondered at the time whether this precaution would end up being an overreaction since during our previous experience with Hurricane Irene, the hospital had been evacuated and flood waters had not come anywhere near us.

Boy was I ever wrong. By Monday night, surge waters reached close to 13 feet and the Medical Center's basement was flooded, damaging several back-up generators. When the power went out the hospital had no back-up, an instant emergency for all patients (over 300) who remained.
A command center was immediately set up in the lobby with  senior officials from the NYPD, FDNY, paramedics, and the hospital's senior physician and nursing leadership.

Though there was certainly a potential for a Public Relations disaster, the next several hours instead became a road map for coolness and mobilization under pressure that can be instructive for any hospital facing a similar circumstance.

I spoke with Dr. Andrew Brotman, Vice Dean for Clinical Affairs, who was part of the command team. He told me that ramps were quickly constructed to literally slide the patients down the stairwell from the upper floors (as high as 15) to the lobby. Triage was  key, which means that the sickest patients were brought down first. Many of the respirator patients had battery-operated respirators, but 4 tiny infants were successfully brought down using Ambu-bags to physically breathe air into their lungs. 

Once in the lobby, plans were quickly made to transfer these patients to other hospitals, including Mt. Sinai, Cornell, Sloan Kettering Memorial, and St. Luke's. Two of my own patients were transferred and did well. Dr. Brotman told me that NYU's own medical and surgical residents went along with the patients to work at the receiving hospital and ensure continuity of care. All the transfers were successful, and none of these patients died. By late morning Tuesday, our hospital was emptied of all patients.

With no power restoration in sight, it is likely that these patients will continue to receive their care at the hospitals who received them.

What lessons can be learned here, beyond the obvious need for surge walls or levies around the city and emergency generators on higher floors? (Even with working emergency power, neighboring Bellevue Hospital is today transferring 500 patients because we still don't have power in lower and midtown Manhattan). 

We can certainly learn from the teamwork here; the interdisciplinary heroics exhibited by police, firemen, emergency health workers, nurses and physicians in a way that was reminiscent of 9/11.

New York has shown itself as a city where rescue workers work together well. We can also learn that in the era of Electronic Medical Records, back-up paper charts remain crucial in the event that power is lost.

Finally, we much not overlook the need to protect our hospitals from disasters. We need them the most when citizens are flooded, sent out of their homes, or forced to live without power. During Hurricane Katrina, in addition to drownings, 11% died from heart disease and 25 % from injuries.

We need to protect our hospitals, to protect them like the fortresses they are, so that they will be there for us when we need them the most.

Marc Siegel MD is an associate professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Medical Center. He is a member of the Fox News Medical A Team and author of The Inner Pulse: Unlocking the Secret Code of Sickness and Health.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Romney slammed by MSNBC's Mitchell for collecting storm supplies

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Romney slammed by MSNBC's Mitchell for collecting storm supplies
Oct 31st 2012, 17:30

Even when Mitt Romney cancels campaigning and works to provide Hurricane Sandy relief, the media elites are still dropping bombs on him. The hurricane has given Obama "invaluable imagery and opportunity to be seen in command," said CNN's Dana Bash. Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist Al Kamen cracked that Romney is "finding that, unlike franks and beans, charity and politics can be a tricky mix."

The "tricky" part of the mix is the media. Their opportunistic bashing of Romney's food drive shows it doesn't matter what the Republicans will do, the media will stick to anti-Romney talking points.

In Tuesday afternoon's broadcast of "Andrea Mitchell Reports" on MSNBC, Mitchell accused Romney of surreptitious campaigning, and asked what are the true intentions of Governor Romney collecting storm supplies after a hurricane. Mitchell reported, "We checked with the Red Cross.  The Red Cross said while they're always grateful for donations – that this is not what they need or want," she insisted. "And to now get these canned good from the Romney event in Ohio – and have to first package it – used clothes they have to clean."

Opportunistic bashing of Romney's food drive by the Mitchell and others shows it doesn't matter what the Republicans will do, the media will stick to anti-Romney talking points.

-

She turned to Washington Post political analyst Chris Cillizza and sneered,  "It does seem like a thinly veiled [campaign event] – why Ohio?" 

If there's something Andrea Mitchell is not is "thinly veiled" when it comes to sending a political message.

Mitchell revealed herself, yet again, as a liberal partisan, and someone who borders on absent minded when it comes to common sense.  There are 7.5 million people without power, and how dare Mitt Romney try to help those in need?

Mitchell's MSNBC colleague Martin Bashir added to this anti-charity narrative, going so far as to imply Romney was disobeying the Red Cross. After a clip of Obama speaking at the Red Cross, Bashir asked his guests: "Did you detect perhaps a subtle dig there on Mr. Romney who spent today going against the guidelines established by the Red Cross and holding a campaign rally in Ohio that was dressed up like a charity drive collecting food and other supplies when the Red Cross expressly asked people not to do that?"

As Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters aptly said, "Imagine that. A presidential candidate, who gives millions of dollars a year to charity, does a storm relief event in Ohio, and an MSNBC anchor is disgusted by it because the Red Cross would prefer people donating cash."

Then on MSNBC's "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell," there was another less-than-charming episode of Romney Can't Win.

Joy-Ann Reid, the former Obama campaign staffer who now runs the NBC-owned site TheGrio.com, insisted "anything he [Romney] does looks almost by nature too political. And he can't actually do anything. He can't do anything certainly for Chris Christie. Going around with Mitt Romney and his Secret Service detail through the affected areas of New Jersey would actually cause more problems and wouldn't help at all."

But doesn't Obama have a Secret Service detail, too? 

That doesn't matter to Reid. Obama has power: "whereas going around with the president helps him look at the damage, really view it for himself. He can get something out of doing that with the president. So, I think Romney unfortunately is the odd man out."

Liberals never really mean it's "unfortunate" when they argue Republicans just can't possibly be portrayed as compassionate conservatives.

Matt Vespa is an intern for the Media Research Center.

Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and senior editor of MRC's blog NewsBusters.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama twice uses MSNBC slogan 'Lean Forward' while addressing disaster relief

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Obama twice uses MSNBC slogan 'Lean Forward' while addressing disaster relief
Oct 31st 2012, 12:35

President Obama on Tuesday twice used MSNBC's slogan "lean forward" while addressing Red Cross headquarters in Washington, D.C., about relief for Sandy victims. First he said this:

"We are going to continue to push as hard as we can to make sure that power is up throughout the region and obviously this is mostly a local responsibility and the private utilities are going to have to lean forward. But we are doing everything we can to provide them additional resources so that we can expedite getting power up and running in many of these communities. There are places like Newark, New Jersey, for example, where you have 80 percent, 90 percent of the people without power."

Later in his remarks he said this: 

"We can't have a situation where that lasts for days on end. And so my instructions to the federal agency has been do not figure out why we can't do something. I want you to figure out how we do something. I want you to cut through red tape, cut through bureaucracy. There is no excuse for inaction at this point. I want every agency to lean forward and to make sure we are getting the resources where they need -- where they're need as quickly as possible. I want to repeat, my message to the federal government, no bureaucracy, no red tape, get resources where they're needed as fast as possible, as hard as possible."

What does "private utilities are going to have to lean forward" even mean? Or "I want every agency to lean forward?"

Is that opposed to leaning backwards or not leaning at all?

In the case of MSNBC, we know what "lean forward" means. As was announced in October 2010 when it unveiled its new slogan, "Cable news network MSNBC said Tuesday it is launching a two-year, multimillion-dollar marketing campaign, embracing its politically progressive identity with the new tagline 'Lean Forward.'"

Was Obama asking private utilities and every agency to embrace their politically progressive identities?

Or was the president reciprocating love for the so-called "news network" that adores him. After all, Chris Matthews practically demanded the president start watching MSNBC moments after Romney shellacked him in the first debate earlier this month. 

Maybe Obama took Matthews' suggestion and now can't get "lean forward" off his mind.

Noel Sheppard is associate editor of the Media Research Center's NewsBusters.org. He welcomes feedback at NewsBustersNoel@gmail.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

FOXNews.com: New York Times slams Romney as Sandy slams New York

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
New York Times slams Romney as Sandy slams New York
Oct 30th 2012, 18:30

Editor's note: The following commentary originally appeared on Breitbart.com's Big Journalism. It is republished with permission. Click here for more from Breitbart.com.

Even as the streets of Manhattan were flooding and hundreds of thousands of residents lost power Monday night, the New York Times turned its attention back to national politics. It published a misleading editorial attacking Gov. Romney and in defense of "Big Government."

Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of "big government," which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it...Mr. Romney not only believes that states acting independently can handle the response to a vast East Coast storm better than Washington, but that profit-making companies can do an even better job. He said it was "immoral" for the federal government to do all these things if it means increasing the debt.

That false charge of wanting to "eliminate" disaster relief is based on a YouTube clip of Romney during one of the primary debates responding to a question about sending responsibility for disaster relief back to the states.

Romney replied that he thought states could handle disaster response and then spoke more generally about what items belonged in the federal budget:

Romney: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say "What are the things we're doing that we don't have to do?" and those things we've got to stop doing. Because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion dollars more this year than we're taking in. We can not afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral in my view for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. Makes no sense at all.

At one point near the end of Romney's answer moderator John King, who was clearly aware Romney had wandering beyond FEMA, interjected "Including disaster relief though?" But Romney rolled right over him and remained focused on the larger issues of debt, borrowing and the federal budget as a whole.

What the Times did Monday is take Romney's statement about the immorality of our unsustainable debt--something President Obama himself once called "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic"--and suggest this means there would be a no resources to deal with a disaster if Romney had his way.

Actually, the opposite is true. If we fail to control big government spending, as Barack Obama has failed to do, every program eventually gets crowded out in favor of entitlements and payments of interest on debt. This is not an academic exercise. States are facing this dilemma now. Even liberal enclaves like Illinois, New Jersey and Wisconsin are coming around to the necessity of serious reform to stave off looming fiscal disaster. But the Times clearly hasn't caught on to the trend.

The argument for big government is always a simple one. There are needs which must be met now! That's an easy sell, especially during a natural disaster when people are understandably frightened. No doubt that's why the Times published this attack Monday night at the height of the storm.

But Romney is right about the big picture. At some point we need to deal with our immoral, irresponsible and unpatriotic big government spending to ensure we have resources available for future emergencies.

John Sexton is a writer for Breitbart.com. Previously he was publisher of 2012 blog of the year, Verum Serum.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: New York Times' Sunday Review goes wall-to-wall for Obama's reelection

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
New York Times' Sunday Review goes wall-to-wall for Obama's reelection
Oct 30th 2012, 20:12

The New York Times has endorsed President Obama's re-election and the paper is doing its best to help out any way it can. The latest move just reinforced the fact that the Times is so institutionally Democratic that it hasn't endorsed a GOP presidential candidate during Obama's lifetime.

That support plays out in the paper itself. New York Times Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal's Sunday Review was wall-to-wall for Obama this past week, with two left-wing op-eds on Obama on the front page, a full-page endorsement of Obama for re-election, and three liberal columnists simultaneously obsessed with abortion, including the paper's foreign policy columnist Thomas Friedman. (Right-of-center Ross Douthat also covered women's issues, but questioned Obama's "weirdly paternalistic form of social liberalism.")

Over the fold on page 1 was "The Price of a Black President" by Frederick Harris, director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University, who praised blacks for voting for Obama before going on to criticize Obama from the left.

"When African-Americans go to the polls next week, they are likely to support Barack Obama at a level approaching the 95 percent share of the black vote he received in 2008. As well they should, given the symbolic exceptionalism of his presidency and the modern Republican Party's utter disregard for economic justice, civil rights and the social safety net," he wrote.

Also on the front was Soros buddy Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist and moral scold, writing on inequality. He was just as subtle, Stiglitz busting "economic myths," including: "America is a land of opportunity. ... Trickle-down economics works."

"Mitt Romney has been explicit: inequality should be talked about only in quiet voices behind closed doors. But with the normally conservative magazine The Economist publishing a special series showing the extremes to which American inequality has grown -- joining a growing chorus (of which my book 'The Price of Inequality' is an example) arguing that the extremes of American inequality, its nature and origins, are adversely affecting our economy -- it is an issue that not even the Republicans can ignore. It is no longer just a moral issue, a question of social justice," he wrote.

With about a week left in the election, who knows what else the Times could cook up to ensure President Obama's victory on Election Day.

-

Columnist Maureen Dowd offered her usual measured take on women's issues and abortion in "Of Mad Men, Mad Women and Meat Loaf." "Our mom, a strict Catholic, taught us that it was immoral for a woman to be expected to carry a rapist's baby for nine months. (Don't even mention that rapists can assert parental rights in 31 states.)"

She then continued the liberal attack linking the GOP to rape. "But compassion is scant among the Puritan tribe of Republicans running now. As The Huffington Post reports, at least a dozen G.O.P. Senate candidates oppose abortion for rape victims. The party platform calls for a constitutional amendment with no exceptions for rape, incest or the mother's life," she continued.

Dowd predictably bashed two Republican election seekers, Rep. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, for controversial comments related to abortion and rape, then went into full condescension mode to explain why women may vote for the Republican ticket anyway: "Republicans are geniuses at getting people to vote against their own self-interest. Hispanics, however, do not seem inclined to vote against their self-interest on immigration laws, and Obama is counting on that to buoy him," Dowd added.

Columnist Nicholas Kristof also raised the arcane rape statistic in his column on the same page, "Want a Real Reason to Be Outraged?"  

Even foreign policy columnist Thomas Friedman got into the act, under the sarcastic headline "Why I Am Pro-Life." Of course he's not actually against abortion, he's just making the tired government argument that "pro-life" also means things like more money for the EPA and Head Start. He also details the Akin and Mourdock controversies. (Are Obama supporters highlighting anything else at this point?)

Sunday also offered the official full-page endorsement of President Obama for reelection. (No surprise: The last Republican the paper endorsed was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.) Principled liberals might like to know that the long editorial offered not one word on drone attacks or the other war on terror issues Obama has embraced.

The paper warned: "An ideological assault from the right has started to undermine the vital health reform law passed in 2010. Those forces are eroding women's access to health care, and their right to control their lives. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, all Americans' rights are cheapened by the right wing's determination to deny marriage benefits to a selected group of us. Astonishingly, even the very right to vote is being challenged."

That was all in a day's work at the Times. With about a week left in the election, who knows what else the paper could cook up to ensure Obama's victory.

Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, a Media Research Center project that tracks the New York Times. Click here to follow Clay Waters on Twitter.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: To live and die in Benghazi, Libya without leadership from America

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
To live and die in Benghazi, Libya without leadership from America
Oct 30th 2012, 14:00

What is it like to spend your last moments on earth fighting for your life?

To have devoted your life, and your life's work, to a great nation -- to serve it well and honorably -- and serve for it with courage and distinction, to all come down to a last, frantic few seconds, spent defending you and your fellow Americans and call for the cavalry to come help,  and no cavalry comes--and you die.

This is what the two former Navy SEALs, under the employment of CIA, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, faced in their final moments in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

It is not a question of could we have sent forces in to help.We could. We could have sent forces to help as they were within a few hundred miles.  This battle of Benghazi  was a protracted fight - covering at least six to eight hours (depending on when you start the clock).  And, if the forces were not there, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, then there is an additional level of leadership failure that must be examined.  However, the appearance is that there was forces available.

Is what we now stand for now, as a nation?  To have invested billions in intelligence and special operations forces to hang back, play it safe?

-

This is what we now stand for now, as a nation?  To have invested billions in intelligence and special operations forces to hang back, play it safe?

To have general officers serve NOT as "Monday morning quarterbacks" but as "Monday morning apologists"  for the WH saying "it was just too hard" or "the uncertainty was a key factor" - are you kidding me?  Conventional thinking obtains you conventional (and in this case tragic) results - four dead Americans.

It is a shame that senior leaders have such little faith in the extraordinary talents of our special operations forces...they are the best and can do extraordinary work - they should have been trusted (and used) in the case of Benghazi.

The request for help was sent by these brave, now dead, men - at least three times.  The answer was "no".

Someone made the decision to not send help.  Who?

The decision would have been that of one man - the president.

There was a similar decision profile in October 1983, regarding a little place known as Grenada.

The Cubans were making inroads on the island and there was evidence that U.S. students attending a medical school there were endanger and likely to become hostages of the Cubans and Grenadian government.  These Americans were in immediate danger.

There was a tense meeting in the White House situation room of President Reagan's cabinet.  After a short debate on the issues, Reagan called for a vote to use military force to rescue the Americans.

Only three of his cabinet voted to yes to take action...SecDef Cap Weinberger voted no.  One of the three "yes" votes was Ronald Reagan.

I am told he said something to the effect "Gentlemen, I appreciate your vote - but unfortunately, my vote counts more than yours - we are going".  And we went.

Operation Urgent Fury was born - and over a six hour (that is right six hour) planning process, the first U.S. forces arrived in Grenada - lead by the US Marine Corps and the Army's Rangers and  82nd Airborne.

There was huge uncertainty -- we had just come off of the 1980 failed attempt to rescue the U.S. hostages in Iran that ended badly at a staging area called "Desert One".

There was also a lack of intelligence - it came to individuals calling via a phone-booth into the Pentagon to be patched into the Navy to coordinate artillery fire.

Oh, yeah- and President Reagan did not even inform our closest ally, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, of the invasion.  Grenada was a British protectorate.  He apologized later.

The students were rescued, preventing another hostage crisis similar to the one that had hobbled the Carter Administration.

Lives were saved.  Leadership was shown.

So, thirty years later, are we that diminished as a global power that we cannot defend our own citizens?  

Are we that risk adverse we would sooner see our men and women we put in harm's way made to be sacrificial lambs to political correctness and political optics?  Is this what we've become?

So, do we want four more years of "it is too hard to do"? Can we afford four more years of leading from behind, or worse, failure to lead at all? This failure has cost four US lives, a burned out consulate, damage and diminished respect. What is next?

We need clear answers -- real leadership. Hope and change is not a strategy, it is a tragedy.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (ret.) is a former senior intelligence officer and the New York Times bestselling author of Operation "DARK HEART: Spycraft an Special Operations on the Frontlines of Afghanistan – And The Path to Victory."  He is the Director of External Communications for the Center for Advanced Defense Studies (CADS) and Senior Advisor on the Congressional Task Force on National and Homeland Security.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama, the IRS and you

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Obama, the IRS and you
Oct 30th 2012, 12:19

You should get to know the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  It is only polite, because the IRS wants to get to know you better.  Much better.  Soon.

If President Obama is re-elected his ObamaCare legislation will continue to go into effect step by step. You already know about the 20 taxes, many conveniently phased in after the 2010 and 2012 elections: The rationing board or IPAB that will decide how much health care older Americans really need; taxes go up on medical devices; If you have a flexible savings account or health savings account, new taxes damage your insurance.

But most Americans are not yet aware of the role the IRS will play in enforcing ObamaCare. Whenever the federal government wants to make us do something the easiest enforcement agency are the nice folks at the IRS and they are preparing the paperwork to police your health care decisions so they fit Washington's plans.

The mandate with real teeth that will force every American to buy an insurance policy that Uncle Sam approves and mandates begins in 2014.  Safely after the November 6, 2012 election.

One wonders if ObamaCare's mandate is a good idea, why it was delayed? Obama and those Democratic Senators and Congressmen who voted for ObamaCare appear to think you might not be happy with what happens in 2014 and they prefer you come face to face with the non-negotiable mandate after you vote in 2012.

So what does happen in 2014 if Obama wins?  What is he hiding?

To help out American taxpayers who like to be prepared, today Americans for Tax Reform released the projected tax form that will be required of all American citizens not presently in prison.

You can view and print out your projected IRS form at www.ObamacareTaxForm.com.

The Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare forces all Americans to buy a health insurance plan deemed "qualified" by the Department of Health and Human Services.  The HHS bureaucracy will decide what your insurance will include. You don't get to choose. The old slogan that if you liked your health insurance you could keep it was suckers bait and is "no longer operative."  As they said in "Animal House"—"you screwed up kid, you trusted him."

If you don't buy the insurance Washington tells you that you have to pay a tax penalty ranging from $695 to $2085 or higher depending on the size of your family.  The dollar amount will grow over time.

So the IRS form will require that you certify that you had Uncle Sam-mandated insurance each and every month of the year. You will have to disclose your personal identifying health ID number, the nature of the insurance and any information from your health insurance card the IRS regulations demand in the future.

Now if you are a prisoner in a federal penitentiary or an undocumented immigrant or a welfare recipient you don't have to pay the tax penalty.

You might want to print out the form---based on the legislation and congressional testimony where they explained everything ObamaCare will require you and your family to do—to begin the process of reporting everything to Washington. You will note that because an estimated 6 million Americans will be forced to pay the tax as they are unable or unwilling to buy the health insurance demanded by the federal government, they will find that penalties and interest payments will pile up over time.

It is best to prepare now to save up to pay these taxes and to open your personal health ID information to be shared with the nice government workers at the IRS.  They are just doing what the law commands.  And we will have to also.

Or you could vote in such a way that the IRS forms will go into the dustbin of history.

Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform. For more visit www.atr.org.

 Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform. Follow him on Twitter @GroverNorquist.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Coping after Sandy -- seven psychological tips (plus a bonus!)

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Coping after Sandy -- seven psychological tips (plus a bonus!)
Oct 30th 2012, 12:43

The super storm known as Sandy has wreaked havoc in people's lives this week along the East Coast of the United States. More than 50 million Americans are coping with the aftermath of storm surges, snow, home evacuations, power outages, interruptions in school and work, property destruction, and severe financial losses. In every case emotional trauma can impede recovery. While protecting people and restoring safety, power, and property, is a priority in the wake of natural disasters, emotional coping also matters. Here are seven tips that can help:   

1. Accept a wide range of your psychological reactions. Given that natural disasters are out of our control, expect to feel helpless and powerless.  Having no one to blame can trigger frustration that gets taken out on others; so be wary about yelling at your spouse, being short with a friend, or irritable with your child. 

Avoid suffering "survivor guilt" or blaming yourself for feeling relieved if you did not suffer as much as others. Recognize if your faith falters, as it did for survivors I helped after the Haiti earthquake.

2. Examine how you explain life. According to the psychological concept of "locus of control," rate your philosophy of life on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 equals your belief that fate, luck and forces outside yourself determine your life and "7" equals you are the full master of your fate.  The reality is that we cannot control everything that happens to us, but we can exert as much control as possible over what happens, and we do have total control over how we react.   

3. Connect with others.  In tragic and threatening times, notice whom you contact and who contacts you, acknowledging their importance. Not being able to think of anyone who cares about your welfare is a signal that you may need to create a stronger social support system, which research shows facilitates positive coping in emergencies and life in general. Those not at risk should reach out to those in danger zones, to show their support and offer help.  

4. Grow from the experience. Research shows that negative experiences not only cause post-traumatic distress but can lead to positive changes, called "post-traumatic growth." In innumerable natural disasters where I have helped survivors, like after Hurricanes Hugo and Katrina and earthquakes in San Francisco, China, Haiti and Japan, finding new meaning in life is possible. 

During Sandy, my drug store clerk told me, "I don't want to complain about silly things anymore since I can lose everything at any moment." New commitments in relationships can be made, like my neighbor who declared, "I decided I'm going to spend more time with my children than working all the time."  

5. Use the opportunity to learn more about the environment. Survivors in recovery groups I led in Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami were confused about what happened and wanted to know "Will this happen again?" 

Lack of knowledge escalates anxiety, so learn about nature's events, and be reassured that technology can increasingly predict occurrences. 

In my newly released book, "Living in an Environmentally Traumatized World: Healing Ourselves and Our Planet" natural scientists explain inevitable changes and shifts in our waters, air, and earth, and psychologists explain how to cope.

6. Get back to normal as soon as possible. While schools and places of employment may close, sometimes for days, try get back to your routine as quickly as possible.  

7. Be prepared for feelings to last.  Even when media attention fades and dangers subside, emotions after a major natural disaster can linger. An argument a week later may be left-over anger from the event. Noticing this connection can prevent personal delayed explosions.  

Bonus: 8. Pay particular attention to your child's reactions.  When school is suspended for days as it has been in many areas due to Sandy, children are well aware of the event. Use the storm as a "teachable moment" to explain about unexpected events and ask about their thoughts and feelings. Be alert to any nightmares, especially as this storm coincides with the fantasy and fright of Halloween. It's not unusual for children to have nightmares; so be reassuring and spend extra time with them at night. Other youngsters may resist leaving home, for fear of what may happen to the family. Set up contact mechanisms with children, like programming their cell phone, so you can be in touch.

Dr. Judy Kuriansky is an internationally known clinical psychology affiliated with Columbia University Teachers College, a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, and an NGO representative at the United Nations. She has helped survivors after innumerable natural disasters, including Hurricanes Hugo and Katrina, and earthquakes in China, Haiti and Japan. Her recently released book is "Living in an Environmentally Traumatized World: Healing Ourselves and our Planet"(Praeger, 2012).  For more visit www.DrJudy.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Monday, October 29, 2012

FOXNews.com: CNN political reporter not happy about favorable Romney coverage

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
CNN political reporter not happy about favorable Romney coverage
Oct 29th 2012, 20:59

There was a time when news reporters who covered politics were expected to keep their partisan leanings or preferences to themselves. That time is nearly gone.

Over the past 20 years or so, when a new generation of reporters came on the scene, the principle of maintaining a neutral façade slowly but surely began to erode.

And now, in the age of Twitter, we see political reporters increasingly not only taking advantage of the new technology to get information out to their readers faster, but also expressing their personal partisan opinions on what they are seeing and hearing out on the campaign trail.

Late last week, CNN political reporter Peter Hamby clearly showed his partisan stripes by tweeting his apparent irritation at a flurry of Tweets he must have received from Mitt Romney staffers and supporters gleefully trumpeting the front page of last Thursday's Des Moines Register. In response, he sent out a snarky Tweet of his own, "any Romney/RNC staffers not tweeted Des Moines Register front page yet?  @KevinMaddenDC is keeping score," he tweeted.

The Kevin Madden referred to by Hamby in the tweet is a Romney adviser and press spokesman.  All in all, it didn't look good for Hamby's neutrality. 

The Register front page in question featured side-by-side articles on President Obama and Romney both campaigning in Iowa the day before. The pictures and headlines showed sharply contrasting images and messages:

• "Obama Sharpens Criticism," said the headline on the Obama article.
• "Romney Expresses Optimism," said the headline on the Romney article.

Also, the Obama picture showed the president standing in a crowd and glaring back out of the corners of his eyes. The Romney picture featured a smiling Republican challenger greeting supporters.

Not surprisingly, Romney supporters were delighted with the obviously better treatment of their candidate by the leading newspaper in Iowa, a critical swing state where the race is neck and neck.  Hamby apparently did not share their glee.

This latest flap comes on the heels of an earlier controversy in which Hamby in September was accused of partisanship when he tweeted to his followers a link to an Obama campaign donation page.

But Hamby is not alone is letting his partisanship show.  We see it quite often in Tweets by reporters reacting to on-the-spot events. It is not becoming, and hurts reporter credibility, not especially high these days. News reporters need all the reader and viewer trust they can get.

Since Hamby's snippy Tweet, the Des Moines Register came out this weekend and endorsed Romney.  No word so far on whether Hamby was miffed by that, too. If there is a lesson in this, it is that for political reporters, Twitter should be a non-partisan zone.

And reporters should keep their politics to themselves.

Richard Benedetto is a retired USA Today White House correspondent and columnist. He now teaches politics and journalism at American University and in the Fund for American Studies program at Georgetown University.  As a reporter, Benedetto covered every presidential campaign since 1984. 

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.