Latest poll shows Harry Reid trailing Sharron Angle
Watching the coverage of last Tuesday’s Nevada primary all of the experts that were interviewed after Sharron Angle was declared the Republican winner followed the same storylines. They claimed that Harry Reid’s road to re-election was made easier and they claimed that the Tea Party movement might just backfire and actually help to re-elect Harry Reid. They also made the assertion that if Harry Reid had to hand pick a candidate to run against, it would be Sharron Angle.
And this may be true, maybe Sharron Angle may be the weakest opponent that Harry Reid could have faced, but judging from the latest Rasmussen poll, his re-election is hardly guaranteed.
In a head to head matchup against the candidate that Harry Reid supposedly most wanted to face, he is trailing by a margin of 50-39. These are terrible numbers for an incumbent and Harry Reid– while he probably did want to face Angle– has to be worried about how he will fare against what he considered to be his weakest opponent.
It will be interesting to see of Sharron Angle can maintain this lead, but in a year that is shaping up to be an anti-incumbent year Harry Reid should be shaking in his boots.
Darrell Issa has been trying to get the Justice Department to hire a special prosecutor to investigate both the Sestak and Romanoff scandals, but as of yet he has been unable to get any results. The Justice Department has declined to appoint a special prosecutor; meanwhile the White House continues to claim the regime has investigated itself and cannot find where they did anything wrong.
Rather than letting go of this issue, Darrell Issa is now taking the next step by asking the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to investigate Sestak’s and Romanoff’s claims that the White House tried to persuade them to drop out of their respective primaries.
The White House contends that the Hatch Act was not violated because no official job offer was made to Sestak or Romanoff. (Although the White House has also said that their offer to Sestak was not a violation of the Hatch Act because the job was unpaid– which one is it? Was he offered an unpaid job or not?)
Darrell Issa does not believe that an official offer must be made before the Hatch Act is violated.
In the White House’s June 3, 2010 public statement, Mr. Gibbs claimed that clearing the field for a candidate preferred by the White House was not problematic because ‘there was no offer of a job.’ There is evidence to the contrary.
“Additionally, a finding of a Hatch Act violation does not require that a job was formally offered; any use of official authority by a restricted federal official to interfere with or affect the outcome of an election is unlawful
The White House has tried to downplay this scandal by releasing the news that Bill Clinton was sent to see Joe Sestak to “feel him out” about the possibility of trading in a primary bid for a job in the administration after weeks of denying any contact with Joe Sestak. And then the news broke that Andrew Romanoff was also claiming that the Obama regime had tried to meddle in the Colorado primary. It is time for the American people to get some answers.
Barack Obama supporters use the excuse that this is nothing new in politics, that it happens all the time. His supporters like to say that this is nothing more than horse trading and that the right is trying to make something out of nothing. And to be honest with you, I agree that this type of deal happens in Washington all of the time, but that does not excuse Barack Obama from the fact that he may have engaged in the same type of politics that he promised to fight against. The fact that this type of thing happens all of the time in Washington doesn’t mean that a crime hasn’t been committed
Barack Obama went to Washington to end “politics as usual,” but if these charges are true, he failed at this promise. Yet Barack Obama’s supporters like to use the fact that this is politics as usual as a defense for Barack Obama- apparently they have forgotten that he was supposed to be above this type of horse trading.
But these two scandals go beyond a broken promise, there is the very real possibility that a federal law has been broken. While this type of horse trading may go on all of the time in Washington, it isn’t very often that you get a participant in this activity who is stupid enough to admit what is going on. In this case we have two.
It is becoming clear that Darrell Issa is not going to back down on this issue and he shouldn’t. Someone has to hold this regime responsible, and it looks as as of Darrell Issa is going to person to do just that.
Arizona’s controversial immigration law does not go into effect for another seven weeks but it is already reaping benefits as illegal immigrants are already leaving the state in droves. There are no exact numbers yet as to how may illegal immigrants have left the state, but the effect of the new law is already being felt.
They’re leaving to another state where they feel more welcome
That statement alone shows us that if immigration law is followed– or even if it is just perceived that it will be followed– the problem of illegal immigration can be solved with the federal law that is already on the books. We do not need comprehensive immigration reform, we just need the federal government to get serious about enforcing the laws that we already have.
If one state enacts a law that cracks down on illegal immigration, and because of this, illegals are traveling to states “where the feel more welcome'” we can only assume that if the federal government showed the same zeal as Arizona that illegal immigrants would move to countries where they felt more welcome– possibly to their homeland. Immigration law can work, the law must be followed.
One illegal immigrant had this to say:
If I were alone, I’d try to stay. But I have a family, and I have to find a place where we can live with more freedom,” said Cruz, who hopes to move July 4 to blend in with holiday weekend traffic. “This is getting too hard
I am sorry, but I can not feel sorry for Juan Carlos Cruz feeling as if he has to move because he does not have enough freedom in Arizona. If he had taken the necessary steps, and had moved to this country legally he wouldn’t have to try to slide unseen into another state over a holiday while hoping that he doesn’t get caught.
A spokesman for Jan Brewer had the following to say:
If that means that fewer people are breaking the law, that is absolutely an accomplishment
That is what this is all about; getting people to follow the law and giving law enforcement the power to make sure the law is being followed.
One downside to the law is that there are also legal immigrants who are leaving the state because they do not understand the Arizona law and feel threatened. This is not because of the law itself, but because of the way the federal government and the media have mischaracterized the law.
The Arizona law mimics the federal law, yet nobody in the Obama regime or in the media wants to admit this truth. They do not want to admit this because they want to push for comprehensive immigration reform and they believe that by mischaracterizing the Arizona law they can gain support for giving illegal immigrants amnesty.
The Obama regime is purposely trying to scare legal immigrants and it appears to be working. If these legal immigrants knew that there is virtually no difference between the Arizona law and the federal law– other than the fact that the Arizona law might actually be enforced– they would be shocked.
The Arizona law is working, but so is the effort of the Obama regime to propagandize the Arizona law and frighten the people who have come to this country legally. Personally, I find it deplorable that legal immigrants are being used in this manner.
A New York Times article is reporting that the leaders of the Democrat party urged members of congress not to engage in any town hall meetings during the latest break so that legislators wouldn’t have to face the voters in what could be a heated argument on the issues.
Democrats heeded the advice of party leaders and tried to avoid unscripted question-and-answer sessions
Instead of actually facing their constituents, the following is what the Democrat leadership proposed:
hold events in controlled settings — a bank or credit union, for example — or tour local businesses or participate in community service projects
Democrats have forced unpopular legislation upon the people; the obvious one that sticks out is healthcare reform. Democrats faced heavy opposition from their constituents last year at the town hall meetings before the bill was signed, but they did not listen to the people. This year they were afraid to face the voters and explain to them why they betrayed them.
By holding these events in controlled environments and ignoring unscripted questions we can see that the Democrats are trying to frame the issues in a positive light. By holding invitation only events they are able to control the debate and give us the appearance that the crowds are friendly when in fact the people are so upset that they are unwilling to confront them.
Last year the Democrats tried to control the debate when they saw how angry the voters were by holding telephone town hall meetings so they wouldn’t have to stand before the voters face to face. As transparent and deplorable as that was, at least they were talking to average American voters, this year they didn’t even have the balls to do that; preferring instead to attend events where they were assured there would be very little opposition in the room. This is an attempt to fool those that are angry with congress into thinking they are in the minority and to deflate them possibly even to the point where they will give up fighting for fear that the cause is lost.
Heading into an election season that has the air of being an anti-incumbant year, Democrat leaders are trying to avoid any situation where they will have to face a tough question and give a tough answer. They hope that by avoiding the people they will be able to quell the anger that they have generated by ignoring us. This should only help to show the angry American people two things; first, that these people do not care what the average American thinks, and are unwilling to face the heat for their voters; and second, that these legislators are out of touch with average Americans. This should backfire on them and should only inflame the voters even more.
They have refused to listen to us and now they are even hiding from us. If the agenda that they have passed was so wonderful they would be proud to stand in front of us, yet they are hiding from the voters. They need to know that they can not hide from us in November. You can ignore us now, and you can hide from us now, but in November we will find you and you will hear from us for the last time!
The Consitution now comes with a disclaimer
Amazon is selling a version of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that comes with a disclaimer before the actual text of the historical documents. I cannot copy and paste the disclaimer; if you want to read it for yourself, you will have to click on the link that I provided and then click on the “click to look inside” link that is provided there. The disclaimer is there.
Basically, the disclaimer states that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence do not reflect the same values that they would if they were written today. I guess freedom and the right to self-government are foreign ideas to these people, and are no longer relevent. The disclaimer then urges the buyer to discuss with their children how views on race and gender have changed since these documents were written before even allowing them to read the documents.
There is no doubt that times have changed, and there is no doubt that many of the founders had their faults– especially when it came to slavery– but this just seems to me to be a perfect example of how far some on the left are willing to go in order to discredit many of the documents that this country was founded on. They do not see the Constitution and the Declaration as inspiring; they find them antiquated and in many cases flawed and outdated documents.
They have this aversion to the Constitution, and they try to push their agenda forward by abusing the Constitution using the “general welfare” clause, and the “commerce clause” to see things in the Constitution that are not there. They believe that the Constitution is a living document that must change with the times while ignoring the fact that the Constitution provides us with a way to change the Constitution through the amendment process.
See, the amendment process takes too long, and the outcome is not guaranteed, so they use the courts to change the Constitution. Putting a disclaimer on the Constitution only helps them to show what they consider to be the faults of the document and helps them to indoctrinate our children into the liberal mindset that because the founders were mere men and had faults that these documents should be taken with a grain of salt.
The Constitution has been under attack for years, and now we are seeing the effort to discredit it reaching new levels with the news that parents are being urged to tell their children that the Constitution doesn’t mean today what it meant yesterday. The Constitution means exactly what it says, and in the places where it was wrong, it was amended. If these people think that it is still flawed, they need to use the amendment process to fix it, not make the effort to delegitimize it.
Dick Morris suspects that the White House offered Romanoff a job to assure Bennet’s healthcare vote
I received an interesting email the other day. This email contained an article written by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann that I had missed. In this article, the authors speculate as to why someone in the White House would offer Andrew Romanoff a job in return for dropping out of the race. This was a question that I hadn’t pondered very much; I just assumed that it was because Michael Bennet was a political insider, so naturally he would have the support of the administration.
But it turns out that isn’t true, why then did the White House feel strongly enough about Bennet to try to clear the field for his re-election bid? As the article states, we all know the reason why Joe Sestak was offered a job in the administration to drop out of the Pennsylvania primary; Arlen Specter was “persuaded” to leave the Republican party in order to make his re-election bid easier. Once it was learned that Arlen Specter was going to face a primary opponent, the White House decided to eliminate that opponent as a reward for his changing parties. That plan didn’t work, and thankfully the Pennsylvania voters did the right thing. But what led the White House to try to affect the outcome of the Colorado primary is less clear.
The answer could lie in the healthcare reform bill. Not in the bill itself, of course, but in the events leading up to the vote on healthcare reform. According to Dick Morris, Michael Bennet was a question mark when it came to the healthcare reform bill, nobody knew for sure whether he was going to support it or not. But suddenly, shortly after the job offer to Andrew Romanoff was made, Michael Bennet proclaimed that he would support the healthcare reform bill even if it meant losing his senate seat. As Dick Morris wrote– not in these exact terms– isn’t it funny how suddenly Michal Bennet found the courage to make this stand shortly after the White House made an offer to Romanoff to drop out of the race?
We all know about the various deals that were given out in order to secure the votes on healthcare reform, but now it appears as if the bribery even reached the level of tampering in federal elections. Was Michael Bennet assured that he would face no primary opponent if he voted for the healthcare reform bill? Nobody knows this for sure, but nobody can say with certainty that this did not happen.
This is another reason why there needs to be a special investigator appointed to look into this case. The White House has already changed its story about Joe Sestak, and the White House has already changed its story about Andrew Romanoff. It seems as if there is more to these stories than meets the eye, and it is about time that the American people found out exactly what it is.
D-Day remembered
With slight changes, I have decided to repost my D-Day post from last year:
“I am quite positive that the order must be given.”
With those words the plan to liberate Europe was put into motion. On June 4th allied ships set out across the English channel to begin the much waited for offensive scheduled to begin on June 5th. Torrential downpours forced the delay of the mission but the ships could not be turned around unless the invasion was rescheduled. Running the risk of being spotted by the Germans, the ships were to sit there and wait for another opportunity.
June 5th, the allied commanders met to discuss the weather and the future of the invasion while troops were floating in the channel with no place to go and nothing to do but wait for the decision whether the order was a go or whether the invasion would be postponed. The seas were rough and the waves were high, crashing down over the landing crafts, many soldiers were sick and all of them were tired. Physically tired, and mentally tired. They were also tired of waiting, if there was to be an invasion they wanted to get it over with. To the troops waiting was worse than fighting.
The weather reports looked bad and most likely another postponement would be necessary but Dwight D. Eisenhower was waiting for the final weather report of the day before making his decision. A postponement now would mean calling off the plans altogether at this point and beginning again at a much later date. With the final weather report came some good news, it looked like there might be a break in the weather at just the right time and just long enough to begin the invasion.
Ike began to survey the other generals in the room for their opinions. Opinions were split, it appeared to some that it was too risky and that the weather report wasn’t good enough, or certain enough, to carry out the invasion. It still looked too risky.
Ironically it was a general who was known for his deliberate and careful pace on the battlefield, a general who many thought (including Ike himself and General Patton) moved too slow and was too cautious who may have swayed Dwight D Eisenhower; when asked, General Montgomery said, “I would say. GO!”
The fate of Europe hung in the balance.
Ike paced back and forth, the fate of the free world and Nazi Germany weighed on his shoulders. All eyes were upon him as he finally turned to the generals in the room and said, “I am quite positive that the order must be given.” That was his order to go and the largest amphibious landing in history was about to get underway; the first attempt at a cross channel invasion since the 1600’s was put in motion.
Knowing that the weather conditions were not ideal, and because of this there was the very real possibility that the invasion could fail. Ike, also realized this so he sat down and penned the following statement just in case:
“Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”
He would never have to release that statement.
On the ships the soldiers listened to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s June 6th Order of the Day:
“We will accept nothing less than full victory!”
June 6th, D-Day. The most important day of the twentieth century. Landing crafts followed the paratroopers of the 82nd and 101st Airborne, who were deployed during the night behind enemy lines. The casualties were high, especially on Omaha Beach; many were killed as the doors to the landing craft opened, never even having the chance to leave the landing craft; while many drowned in the waters never having reached the beach. The first to reach the beach faced heavy casualties as the Germans were dug in with fortifications that the slave labor they had captured during the war were forced to build.
They faced a hell that day that is unimaginable to those who were not involved. But through persistence, drive, faith, courage, determination, and a little deception the soldiers of the United States, Great Britain, and Canada kept moving forward, buoyed in the belief that the cause was just and noble. The Germans defended the beaches viciously, but at the end of the day the invasion succeeded, the beaches were taken, and the liberation of a continent had begun.
The Germans knew that the invasion was coming but they did not know where and they did not know when. The Germans thought the invasion would probably be at Pais de Calais because it would provide the shortest path to Germany, but the Germans were also concerned about General Patton, who was actually part of a plan of deception. He was “commanding” a fake army, fully equiped with inflatable tanks, in Britain. The Germans did not think that an invasion of France would take place without America’s best general, they had no idea that General Patton was actually being punished by Ike and would not be participating in the invasion, they assumed from wherever Patton was, the true invasion would come.
Field General Rommel, the Desert Fox, figuring that the tide was wrong for the invasion, and confident that the weather would not allow an invasion, left the battlefield to buy his wife a new pair of shoes for her birthday.
Adolf Hitler was asleep, and as the invasion began nobody dared to wake him. The Führer had taken over command of the Panzer tank division and nobody could order the tanks to the invasion site but he. As he slept the Germans lost valuable time. By the time the order came from the Führer for the Panzers to get to the scene for backup it was too late. If Rommel was on the scene during the invasion, and if the Panzers were ordered to the scene in time, perhaps Ike would have had to release the statement that he had written in case the invasion failed.
Adolph Hitler was now thankfully in the last year of his life, as was Field General Rommel; both by their own hand. Rommel after being implicated in an assassination plot against Hitler.
June 6th, 1944, the longest day, and the most important day of the twentieth century, the day that the liberation of a continent began. The day that the destruction of the Nazis and the downfall of Adolph Hitler began. A day that must never be forgotten for these men proved that they were indeed from the greatest generation.
I have included some D-Day tribute videos. In the first one you have the pleasure of listening to Iron Maiden playing “The Longest Day,” set to the opening scene from “Saving Private Ryan.”
I have also included a video (the third video) that was made by an eighth grader for a school project, he said it a hell of allot better than I did.
And lastly there is Ronald Reagan’s speech from Normandy on the 40th anniversary in 1984.
Thank you to not only those who fought and lived and those who fought and died on D-Day, but thank you also to all of those who have ever fought in the name of freedom throughout history. It is because of them that I am able to write this today. I will never forget them and I hope that you do not ever forget them either.
Is America too big?
While visiting one of my favorite blogs, I ran across a post by John Carey at Conservative Hideout titled “A Spoonful of Federalism” which reminded me of a post that I had written awhile ago. In “A Spoonful of Federalism,” John alluded to the fact that the federal government has been able to use the 17th amendment– which changed the way senators were chosen from being appointed by the state legislatures to being directly elected by the people– to diminish the power of the states and increase the power of the federal government.
In my post from last year– Is America too big?– I made the argument that America has been slowly changing from the republic that the founders envisioned, into a democracy– a form of government that the founders feared almost as much as monarchy, and that this was partly due to the 17th amendment.
Our premises are slightly different, but John’s post made me revisit mine, and I have decided to re-post it today with a few slight revisions. At the end of this post I have decided to include the video that John used in his post, it is Fred Thompson talking about classic federalism.
So without further ado:
Is America too big?
That is a question that has lingered in my mind for about a year now. When I ask the question I am not asking if America is too big in terms of influence around the world, and I am not asking if America is too powerful, but rather I am asking if America is too big physically, have we outgrown our government? I am talking about whether the federal government can properly and effectively govern a population of this size. The country was much smaller when our form of government was instituted and surely while the founders probably believed that America would consist of most of North America before too long, could they have possibly understood how big America would turn out?
Surely Thomas Jefferson understood that America would someday extend from sea to sea as he broke with his anti-federalist beliefs (anti-federalist as redefined in a brilliant political move by Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, John Jay, and other proponents of the constitution during the constitutional debates while trying to gain support for a national government– anti-nationalist would probably be more accurate, as Thomas Jefferson would probably be considered a federalist under the classic definition of federalism) as president in order to more than double the size of the country with the Louisiana purchase. An act that he believed exceeded his authority as president and he believed was unconstitutional, but an offer too good to pass up.
This is a topic that I find myself extremely conflicted on. While I consider myself a constitutionalist and an originalist, I also consider myself a states rights advocate, these two ideals at times are at odds with each other. I have thought about writing this post many times in the past and have actually started it twice only to abandon the post, but now I am going to attempt to write it once again.
There is one form of government that many of the founders feared almost as much as monarchy and that was democracy (I will explain below), that is why our original form of government after the revolution was a confederacy of states with really no federal government to speak of. When it became obvious to all that the confederacy was doomed to fail, it was also realized that a more powerful form of a central government was needed.
The founders believed that a democracy was a good form of government for small nations (or states) but not so good when it came to a nation of bigger proportions. How could a large nation govern in the best interest of all its people across the nation? What might be considered a good idea for California residents may not be what is best for Texas residents, what is right for Wisconsin residents may not be what is best for New Hampshire residents and so on.
This is why the founders took great pains to set up a republic during the constitutional convention and not a democracy. The founders feared a nation where 51 Americans out of every 100 could force their beliefs on the other 49 Americans. They considered this a different form of tyranny– the tyranny of the majority– but tyranny nonetheless. Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson included, feared a strong central government. The delegates to the constitutional convention went to great extents to limit the federal government and provide checks and balances.
The founders took great pains to ensure during the constitutional convention that the states would maintain influence. Until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913, United States senators were chosen by the different states, not elected by the people. While the representatives were chosen directly by the people to represent them, the senators were chosen by the states to represent the state’s best interests. Because the state officials were elected by the voters, and they subsequently chose the senators, the people indirectly elected the senators. This gave the states a voice in congress, while the people’s voice was heard from the representatives.
After the 17th amendment was ratified the people became more represented by the senators than did the individual states. The people now directly elected the senators thereby weakening the influence that the individual states had, leading to a more nationalized form of government.
I wonder if we would have been better off if the 17th amendment had never been ratified. It sometimes seems to me as if the 17th amendment may have done more to change the form of government from the republican model to the democratic model– a model that many founders feared– than anything else.
However, having the states choose the senators probably meant that the states would have too much influence over the people of their states. Therefor, giving this power to the people under this premise could not have been a bad idea. Again, I am conflicted, there must other reasons why the people have lost control of the government.
This brings me back around to my belief that the federal government has grown bigger than many of the founders had hoped, and even bigger than many of them had feared could happen.
From George Washington– whose opponents claimed had too much power and was trampling the constitution– to John Adams; who signed the Alien and Sedition act, and jailed people for simply speaking out against the federal government (a clear violation of the constitution); to Abraham Lincoln, who expanded government control and jailed his opponents; to Woodrow Wilson and FDR, both of whom grew the federal government and reached a level of government intervention never before seen or dreamed of by the founders; to Teddy Roosevelt who went after private businesses, virtually every president has grown the influence of the federal government. Both sides of the aisle, for different reasons, have seen fit to expand the government to fit their agenda. Some of these presidents may have been justified and morally correct to do what they did, but in the end they expanded the influence of the federal government and diminished the rights of the individual states. When is the last time that the government has actually gotten smaller?
It seems that over the years, as the federal government has expanded, we have drifted away from a representative republican form of government, to more of a democracy. This doesn’t seem to have happened because of the constitution, but in spite of it. That is how I am able to balance my two beliefs; the first being my belief as a constitutional originalist and the second; my belief in states rights. It isn’t that the constitution has failed us as a founding document, it is that the federal government has failed us in following the constitution.
So, to answer my original question, has America become too big? I don’t think that America as a country has become too big but rather America the government has become too big. As the country grew, the answer was not to expand the role of the federal government, but rather to make sure that people were better represented at the local (state) level. It is much easier to govern the people at a local level than a national level, the founders understood this, and we need to return to this. If more power was returned to the local level, the people would have more power to control the government which is supposed to work for them. This is what the founders intended, and this is what is vital to the American form of government, a republican form of government.
When the constitutional convention was over, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what they had given us, he famously replied, ” a republic if you can keep it.”
I am afraid that we have lost it.
The May job numbers came out yesterday and we learned that 431,000 jobs were created. Groups like Organizing for America are touting the numbers as proof that the economy is rebounding; stating that this is the fifth straight month of job growth.
Barack Obama also used these numbers– which fell well below the projected numbers for the month– to claim that this is proof the economy is turning around.
this report is a sign that our economy is getting stronger by the day.
He touted the fact that we saw another month of private sector job growth, so let us look at the job numbers. Out of the 431,000 jobs created in May, only 41,000 were in the private sector. The other 390,000 jobs– totaling 95% of the jobs created– were all in the public sector, and many of those jobs are temporary census workers. And speaking of the census workers; it was learned that the Census Bureau purposely hired more workers than needed. They claim that they did this as a cost savings measure, but I wonder if they did it in an attempt to inflate the May job numbers.
This hardly seems like private sector growth to me. The government is adding people to the payroll while the private sector remains virtually stagnant and we are supposed to be rejoicing over these numbers?
Who pays the salary of these government workers? That would be you and I– the ones who are still either stupid or honest enough to work for a living. If people keep leaving the public sector and join the ranks of the private sector, how will the dwindling public sector continue to pay for the government workers? The only way the government can raise money is to tax the people, so we can expect that as private sector jobs decrease, that taxes will have to increase proportionally to pay for those who are now working for the government.
Here is another quote on the job numbers from Barack Obama:
What these numbers do mean, though, is that we’re moving in the right direction
Increasing government jobs and government dependency while more and more people leave the private sector to join the government workforce is a step in the right direction? Perhaps in Barack Obama’s world more government jobs and an enlarging government constitutes “moving in the right direction,” and maybe when Barack Obama stated that we are “moving in the right direction” he was talking about enlarging the government and was not talking about the relatively small amount of private sector jobs that were created in May. Perhaps he considers the additional government jobs the biggest victory of all.
To him more government is “moving in the right direction.” But to many concerned Americans we certainly are not “moving in the right direction.” There are still millions of Americans who believe that being self sufficient and working in the private sector is a good thing; all that these people want is a job so that they can support their families without having to fall back on the government to help them.
Sadly, Barack Obama’s policies are doing nothing to create jobs for people that want to work in the private sector. His policies are creating some jobs, but the jobs they are creating only increase the government and to many of us that means that we are not moving in the right direction. So the answer to the question is no, the economy isn’t moving in the right direction.
Apparently there were rumors last fall that someone in the White House offered a job to Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff in return for dropping out of a primary race against Barack Obama’s preferred candidate– Michael Bennet. When these rumors first surfaced, the White house denied that they made a job offer to Andrew Romanoff.
But then last week– in the wake of the revelation that the White House did in fact make overtures to Joe Sestak in an attempt to affect the Pennsylvania primary– the rumors of foul play in the Colorado primary resurfaced, followed shortly thereafter by an admission from Romanoff that he was in fact offered three possible jobs for relinquishing his senate bid.
The White House is now admitting that Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff — Jim Messina–contacted Andrew Romanoff, but that no official offer was made. It does appears as if the White House offered Romanoff the opportunity at three possible jobs, but none of these jobs was guaranteed, however all of these jobs would have required Romanoff to drop out of the primary race against Michael Bennett. Does anybody really believe that if Romanoff had agreed to drop out of the race he wouldn’t have been given one of these jobs?
The White House contacted Romanoff to feel out is he was open to a job that would have required him to drop out of the race; this is an attempt to affect the outcome of that race– pure and simple.
The White House has now admitted– after repeated denials– that they have made contact with both Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff in possible attempts to avoid primary battles. As more and more details begin to come out the story continues to change. I have said it repeatedly, but I am going to say it again; it is time to appoint a special investigator to decide if a crime has been committed.
America's Watchtower 
