Sorry State of the Union

As many people know, tonight is the annual State of the Union address, in which the president lays out his agenda for the coming year.  Although this is a long-held tradition, it often is an exercise in frustration and futility.  

According to the Wall Street Journal, the country is "increasingly worried" about the president's abilities and are fearful about America's future.  A Washington Post poll revealed that fully 63% of Americans have little or no faith that Mr. Obama will make the right decisions.  At the same time, the public seems to support many of the president's themes and policy ideas.  There seems to be some kind of disconnection here.

Mr. Obama and other Democrats have certain phrases that they use over and over, knowing that they resonate with people:  "income inequality", "war on women", "minimum wage", etc.  When it comes to income inequality, for example, who could possibly be against helping the poor improve their lot in life?  No one whom I know.  But pay close attention; what has Obama actually done to address these problems? His "solution" is to take money that the wealthy have earned and redistribute it to those less fortunate. Would it not be better to empower people to rise out of poverty through their own efforts, rather than simply taking from the wealthy? Our economy remains anemic, millions of people have simply given up on looking for work and the median household income has decreased during Mr. Obama's presidency, due to his failed policies.  We could all possibly end up poor and miserable, but, boy, we'd all be equal!  

The United States, although weakened, is still a strong country, but we will likely not recover fully under this president.  Mr. Obama seems to confuse rhetoric with action, and there is a dichotomy between what he says and what he actually does.   We would do well to follow the example of Andrew Carnegie, who said "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say.  I just watch what they do." 

National Enquirer - More Reliable Than New York Times?

The field of journalism is on life support.  Whatever happened to objective reporting of the news?  The "journalists" of today, as well as many of the people who pay attention to them, seem unable to tell the difference between reporting - delivering facts and information - and commentary, which is the expression of opinion.

The bottom line is that if the "New York Times", "Washington Post", "Los Angeles Times", ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC et al. are your media of choice, it's likely you don't know what's going on in this country. Stories of importance that reflect badly on Obama or refute the liberal agenda simply don't get reported at all on the above sources.



Fox News Channel has broken several stories recently that the other media wouldn't touch. Alarmingly, there are some liberal "journalists" and law professors who have called on the government to shut down Fox. It's obvious that these lunatics care nothing about our Constitution (remember the First Amendment?) or rule of law. I find it frightening that this would even be seriously suggested by anyone in this country.


It's a sad day for journalism when "The National Enquirer" turns out to be a more reliable news source than "The New York Times" or "The Washington Post".