Obama's "If you" Campaign Message

Being a responsible American citizen, I often read President Obama's speeches that he posts online for the voting public's reference (White House: Speeches & Remarks). Recently, I've noticed that the phrase:

"If you ..."

appears very often. Wondering if there is a common theme, I read through the past 100 speeches posted from July 4, 2012 to - July 26, 2012 and looked for occurrences of this phrase. The following is a summary of my findings.

Of the 100 speeches listed, 56 were titled as campaign speeches. Mr. Obama delivered 41 of them, and Michelle Obama delivered 15. Of the others, the topics were broad, ranging from wildfire and shooting visits, to sports, picnics, and awards. Two of the speeches were delivered by others: VP Joe Biden, and Mr Geithner.

All of the campaign speeches presented "if you" messages to the audience. The most frequent of these were:

• 107 times - "if you work hard ..." (variations: if you "are willing to work",  "apply yourself", "put in enough effort" ) 
• 31 times - "if you try ..."
• 26 times - "if you act responsibly ..." (variations: if you "take responsibility",  "are responsible", "meet your responsibilities" , "show responsibility" ) 
• 19 times - "if you've got health insurance ..." (variations: if you "are paying your policy" ) 
• 14 times - "if you don't have health insurance ..." (variations: if you "can afford",  "did have" )  
• 11 times - "if you get sick ..." (variations: if you "get a serious illness",  "got a preexisting condition", "are a senior" )  
• 15 times - "if you still believe (in me) ..."
• 6 times - "if you’re willing to stand with me ..." (variations: if you "stick with me" ) 

Other less frequent topics touched on:

• 5 times - "if you’re hurting ..." (variations: if you "have been unlucky", "have a string of bad luck", "don't have a job" )
• 2 times - "if you don’t want to help yourself ..." (variations: "if you’re irresponsible" )
• 3 times - "if you earn $250,000 or less ..." (variations: if you "are one of the 98%" )
• 4 times - "if you’ve been successful ..." (variations: if you "are wealthy",  "fortunate enough to be the other 2%" )
• 3 times - "if you can change .."

While there are many more "if you" references, most of those have been presented only once.

From this information, we can identify the Obama re-election campaign speech strategy.

Little of President Obama's message is definitive, highlighting his accomplishments or stating his vision and intentions. Instead, it is focused on the individual listeners. His message is that of a pastor, a fatherly shepard who is leading his flock. Do as I say. Live right, work hard, be responsible and try. 

If you do that,

"I will be re-elected".

Then, I can continue to live in the White House, travel on Air Force One, host extravagent parties, and take luxurous vacations.

If you do the right thing, the economy will get better. It's your fault that the economy is not in better shape. That is because you are not trying and working hard enough.

I am giving you hope. That is all the country needs.

SDS Port Huron 1962 Statement may reveal much of the Obama Agenda

Reading the "Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962" may help to identify many of the governmental initiatives that President Obama has sought to implement and thereby change not only government, but American society as well.

Background
A great deal of quieted talk has touched the ties between President Barack Obama and Bill Ayers. Since we didn't know much about Ayers, we did some research. We found that that he is married to Bernardine Dohrn, and both were leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Ayers and Dohrn were then part of a group that split off of the SDS and was called the Weathermen (Weather Underground).  With that organization, they helped to facilitate arson attacks, explosions, and bombings in the early 1970's. They were arrested but all charges were later dismissed. The two are still married and live in Chicago.

Somewhere in the 1990's and early 2000's President Obama met David Axelrod and others who were friends and associates of Ayers and Dohrn.  With the help of David Axelrod, Mr. Obama became a community organizer, then Senator, and finally President of the United States.

So what about the Ayers / Dohrn connection I wondered? The SDS sought to change America and promoted a socialist agenda. And, President Obama is trying to fundamentally change America. Is there any connection?

Well, interestingly enough, we found the "Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962" posted online by "Courtesy Office of Sen. Tom Hayden".

This is quite a lengthy dissertation asserting the beliefs, objectives, and goals of the SDS. You may read it by following the above link.

Excerpts
In this document, we read many of the concepts and policies that the Obama Administration is promoting.  As the President is running for re-election this year, he keeps repeating that his work is not complete. He does not reveal all that he intends for the United States, but perhaps the SDS Port Huron Statement will give us a hint. Below are a list of excerpts which we organized into various categories. These are all direct quotes from that document and were simply copied.

Hope and Change Motto

• ... the cheerful emptiness of people "giving up" all hope of changing things ...
• ... refusal to hope ...
• A new politics must include a revitalized labor movement; a movement which sees itself, and is regarded by others, as a major leader of the breakthrough to a politics of hope and vision.
• But fundamental social change -- that would ...
• The American political system is not the democratic model of which its glorifiers speak. In actuality it frustrates democracy by confusing the individual citizen, paralyzing policy discussion, and consolidating the irresponsible power of military and business interests.
• A new left must transform modern complexity into issues that can be understood and felt close-up by every human being. It must give form to the feelings of helplessness and indifference, so that people may see the political, social and economic sources of their private troubles and organize to change society. In a time of supposed prosperity, moral complacency and political manipulation, a new left cannot rely on only aching stomachs to be the engine force of social reform. The case for change, for alternatives that will involve uncomfortable personal efforts, must be argued as never before. The university is a relevant place for all of these activities.

On Building Infrastructure

• America should agree that public utilities, railroads, mines, and plantations, and other basic economic institutions should be in the control of national, not foreign, agencies.

On Health Care

• the Federal government should guarantee health insurance as a basic social service turning medical treatment into a social habit, not just an occasion of crisis, fighting sickness among the aged, not just by making medical care financially feasible

On Prisons

• Our prisons are too often the enforcers of misery. They must be either re-oriented to rehabilitative work through public supervision or be abolished for their dehumanizing social effects. Funds are needed, too, to make possible a decent prison environment.

On the Fair Share and Equality and the 1 percent

• The wealthiest one percent of Americans own more than 80 percent of all personal shares of stock. From World War II until th
• Freedom and equality for each individual, ...
• More important, the new emphasis on the vote heralds the use of political means to solve the problems of equality in America, ...

On Organizing

• The organizing ability of the peace movement thus is limited to the ability to state and polarize issues.

On Education, Liberals & Socialists

• Any new left in America must be, in large measure, a left with real intellectual skills, committed to deliberativeness, honesty, reflection as working tools. The university permits the political life to be an adjunct to the academic one, and action to be informed by reason
• A new left must include liberals and socialists, the former for their relevance, the latter for their sense of thoroughgoing reforms in the system. The university is a more sensible place than a political party for these two traditions to begin to discuss their differences and look for political synthesis.
• A new left must transform modern complexity into issues that can be understood and felt close-up by every human being. It must give form to the feelings of helplessness and indifference, so that people may see the political, social and economic sources of their private troubles and organize to change society
• ... Equal educational opportunity is an important part of the battle against poverty. ...
• Education is too vital a public problem to be completely entrusted to the province of the various states and local units.

On Disarmament

• Disarmament should be see as a political issue, not a technical problem
• Disarmament means a deliberate shift in most of our domestic and foreign policy
• - It will involve major changes in economic direction. Government intervention in new areas, government regulation of certain industrial price and investment practices to prevent inflation, full use of national productive capacities, and employment for every person in a dramatically expanding economy all are to be expected as the "price" of peace.
• - It will involve the simultaneous creation of international rulemaking and enforcement machinery beginning under the United Nations, and the gradual transfer of sovereignties -- such as national armies and national determination of "international" law -- to such machinery.
• - It will involve the initiation of an explicitly political -- as opposed to military -- foreign policy on the part of the two major superstates. Neither has formulated the political terms in which they would conduct their behavior in a disarming or disarmed world. Neither dares to disarm until such an understanding is reached.
• A - crucial feature of this political understanding must be the acceptance of status quo possessions. According to the universality principle all present national entities -- including the Vietnams, the Koreans, the Chinas, and the Germanys -- should be members of the United Nations as sovereign, no matter how desirable, states.

On Politics

• The American political system is not the democratic model of which its glorifiers speak. In actuality it frustrates democracy by confusing the individual citizen, paralyzing policy discussion, and consolidating the irresponsible power of military and business interests.

These are just excerpts from that document. We recommend that you read the entire document if you wish to learn more. Remember, these were written in 1962, forty years ago. However, they are just now being implemented.

References:

Weather Underground
Weatherman (aka Weather Underground)
Bill Ayers
Bernardine Dohrn
David Axelrod, Lefty Lumberjack

How many times a day do you move your head?

Every day that I travel to work, I drive about 2 miles through a city. In parts of the drive, I have to stop at every street and look to make sure that no traffic is proceeding or pedestrians crossing. Thus, I have to look back and forth several times before cautiously proceeding.

When traffic is heavy, I may have to wait a minute or two before the coast is clear. It is then that I have thought to myself:

How many times a day do I move my head?

Silly as this thought is, I've marveled at the durability and reliance of the human body.  Whether we are walking, talking to someone, eating, driving, playing a sport, getting dressed or whatever, we are continually moving our heads.

We move our head constantly, and, it never breaks.

To answer my question, I decided to estimate how many times a day I (and others I guess) move my head. At first, I thought that it is moved about once each second while we are awake. To confirm this, I went outside and sampled my theory using 2 rules. First, I defined moving the head as moving its position from one spot to another (up, center, down, left, right, nodded, etc). Second, I used a stopwatch to time folks involved in various activities.

Surprisingly, I found that most people move their head once every 2.5 to 3 seconds on the average. The head is moved more rapidly when people are talking to each other and crossing the street. But, it is moved less frequently when reading or looking at a computer terminal.  After several hours of watching, I compiled my notes and averaged the head movements. It is then that I discovered the 2.5 to 3 second interval.

Knowing this, I was able to estimate that people move their heads:

• 20-24 times a minute
• 1,200 - 1,400 times an hour
• 14,400 - 17,208 in twelve hours
• 28,800 - 34,416 times in a day. (that's my answer)
• 10,512,000 - 12,614,400 per year.

We take certain mobility functions like this for granted. But just think, what a marvel the human body is. As our heads move about 25,000 times a day, our arms, legs, eyes, and fingers are also moving. All at the same time. And even with all this simple movement, the muscles responsible for these functions rarely break and keep working!

Mr. Obama: Delivering campaign speeches do not make the U.S. economy stronger.

A week ago last Friday, President Obama remarked that the "private sector was doing fine"¹ when speaking about the U.S. economy. This set off a fire storm of criticism by Republicans. So, hours later, he attempted to revise his statement and stated "it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine".²

While we realize the contradictory nature of these two statements were said to appease the voting public, the first was given to misrepresent the economical state of the country, and the latter given to appease his critics.

However, we believe the statements following his attempted clarification are more important and deserve a critical review. Mr. Obama stated:

"Listen, it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine.  That's the reason I had the press conference.  That's why I spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month, and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger.^"2

Having documented the President's weekly schedule in our blog, The Traveling Fundraiser, we immediately knew that this was a false statement and another brash attempt to deceive the American public who pays his salary, housing, health care, and travel and entertainment expenses.

The truth is that Mr. Obama did not spend the day before his speech, nor that of 2 days before, nor that of the week before working on the economy. 

During that period, he had been traveling the country, appearing in multiple fundraising events, for the sole purpose of receiving campaign donations for his re-election campaign.  Lets look at the week:

• Friday, he delivers the statement
• Thursday, he attended a fundraiser in Los Angeles, then flew to Las Vegas and spoke about college affordability
• Wednesday, he flew from DC to San Francisco and attended 2 fundraisers. Then he flew to Los Angeles and attended 2 more fundraisers
• Tuesday, he had no public schedule
• Monday, he flew to New York City and spoke at 3 campaign events
• Sunday, he hosted a reception at the Ford's Theatre
• Friday, he flew to Minneapolis MN, toured a facility, read his "to do list" and attended 3 campaign events. The, he flew to Chicago IL and participated in 3 more campaign events.

Thus, when he said that he: "spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week" talking about how we can make the economy stronger, what he really meant to say was that:

He (President Obama) was delivering campaign speeches for the sole purpose of soliciting donations to be spent in his re-election campaign.

The sad reality is that in the week before he implied he was working on the economy, he actually visited 6 different cities and attended 14 different fundraising events.

Yes, he may have spoken about how he could make the economy stronger, but, the speeches made at campaign events are simply political rhetoric targeted at like-minded audiences willing to give the President money.

Let's be truthful here. During that time, the President did not work for and with the country to try to improve the bleak economy. Instead, he took advantage of the perks of his office and used our tax dollars to pay for his lavish fundraising travels.

Attending campaign events and delivering speeches is not really working. While it is indeed time consuming, tedious, and tiring, it is not part of the official duties of the elected office. When a President, such as this one, boldly declines to work for the improvement of the economy and fiscal stability of this country, his attempts to mislead the public by misrepresenting his activities will later become important issues for the voting public.

Total combined fundraisers held for reelection committee and 
party committee in third and fourth years of first term.³

Sources

1. Remarks by the President
2. Remarks by President Obama and President Aquino of the Philippines after Bilateral Meeting
3. Obama Is Spending an Unprecedented Amount of Time Fundraising: Scandal?

Have security leaks damaged Obama's trustworthiness?

Sometimes, our political leaders must do the right thing and take a stand to protect the national security of our country. Such is the case of Dianne Feinstein, who is normally a very liberal Senator. However, she, along with 3 other legislators, has taken a hard stance in an effort to investigate and stop the recent public leaking and publication of our sensitive security measures. For this, she should be commended.

At issue are "two New York Times front-page articles about President Obama's 'kill list' and the US governments cyberattacks in Iran's nuclear facilities".¹

Apparently, the information presented was known only to a small handful of decision makers. Critics have alleged that only White House personnel were present in the formulation of these plans, and that the intention of the leaks are to portray the President as a tough military leader. Yesterday, a  spokesman discredited these assertions, and today, Mr. Obama denounced any White House involvement.

At present, it is unclear how the New York Times obtained their information, but bipartisan congressional leaders are joining forces to investigate this matter. The President has indicated he will investigate as well.

During the 5 weeks, the President has distanced himself from the executive duties of his office. In those 25 weekdays, Mr. Obama has been fundraising outside of DC for 9 days, and posted no public schedule (aside from 1 or 2 daily briefings)  on 5 days.  This means that he only worked 11 of the 25 days. In addition, he was involved with the G8 and NATO summits on 2 of the 11 days. Except on days that the President is traveling, he rarely schedules meetings before 10AM. (We intentionally eliminated weekend days).

Thus, we can see that Mr. Obama appears to spend little time on national affairs.

But, from his recent news conferences and announcements, we know that he has been working on other matters (such as contraception, education, taxation, etc) although these are not on his public agenda.

Thus, it is possible for him to have been involved in the formulation of the 'kill list' and the cyberattacks. In and of itself, the creation and implementation of these covert operations are not being questioned. By and of themselves, they may be applauded. But, such involvements or operations must not be publicized.

Now, because of the NYT disclosures, the problem the Nation faces is one of trust.

The world looks for the United States for leadership. But, if leadership means the public disclosure of our sensitive actions, then that leadership cannot be trusted in future operations. Since trust is crucial for maintaining the success of international relationships, Ms. Feinstein (et.al.) are stepping up to repair the damage.

However, the President suffers a larger problem. While no one questions whether he should have been involved in these operations, his initial silence casts doubts about his association with the leaks:

• if he was directly involved in the disclosures, then his judgement and confidentiality will be lost
• if he did not know about the operations, then his lack of leadership and involvement will be confirmed and his reputation will be stained.
• if he was involved in the operations and one of his confidants disclosed the information, then his judgement of individuals will be questioned

Unfortunately, the  publication of the New York Times articles has severely damaged the reputation of the President. No matter what he or his spokesman says, a shadow of doubt will remain.

Hopefully investigation will reveal that an unrelated individual (not the President or White House staff) inadvertently learned of the covert operations and independently leaked the information to the New York Times. The President has stated he too will pursue an investigation of the leaks and hopefully he will identify the source.

Lastly, one must ask why the New York Times published these articles in the first place. Did they think the stories would help the President? Were they given permission to publish the articles? Did they want to hurt the President or the country? Really, it's hard to imagine their motive.

Sources:

1. Dianne Feinstein, Saxby Chambliss Promise To Crack Down On National Security Leaks
2. 5 leaks that have Congress steamed
3. Pattern of White House Leaks Threatens Nation’s Security
4. The 'leak' wars

Six months before election, Obama begins the trials of KSM and the Gitmo Five

When Obama became President, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, had been captured and detained for many years (since 2003). KSM, along with 4 other conspirators, had been charged with war crimes and murder in 2008 by an American military commission and each faces the possible death penalty. (Military Trial of the "Gitmo Five" Underway at Guantanamo Bay).

But, the newly elected President Obama did not want to rush to judgement. Instead, he delayed the proceedings for more than 3 years.  It wasn't until last week, May 5th, that the defendants were arraigned before a military tribunal and presented with an 87 page indictment.  Their next court appearance is scheduled for June 12th.

So, we must ask:

Why is Obama trying these terrorists now?

It is our opinion that Mr. Obama decided to use these prisoners as last resort "ace in the hole" to help him earn a second re-election term. If they were tried, convicted, and sentenced early in his Presidency, then much of the credit would have been given to the Bush Administration, and Obama would have received little.

Since Mr. Obama is very sympathetic to the Muslim cause, he and the Justice Department accused the US interrogators of torturing (by waterboarding) these individuals. Further, to keep his 2008 promise, he ordered Guantanamo Bay to be closed in January 2009 (Timeline: How Obama Compares to Bush on Torture, Surveillance and Detention). Without Guantanamo, the trial would have to take place in some other location. This had the effect of delaying the trial for a year or so. To help this along, Attorney General Eric Holder decided in November 2009 to move the trials to a New York City civilian courtroom. Thus, any future delay would be viewed as an obstruction of the American public rather than the Obama Administration. As the Obama team expected, New Yorkers were very vocal in resisting the move of the Gitmo terrorists and petitioned the Justice Department to find another location. This action pushed the trial off for another year because Holder refused to make a decision. Finally, in early 2011, two things happened. First, Obama reversed his decision to close Guantanamo in March; and then, Holder announced that he would allow military prosecutors to file the war-crime charges against the 5 terrorists in April 2011 (In a Reversal, Military Trials for 9/11 Cases).

Now that the stage was set, the Obama Administration could safely decide whether begin the trial proceedings in early 2012, or to continue to delay it.

If the economy was doing well, and the Obama re-election appeared to be assured, then we believe that the trials would continue to be delayed.

However, the 2012 Presidential election is not guaranteed for President Obama. So, he is using the:

Try the Terrorist Stunt

to demonstrate his commitment to the country, hoping to arouse patriotic support for his decisive actions, thereby winning over a number of American voters.

Will this work in his favor? We believe it is too late for this stunt to work. Trying the terrorists now only emphasizes the President's reluctance, and his inaction is already engrained in the voting public's mind.

Obama's Re-election Stunts: Will they work?

As I listened to the radio this morning, the reporter announced that the Guantanamo prisoners would be facing the tribunal beginning tomorrow. Having always thought that the Obama Administration would use these trials as a key re-election strategy, I thought it is time to begin a series of posts discussing Mr. Obama's re-election stunts. 

Below is a list of topics that I will be reviewing in the following weeks.  While there are probably more, I think 12 topics will suffice.

We will begin with the Guantanamo Bay trials and explore how these were delayed. Then we will discuss the Osama Bin Laden victory lap, unemployment, race etc. We look forward to your comments and thoughts about these provocative topics.

• Trials of Guantanamo Bay detainees (Sept 11 case returns to Guantanamo tribunal) - aimed at eliciting patriotism, toughness, and fairness
• Capitalizing on killing of Osama Bin Laden
• The unemployment numbers scheme - the dangers
• The comedian - Mr Nice Guy
• Blaming others - Republicans, Bush, etc - Oh, it's not me.
• The Dream Act - a push for allowing illegal immigrants to vote
• Fast and Furious
• The Race Game
• Dividing the country (rich/poor, men/women, black/white, - the 99%)
• Changing reality (defying the Constitution, supporting the unions, denying mother in law lives at white house, etc)
• Political paybacks (also called kickbacks in the old days) - Solyndra, construction loans, unemployment benefits, legal delays and challenges, birth control, special interest groups, etc.
• America's hero - champion for the little guy, fighting for the poor, killing the terrorists, let's play fair.

After reading this list, one song from Les Miserables kept ringing in my ears: Master of the House. Thus, I leave you now with the beginning lyrics.

Master In The House lyrics

Welcome M'sier Sit yourself down And meet the best Innkeeper in town As for the rest All of them crooks Rooking the guests And cooking the books Seldom do you see Honest men like me A gent of good intent Who's content to be Master of the House Doling out the charm Ready with a handshake And an open palm Tells a saucy tale Makes a little stir Customers appreciate a bon viveur! Glad to do my friends a favor Doesn't cost me to be nice! But nothing gets you nothing, everything has got a little price.