President Trump and Executive Orders

One of the most obvious, unique facets of the President Trump administration is how he approaches the job: as as business executive.

President Trump's first week has been a whirlwind.  Many political observers have commented that they've never before seen this level of activity out of a new administration.  Today alone, Saturday the 28th, President Trump signed three Executive Orders: One to prevent government officials from being lobbyists for 5 years after their service ends, another on reorganizing the National Security Council, and the third giving the US Military 30 days to formulate a plan on fighting ISIS.

Perhaps his most controversial Executive Order came yesterday when President Trump signed an EO that bars refugees from Syria from entering the United States and denies all entry of any individuals from 7 countries for the next 90 days while the US Immigration System determines how they can properly vet refugees, a process the President calls 'extreme vetting'.

Implementation of Friday's executive order was swift and bumpy, resulting in the detention of 11 people at JFK International Airport and causing many people in transit TO the United States to be sent back to their country of origin.  Reaction to the EO has been just as swift, with many calling it 'disgusting' and 'un-American.'

Perhaps the best response probably came from Justin Amash (@justinamash), Congressman from Michigan.  In a chain of 8 tweets on Twitter he wrote:

"Like Pres. Obama's executive actions on immigration, Pres. Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system. It's not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress. The president's denial of entry to lawful permanent residents of the United States (green card holders) is particularly troubling. Green card holders live in the United States as our neighbors and serve in our Armed Forces. They deserve better. We must do much more to properly vet refugees, but a blanket ban represents an extreme approach not consistent with our nation's values. While EO allows admittance of immigrants, nonimmigrants, and refugees "on a case-by-case basis," arbitrariness would violate Rule of Law. EO appears to be more about politics than safety. If concern is radicalism/terrorism, then what about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others? Finally, we can't effectively fight homegrown Islamic radicalism by perpetuating “us vs. them” mindset that terrorists use to recruit."

Too often this kind of level-headed response is ignored in favor of focusing on something more inflammatory.  While some accused the President of taking anti-Muslim actions, President Trump asserted that this is "not a Muslim ban."

My Take: Banning Muslims isn't just unwise and immoral, it's impractical.  Honestly, how many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil would have been prevented by this action?  Additionally, preventing refugees from entering your country seems contrary to "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  Also the action may have been to broad and swift, causing issues that might have been prevented with a more balanced approach.  Could we have avoided people being detained in airports?  Probably.

That said it is important to note: this 'ban' doesn't mention Muslims by name, is temporary by design so as to provide the Administration time to define what 'extreme vetting' means and how to proceed, and is in reaction to very real and documented challenges countries like Germany and France are having with assimilating refugees (that is to say, President Trump isn't just making stuff up).

Because of these truths, I believe Congressman Justin Amash's comments are the most rational.  The Congressman effectively lodged his concerns while avoiding mud-slinging.  Especially poignant is how he finished up:

"We can't effectively fight homegrown Islamic radicalism by perpetuating "us vs. them" mindset."

Something we should keep in mind no matter WHAT topic is being discussed.

Of utmost importance is what the Trump Administration comes up with in 90 and 120 days.  Depending on what the resolution is, our collective reaction will range between "What was all the fuss about?" to "This is truly un-American and we cannot support it."

How Should We Then Vote?

**This was probably one of the most difficult blogs I have written.  It is not naturally in my character to be this confrontational.  I prefer to offer my opinion, and let people make up their own minds.  However this election left me with such a profound sense of disappointment, I felt this message was necessary.  For my friends who voted for Obama: When our views are challenged, only good things happen.  Either we discover our folly and change our mind, or our resolve is strengthened. I pray this falls on receptive ears.

I always want to vote for Jesus Christ.  Unfortunately he never shows up on my ballot.  Which means I'm stuck voting for an imperfect sinner.  How does someone of faith balance out which sinner is preferable?  Often our choice is based on extremely small differences between the candidates.  So how do we differentiate?  Fortunately, we're not short of people who have opinions on the issue.

Jim Wallis is what I'd call a progressive Christian.  I honestly don't enjoy labeling people because no one really fits in any one box, but for the sake of trying to help describe where Mr. Wallis is coming from, this label will work fine.  Recently he wrote an article for the Huffington Post entitled "God is Still Not a Republican, or a Democrat."  In it, he attempts to describe how we as Christians should live under the banner of Christ, not under the banner of any political party.  This is a worthy endeavor!  However his article was not aptly named.  It would have been more accurate had it been titled "God is Still Not a Republican."  The bookends of his column fits his chosen title, but the meat is devoted only to why God is not a Republican. 

I understand his motivation.  Christian Democrats have long felt like lepers in our Christian colony.  Jim Wallis, among others, is someone who attempts to transcend that wall and unite Christians.  This is a good thing.  However instead of sticking with why Christians should turn our eyes towards heaven, he directs his energy at comforting Christian Democrats.  Wallis presents the argument that God has given mankind a great deal of responsibilities. Responsibilities which transcend the issue of how we have traditionally defined voting our 'morals': abortion and gay marriage.

"When we hear some proclaim that voting "biblical values" only means voting against abortion and same-sex marriage, we wonder what Bible they are reading. Apparently, not the one in our hands -- the one with 2,000 verses about the poor and marginalized, injunctions to regard the earth as God's precious gift to us that we must carefully steward and appeals to the efficacy of peacemaking rather than the an idolatrous trust in military might -- all values that come from the Scriptures."
What Jim points out is not untrue.  Jesus has conveyed His love for the poor and His desire that we emulate that in our own lives.  Indeed God gave man dominion over the Earth, not to rule as power-hungry dictators but to care for as a steward.  Christians should keep these things in mind, not just when voting but when living our daily lives.  Wallis continues:

"For Americans who claim an allegiance to Christian faith, we simply plea for a reading of the whole Bible when they reflect on how their faith may influence their vote. Much is at stake, and not just on one or two issues, including the fate of immigrant "aliens and sojourners" in our land, the hunger of one-in-five children, our growing and crippling economic inequality, the stubborn and unforgivable rates of poverty in our society, the deterioration of the earth's life-sustaining capacities, and the fragile chance for peace in the Middle East and other dangerous places."
Jim is correct on one important point: God is not a Democrat or Republican.  But on everything else he gets it almost entirely wrong.

Jim's first problem is he presents these issues as though they belong to one party or another; as if in considering these issues you'll immediately be able to  rule out one party: Republicans.  This is a complete misunderstanding of Conservative 'doctrine', which, sadly, is not uncommon this day and age.  Conservatives support the poor, the environment, immigration and economic equality.  Conservatives want to move to Green Energy.  The differences between the two platforms can be found in how they go about resolving these issues.  Believing that one party doesn't want to resolve them only plays into the vile and inaccurate political discourse so often found in today's culture. At its core, Jim's plea that Christians contemplate these issues when voting is intrinsically unhelpful because both parties support them.  If you really want to know the differences between the two movements, you need to look at how those issues would be resolved.

Jim's second mistake is he premises that Christians should evolve beyond 'single issue voting' and instead consider all the issue he mentioned above.  To be sure, every voter should be well informed on a great many issues, but Jim's point is no Christian should ever vote for elected office based on one issue alone, as it would be un-evolved and thus wisely avoided.  This is a flawed premise.  Suppose you supported Romney in the past election, but disagreed with one of his positions.  In our make believe example, suppose Romney supported killing all blue-eyed people.  Recent science has revealed that having blue eyes makes you more susceptible to the sun's dangerous rays, so Romney has adopted the position that we should rid our gene pool of such weakness.

This one issue would be enough to dissuade most voters from voting for Romney.  Not many would say to themselves "Well sure, he wants to kill millions of people, but really he's great on the environment, he is pro-immigrant and he wants to provide for the poor, so I think I'll vote for him."  This one particular issue would sway your vote.  In this make-believe example it wouldn't be unwise or uncouth to base your vote on one issue.

So it is with Pro-life voters.

It is legal in the United States, in some areas, to perform partial birth abortions.  If you're unaware of what this procedure is, you can Google "what is partial birth abortion."  Though be warned, the images will probably haunt you until the day you die.  In light of our previous example, we can't fault a Pro-life voter for being a 'single issue voter' when it comes to partial birth abortion.  Is there any single issue more important than the preservation of life?  Mr. Wallis' first mistake was a fundamental misunderstanding of conservative ideals, but his second is trying to assuage Christian's guilt when they vote for a Pro-Choice candidate.  He does this by painting the picture that God would want your vote to be more nuanced.

As a Conservative it is particularly annoying that Mr. Wallis presents a picture that, considering the issues above, would help you eliminate either party.  But I'm used to people in today's world presenting this false picture of Conservatism.  However, his second mistake is much more alarming because it is a misrepresentation of Scripture.

We all know the story of the rich man's conversation with Jesus, but let's review a bit:

"Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'
"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
This account is powerful both in what is says and what it does NOT say.

What it says:  When Jesus was approached by the rich man He told him what he, the rich man, had to do to gain eternal life.  Jesus challenged him personally.  The challenge was to give away all his possessions, because Jesus knew he held them dear.

What it does NOT say:  After his exchange with the rich man, Jesus lamented to His disciples how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, but Jesus did NOT say "Ok Matthew, he obviously won't give away his wealth, but the poor still need assistance.  So we need to take it from him.  Since you're a tax collector, put a levy on this guy's earnings so we can pay for food for the poor."  Jesus' instruction was to the rich man and involved what the rich man should do.  Not what others should do to the rich man.

American Democrats get this all wrong, as does Jim Wallis.  They confuse what Jesus is saying.  They miss that God is calling us individually to provide for the poor.  Instead they believe they can accomplish the same thing if we tax other people to provide for the poor.  Somehow, taxing others makes them feel morally superior to those who are giving their own wealth away to the poor.  In fact, if it were an American Democrat in this exchange instead of the rich man, it would have gone something like this:

"Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'
"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the Democrat's face fell for he had great wealth. But he had an idea.
"Teacher, I have wealth to be sure, but my neighbor has even greater wealth. I will petition Caesar to tax the wealthier-than-me to provide food and clothing to the poor. And at this, I will enter heaven."

The modern American Democrat does not advocate selling their possessions to give to the poor.  Instead, they vote to sell someone else's possession to give to the poor in order to make things more 'fair'.  They ask the rich to 'pay a little bit more', to quote the President.  And then they feel morally superior in doing so!  (A great illustration of this is here)  Let us be perfectly clear about this: Nowhere in God's Book does it say this is praiseworthy.  In Matthew 25:40 Jesus says "Whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me(emphasis mine)."  That passage does not read, "Whatever you voted to have done to the least of these, you voted to have done to me."  Christ is not interested in what the majority forces the minority to do.  Jesus is interested only in your heart, on a personal level.  If you vote to take away from one person to give to another, you're doing that for reasons that are extra-Biblical.

In some respects the American Democrat's answer to this issue is worse than the rich man.  Not only is he unwilling to give up his possessions, but he is willing to steal from his neighbor to fulfill the same obligation.  And after stealing from his neighbor he believes himself morally superior to his conservative brethren because he was willing to 'provide for the poor' while his conservative brother was, in his view, not willing.

Conservatives are not angels in this example.  There are plenty of Conservatives who are also unwilling to give their own treasure to the benefit of others.  But Jim Wallis, among others, would seek to convince the Christian Democrat they should feel comfortable balancing their moral "superior" position of taxing other people's wealth to provide for the poor with voting to continue to allow the killing of innocent children.  Jesus never preached this message.  Instead He told us to sell our 4,000 sq ft home, buy a 2,000 sq ft home, and give the rest to the poor.  He is telling me to stop buying so many movies, and devote those savings to the poor, the orphan, or the widow.

The option Jim Wallis' presents is not Biblical.  It is incorrect, and by it Christian voters have been convinced that they have evolved beyond 'single issue voting'.  Convinced that they are among the special breed of Christian voter who has transcended the abortion issue.  That they can vote for a candidate who is for partial birth abortion, as long as he is also for taking from the rich to give to the poor.  That they can vote for a candidate who is against providing care for viable babies in the event of a botched abortion, as long as he is for Green Energy.

An estimated 6.4 million Evangelicals voted for President Obama in the past election.  The President won approx 50% of the Catholic vote.  Yet once you get past the politically divisive, imaginary characterization that Conservatives hate women, hate the poor, hate homosexuals, hate immigrants and hate minorities, it wasn't difficult to identify the candidate who best exemplified Christian values.  There was only one candidate who is against restricting partial birth abortion; one candidate whose party is against restricting gender-selective abortion; one candidate who referred to babies as a 'fetus...outside of the womb;  one candidate who is against providing life-saving care to babies born alive after a botched abortion; only one candidate who was endorsed by Cuba, Russia, and the President of Iran (who wants to kill Jews and Christians); one candidate who released an e-card advising women to vote as if their 'lady parts depend on it'; one candidate who supports gay marriage; one candidate who supports Planned Parenthood which not only advocates for abortion but advocates for a sexual lifestyle antithetical to Biblical teaching; one candidate who advocates taking from one citizen to give to another; and only one candidate who aired an ad comparing voting for him to losing your virginity.

Mitt Romney is not Jesus.  But the contrast between him and Mr. Obama was and is obvious.  None of those things above reflect anything having to do with Christian values.  Which makes the proliferation of Christians who voted for him particularly disappointing.

Jesus is not a Republican, nor is He a Democrat.  He didn't advocate that we get our government to provide for the poor, He asked us to.  He is Jesus, Lord of All, our Savior and Hope.  Mr. Wallis is correct in advocating that those of us who follow Christ shed our allegiance to political parties, that we look at the men or women running and ask "Who best reflects the values I believe in?"  And that after our vote, we come back together as one body.

And re-focus our attention on the One who saved us.

Well, That Sucks

I'm trying to think of something poignant to say, some cute quip people will 'like' on Facebook or maybe even re-tweet.  It seems as though that's what is called for right now, based on how my accounts are blowing up.  But I'm struggling to put into words what I'm feeling right now.  I'm not angry that President Obama won re-election, but obviously I am not happy.  I'm not sad either.... it goes beyond that.

I am profoundly disappointed.

In 1980, an incumbent president was running for re-election during similar circumstances.  High unemployment.  High gas prices.  An obviously flawed foreign policy with the Mid-East in turmoil and a dead American ambassador.  American voters summarily dismissed the incumbent in 1980.....but not tonight.  Tonight, they voted him back into office.

So what on God's green earth changed?  

I see multiple possibilities.

 - Voters are under-informed.  Perhaps Americans are not aware of the President's policies either because they don't want to be, don't know where to get the information, or are too distracted with life's other issues.

 - The media has changed.  Perhaps the death of an American ambassador would have called for more than 3 weeks coverage in 1980, especially if it was made clear the White House was playing a game of cat and mouse with the details.  If it were clear in 1980 that the White House lied about the circumstances surrounding the ambassador's death, and even denied military assistance to said ambassador, perhaps the media would have chased that story down.  Maybe the media is so in love with the President these days they are biased in the information they present to voters.

 - The cult of 'celebrity' has finally conquered America.  President Obama is suave, cool, and hip.  Perhaps his massive following can be attributed to people's desire to vote for the suave, cool and hip candidate.  Maybe his celebrity covers his ineffective foreign and domestic policies.

 - The American voter has different priorities now.  Have voter's hearts changed so drastically in the past 32 years that they vote for entirely different things?  This is possible, and if in fact true, is probably the one that concerns me most.  

We can deal with people who are under-informed.  We can fight media bias.  We can combat celebrity status, and make sure presidential elections are not based upon popularity.  But if the issue resides in the heart of the voter.............

Consider a few things with me:

This President will have added more debt than all the Presidents before him.  Think about that for a moment.  The US got through September 11th, Desert Storm, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, WWII, the Great Depression, WWI, the Civil War and the War of 1812 without incurring as much debt as this one man.  So do people not understand the ramifications of this fact, are they not aware of this fact, or do they not care?  

This President will be the first to have presided over a Congress which never passed a budget during his term.  Do we no longer recognize the failure of leadership, do voters not know this reality, or do we no longer value leadership?

This President promised to halve the debt, but instead he doubled it.  He promised to close Guantanamo, end the Iraq and Afghan Wars, pass immigration reform, get unemployment to 5%, heal the world and stop the rise of the oceans.  He did none of these things.  Do we no longer recognize when we are lied to, are we unaware of broken promises, or do we not care when we are lied to?

Tonight I see people post on Facebook about how glad they are that the President won, and I can't help but think of drunk Trojans dancing around the pretty horse the Greeks delivered.  And I wonder, were the Trojans ignorant of the danger because they let their guard down, because no one warned them of the danger, or because they no longer knew how to spot danger?  The United States has more debt per citizen than Greece or Spain, both of which are going through massive spending cuts and solvency issues, and have unemployment rates higher than 25%.  Do the people celebrating tonight have any concept that the US will be there in the near future, are they un-educated about how finances work, or do they not care?  

Or maybe people think the President shares their concerns, but for the life of him he just can't fix it because of President Bush.  In that case, they're probably unaware of the speed at which the Reagan recovery took hold after the Carter admin.  Or perhaps they are aware of those facts, but just don't care.  But that's a post for another day....

There are steps we can take to remedy the slow dissemination of information; we can help people process the information they receive; but if voters no longer care about issues like these, if they're too worried about whether their paycheck is going to be cut or their benefits curtailed, the future of the United States contains no hope, regardless of what our politicians try to sell us.

I started by saying I don't know what to say, and then rambled on far too long.  For that I apologize.  I suppose what I am really struggling with is conveying my disappointment.  My faith in Christ remains my solid foundation, and I'm eternally thankful that He has provided for me a citizenship outside of this world.  But He has also placed in me a passion for these things.  And it's that part of me I don't know what to do with.  

I do not posses the power to change men's hearts.  If voters don't believe the things above are of importance, I fear I cannot convince them otherwise, which makes me further disappointed.  But God has inflamed this passion in my heart for a reason, and I will continue to spur people on to greater understanding of the deeper impact of issues.  But I'll also be honest:  there is a part of me that wants to drink wine all day and pretend I live in a world where this stuff already matters.  

Final Presidential Debate!!

One more debate, and then it's on to the polls......

What Romney Needs to Do

• Finish strong.  Even though the President was a lot more aggressive (and successful) in the second debate, Romney still has a good deal of momentum going for him.  He needs to finish out this debate without making a fool of himself.  If he makes a huge blunder (such as Gerald Ford's gaffe over the Soviet Union) that could haunt him until election day.  He has made gains on the President to be sure, but that can be undone with a major misstep here.
• Romney needs to highlight the Obama Administration's mistakes on Libya, but avoid getting forceful with it.  This will be a really difficult line for him to walk.  The issue will no doubt come up, but I think voters are getting a bit tired of it.  It's not good for Romney because he was essentially correct in his assertions in the second debate, but was incorrectly overruled by the moderator.  So the voting bloc doesn't necessarily understand the gravity of the administration's missteps, but I'm not sure voters want to see Romney going 'attack dog' on the President about this issue again.  But Romney still needs to correct the record about it.
• At the very minimum, remain competent.  Voters seem pleased that he has been competent and presidential in the previous two debates which to me is feeding his surge.  The first two debates covered mostly domestic issues.  If voters believe he can deal with international issues with the same competency, it will only help him.

What Obama Needs to Do

• Obama needs a great performance.  Most people seem to believe he 'won' the second debate, but not as decisively as Romney won the first.  The President needs to come out and prove that he can restore American credibility over seas.  
• The President needs to explain his plan for the next four years when it comes to the Middle East.  He needs a grand vision of what he views America's role in the world as.  People are well aware of the conflicts in the Middle East and the President needs to convince voters has a plan for how American influence will either be used or not used in his grand Middle Eastern strategy.
• It isn't the President's job to rip the challenger apart.  He needs to present a grand vision, and be able to explain how events in the past did not come as a surprise to his Administration.  It won't be enough to talk in grand platitudes as he normally does, he needs to get specific.  Campaign slogans such as "Heal the World" won't work in 2012 as they did in 2008.  Somehow the world seems a much more violent place and the President needs to explain how the past 4 years weren't a result of his bungling, and how the next 4 years will be impacted by his vision.

5 Predictions

1. I don't expect either campaign to follow my advice as if they were reading this to begin with.  So my first prediction is I'll be wrong on my most of my ideas in the above sections.
2. Obama is going to be aggressive.  He'll be driving the tempo of the debate.  
3. Obama will reference Mitt Romney's international trip earlier this summer at least once in an attempt to discredit his ability to be an international leader.
4. Romney will wait for the moderator to bring up Libya.  Hopefully his people are telling him that he needs to avoid coming off as though he is berating the President of the United States, and this would be an easy way to accomplish that.  There is little doubt the moderator will have some sort of question surrounding the Libya ordeal, so it would be safe for Mitt to stay focused on the other questions without jumping to Libya every time.
5. The debate will end in a tie.  I don't expect Mitt will come out swinging, but he will match the President's level of enthusiasm.  If the President starts swinging, Romney will swing back.  To voters I expect that'll come across as a tie.  

Politics is a Strange Business

It's long been believed that President Obama and the Clintons have had a tenuous relationship.  Some point to a contentious preliminary race in 2007 and 2008 as the starting point for the drama in the relationship.  The video below of then-candidate Hillary Clinton's reaction to then-candidate Barrack Obama's print ads is often referenced to as evidence of the friction between the two:

Emotional responses like that aren't necessarily commonplace in the political arena.

As a follow up, Bill Clinton had this to say about then-candidate Obama in 2008:

Offering Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State was, as theorized by some, an olive branch offered by President Obama. Perhaps it really was that cynical, but we also know the President has an affinity for Abraham Lincoln, who in Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals was shown to have built his team out of former political adversaries. Perhaps the President wanted to extend an olive branch and mimic President Lincoln at the same time. Whatever the reasoning, he hitched his wagon to the Clinton political machine and has had to deal with it every since.

And the political headaches Obama suffers are real. Recently former President Clinton had this to say while at a campaign stop for President Obama in Ohio: "Governor Romney's argument is "we're not fixed, so fire him and put me in". It is true, we're not fixed." Many see that as a subtle dig at President Obama. Indeed, even offering the former president a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention this summer was met with some trepidation.

According to some sources, Bill Clinton has been labeling the President behind the scenes as "The worst president ever." This hasn't made life easy on President Obama.

It's said that politics make strange bedfellows. And perhaps at some point President Obama will regret bringing Hillary Clinton into his cabinet. Perhaps in the future he'll think it might have been best to divorce himself from the Clintons. But in the meantime it looks like the new Democratic political machine is colliding with the old Democratic political machine, which has made life difficult on the President. To be honest, I don't think President Obama was ready to confront the duplicitousness of the Clintons. It makes me think of a scene from The Prince of Egypt, the Dreamworks movie from 1998:

When it comes to backstabbing and angling for personal glory in politics, it seems President Obama really is 'playing with the big boys now.'

The President and Governor joke at the Al Smith dinner

For those of you who enjoy political humor...

Pre-2nd Debate Quick Hits

What Romney Needs to Do

• Keep the momentum going.  To do this he needs to respond to voter's questions succinctly, with facts and details.  He needs to show that he empathizes with the common voter.  
• Be Presidential.  Continue to show himself as a viable alternative.  
• Keep the focus on Obama.  Obama is the one with the record and he needs to be pushed to defend that record.  Romney needs to keep the focus on high unemployment, a slow recovery, and the confusion in the middle east.

What Obama Needs to Do

• Stop the bleeding.  He needs to show people he actually desires to have a second term.  In the first debate he came off as apathetic, and can't repeat that performance.
• Be aggressive, but do not bully.  People like Obama, which is something he has going for him.  What he doesn't have going for him is his record, so he needs to keep Romney on the defensive by being aggressive.  Keep this argument about Romney so people don't think too long about the economy or the middle east, especially the chaos around Libya.

What I Expect from Romney

• I expect Romney to repeat his first performance.  He will attempt to be steady, and keep the debate about Obama's record.  
• Romney will be cordial but assertive.  He'll continue to lay out his plan (expect to see him count his policies on his fingers, a la 'point 1', or 'first we'll do this, then we'll do that' comments). 

What I expect from Obama

• I expect Obama to dance the line between aggressiveness and bullying.  He'll keep his head up and look at Romney.  Two things he did not do in the first debate.
• President Obama would prefer to talk about Romney than himself.  He has grand visions, but his 4 years in office hasn't provided the strongest platform to run on.  He will bring up Bain, the 47% remark, the $5 Trillion in new taxes he says Romney will levy, and maybe even Romney's mistakes on his overseas trip.  He'll attempt to hit Romney early and often.

Who is going to Win?

• Unless something happens I don't expect, such as Biden being belligerent, I don't think anyone will come out of this a 'winner'.  Certainly nothing as decisive as the first debate.  Conservatives love to believe that Obama is lost without his teleprompter.  While that may be true, it shouldn't manifest itself in a town hall format debate.  He'll have time to respond to people, he'll be able to use his body language because he'll be able to walk around, he will look cool calm and collected.  If he were being questioned by a panel of conservatives I'd expect something different, but he should handle himself ok.  Romney should be steady, and I expect the same man we saw two weeks ago.  He does a good job defending his record, and he has a good 'debate face.'  I'd be surprised if he were caught on camera making any of the facial expressions Joe Biden was caught making.
• I'm more interested in the post-debate discussion.  How is the press going to react?  They were obviously stunned and distraught over Obama's last performance, so how will they react to this debate?  If Obama performs sub-par, will they report it as sub-par or will they pass it off as a miraculous comeback?  If Romney stumbles even slightly, will they exaggerate his missteps?  If Obama has a clear decisive victory will they be able to report it as such without going overboard?  If not will their gloating come across to the viewer and if so, will the viewer react to that negatively?  And if Romney wins, will they be able to report that or will they attempt to temper 'Romney-enthusiasm'?

VP Debate Reaction

Biden needed to stop the bleeding.

Ryan needed to be competent.

Did either succeed?  Lets get right to it....

Ryan wins on style.

When the economy is horrible people evaluate a contender to be reassured that they're capable of replacing the incumbent.  They're looking for a reason to jump from the incumbent but need to be comfortable making that jump.  In that regard Romney set the ball, and Ryan spiked it.  He looked presidential.  He listened to Biden, was political in his answers, and held his ground.  He didn't need to wipe the floor with Biden.  He didn't need to make Biden admit his own failings on every issue.  He just needed to hold his ground and convince people he isn't a weak link, and he won in that regard.

Biden lost on style because he came off worse than Gore in 2000, if that's possible.  The media won't want to focus on it out of their desire to avoid handing the Obama administration its second 'loss' in as many debates, but judging by the amount of news time Gore's smirk got in 2000, Biden's grins, guffaws, and sighs should generate significant reaction.  It isn't an exaggeration to say that every time Ryan spoke the camera caught Biden laughing, smirking, reacting confused, shaking his head, or any other type of incredulous reaction you can think of.  I imagine his base loved it, but I'm not sure how the rest of Americans received that performance.  Contrast his tendency to interrupt Ryan and call him a liar with Ryan's generally emotionally even performance, and you might have a recipe independents won't be able to choke down.

Biden wins on controlling the flow of the debate.

Biden knew he had to be aggressive.  Ryan knew Biden had to be aggressive (and even said so during the debate, quipping "I know you're under a lot of pressure").  According to some counts I saw, Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times!  Eighty-two times!!!  If you're doing that you're controlling the flow.  You'll lose some style points (see above), but you're definitely controlling the pace of the debate.

Ryan got side-tracked too often.  Biden's answers would list 8 different points (not always related to the topic at hand) and Ryan would address all of them in his response.  Often he seemed to get so side-tracked he forgot to answer the original question.  This happened during his reply to the question about the soldier upset with the tone of American politics.  I really don't think Ryan actually answered that.  Instead, he jumped into a litany of Obama missteps in foreign policy.  Not sure how that played off with independents, but it definitely played into Biden's hand.

Neither won on substance.

I'm conservative so I obviously agree with Ryan's position about generating taxes through broadening the tax base, but I can't award him any points on that because he didn't explain it well.  Instead he let the moderator imply he wasn't actually answering the question.  The Moderator's bias was exposed during this tax discussion.  The conservative position is to broaden the tax base by reducing taxes for all and through closing loopholes, which would be done via negotiation with the Dems.  But Raddatz kept pressing for more and more details, which loopholes specifically.  Obviously she wasn't understanding his position of 'Negotiate with the Dems'.  See, Liberals don't understand 'broadening the tax base'.  If a conservative were moderating, they'd have understood Ryan's response.  But that wasn't the case here, so Ryan needed to do a better job explaining it so Raddatz would get off his back.  He didn't rise to the occasion, and came off looking like he was avoiding the issue.  And that's just not the case.

Biden was quoting everything six ways from Sunday, but if you noticed he was mostly quoting Romney/Ryan positions.  That's because substantively it is difficult to defend 7.8% unemployment, $16 Trillion in debt, no plan to grow the economy, and a foreign policy that is failing before our eyes.  So most of the night he stayed on the offensive.  Rather than describing why Obama/Biden deserves another go around, he was trying to explain why Romney/Ryan doesn't even deserve a shot.  In that regard he missed his opportunity to convert voters and bring them back to Obama/Biden.  In a down economy the incumbent needs to convince voters that they deserve four more years, and you can't do that by spending all your time attacking someone who doesn't even have a record yet.

And the winner is....

The American people, who have one less debate to watch.

In all seriousness, it's about as close to a draw as I could imagine.  I would say Biden won because he obvioulsy controlled the debate, but he hurt himself by becoming emotionally unhinged.  I'm sure his base was energized quite a bit, because they too would want to yell at Ryan if they were debating him.  But if I'm independent and I'm analyzing this thing, do I really want to see one side getting angry, petulant, and disrespectful?  I can't imagine that helped him.

In the end Biden did what Biden needed to do: he injected life into the Obama campaign.  He avoided defending the Obama/Biden ticket, but he might have stopped the mass exodus of voters from the Obama ticket by effectively putting Ryan on the defensive all night.  Ryan did what Ryan needed to do by standing on his own two feet.  He is obviously presidential, he can carry himself well, control his emotions and is well versed on the issues.  Based on this performance, voters can see him as the Vice President.

The real question for me is what will the media latch on to?  Will they focus on Biden controlling the pace, or will that move backfire with the media focusing on Biden's obvious disdain for Romney/Ryan?  Which 'facts' will the media decide to expose?  Only God knows.  I'm sure MSNBC is reporting that Biden won hands down, and I'm sure Chris Matthews is already getting back that tingle in his leg.  Hannity over on FoxNews is probably giddy with all the Biden sighs and looks of exasperation that I'm sure he's compiling them into a nice little 30 second bit as we speak (Biden quipping "I always say what I mean" means we're going to hear all his gaffes re-lived over the next week, such as "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking").

I wish it were more definitive, but all in all I don't think this debate will cause an exodus of voters to one camp or the other.  Which is probably what we should expect from a VP debate in the first place.

My Plan for Job Growth

Jobs come from business.  The easiest way to ensure your job is safe is for your employer to do well.  If your employer is doing well, and you're not spending your entire day on Facebook, then you've got a pretty good chance of maintaining employment.

I'd like to believe that statement would be self-explanatory, but with the recent rash of government sponsored programs aimed at increasing employment obviously it isn't understood as well as it should be.  Sure you can print off an $800 Billion stimulus, but even if you manage to create a million jobs all those people will have to be fired once the $800 Billion runs out (at which point you'll have all that new debt to contend with as well).  The only way to stay employed is to be employed by someone who is generating wealth, as they are the only ones who can afford to keep paying you with new money.

If I may I'd like to share what I think are four points which, if followed, would lead to massive job creation in the United States.  I'll also assign an advantage after each point to the candidate I believe is positioned best to take advantage of each point.

Business-people like to make decisions based on information, but information isn't any good if it changes every five minutes.  This is why my first two points are based upon injecting stability into the economy.

Pass a Freakin' Budget!!

Congress hasn't passed a budget since 2009.  A budget is mostly symbolic as the absence of one doesn't mean the lights in the government go dark (unfortunately).  It would be easy to blame President Obama for this oversight (don't we blame Presidents for everything these days), but he isn't entirely at fault.  Congress is tasked with passing the budget.  While the President can (should?) set the country's direction, he can't just pass a budget by himself.  It might be a sign of a leadership void, but it's really the fault of Congress that we haven't had a new budget since 2009.

Passing a budget would send a message to the world that we're not just aimlessly wandering in the dark when it comes to our finances.  It would mean that yes, we realize we're spending too much, but at the same time signal that we take it seriously and are working to correct it.  Right now there is no reason for any businessperson to think the US government is going to do anything but continue to turn a blind eye to our coming economic apocalypse.  Businesspeople would love to see a sign that Federal Government isn't completely absent.  

Advantage: Romney

Fair or not, only one budget has passed during Obama's presidency and he gets the blame for failure to lead.  He was nearly the only president to ever go four years without passing a single budget.  The fact that the last time one was passed was when the Democrats controlled Congress and the Executive Branch is an indictment of his leadership.  Considering that Romney was able to get Romneycare through the Mass legislature when it was comprised of mostly Democrats is a reason to want to see him try on the Federal level.

Reduce the Federal Deficit

Do you currently have a job?  Awesome.  In five - ten years you won't.  Or at least half of us won't.  The deficit (and resulting Debt in total) is the single biggest threat to America right now, and a huge reason Businesses aren't currently hiring.  

Suppose for a minute that you make $100,000 a year.  Two years ago you not only spent all $100K, but spent an additional $75,000 on credit cards.  One year ago you spent $70,000 on credit cards, and last year you spent $60,000.  In fact, you've been doing this for so long that you currently owe more than $800,000 in credit card debt.  How long do you think it'll take before the banks come and take all your possessions to collect?

The US is in a very similar situation.  The only difference is we are the bank's biggest customer, so they can't come collect right now, at least not easily.  As the US economy goes, so goes the world economy.  As a result we have had the freedom to go on a spending binge the last 12 years.  President Bush added $4 Trillion in debt over his 8 years, and Obama more than doubled down on that with more than $5 Trillion in 4 years.  The Federal Government works on $2 Trillion in revenue, but has been spending over $3 Trillion for the last four years.

The world is currently working to replace the dollar as the reserve currency.  China is looking to other markets in India and the Middle East to replace their markets in the US.  China wants to stop lending us money to feed our debt without losing their #1 market, something they currently can't do.  It isn't a question of if the world will adapt to live without the dollar, it's a question of when.  And when that happens, we can expect a major decline in the value of the dollar.  Even without the world replacing the dollar, it is only a matter of time before inflation and interest rates go up to previously unseen levels.  We can't just print $5 Trillion without severe consequences.  Think Germany before Hitler.

This is a very, very bad thing and people aren't thinking about it enough.  It is perhaps the #1 reason not to vote for Obama (whoops, does that give away who my 'Advantage' on this one is going to?).  Some economists are even predicting 50% unemployment not even two years out.  This is scary stuff.

But it can be reversed.  If you balance the budget, not only does it strengthen the dollar on the world market, (thus removing the threat it'll be dumped as the standard) but it'll signal to business that it is a good time to start expanding.  It'll be a sign to business that you're not considering upping their taxes, that you're not going to keep fining them when they don't provide health insurance for their employees, that they don't have to worry about costs creeping up that'll affect their bottom line.  

Balancing the budget would strengthen the appeal of the United States at a time when Europe is unraveling.  The Euro is on the brink of collapse, and countries like Greece and Spain are actively punishing success.  You want to see a glut of new job creation?  Hold up a sign that says "The #1 economy in the world is STABLE!" and wait to see what happens when every single business in the world looks at the US and says, "I want to do business there, where I know I won't incur costs based on the whims of politicians."

Advantage: Romney

President Obama has added an almost impossible to grasp amount of money to the debt.  Not only has he added $5 Trillion in real debt, he's added another $10 Trillion in unfunded liabilities (like Obamacare).  He promised to cut the debt in half, but instead he doubled it.  While Romney hasn't added to it or reduced it, he maintains the advantage here mainly because when you see someone fail like President Obama has, you need to replace them.

Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate

If you can reduce the federal deficit, this is the icing on the cake.  The worlds #1 economy being stable already gets attention, but if you reduce the Corporate Tax Rate (something both candidates are fans of), it'll encourage an influx in jobs here as companies begin to relocate.  This is the easiest point to explain, there's not much more to say about it than that.

Advantage: Obama

They both pick 25% as the sweet spot.  Obama gets the advantage because he's actually in office (though one wonders why he hasn't already done this, if he believes in it so much).

Become Energy Independent

Becoming Energy Independent is on every one's mind, but both parties offer distinctly different paths.  President Obama wants to become independent by funding Green energy initiatives and restricting coal/natural gas/oil.  Governor Romney wants to build the Canadian pipeline, and open up oil/natural gas drilling on public lands.

Lets be honest: both plans have their pluses and minuses.  Perhaps the only person who doesn't want to see us get more responsible with our energy consumption is Rush Limbaugh.  Outside of him, the majority of us can agree we want to move in the direction of using more Green energy.

However you cannot force the issue.  You can encourage it, but if the science isn't there, it isn't there.  And right now, it isn't there.  So we have two options:

Democrats want to restrict our current consumption of fossil fuels by cancelling refineries, refusing to build a Canadian pipeline, raising taxes on fuel consumption, and place fuel standards on cars that make both gas and cars more expensive.  At the same time, they wish to encourage Green energy not just by giving tax breaks for people moving to those technologies, but also by providing billions in subsidies.

Republicans wish to transition to Green energy as well, but on a course they would call 'natural' rather than forced.  Instead of restricting current consumption of fossil fuels, they want to make those resources cheaper while simultaneously encouraging the migration to Green tech through tax breaks.  They wish to open up drilling on public lands (which has been restricted by the President), and build the Canadian pipeline so we can use more Canadian oil as opposed to Brazilian or from the Middle East.  Migration to Green tech would be the result of tax credits, but not subsidies.  The benefit to that would be jobs created in the fossil industry would be maintained by the funds generated by the sale of those goods, whereas the jobs created in the Green industry would evaporate when the subsidy money ran out.  

Advantage:  Romney

Romney's support of drilling on public land alone would give him the advantage here (as far as job creation is concerned), but his support of the Canadian pipeline and additional refineries puts him way over the top.  Not only would they generate long term employment, but they'd make us more energy independent, which is a necessary defense initiative at a time the Middle East looks to be unstable.

Conclusion

Obviously there are other ways to create employment, but I chose four ways I thought would be most successful and at the same time exemplified major differences between the campaigns.  For instance you could also stimulate employment by repealing Obamacare (companies such as Cook Medical have already cancelled plans to build manufacturing plants here because of added costs from Obamacare).

In the end Romney gives us the best chance to not only foster employment, but to tap into a seldom discussed resource:  It is estimated that US company's are sitting on $2 Trillion in liquid assets just waiting to inject that into a stable market.  Imagine getting the benefit of a $2 Trillion stimulus package without having to fight the debt later.  That would be a major boon for our country at a time when the rest of the developed world is floundering.   

Decision, Decisions, Decisions.....Consequences

In the interest of full disclosure, this is more a journal entry than a blog or treatise.

Instead of working to build intimacy, legitimacy, and an environment of mutual emotional support and respect into our passionate dating sex lives, perhaps we should focus on injecting passion into our married sex lives, which are already built upon intimacy, legitimacy and an environment of mutual emotional support and respect.  After all, which is easier?

Attempting to do the first requires numerous outside influences and has numerous unintended consequences: we need condoms, diaphragms, dental dams, contraceptives, antibiotics, and in bad cases a lifetime of pharmaceuticals to treat an incurable disease whether it be Herpes, warts,  or HIV..  Suddenly we have to contend with issues such as abortion, adoption, single parenting (leading to instability, welfare, crime, etc), and hold debates over sex education (indoctrination?).  How much time, treasure and political energy is spent on these means we create in order to support our sexual dalliances?  To think a little personal responsibility would help us avoid all the demonizing, all the fighting, all the name calling that comes with all these issues.    

All the while, attempting to do the latter just requires one thing: loving effort. 

How long can we as a nation expect to fight common sense and the consequences of our actions at the same time?

Constitution Optional

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job.  Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws.  There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

That is a quote from President Barack Obama in March of 2011.  It seems he has a pretty good grasp of the limits the Constitution placed on the power of the Executive branch.  Congress passes the laws, and the Executive branch enforces them.  And it is the President's job to ensure his branch is being effective in its design.  The Founders desired it this way:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

However just last week the President announced that all illegal immigrants who were brought into this country before they were 16 years old will no longer be deported, at least not immediately, which ignores the current laws passed by Congress.  

So what happened between March of 2011 and June of 2012 that caused the President to change his mind?  Did the President discover some as of yet mysterious portion of the Constitution that would now allow the Executive branch to ignore laws passed in the Congress?  Or is there something else going on?  Joseph Curl of the Washington Times asked the same question.

"So why now? Politics. The Hispanic population in Florida, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado may well decide the November election, and with working-class whites, religious blacks, disenchanted young people and Jews fleeing in droves, Mr. Obama is looking to shore up his support, even if that means violating his oath to protect the Constitution." (read the full article here)

Since when do Presidents have the authority to unilaterally decide which laws to enforce and which laws they get to ignore?  The fact that President Obama's new views might exist primarily for political purposes comes off as especially heinous.  Sadly this isn't the first time President Obama has decided to cease following the law of the land.  He's done this before, when he instructed his Justice Dept to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act; he did it again when he instructed that they no longer go after growers of 'medical' marijuana, and even again when he stopped ensuring that states adhere to No Child Left Behind.  It's okay if a President disagrees with legislation (even expected), but to act as though you have expansive power not granted to your position by the Constitution is NOT okay.  It appears especially egregious coming from a Constitutional Law professor!

I'm not sure whether I am now just awakening to the state of the American Presidency, or if President Obama really is acting out of character of the Presidents who preceded him.  Did Presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush act this way as well?  I'm not sure, but whether I've been blind until now or this is new behavior from the Executive Branch, it has to stop.  When will we Americans wake up to these violations?  When all freedom is lost?  When we get a President who decides he will stop prosecuting those who violate our freedom of speech or our Freedom of Religion (Catholics are already being violated in this way by Obamacare.  Perhaps it isn't too distant future until the rest of us are as well).

I find it more than annoying when people attempt to impeach every person in office just because they disagree with their policy, but at what point does it become so offensive that we take that exact action?  Apparently this abuse of power was considered particularly offensive to the Founders, because they included the following in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:

“The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

How about the violation of the Oath he swore in taking office?  Is that an impeachable offense?  Are Presidents allowed to violate the Constitution and get a slap on the hand?  What kind of President violates their Oath for only political gain?  What does that say about his character?  This goes beyond Red vs. Blue, Republican vs. Democrat.  This is Right vs. Wrong.  This is Constitutional vs. un-Constitutional.

Luckily for us an election is close by.  Impeachment isn't something we must pursue as long as we vote him out in November.  Mitt Romney has his flaws, but thus far he has not violated his Presidential Oath nor has he violated the Constitution. Thus, flaws and all, it is time to vote for Romney. 

Abortive Tragedy

Recent headlines about gender-selective abortion in the United States have once again drawn my mind to a topic that seems to never go away.  Which is appropriate I suppose, considering the scope of it.  Abortion continues to be a hot topic in our country, does it not?

Lets start with this: I love femininity.  While I think on some level it must suck for women to have monthly cramping, bleeding and hormonal changes for most of their lives, part of me is still in awe of their unique ability to carry human life.  I will personally never know the feeling of life being created within my body; the gentle push of a tiny hand against my stomach or the horrible blessing of their foot kicking my ribs.  While the ability of women to carry life does not define femininity, it should be celebrated nonetheless.

The fact that pregnancy is now looked at as parasitic is one aspect of abortion that I find most distressing.

I believe women have been preyed upon by militant feminists, women who are single minded in their pursuit of what they view as equal footing with men.  They have also been preyed upon opportunistic men who have been all too willing to celebrate what they perceive to be their new found sexual liberation, shed responsibility for the natural consequences of intercourse and simultaneously pat themselves on the back and seek accolades for how supportive they are of 'women's health issues.'  They sleep with and use women at a pace previously unseen, all the while shouting "I support women's rights".  Additionally, they have managed to convince women this is a good thing.

There are a great many questions that precede the actual abortion process that no one bothers to ask.  For instance, some women complain of what they perceive to be an unfair advantage in the balance of sexual power.  They say men are free to sleep with numerous women and bolt with no expectation of responsibility, while women are stuck picking up the pieces (which sometimes grow in their wombs).  Thus these women desire the same sexual freedom.  However, a man who uses a woman for sex and runs from his responsibility is immature, selfish, and a complete prick.  So why do women wish to emulate this behavior?  Why is our reaction "I too wish to be a prick" instead of "Why are we sleeping with pricks?"  

Additionally, why don't we hold these deadbeat men to higher standards?   How come they are able to get away with using women for sex?  Why do we no longer hold women with such high regard that we do not expect physical intimacy until after we first pledge ourselves to them, for life?  As a society, as other men, why don't we ostracize men who act differently?  We've done women an enormous disfavor by not holding each other to higher standards.  Instead, we've permitted our popular culture to encourage this behavior.

This is one of a slew of issues that need to be ironed out before we even take up the topic of abortion, but instead of actually looking for solutions we're too stuck on the procedure itself, something politicians have labeled as a 'woman's health issue'.  Indeed, our government is so hamstrung by the politics of this issue they are unable to even outlaw something as heinous as gender-selective abortion!  It seems completely incomprehensible that our government is so impotent they can't even legislate a provision stipulating that when abortions are performed, they cannot be performed solely based on the gender of the baby.  How political have we allowed this topic to become when we cannot take even this basic step?  

This brings up another oddity abortion has exposed.  How ironic, or perhaps just sad, is it that millions more female babies are being aborted worldwide compared to male as the result of gender-selective procedures?  Abortion, championed in this country as a woman's health issue, has actually resulted in there being upwards of 40 million fewer women on this planet than there should be!  40 million times mothers and fathers in China and India have decided that their female child was unwanted based solely on its gender.  Surely even the most staunch militant feminist must get the feeling that something has gone horribly wrong.  How can you not look at this and believe that at least on some fundamental level women have been lied to concerning abortion?  I mean my God, women are being selective eliminated by a procedure championed as a women's health issue.  I would say it's ironic, but it's much more tragic than that.

In the end, lines of communication need to be opened.  There is too much hurt in the world to continue to never take this issue beyond the superficial.  We have to be able to discuss this issue as reasonable people or we'll never sort out our issues.  We'll never solve actual problems.  We must abandon politically trite platitudes such as "Get your government out of my womb" or "No vagina, no opinion."  We can't continue to label each other as 'Anti-Choice' or 'Anti-Life.'  There are deep rooted issues at play that we haven't even begun to touch because the aforementioned militant feminists and opportunistic politicians continue to encourage us to argue about the inane instead of the substantive.  They don't have the Truth in mind, they only care about their personal end game and are hurting the discussion in the process.

Three Sources for the News, Three Different Stories

The Big Three cable news networks all reported on the February jobs numbers yesterday.  Though all three read the same report, you wouldn't know it from the three home pages.  Lets take a quick look at all three.

Here is CNN's take:

Taking a look at CNN.com you see that there are two main stories, one of which is the new jobless numbers at the left (although judging by the size of the graphic, you might determine that the jobless numbers are of equal importance as Bank of America's ad to the right).  CNN reports that the economy added jobs, but the unemployment rate didn't drop.  It's a pretty straight forward representation of the facts, with a little commentary added in for entertainments sake ("Stubborn unemployment rate no help to Obama").  

Here is the FoxNews.com home page:

Over at FoxNews, the new jobless numbers are unquestionably their main story (although Bounty sure does a good job of drawing your eye).  FoxNews reports the same facts as CNN, but with a different focus.  Instead of mentioning the added jobs first, their main graphic focuses on the unchanged unemployment rate, under which they mention the added jobs.  They add a third dimension to the story and tease "NOW READ THE REAL JOBLESS STORY."  You have to click into the article to learn how "the Obama administration's not telling the whole story."  That is straight up commentary.

Now lets take a look at MSNBC.com:

It isn't as easy to identify the main story over at MSNBC, as their headlines aren't necessarily accompanied with any graphics.  From what I can tell, according to MSNBC the top story of the day is that the Mormon Church is attempting to limit access to their database of deceased Jews, in to block people from attempting to baptize them post-death.  In the center of the page is the main focus of their homepage, a story about seaweed helping a Japanese village post-tsunami.  In the upper right hand corner is where you'll find the report about the jobs numbers, and the headline reads "3rd straight month of strong job creation."  The sentence below the headline reports that the "Recovery continues to chug along at modest pace."  This is mostly commentary, with none of the pertinent facts to accompany it.

So, out of the Big Three, who reported on the jobs numbers the 'best'?  

MSNBC reports that the economy is improving, but stops short of providing any specifics.  It is only when you contrast their headlines with those on FoxNews and CNN that you realize MSNBC didn't provide any of the facts with their headline, instead relying on 100% commentary.  While CNN and Fox both provide opinion on the jobs numbers, both sites also provided you with a quick summary of the facts (being that jobs were added, but the unemployment rate didn't drop).  MSNBC went straight to their commentary, reporting that the economy ''continues to chug along at a modest pace.''  "3rd straight month of strong job creation" isn't necessarily commentary, but you'd have to already posses the knowledge that 227,000 new jobs is by and large considered strong growth, as that isn't information MSNBC included.

FoxNews informs that jobs were created and the unemployment rate remained unchanged.  But they also imply that there exists hidden data the government hasn't included in their report.  You'll have to read the article to learn what that is (in essence, the unemployment rate doesn't include those who stopped looking for work, nor does it include those who are underemployed).  

CNN's headline is commentary, but their description below is straight up facts.  Well, the first sentence is at least.  What these numbers mean for Obama and Republicans alike is something you'll have to learn after clicking into the article, which based on the headline will presumably contain mostly opinion.  However you do learn the facts of the story just by reading the headline, if you can discern what is fact and what is opinion.

FoxNews and CNN report the results similarly: that while there is some good there is also some bad news.  MSNBC stands alone in painting an entirely rosy picture on the jobs numbers.  

In no way is this the summation of exhaustive research into the Big Three's reporting standards, so coming to a conclusion on who you can trust and who you cannot based only on this one story would be premature.  However, regarding this one story I am comfortable saying that while CNN and FoxNews would do well to remove their commentary, their headlines are vastly superior to MSNBC's.  MSNBC obviously believes our unemployment rate is of less importance than what the Mormons are up to, nor is it as important as the seaweed in Japan.  And when they do carve out space on their home page for the jobs report, they don't offer any facts in the headline or description, they just offer opinion.

To be fair, we aren't analyzing the body of the articles within.  Based on their headlines I wouldn't feel comfortable lambasting the entirety of any one of these networks.  However it should be pretty obvious to even the most casual observer that going to only one news source for information can provide you with drastically different information.  Additionally, it should be suggested that further research into reports like the recently release job information would be advisable.  By no means limit your exposure to just the Big Three.

The motivation behind pointing this out was, to be honest, Facebook posts.  I see a lot of posts about how "this network sucks" or "that network is unreliable."  Two things should at this point be obvious.  1) Each site will report on a given story with their own flair and own angles.  While they aren't necessarily misleading, you do need to be aware of the bias.  None of them on their own failed the reader entirely (though in this case, MSNBC sure didn't bring much to the table).  2) Going to all three of these sites (and others) will provide you with valuable information you wouldn't have learned had you received your information from only one source.  

Abandonment

Sin is no mystery.  Sometimes I allow myself to be shocked (or mystified) that we persist in our sinful ways.  Most of the time sin is pretty obvious.  "Thou shalt not commit adultery,"  "Thou shalt not steal," and other commandments have such obvious negative consequences that identifying the sin itself is not very difficult.  But there are those sins that we seem to have a hard time identifying.

Abortion.  Homosexuality.  Promiscuity.

These sins our contemporary society has a difficult time condemning.  If you're pro-life it is said you don't support women's rights or women's health.  If you believe homosexuality was not God's intent for humanity, you're labeled a 'homophobe'; someone who hates homosexuals.  They don't even bother labeling you anything if you preach against promiscuity.  Nope, that sin is so widely accepted that contemporary culture will actually mock you as 'one of ''those'' girls' if you have the audacity to remain virginal until marriage.

Sometimes this denial comes across as a shock to me.  After all, who could possibly witness the amazing way male and female reproductive systems compliment one another and not come away convinced they were designed in tandem?  Who could be witness to that and possibly determine that even nature (yes, small 'n') would desire it any other way than male/female?  And yet our culture has so convinced some among us that homosexuality is acceptable that those who disagree are labeled as bigots.  Indeed, homosexuality is often encouraged, especially that among women.  Quite amazing, is it not?

But why are we ever surprised by this?  God has warned us.  In something called the Judgement of Abandonment.

Romans 1:20 states "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what was made, so that men were without excuse."

Translation: The natural world around us proves God's existence.  Every single ancient culture believed in a God or gods; there were no atheists among them.  We often attribute this consistency to their un-evolved status, but in reality the opposite is true.  They were 'in' nature much more then we are, and so they acknowledged the obvious design.  Actually, it should be even more obvious to us.  We've looked inside the cell, something so beautifully complicated that the only logical conclusion is that someone designed it.  However rather than acknowledge God, we are not unlike those in the following verse which, to be honest, sucks.

Romans 1:21  "For although they knew God, they neither glorified God nor gave thanks to Him."

It is profoundly (ironically?) amazing that God says His very creation yells out "God made me", yet we have devised a 'theory' that replaces purposeful creation with random chance.  How insulting this must be to God, and pleasing to Satan.  We've seen God's proof, we've looked into the cell, yet we teach our children that it doesn't take a designer to create our universe, that a bunch of monkeys in a room given enough time would create the same environment.  How shameful.  What a blight on our 'intelligence.'

And what is the unfortunate consequence of our rejection of God?

Romans 1:21 b  "Their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Paul continues:

Romans 1:24  "God gave them over to their sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."

Romans 1:26  "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  27  In the same way, men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions.  28  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  29  They became filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.  They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless"

Pretty horrible huh?  The interesting thing is their sin was not homosexuality, promiscuity, envy or even murder.  Their original sin was rejecting God.  Because they "neither glorified God nor gave thanks to Him," He gave them over to those subsequent sins.  Is it any wonder then why our elected leaders, so proud of their support of evolution and a 'tolerant society' have the governing wisdom of a dog in heat?  And then to cap it off verse 32, which I believe is the current condition of the heart of America:

Romans 1:32  "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Have you heard anyone, either celebrity or elected leader, praise the bravery of those homosexuals pursuing marriage as though they were fighting for civil rights in the 60's?  You hear it every day.  Has it been long since you've read of one of these same people praising the mature way they handled their divorce, that they just needed to focus on themselves and that their marriage was holding them back?  Have you seen any innovative ways of sinning?  Have you been shocked to see babies cut from mother's wombs?  Are you surprised that after teaching our children that God did not create them unique and wonderful, but that they are evolved pond scum these same kids end up shooting their schoolmates?   Are you amazed that in the United States of America we now have an entire political movement devoted to the envy of others possessions and the entitlement for their own?  Or do you think that these circumstances are merely coincidental, that Romans 1 is overreacting?

The truth is that the sad state of American culture was foretold almost 2,000 years ago, because the human condition remains the same: reject God, and he will abandon you to your sinful ways.  Your mind will devolve to a place where you can't even discern that marriage was not created for two men, where you will encourage the sin of others (how popular is lesbianism in entertainment these days?), you will be consumed with envy, and you will do all of this willingly.  All the while thinking that it is God who is insane.

Of course the end result of all of this isn't good.  When leaders are men and women whose minds have become futile and whose hearts are darkened, and the nation is full of men and women whose minds have become futile and whose hearts are darkened, things aren't going to be comfy.  Unless the United States experiences a spiritual revival of sorts we can expect our culture to continue to devolve, sin to become more rampant, and people will encourage each other in sin ("What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas").  On this path, sin begets sin begets more sin.  Of course there is always hope of revival, and such revival has occurred in the past.  The alternative is God bringing his judgement as he did on Babylon, Egypt, Assyria and Rome before us.  Or as Thomas Jefferson put it:

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Note: Since the publishing of this article, Hollywood has (predictably) reacted strongly against actor Kirk Cameron for his comments that Homosexuality is 'unnatural': http://www.eonline.com/news/marc_malkin/brad_pitt_george_clooney_star_in_gay/298608