Brenda Krueger Huffman

You Deserve a Break: Relax - Relate - Enjoy with New Digital Monthly "Women's Voices Magazine"

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:54:00 +0000

Indianapolis, IN -- (SBWIRE) -- 07/22/2013 -- Every busy woman knows time is limited, and money can be tight in today’s world. It sure would be nice to take some time to yourself to relax without breaking the bank each month.

For the same cost as one large pizza a year, Every busy woman knows time is limited, and money can be tight in today’s world. It sure would be nice to take some time to yourself to relax without breaking the bank each month. Women’s Voices Magazine, a new monthly digital, offers an annual subscription of 12 monthly issues at $17.99.

That’s right, for the price of a cup of regular coffee per month, at $1.50 per issue, you can relax with a fun experience you will look forward to, just for you, each month. WVM offers a new vision in women’s magazines – a relatable one.

WVM is modern, informative, thought-provoking, and entertaining. The content was mapped with the everyday lives of real women in mind. WVM wants its readers to see themselves and their lives represented in the magazine.

Too often even the best women’s magazines overly highlight the lifestyles of the rich and famous and offer content many women do not really find relevant to their lives. Women’s Voices Magazine changes all that.

WVM features 45+ female columnists nationally on topics ranging from home and family to politics and economy to the many aspects of a woman’s life that shape and inspire them. The all column format is unique, and the presentation is created with beauty in mind.

The WVM columnists live in cities and towns all across the United States. They range from 23 to 50+, from single working class mom to seasoned executive, with columns encompassing the serious and poignant to the downright hilarious and fun.

There are ten interest sections in WVM – Home, Family, Life, Enjoy, Soul, Politics, Economy, Digital, Impact and Community. WVM is for women of all walks of life and backgrounds, from all income levels, of all ages and family descriptions. The WVM columns touch on all the many stages of a woman’s life.

WVM also invites its readers to participate in the WVM community by engaging them in answering monthly ‘My Voice’ questions for each of the ten sections posted on the WVM website and social media. Selected answers will appear in the magazine on the ‘My Voice’ pages that begin each section.

Executive Editor Brenda Krueger Huffman notes, “The WVM vision is to showcase the voices of women including those not normally heard in a women’s magazine. Some of the columnists are first time writers, and many are accomplished writers and bestselling book authors. They all embody the WVM mission of presenting content that is Insightful … Informative … Inspirational … Inclusive.”

Huffman concludes, “We are thrilled with the feedback we have received since our first issue in May. The comment we hear most often is, ‘You are right, there is nothing out there like this.’ Women are seeing themselves and their lives in the variety of the WVM columns and are having fun with it. They are excited to see the things they care about featured and discussed.”

About Women’s Voices Magazine
Women’s Voices Magazine is created and published by Women’s Voices Media, LLC. We strive to produce an affordable monthly pleasure that allows you to relax, relate and enjoy. WVM actively pursues the creation of a community that welcomes and encourages all people. We seek to provide a place to celebrate life and relate to one another. The goals of WVM are to offer insight, information and inspiration while creating an inclusive community experience. Our purpose is to bridge the generation gap, the wealth gap and the circumstance understanding gap, for we know most life themes, no matter how they play out specifically, are universal life themes for most people. We know we have more in common than not in life’s bigger picture, and we all do better when we come together as a relatable community.

If you would like more information on Women’s Voices Magazine, or to schedule an interview with Executive Editor Brenda Krueger Huffman, please call Women’s Voices Media, LLC at 317.844.4220 or send email to contact@womensvoicesmagazine.com

Media Relations Contact

Brenda Krueger Huffman
Executive Editor
317-844-4220
Email | Web
Follow RTC Publicity:

Share on rss

Related Images

Source: RTC Publicity
Posted Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM CDT - Permalink

What is Missing in the Fiscal Cliff Debate – “Spending Cuts” are “Borrowing Cuts”

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:20:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Flickr Common

What the heck is wrong with the Republican leadership in Washington? With all the brain power of politicians and their staff, why can’t they understand what fiscal cliff negotiations message is most important and would make the debate, and what is at stake for America, much more clear to the average American whether a Democrat or a Republican? Even “no spending cuts” Democrats would take heed.

With every $1 spent by Washington now having 40 cents of it being borrowed, most likely from China, the message should be “Spending cuts are actually borrowing cuts.” Even the most ardent far left liberal understands that message whether they want to admit it or not.

Any American, at any income level, drowning in credit card debt or payments owed to a payroll loan store can comprehend the real danger of owing more than one can ever pay back without painful routine spending cut choices and a lower standard of living necessity. Ask any of these Americans which one is in the stronger position – the lender or the borrower?

The simple message that really counts, without the political one-upmanship, is the U.S. is spending more money than it has, even with a tax hike on the rich. The proposed tax hike on the rich will bring in revenue that pays for the federal government spending for approximately 8 ½ days. So, after a little over a week, at current spending levels, the U.S. is back to borrowing to continue current spending levels. Only spending, or borrowing, cuts can turn the country around.

There are also the dangers we have already seen in our country depending on China as an example to keep a government lifestyle of spending too much intact. The Obama administration refused to declare China a currency manipulator just a couple of days ago. C’mon now, is there any intelligent American, on either side of the political aisle, who would not say China has been manipulating their currency, especially against the dollar, for years? This goes to the heart of unfair trade practices in fact with the U.S.

In addition, the U.S. has refused to call out the Chinese government for human rights abuses for several years now fearing they would stop buying U.S. debt. We have become a nation of political hypocrites in having the strength of our moral convictions. We now ignore human rights abuses, because our politicians have put us in the deplorable position of needing to ignore them.

Those whose human rights are abused in the world depend on the moral power and possibility of a strong U.S. influence to eradicate their suffering. The ability to call abuse out is a vital first step in eliminating it.

In today’s Obama/Romney lunch, the White House relayed the focus was on “America's leadership in the world and the importance of maintaining that leadership position in the future." If the U.S. must hesitate to condemn human rights abuse, are we truly in a leadership position in the world? Even the Democrats with their compassion for the poor and disenfranchised in societies should be able to get behind this reality for a better world.

This is not a partisan issue. The majority of Republicans are just as guilty as the majority of Democrats in not wanting to have any real spending, or borrowing, cuts. Politicians having money to give out ensures maintaining political control and power. It is good public relations with an eye toward the next reelection campaign donors. Politicians from both parties want to go back home to their districts or states and tout the money and projects they are responsible for funding to special interest groups.

The fiscal cliff debate has been positioned as one of Republicans wanting to cut spending for the poor while maintaining low taxes for the rich, and the Democrats wanting to protect the poor from spending cuts and rightfully expecting the rich to pay for government for all. This positioning does nothing but benefit politicians. It does not benefit Americans today or tomorrow.

The truth is the fiscal cliff debate should be about paying for the deficits that have been run up and cutting borrowing with interest to maintain a government lifestyle well above our means and economic health. That is something both parties and Americans need to put into the fiscal cliff perspective.

A “national borrowing count” should be added to the ever moving national debt clock. This illustrates what it means to maintain current spending levels today as well as raising any debt ceiling levels in the future.

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on Thoughtful Women.

Is Morph Syndicate’s “C3” model Networks’ best programming bet for television’s evolution?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:53:00 +0000

Photo Credit-Flickr Common

We have seen technology changes the standard business model in all industries sooner or later. In 2012 it is sooner for the television industry in meeting the evolving demands of consumers and advertisers.

Consumers time shift by watching television programs via DVR, the Internet, and mobile phones. They expect video-on-demand and video-on-the-go to meet their needs. Consumers want more programming choices and access options in entertainment models.

Advertisers want increased access distribution and micro-demographic targeting options. Networks need to meet these industry evolution demands with the balance of their own lower risk and lower cost model realities to remain viable in today’s entertainment world. Investors are looking for technology and business concept advances to be aligned with trending that really matters and enhances the bottom line.

The new media model has a lot of evolutionary standards to meet. Beverly Hills based Morph Syndicate is on the leading edge with its “Closed Creative Collective” (C3) branded production model and proof of concept original digital series programming. Networks and advertisers are leaning forward and taking notice. Consumers will take notice too as Networks produce more original digital series programming in the very near future.

Morph Syndicate is owned and run by the partners Matthew and Athena Ashburn. Matthew is a visionary and a Media Entrepreneur. He has authored several models in the business of Branded Content Production, Advertisement Distribution, Ad Campaign Clustering, and Digital Content Programming.

Starting with authoring the production model known as C3, Matthew is leveraging creative and managerial talent with current media technologies to produce original content of all types: Commercials, Broadcast Quality Content, Feature Films, etc. He is the Co-Creator of the original sci-fi digital series “20 Dollar”, a 21st Century “Twilight Zone”, with first season distributed. He has also just launched the first episode of season 1 of the original family/comedy/magic digital series the “Funniest Faces Show”.

Athena Ashburn is an award-winning actress, producer, and writer. She has produced award-winning feature films associated with studios including Weinstein Company, MGM, HBO, First Independent Pictures, and Roadside Attractions.

Athena served as co-producer on Emilio Estevez’ epic ensemble piece, “Bobby“, which was nominated for “Best Picture” at 2007 Golden Globes. Currently she is Executive Producer with Informant Media ("Crazy Heart" - Oscar winner) on the feature Film “Brundibar“, based on a true story slated for a 2013 release.

With networks reorganizing to meet the 21st century consumer demand from network to cable and Internet, Matthew explains the top three ways the C3 model facilitates this evolution.

“Our ‘Closed Creative Collective’ is a comprehensive media production model, utilized in producing original entertainment and advertisement programming keeping with the industry standards for broadcast quality. Utilizing the C3 model provides a cost reduction of 30% to 50% to current Network or Cable production cost structures.”

“The C3 business model allows our clients’ media strategies to relate to a new paradigm, which has been coined – Constant Programming. This simply is based on the computation of audio/video content distributed across all devices and delivery platforms at any given moment to consumers globally.”

“C3 puts Networks and advertisers in the ‘Digital Content Market’ immediately and efficiently. C3’s offers Networks a branded production model, the means for producing sustainable price-points, limitless amounts of genre content, and delivery across all channels. Advertisers have the capability to produce an unlimited amount of commercials for enhanced visibility.”

Matthew adds, “C3 creates more jobs in the entertainment industry by developing a two tier system that opens up the current one tier entertainment model. Programming is directed by the Networks in line with current quality standards, but there is a more constant development of programming which can be concept tested first in a digital only medium before moving to the Network programming or can be slated up front as programming meant for alternative distribution only.”

It is easy to see C3 has a huge potential for niche programming to bring new audiences to Networks, new efficiency for advertisers, and more job possibilities for talent. Will consumers see more independent type programming in all shows – drama, comedy, children, political, educational, etc.?

Matthew perceives, “Yes, the C3 model produces an expansive amount of genre and niche original content by highly talented creative and managerial professionals, thus providing a business model for funding and pricing accordingly to market demand across digital media markets.

He expands, “The C3 model is a paradigm shift from ‘Large’ TV productions to a model of less expensive, more efficient, and faster to market productions which are inherently going to have that "Independent" look and feel, with the break- away successes as clearly having a mass market appeal. The content and production quality will remain the same or better, for the C3 production model is designed to produce the bench-mark of ‘Broadcast Quality’ programming at consistent rates not previously capable in quality and quantity.”

Matthew interprets how he sees new technologies being mainstreamed in the entertainment industry with the C3 media model, “The leveraging of technology is best utilized for production and distribution of entertainment and advertisement programming, thus media conglomerates and advertisers will gain the competitive edge with strategies delivering a ‘Constant Programming’ approach to interconnecting the consumers experience to an exponential revenue model across all devices and platforms.”

There are major differences between the TV pilot parameter for the traditional model and the C3 model for the Networks that work in their favor. Matthew proposes, “The Networks TV pilot model is a ‘High Stakes’ game with budgets in the multi-millions, Morph Syndicate is bringing to market the C3 branded production model for efficiently producing a high quality and quantity of entertainment and advertisement content. We provide clients with entertainment and advertisement production strategies across devices and platforms, so to provide price-points sustainable on a per devices and platform revenue model, with competitive media products and services that fully monetize digital entertainment.”

How is a show pitch different and alike? Athena summarizes, “We pitch to clients once an negotiated budget is in place and the formulation of a media strategy is defined. We then present several Intellectual Properties in the form of shows, movies, and commercials with choices from the best qualified C3 branded productions. The clients are presented with an array of project variables in order to produce their most optimal media strategy.”

Athena continues with the benefits of the C3 model leveraging risk to reward by developing more entertainment talent at a lower cost and risk, “The old school MGM studio talent model is alive with the implementation of the C3 production model in a good way. Included in this model is the discovering of actors, writers, directors, etc. and bringing them to market without the inherent risk and rewards associated historically with the Hollywood revenues model.”

“The value creation comes from our people and their proficiency and synergy. They individually and collectively bring to our clients’ projects with a resulting market advantage defined by each of the specific C3 branded productions. We evaluate each creative/management persons for their skill sets within a rating system of Core, Median, and Standard for the use in the assignment and/or placement within a media project.”

The talent in the various entertainment Guilds must welcome a business model that expanses their possibility for work, especially in a slow moving economy. Matthew agrees, “As an entrepreneur my heart is connected to my ambitions. C3 creates a viable business model for the digital content market and provides market growth and sustainable jobs.” Athena adds, “We are confident the amount of talent currently ‘sitting on the side-lines’ being placed in highly skilled jobs with industry rates varying from Guild enacted and/or market acceptable contractor rates, offers the talent and their perspective Guilds a means not previously available to them. “

Morph Syndicate is an innovator, and Networks will benefit from its new ‘Minor Leagues to Major Leagues’ strategy. Matthew notes, “C3’s early low cost structure and vetted audiences approach with quantifiable analysis benefits Networks as well as advertisers for their early involvement with ad campaigns and ad buys associated with the shows. The success rate for original programming will increase with the business model for shows to find their respective niche markets as competition expands the ‘Breakout’ shows to the major markets.”

Matthew expounds, “Advertisers benefit mostly by media conglomerates adopting the "Constant Programming" approach to interconnecting the consumers experience to an exponential revenue model across all devices and platforms. With this evolution to programming, advertisers have a paradigm for strategic campaigns being more efficient with the capability for numerous versions and subsequent placement buys into niche markets with intersecting points across devices and platforms.”

He summarizes, “The digital media markets are currently with ‘one foot in the past and one in the future.’ C3 places both feet firmly in the present. Networks are able to secure a sustainable market system redefining digital content by the retooling of the production model.”

Consumers and investors are positioned to be the most positively impacted by a paradigm shift that takes full advantage of television’s evolution. And that is the best bet for Morph Syndicate, a company which is not afraid to lead with a new concept and business model that embraces television’s evolution with innovative and effective Network programming models and investments.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on Thoughtful Women.

Which TV news source will you be tuned into for election results?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:47:00 +0000

Photo Credit-Flickr Common

Excitement is building to a fever pitch on both sides as the final day of voting and the official day of the 2012 presidential election culminate on November 6. Candidates President Obama and Governor Romney are making their last trips to battleground states known for deciding tight elections.

The main stream media, cable media, and social media have been relentless in the pursuit of shaping the election discussion and voter perception. The print and online media pundits have been writing for months highlighting what issues matter most to voters in this election and what advantages and disadvantage each candidate possesses.

Each campaign’s spokespeople and surrogates are confidently predicting their man will be the winner.

Voters are a bit fatigued with what has seemed like the longest election season in decades. They have been bombarded with a non-stop ad war by both candidates. Over seventy million Americans watched the four debates. Many have been watching the results of endless up and down political poll results.

Americans are on the edge of their seats waiting for the vote to uncover who will lead America the next four years in the White House and whether the U.S. Senate will remain in a Democrat majority.

Most of the United States will be glued to television sets or the Internet tomorrow night in great anticipation of the election results of each of the fifty states that determine which Electoral College votes go to Obama or Romney. More than likely, many will watch late into Wednesday early morning hoping to go to bed knowing which candidate reached the victory number of 270.

Which television news source will you be watching for election coverage? According to Public Policy Polling, more than likely it will be Fox News if you are a Republican and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) if you are a Democrat.

PPP conducted a poll of 700 likely voters from January 13^th to 16^th. The polling was conducted by telephone interviews, and the margin of error is +/- 3.7%. PPP is a Democratic polling company, but the poll was “not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization.”

“PPP's 3rd annual TV news trust poll (2011 version here, 2010 version here) finds that Fox News tops the list for both the source Americans trust the most and the one they trust the least.”

PPP notes, “Fox is the most trusted TV news source for 34% of voters, followed by PBS at 17%, CNN at 12%, ABC News at 11%, CBS News at 8%, MSNBC at 5%, and Comedy Central and NBC each at 4%.”

PPP further details, “This year’s poll finds a year-over-year increase in trust for every news outlet tested in 2011. PBS is up 2 points, NBC +6, CNN and Fox News + 7, and CBS and ABC experiencing a +5 jump in trust from 2011.

“When asked which news outlets they trust the most and least of all on the list, Fox News tops both most trusted and most distrusted at 34% each. PBS came in as second most trusted with 17%, CNN at 12%, ABC at 11% and no other outlets breaking double digits. When asked which outlet they trust the least, voters again cite Fox News at 34%, followed by Comedy Central at 16%, MSNBC at 15%, CNN at 11% and no others breaking double digits.

“Across the ideological spectrum, majorities of liberals and moderates trust ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and PBS. Moderate voters also trust MSNBC (49/27) and even Comedy Central (36/34) by a small margin. “Somewhat conservative” and “very conservative” voters trust only Fox News, with moderates distrusting by a 28-55 margin.”

“Democrats trust everything- except Fox News. NBC does the best with them at +50 (67/17), followed by PBS and CNN at +49 (66/17 and 65/16 respectively), ABC at +38 (57/19), CBS at +35 (58/23), MSNBC at +33 (56/23), and even Comedy Central at +4 (36/32). Fox News comes in at -36 (25/61).”

“Republicans meanwhile don't trust anything except Fox News. PBS comes the closest to breaking even among non-Fox outlets, although not very close, at -30 (26/56). It's followed by CNN at -49 (18/67), MSNBC at -51 (18/69), NBC at -52 (17/69), CBS at -54 (17/71), ABC at -56 (14/70), and Comedy Central at -59 (12/71). But Fox News comes in at a stellar 73/17.”

One thing is for sure, the U.S. appears to be polarized regarding everything the past few years – politics, political parties, the 2012 election, the President, the Federal Reserve, Congress, health care legislation, tax policy, energy policy, environmental regulations, labor unions, the stimulus, the bailouts, government spending, government borrowing, government debt and deficit, fiscal cliff, entitlements, and reform.

With so much division, it is no wonder, which television news voters will be watching for election results on Tuesday night will reflect the political divide and polarization as a whole in the U.S. too.

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on Thoughtful Women.

BLS, Most MSM Spin October Unemployment Increase Positively for Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:53:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Flickr Common

It must be just me. I see today’s U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly job report reflecting an increase in the unemployment rate from 7.8% to 7.9% as another stake in the heart of America’s unemployed struggling to find work and ultimately to find their way back to a normal life again.

The October numbers indicate the U.S. is not on the right track with another month added to the string of months of unacceptable high unemployment and weak growth the last four years. I must be a real Brenda Bummer to be incapable of being happy with the October jobs news.

Add to this the BLS September new jobs report reflecting the unemployment drop to 7.8% was revised down earlier this week to reflect an almost 50% decrease in new jobs originally reported. This has not been in the headlines, but even so, millions of unemployed Americans are left wondering, “Are you kidding me?”

In its pressrelease today, the BLs notes, “the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 7.9 percent.” Whew, how many unemployed or underemployed Americans are happy to hear this? Is the new employment reality for them to simply have an attitude of being grateful the unemployment rate did not go down, but it did not go up more significantly?

We have seen the main stream media in the tank for President Obama’s reelection throughout this election season, so no one would be surprised to see them spinning the “unemployment increase” in a positive way.

USAToday’s headline reads “Analysis: Evenat 7.9%, mostly good news for Obama.”
Reuters headline reads “U.S. jobsreport may help Obama in tight election race.”
NYT’s headline reads "Latest JobsReport Shows Persistent Economic Growth.”
Yahoo! News’ headline reads “October’ssolid jobs report – and what it means for the presidential rate.”

CBS News seems to be straddling a line of being liberal but wanting to report more on the line lately with some actual coverage of the truth around the September Libyan terror attack the past couple of weeks as well as their headline today on the October’s jobs report - “New jobsreport, same spin.”

The bottom line is the unemployment rate is higher than it was when President Obama took office, and the economy remains at a standstill and is not in a true recovery. Millions of Americans are unemployed, underemployed, have given up, and are struggling like never before in their lives. No amount of understatements or positive spin from the BLS or main stream media outlets can take that sting away

No amount of “too little too late” from the President can either. Obama started a new reelection strategy position on the stump this week saying he would create a “Department ofBusiness” in his second term.

Does anyone believe at this point in the game Obama’s new DOB would be any different than the current President’sCouncil on Jobs and Competitiveness? They have met once in 2012 on January 17 and three times in 2011. I do not think anyone could see this as a group that has been “focused like a laser beam on job creation” for Americans. The irony of having it chaired by General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, an exporter of jobs to China, is not lost on many.

Would the new DOB hold a more business friendly philosophy than the current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) under Obama in his first term? Ask The Boeing Company or the U.S. coal industry in general.

Is there any problem facing America Obama does not believe is best solved by more and bigger government? Can the U.S. even afford more bureaucrats and departments with trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see?

Aren’t bureaucrats that do not understand private sector business a big part of the problem? Aren’t government positions filled by academia and those that have not worked in the private sector a bigger part of the problem?

Perhaps a president who does not understand the private sector and demonizes business success is the biggest part of the problem – along with an insulated government industry and a bubbled main stream media industry that are not affected by the recovery that never happened yet.

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on Thoughtful Women.

2nd Presidential Debate – Taxes, Jobs, and Vision Still Rule with Voters

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:18:00 +0000

One of the most significant moments in the debate actually came after the debate. Moderator CNN’s Candy Crowley admitted, shortly after she left the debate broadcast, she was wrong in her assertion during the debate President Obama was correct in his terrorism characterization of the 9/11/2012 Libyan attack, on the U.S. embassy that left four Americans murdered, as an “act of terror” on September 12 in the Rose Garden.

Ms. Crowley acquiesced Romney was actually right in his debate challenge to Obama on this point.

For clarification, President Obama did use the words “act of terror,” but he was referring to the original terrorism attack on 9/11/2001 in context, not the Libyan 9/11/2012 attack.

Ms. Crowley’s interjection into the debate on this point allowed Obama to escape his real record on refusing to acknowledge the 9/11/2012 Libyan attack was a terrorist attack on America for at least two weeks.

One of the other most significant aspects of the second presidential debate was its confrontational style in a town hall format. After his detached, low-energy performance at the first debate, President Obama had a higher bar to meet to stay in the game. He obviously took the debate preparation more serious this time around.

Obama was more assertive in his style, but he brought nothing new to the table in defending his record as president the past four years. He was not able to make a case for an “all of the above” energy policy even with a very combative exchange on onshore and offshore oil drilling permits, the Canadian pipeline, failed green energy, and doubling consumer gas prices.

Obama and Romney pushed each other’s buttons. They both got in each other’s faces and interrupted each other. They both talked over each other as well as the moderator at times. They both fought for the microphone time.

It was obvious both knew the stakes of momentum for their campaigns after the debate. But, the bottom line stakes for the American people is they want to believe their next president has solutions for the current prolonged weak economic growth and unacceptable high unemployment and underemployment rate. This is the forward momentum they want in 2013 and beyond.

Americans care about U.S. foreign policy, terrorist attacks on our soil, and health care. But, what will still decide this election are competitive business tax rates, tax reform, a stronger economic outlook, and faith in a better job creation environment.

Voters are more in tune with confidence in an effective future economic vision and in competent leadership to develop and execute this vision.

President Obama may have thrilled the left with his aggressive style in this debate, but the undecided and more non-partisan Independent voters will more than likely break for Romney, if the decision is based on economic competence.

Obama needed to dominate the vision for the next four more years being better with him at the helm. He did not. As in the first debate, he did not present a compelling case for another four years that would look any different than the last four years.

While pressing Romney for workable solutions and specifics in his vision, it is not lost on many Obama does not effectively give any of his own in reality. He only seemed to once again champion the status quo on creating a more prosperous middle class.

The status quo is not acceptable. Obama’s economic policies have not worked well, if at all, for those outside of Washington, millions of everyday Americans, small business, and those without political connections and lobbyist.

Obama’s economic policies have not created growth which has even kept up with the population growth.

His signature legislation Obamacare looks to already be leading to large employers moving current full time employees to a part-time status to remain in business in 2013. Obamacare looks to also be leading some employers to decrease employees or not hire additional ones.

Middle class Americans understand the negative impact of taking money out of the economy, and specifically out of the hands of business owners wanting to create jobs competitively.

Romney did not necessarily win this debate, as he easily did the first debate, yet he did win the presentation of experience and competency on successful job creation over Obama. This will be on the mind of most voters when they cast their ballot for leadership in the White House.

President Obama was a better candidate in the second debate than in the first debate. He may have even won the second debate in the eyes of many. Romney presented himself as a viable alternative to Obama in both debates, even if seen as not a clear cut winner in the second round.

An instant reaction after the debate was noted by a CNN Poll which gave the debate win to Obama over Romney at 46% to 39%. Romney won easily with an 18% point lead in the minds of voters on who was “seen as better able to handle the economy, taxes, and the budget deficit…”

The CBS instant poll gave Obama the win – Obama 37%, Romney 30%, Tie 33%. Echoing the CNN Poll, the CBS poll reflected Romney was seen as more capable on the economy, “34 percent said the president would better handle the economy, with 65 percent saying Romney would.”

Frank Luntz, a popular pollster and focus group leader usually on Fox News, had a debate focus group soundly choosing Romney as the second debate winner. Many were clearly unhappy with the Obama presidential record of broken promises and failed economic policies.

Translated to the voting booth, style does not matter as much as the issues do in any debate, unless perhaps if there is a resounding debate knock-out blow. None of the three debates so far, two presidential and one vice presidential, had one.

The knock-blow that really matters comes every time a voter is laid-off or an already unemployed or underemployed voter is turned down for a job or searches in vain for one that does not seem to exist anymore.

The knock-out blow decision continues for all voters, whether they have jobs or not, every time they pay to fill up their car, buy groceries, see health care premiums deducted from their paycheck, and have to say “no” to things they used to be able to enjoy easily.

No amount of debate style or recycled promise will be able to bail Obama out of a failed administration as seen through the eyes of voters hurt by the last four year’s economy.

Americans still have hope for a change in moving forward toward a better economic vision. In 2012, voters may believe real hope and a change in forward movement looks more possible with a new President Romney than a status quo President Obama.

2012 VP Debate: Biden tested Libya excuses for presidential foreign policy debate

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:59:00 +0000

Photo Credit-Flickr Common

The 2012 Vice President Debate last night in Danville, Kentucky was a draw. Democrat Vice President Biden executed a strategy of throwing GOP nominee Congressman Paul Ryan with distractions and interruptions. Ryan did not seem intimidated and remained calm and confident. He was respectful of the elder politician, even while being interrupted 82 times in 90 minutes.

As any parent can tell you, when children are not being truthful or trying desperately to be believed, they often talk fast, interrupt the other person giving facts, make faces, laugh nervously, and mouth the other person is lying, and generally mug out of false frustration.

These antics leave one knowing they are only trying to control the situation. This is not behavior reflecting strength and confidence. The constant Biden interruptions were by design to prevent Ryan from detailing the failed Obama record and presenting details of the Romney plan.

This allows the Democrats to continue the assertion Romney and Ryan are not giving any specifics. Funny thing is, where is any real plan other than to “raise taxes on the rich” and redistribute to “level the playing field” coming out of the Obama and Biden campaign with specifics or not? For example, what does “level the playing field” mean exactly in policies?

A CNN post debate poll results asking “Who won?”gave Ryan a slight edge at 48% versus 44% for Biden. The same CNN poll rewarded Ryan as being the more likeable of the two by 10 points. Other media polls reflected Biden as the winner by a wider margin.

Both candidates fired up their base, but more than likely neither did little to move the needle significantly with the 6-10% of undecided voters. Biden’s antics may have played well with the left, but it was a losing strategy and not effective with the middle.

It was disturbing the fiscal cliff looming and America’s overall energy policy was not front and center in the debate. Will they be in the remaining presidential debates? What we know should be, and will be, is the Libya investigation.

Debate moderator Martha Raddatz raised the pertinent question right out of the gate. Biden’s response was a test drive of excuses to gage acceptability for Obama and the upcoming presidential debates, especially the last debate designated as a foreign policy debate. The transcript excerpts from The Washington Post.

“I would like to begin with Libya. On a rather somber note, one month ago tonight, on the anniversary of 9/11, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi. The State Department has now made clear, there were no protesters there.

RADDATZ: it was a pre-planned assault by heavily armed men. Wasn’t this a massive intelligence failure, Vice President Biden?

BIDEN: What is was, it was a tragedy, Martha. It — Chris Stevens was one of our best. We lost three other brave Americans.

I can make absolutely two commitments to you and all the American people tonight. One, we will find and bring to justice the men who did this. And secondly, we will get to the bottom of it, and whatever — wherever the facts lead us, wherever they lead us, we will make clear to the American public, because whatever mistakes were made will not be made again.

When you’re looking at a president, Martha, it seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. That’s caring for the national security of the country. And the best way to do that is take a look at how he’s handled the issues of the day.”

Biden essentially floated blaming the entire intelligence community for President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton for not knowing this was a terrorist attack.

This contradicts what is currently known in investigations already being conducted by Congress this week in Washington. Intelligence confirmed it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours.

Is it plausible this information was not given to the White House by Intelligence? Is it believable President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and United Nations Ambassador Rice did not know?

Did they in fact know Libya was a terrorist attack reality for two weeks as they continued to recite an orchestrated spontaneous protest based on a movie trailer video for two weeks in a government produced apology video, on political talk shows, in a United Nations speech, and press briefings?

“RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?

RYAN: We mourn the loss of these four Americans who were murdered.

RYAN: When you take a look at what has happened just in the last few weeks, they sent the U.N. ambassador out to say that this was because of a protest and a YouTube video. It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack.

He went to the U.N. and in his speech at the U.N. he said six times — he talked about the YouTube video.

Look, if we’re hit by terrorists we’re going to call it for what it is, a terrorist attack. Our ambassador in Paris has a Marine detachment guarding him. Shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi, a place where we knew that there was an Al Qaida cell with arms?

This is becoming more troubling by the day. They first blamed the YouTube video. Now they’re trying to blame the Romney-Ryan ticket for making this an issue.

With respect to Iraq, we had the same position before the withdrawal, which was we agreed with the Obama administration. Let’s have a status of forces agreement to make sure that we secure our gains. The vice president was put in charge of those negotiations by President Obama and they failed to get the agreement. We don’t have a status of forces agreement because they failed to get one. That’s what we are talking about.

Now, when it comes to our veterans, we owe them a great debt of gratitude for what they’ve done for us, including your son Beau. But we also want to make sure that we don’t lose the things we fought so hard to get.

Now, with respect to Afghanistan, the 2014 deadline, we agree with a 2014 transition. But what we also want it do is make sure that we’re not projecting weakness abroad, and that’s what’s happening here.

RYAN: This Benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself, but unfortunately it’s indicative of a broader problem. And that is what we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy, which is making the (inaudible) more chaotic us less safe.

BIDEN: With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey.

RADDATZ: And why is that so?

BIDEN: Because not a single thing he said is accurate. First of all…

RADDATZ: Be specific.

BIDEN: I will be very specific. Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece.

Number two, Governor Romney, before he knew the facts, before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement which was panned by the media around the world. And this talk about this — this weakness. I — I don’t understand what my friend’s talking about here.

We — this is a president who’s gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do. This is a guy who’s repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. This is the guy who brought the entire world, including Russia and China, to bring about the most devastating — most devastating — the most devastating efforts on Iran to make sure that they in fact stop (inaudible).

Look, I — I just — I mean, these guys bet against America all the time.”

Is Biden in reality when he portrays Obama as a strong foreign policy U.S. president the world follows? How influential has the U.S. been in the United Nations or in the world during the Obama presidency?

“RADDATZ: Can we talk — let me go back to Libya.

BIDEN: Yeah, sure.

RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why — why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on (inaudible)?

BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That’s why there’s also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there are any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again.

RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

BIDEN: Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view.”

This week’s Congressional hearings reflect the polar opposite of what Biden is saying. Letters asking for more security are in evidence. Biden’s excuses seem to only confirm the government is not giving Americans the full information it could, or there was complete incompetence in the understanding and handling of Libya security needs.

This is an administration used to getting away with blaming others, minimizing the importance of situations, giving obviously ridiculous explanations to the main stream media without being challenged, and believing the American people will buy stone-walling on the truth.

The Obama/Biden administration is forgetting Libya was in fact a life and death situation. Biden got his facts completely wrong in his answers to the valid questions.

Biden test drove Libya excuses for Obama in this VP debate to gage if Americans will buy implausible explanations at best or arrogant, hyper-politicization leading to incompetency at worst.

After the test drive, are you buying the car?

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on www.thoughtfulwomen.org.

Presidential Debate: Romney Showed Up to Work, Obama Voted Present

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:12:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Flickr Common

In the first 2012 presidential debate last night in Denver, many were anticipating seeing the stark contrast of the competing philosophies of big compassionate government versus big mean private sector within the two big political party nominees.

However, astonishingly, the contrast most on display was the work ethic difference between the Democratic candidate President Barack Obama and the Republican candidate Governor Mitt Romney.

It was evident in the first fifteen minutes; Romney came with rolled-up sleeves excited and ready to get to work. Obama embodied the impression he loves the perks of being the President of the United States but not the job which actually required more work and preparation than getting by voting present.

Romney was energized and engaged. He appeared confident and competent as a leader. His command of the facts and figures, as well as his vision for the next four years for America, was superior.

Obama was flat and academic. He appeared bored and unprepared.

Obama’s lack luster engagement was in line with a president whom has held minimum press conferences, attended minimal national security Intel briefings, refused to meet with world leaders last week at the United Nations, and rarely directly engaged Congressional members throughout his four years as president. He did not display a competent leader with a confident vision.

Romney dominated the stage and commanded the debate topic discussion. He looked directly at the moderator PBS’ Jim Lehrer and President Barack Obama throughout the ninety minutes. Romney was aggressive yet remained pleasant and in control when he corrected the president’s characterizations of his vision and policy.

In contrast, Obama looked down most of the debate. He constantly wrote notes as Romney spoke. He seemed to look to Mr. Lehrer to save him at times by moving the discussion to another topic, even asking to move on at one point.

Obama looked annoyed at times as though his four years as president had him forgetting what it was like to be interrupted, challenged, called-out, outside the presidential bubble, and without a prepared speech loaded in a teleprompter.

The split television screen of the two men was startling at times in the contrast of style. The substance of the topic discussion was even more startling at times considering the importance of the debate to each and to the American people.

Romney had a vision, a policy message, and a plan to articulate them to the American people in this debate. Obama did not and seemed to revert to tired campaign stump talking points as a failed last resort when his memorized facts were challenged. Obama struggled to make any acceptable case for his failed focus and policies the last four years.

The Democrats have spent a lot of money defining Romney in attack ads one after another presenting him as an unacceptable alternative to Obama even if the president’s economic policies have been a failure over his first term.

Tonight Romney defined himself as not only an acceptable alternative but as a more serious and competent choice to get the country back on track.

Romney projected he was ready to get down to it and get the job done. He seemed ready to work long hours for the American people.

Obama projected he was ready to continue the pace and focus he set in his first term – a pace that has failed the unemployed, underemployed, and discouraged – a focus that has failed those without lobbyist, campaign donations, or political connections in general.

America had high hopes for Obama when he took office. Unfortunately, it has been obvious for a while to anyone who has been watching, and is not blinded by hyper-partisanship; President Obama seeks the limelight and the company of the fun celebrity crowd.

Obama enjoys situations where he is the adored one gracing you with his presence. He likes being labeled the smartest guy in the room, but in reality, he seems to be the cool guy whom finds the actual work of governing a drag.

Perhaps President Obama is living off his 2008 campaign laurels and hopes no one will notice. If so, people did notice at last night’s presidential debate – even his liberal celebrity friends and most ardent main stream media supporters noticed and lamented.

Twitter was alive during the debate with tweets wondering what the heck had happened to Obama in this debate. The newspapers and online media were full of devastating headlines for Obama claiming a direct hit by Romney on the president in this morning’s debate conclusions.

The plain assessment is Romney exceeded expectations, and Obama did not meet expectations. Many noted, including the MSM and pundits, this was Romney’s best performance in a debate to date and was possibly the best debate performance by a Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1980.

For the average American, most important was Romney seemed ready to not accept the Congressional gridlock in Washington and to resolve it by taking it on and demanding bi-partisanship leading by example.

Romney’s experience in working successfully with a Democrat controlled legislature in Massachusetts was a stark contrast to Obama’s ineffectiveness in working successfully with a Republican controlled House and a Democrat majority Senate in D.C.

Voters were left with the feeling there would be a real change in Washington with a President Romney. They were also left with the impression there could be continued economic and foreign policy failures and a deeper partisanship divide with a continued President Obama.

One thing is for sure, the pressure is even greater now in the October 11 Vice Presidential debate for the Democrats. They cannot afford two bad debates in a row.

One bad debate performance can be spun away by supporters as a candidate having an off night. Two negative vision presentations however become an election narrative.

Vice President Biden must pick up the vision presentation after President Obama’s failure in Denver.

The GOP candidate Congressman Ryan is known to present facts and figures with clarity. He will most certainly show up to the next debate ready to work. Ryan has proven confidence in discussing budget specifics and vision.

Any Biden gaffes will not be seen as “charming or funny” this time around. After four long years of economic turmoil, Americans want substance over style. They have had the “cool guy” and the “crazy uncle.”

Now the American people need and want the semi-boring, almost geeky guys who in contrast are ready to show up for work every day of their term with rolled up sleeves and are willing to work long into each night to get the job done.

Romney and Ryan are already known as those guys. Maybe Obama and Biden can be, or maybe not. They will have to get down to business and prove they are to the American people. Maybe they will, or maybe they won’t.

Anyway you look at it, this is the contrast that now makes the remaining 2012 debates must-watch events going forward. Americans are ready for leadership who “works” and works for them.

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on ThoughtfulWomen.

10 Interesting Facts About the U.S. Presidency

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:04:00 +0000

Did you know…….?

1. Barack Obama is the 44^th president, yet he is actually the 43^rd person to be president. Grover Cleveland is counted twice as the 22^nd and 24^th president having won terms nonconsecutively.

2. Fourteen presidents served as Vice President – John Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and George H.W. Bush.

3. Eighteen presidents did not serve in Congress – Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Taylor, Grant, Arthur, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush.

4. Eight presidents did not attend college – Washington, Jackson, Van Buren, Taylor, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Cleveland.

5. Harvard is the college that has produced the most presidents at seven – John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, and George W. Bush.

6. Twelve presidents appear on U.S. currency. Paper - Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland, McKinley, and Wilson. Coin – Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.

7. Eleven presidents lived through assassination attempts in office – Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush.

8. Four presidents died from assassination in office – Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy.

9. Eight presidents died in office – William Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and Kennedy.

10. Two presidents are buried in Arlington National Cemetery – Taft and Kennedy.

(Photo Credit - Flickr Common)

Citizens Go Around Media Bias with Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:31:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Flickr Common

In past elections, have you blindly voted for candidates knowing nothing about them or their campaign platform?

Have you voted for an incumbent on name recognition only or simply because they had an “R” or “D” after their name without knowing their voting record?

Have you relied on the traditional media for your political news? Do you believe everything you hear or read by the main stream media?

Do you watch campaign ads believing they cannot say it if it is not true? Have you in fact allowed the media and campaign ads to shape your political opinions and votes?

Are you ready to change, to get informed, and to get more involved in the political process with the upcoming 2012 election? Many voters are. Many voters have even become citizen organizers.

The citizen organizer has the ability to identify like-minded individuals; to create political consensus; to establish political allies; to provide information outside of the candidate’s controlled message; and to persuade others in supporting or not supporting a candidate.

This is true whether we are talking about politician campaigns or existing politicians – whether proposed bills or existing legislation.

Have you ever wanted to ask a politician a direct question, to express your opinion on proposed legislation, and track a politician’s voting record?

Would you know how to go about this? Would you consider the time and effort involved a deterrent?

One thing is for sure. As we move into the 2012 election season, voters are looking for a real seat at the table, and they are organizing to be heard in their representation.

Voters know social media can easily facilitate this. Voters are more invested, and they feel ownership in the process.

The expectation of two-way participation and communication in politics in real-time is an emerging and lasting dynamics with voters.

The days of politicians thinking the dynamic remains I talk, you listen, and you don’t question my message are over.

The new dynamic is now you spoke, I listened; now you listen to me as I speak my experience and opinion - a two-way exchange and a more personal individual relationship is expected.

Should a politician ignore the two-way communication that social media fosters and voters and consumers expect, they will be viewed as out-of-touch and replaceable no matter how great the initial excitement, the strength of message, or the value of their platform.

In addition, once elected, politicians will have to live up to their campaign rhetoric in their actual voting record to be re-elected. YouTube is now a permanent record of what was said.

The importance of listening to the people they represent is a growing factor with voters. Politically based social networks easily and directly facilitates this for voters and politicians.

Voters under 30 got involved in the 2008 Presidential election campaign in record numbers. Many became involved in politics for the first time in their lives – many through social media platforms.

Candidate Barack Obama changed politics forever by setting the bar for all future political candidates to strategize and effectively use social media in political campaigns. He proved out the tremendous power of social media if used with a positive, individual interest, networking message strategy.

The greatest impact of Obama’s powerful use of social media is in how social media as a tool is changing the face of politics and policy in general - not just in campaigning.

Everyone learned by watching Obama including America’s citizens – the governed – the voters.

Not feeling their values and opinions were being listened to, let along being accurately represented in Congressional voting, American citizens got involved in political discourse in the last two years.

Many typically non-political citizens got informed and involved for the first time in their lives. This included citizens of all ages.

Voters are watching politicians closely for action that backs up their words. Voters are organizing and connecting as they gear up for the 2012 elections.

In the post-Obama campaign evolution, the political focus in social media use will not necessarily be on a politician’s campaign message, for no candidate will be able to tightly control their branding and messaging like Obama seemed to successfully do in 2008.

The social media dynamics have evolved and become much more organized by citizens. The citizens are now in reality just as powerful as the politician’s press secretary and media relations today whether politics or the media like it or not.

Even if the media controls the brand and message by only presenting a candidate in a positive light, ignoring any emerging negative factors or a specific voting record, social media doesn’t allow this to go unchallenged as the only message people see or talk about anymore.

Voters are using key social media tactics to overcome the “power of politicians” who ignore their expressed desires in passing unwanted legislation and more taxation.

Now social media affords in reality a leveling agent for both political campaigning and debate playing fields in the political realm.

In politics, these leveled playing fields allow for more accessibility, connection, and networking for the everyday, everyman participant; and these leveled fields are much more equal in several ways to a candidate’s political campaign team’s level.

The everyman has the ability to have a political discussion that is person-to-person and person-to-group with an unlimited audience.

This is true even if the everyman has no actual access to traditional media or no actual participation in televised candidate debates.

Voters are now more directly engaging politicians by asking specific questions, expressing their opinion on proposed legislation, and tracking Congressional voting records.

Voters are now more directly affecting their own futures having seen how public policy and legislation directly affects their economic stability and individual freedoms.

They are going around the bias of the main stream media with the Internet and using social media.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter.

Americans Share Etched-In Memories of Where They Were on 9/11

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 01:00:00 +0000

The events were stunning. The images were shocking. The day was stupefying. The reality was surreal.

The United States of America being attacked on September 11, 2001, resulting in thousands of innocent Americans dying brought heartbreaking grief to our nation.

At the same time, the selflessness, bravery, and strength displayed by Americans, at a time of overwhelming crisis, reflected to the world the incredible character of our people and the fortitude of our cultural identity.

As we commemorate the 11^th anniversary of the American heroes lost on September 11, Americans recall the powerful memories, forever etched in their minds, of where they were and how they felt when they first heard the news of commercial airliners, being used as weapons, crashing into the World Trade Center Twin Towers in Manhattan, the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

* “I was only nine years old. I remember I had stayed home from school that day. When I walked into the living room the news was on, and the first plane had already hit. At first I thought it was a just a movie.”

“When I asked what it was, my grandma explained to me it was all real. I don't remember how I felt when the second plane hit and the towers fell, but I do remember looking to my left and seeing the strongest woman I know in tears." COLIN LUNDGREN, U.S. Army Specialist, Joliet, IL

* “There are few days I can remember with such clarity. I was working for my brother at his office. One of the guys called in to say “If you have a TV, turn it on now.” I ran to the closet and pulled out the little portable TV with a manual antenna”

“I couldn’t believe what we were watching. Then, we saw the second plane heading to the towers. My immediate reaction was this is ‘a real war of the worlds’ - like a second Pearl Harbor.” JAYNE PLATT, Aviation Industry, Providence, RI

* “I was just 20 minutes from the Pentagon. I was still at home and had not gone to work yet when I heard the news. I was really shocked. That evening, I drove by the Pentagon to see firsthand. It was sickening to see the destruction.” BRUCE BOYD, Business Owner, Springfield, VA

* “I was in my car on Route 1 passing by Logan Airport. I started to cry, and I was shaking. As I pulled the car over, I was thinking about how G-d had spared me for some reason, but others had tragically lost their lives.”

“You see, the night before, my client called to cancel our plans to meet in NYC at the WTC for a board meeting. I was supposed to be on the flight out of Boston.” LISA-MARIE CASHMAN, Campaign Executive, Boston, MA

* “It was the first day of the new school year for the 3 year old preschool class I assistant taught. A friend called to tell us what was going on. It was surreal. We weren't sure what it really meant or what to do.”

“The children played peacefully and nothing seemed different, but I had a feeling much was about to change. As parents came to pick up their children, we looked at each other with bewilderment and wondered what exactly was happening.” TAMI TORANGO BOOTH, Teacher, South Lyon, MI

* “Upon hearing the news of the first plane crash, my initial hope was that someone had accidentally flown a plane into the building. I recalled a similar event after the first WTC explosion, when an explosion in New York a few weeks later turned out not to be terrorism. When the second plane crashed into the WTC, my heart hoped that an errant news team had flown too close. My head said that it was an attack and the prior one was terrorism as well.”

“I was at the FBI Academy in my office located on the first floor of the classroom building and always had many students walking by. I sat my TV in the hall so all could watch as events unfolded. On several occasions, there were five or more rows standing in front of the TV. All were mostly speechless throughout the day.”

“One staff member came into my office white-faced. Her husband worked at the Pentagon and had just called to say he was alive, and the smoke filled building was being evacuated. By the time she came into my office, the news began reporting that a third plane had flown into the Pentagon. Fortunately, her husband escaped unscathed.” KATE KILLMAN, Retired FBI, Bumpass, VA

* “I was in my office in Des Plaines, Illinois, just a mile or two from O’Hare Airport. It was eerie, because normally there are planes flying over 24/7, but it got quiet. You could almost hear a pin drop. Then there were patrol cars on every corner. A few of our technicians were working downtown but could not get back to the suburbs, because mass transit was shut down.” NICK VOSS, Business Owner, Phoenix, AZ

* “In my office on 26^th Street in Manhattan. Our conference room had a view of the WTC, looking downtown. I looked up and saw one building with smoke coming out. Then the other was hit. I left the office within five minutes and headed to Penn Station to catch any train headed to Pennsylvania or points south.”

“The NJT train was packed with standing room only. I was in the last car looking out of the rear window. Penn Station NY (and all of NY) was closed after I boarded. No other train followed us out of the NY tunnels and all the way to Trenton, NJ.” SCOTT YAW, Executive, Philadelphia, PA

* “My father was at Dallas/Fort Worth airport about to fly to San Antonio for possible entrance into an experimental cancer treatment program. He called me and said the entire airport had shut down. He asked me to turn on the TV and find out what was going on.”

“I saw the second plane fly into the second tower as they were realizing we were under terrorist attack. I called my dad to tell him. He, a man dying of cancer, responded, ‘And we think we have problems.’”

“I got my three kids out of school. We came back to the house and watched it all unfold. My dad drove to San Antonio for the appointment and drove back late that night. He had been turned down for the experimental cancer treatment. He passed 6 months later.” COLLEEN SULLIVAN SIMRELL, Business Owner, Dawsonville, GA

* “I was living in California. I was getting ready for work when my sister called me. She was hysterical and demanding to know where I was. You see, I was supposed to be in New York that week just north of Manhattan.”

“ My sister was frantic at her home in the Midwest thinking I was in New York. She told me what was going on, and I turned on the TV. I was stunned at what I was seeing and hearing. Stunned is the only word I can use to describe my thoughts in those first few minutes of realization.”

“After the attack, I had to get home, meaning Tucson. I had a need for the safety of my home and the closeness of my family. The one feeling that stays with me to this day is the day after the attack I was driving from California to Tucson, because, remember, there was no airline service for several days.”

“As I drove through the desert that trip, the feeling of complete despair for our country overwhelmed me as I listened to the radio and the patriotic songs that were playing for the entire trip. I can still ‘feel’ that feeling today when I think of that trip.” BEVERLY FAULL, Business Owner, Tucson, AZ

* “I was nearly killed in the Pentagon attack. I don’t remember much about that day…..” BOB SCHNEIDER, International Business Operations Consultant, Washington D.C.

* “I had family in for a long weekend, and Tuesday was my first day back at work. I heard on the radio on my way to work that a plane had run into the WTC with the announcer speculating it was a small plane, and it must have been an incompetent pilot.”

“At my desk, I heard on the radio that another plane had hit the second tower. Some of my staff tuned in an old TV set and watched the coverage. My wife called me crying, and said she heard our country was at war.”

“ We had a son in the Navy, stationed in Connecticut, with an office in the Pentagon in D.C. I closed the office upon hearing a plane had hit the Pentagon. I remember walking into the training lab in front of the 24 students in the class and getting choked up noting we were not able to reach my son.”

“It was a very intense and painful day, and my heart broke for those that lost loved ones. I was also very proud of our police and firemen who stood their ground under horrible circumstances.” CARL DeMUSZ, Chief Executive Officer, Cleveland, OH

* “I was getting ready for my second day of a new job and feeding my toddler breakfast when the morning news show made the announcement of the attack. I watched in utter horror half ignoring my hungry child.”

“ My job was at the International Building in downtown Minneapolis. It was evacuated in case attacks were planned for other large buildings across the nation.”

“Being a new mom, I felt a complete sense of horror over how quickly "life as we know it" can be taken away from us. Now a mom of three children, I am grateful for those who fight for us to be free. I'm grateful for those who have lost their lives, so we can live the lives we do.” CAMI ZIMMER, Political Strategist, Business Owner, Minneapolis, MN

* “I was in my high school computer lab when I heard of the attacks. The first thing that struck my mind was the level of denial in many of my classmates. Many were downplaying what was happening saying things like ‘It has to be a practical joke.’ or ‘They meant to target globalization and business, not the US.’ The one thing no one at that moment wanted to consider was we were indeed attacked by people that wanted to kill Americans." ANGEL GUMA, U.S. Army Specialist, Recently home from being stationed in Afghanistan, San Diego, CA

* “My first reaction was ‘Oh my God!’ Then I cried. I worked in the exact area and used to take the path to the WTC. I just didn't happen to be there that day. I thought of the homeless man I used to give money to when I had time to go into the book store.” SUE ALLEN, Photographer/Business Owner, New York City, NY

* “On the way to work I heard about the accident’ of the first plane hitting the building. I honestly didn't think much about it. But as I was parking my car, I heard about the second plane hitting the other building, and I immediately knew it wasn't an accident. Something was wrong.”

“ At work, the news of the second plane hitting the second building had people scrambling to find a TV. I saw a reporter talking about the WTC but was in DC and had the Pentagon in the background reporting an explosion behind them. They didn't say it, but I had a strong feeling it was another plane.”

“I continued to finish up the payroll, so everyone would be paid on Friday. I then left to pick up my daughter from daycare and heard about the plane crash in Shanksville. I remember crying on the turnpike. I was crying for all the Americans that were in danger.”

“At home, I was glued to the TV and every now and then, my daughter would come over and hug me. She saw me crying but didn't know why. I tried to tell her what was going on, but she didn't understand. Now 10 years later, she understands what happened but not why it happened.” RAEANN HOFKIN, CPP, Philadelphia, PA

* “I was in San Jose when I saw the news report of the first plane crashing into the WTC. I never imagined it was anything other than a terrible accident. When I saw the footage of the second plane crashing into the Twin Towers, I knew it was clearly an attack. I was overwhelmed with both anger and sadness that an act of this magnitude could occur on American soil.” LEON M. STRAUSSER, JR., U.S. Air Force Retired, Senior Master Sergeant, Salt Lake City, UT

* “I was traveling on business in San Francisco and was participating in a conference call with a company in the Midwest. I had the TV on to a morning news show and muted. During my conference call, I asked if the Sears Tower was on fire. Then they said it was the WTC. We wrapped up our call, and I saw the second plane hit the second tower live. It was surreal. Most people in California weren’t up yet and didn’t know.” LESLEY LANE NEWMAN, Data Information Executive, Scottsdale, AZ

* “I was over the Atlantic ocean flying back from a 20th Anniversary trip to Paris, France. I had to spend a few days in St John’s, Newfoundland and fly across the Atlantic twice in twenty hours to finally get back into the U.S. at midnight on Friday/Saturday. KLM was awesome!” DARRELL GALLOWAY, Chairman at GAGOP 11^th District, Atlanta, GA

* “It started off as any ordinary day. I began work at my desk at 7:30 in the morning with CNN running on a big screen in the background. I saw the ‘Breaking News’ banner flashing, and the announcer was excitedly reading impromptu copy. He described accompanying video of a horrendous scene of a plane crashing into the North Tower of the WTC.”

“I was mesmerized that morning in front of the TV as the live accounts of a second plane careening into the South Tower went by in a flash. I was absolutely captivated as I watched additional reports of two following plane strikes, first at the Pentagon and then in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. America had been changed forever.”

“Like most viewers, I made little sense of the first crash of the American Airlines jet into the WTC’s North Tower. Once the United Airlines flight crashed into the South Tower, however, it was readily apparent to me that the U.S. was under siege. By the middle of that afternoon, I was prepared to accept the conclusion that America was the victim of jihad by al-Qaeda.” W.B. FREEMAN, Executive Consultant, Des Moines, IA

* “I was in bed when I turned on my radio and heard the news. I jumped up with a start hoping that it was a prank being played by the local radio. I turned on the TV and froze on my couch when I saw the first visual.” AJAY KARUL SR., IT Manager, San Diego, CA

* “I had spent the night before at my mom’s house on the west coast and woke at 6:30 AM. She told me to look at the TV. Reporters were saying a commuter plane had crashed, and I realized they were not seeing the footage. The gaping smoking burning hole was nearly the width of the WTC.”

“Then another plane hit, and I knew for sure we were being attacked. I was on the Observation Deck on 9-11-2000. What difference timing makes. God Bless us everyone.”

“Also, I had an uncle living in Labrador, Canada. Many U.S. bound flights landed there, and those great Canadians played the role of gracious host to stranded travelers unable to land in the U.S. for about a week. Thanks again to Canada and friends from around the world.” JENNIFER WISE, Consumer Goods, Spokane, WA

* “I was at work, at my desk, and my boss's wife called him to report a plane had hit the WTC. Several of us then got on the Internet and watched the situation develop. We fanned out across the building searching for various departments with televisions and watched the day’s events unfold in horror.” MARK KALINOWSKI, Hospital Safety Coordinator, Buffalo, NY

* “I was in car on my way to a meeting . My very first thought was, ‘Oh no, we are at war, and it is in our country.’ I thought someone was going to attack all the high rise buildings in the major cities. Then Pearl Harbor came into my thoughts. I was very frightened.” BARBARA BACH, Senior Instructor, Dallas, TX

* “I was on my way to work sitting at a stop light ready to turn into the parking garage when I heard the report on the radio. I thought another private plane had hit accidentally. Because I worked in a government building, Capitol Police sent us home immediately.”

“ Like the rest of America, I sat in complete shock for the rest of the day watching TV, crying for the loss of life and devastation, and cursing the bastards that dared do this. I could not imagine the amount of ignorance, anger and hatred these acts took to do. My thoughts went to what a way to squander God's gift of life.” LAURA FANELLI, Legislative Aide at State Senator Len Suzio, PR Executive, Hartford, CT

* “I heard about the first plane hitting on a news cast on a local sports talk show while I was on my way in to work. My co-worker who shared space in our offices had his TV on. We saw the second plane hit live.”

“The rest of the day we all gathered around the TV and watched the events. Unbelievably to us, a Muslim doctor cheered when one of the towers fell. He was escorted off premises and lost his position within a few days.” KURT HEHMEYER, Healthcare Technology, Cleveland, OH

* “That morning my neighbor phoned me at 7:30 AM. She was crying as she told me of the terrible attack. I remained in my chair that day and into the night staring at the television in shock. I wondered how something like this could happen here in the U.S.”

“ I never felt so helpless in my life or felt such anger. Never had I felt such grief and pain as I did for the innocent victims and the brave men and women who lost their lives attempting to save them. I cried that entire day. Reliving the memory of that day makes me cry all over again.” RANDY THOMAS, Sales Executive, Scottsdale, AZ

* “I was on my way to work in Los Angeles when a co-worker called me about the first attack. My heart sank, because I knew that it was not an accident. I immediately thought about how the idea for this attack came from testimony in the trial of the first WTC bomber.” JAMES MEYERS, Entertainment, Boston, MA

* “I was driving to work. I saw the first tower on fire and was transfixed in horror. As the day progressed, I found out I had lost two friends in the tragedy. Father Mike was a man who had touched my life since I was a child. He was a kind gentle and insightful man whom exuded love with each word that crossed his lips or his gentle touch on your shoulder to reassure you in some of the most difficult times.”

“ My other friend was a childhood friend whom was a mother and a kind and gentle soul. The silent night ended with a lone NYC taxi taking a woman home while I was sitting on my stoop.” KATHY PAVELEC, State of NJ, Hawthorne, NJ

* “Ironically, I had a client meeting with the Aviation Department at O'Hare Airport. My partner called me to tell me to turn on a TV. The moment I turned it on, the second plane hit the second tower. My heart sank, for I knew immediately this was no accident. I was in shock.”

“Then it turned to grief. Two years later I found out a friend from high school died in the first tower. It still hurts to see the footage and that it is taking so long to rebuild. The 11 year anniversary will be tough, but let's remember how America came together and all of the heroes that died that day.” SCOTT CATINO, Business Owner, Chicago, IL

In the National Geographic Channel’s episode George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview, Former President Bush recounts his reaction to being told in a phone call from President Obama that 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden had been killed by Navy Seals.

“I was grateful. I didn’t feel any sense of happiness or jubilation. I felt a sense of gratitude that justice had been done. Eventually September 11 will be a date on the calendar like Pearl Harbor day. For those of us who lived through it, it will be a day we will never forget.” PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter.

Are you waiting for the 2012 presidential debates to decide?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 19:25:00 +0000

Do you plan to watch or listen to President Obama speak in the final day of the Democratic National Convention?

Did you watch or listen to Governor Romney’s speech on the last day of the Republican National Convention last week?

Have you tuned into the election yet as both party’s national convention will be in the rear view mirror shortly?

Did you watch either convention with interest and enthusiasm? If so, who were your favorite speakers? Which messages resonated with you? Which ones did not?

Which campaign do you believe is telling more lies or telling more truth? Which campaign tone was more positive, and which was more negative? Which style works best with your critical thinking?

Are you more inclined to think “Promises Kept” or “We’ve Heard ItAll Before” right now? Are you thinking it is time for a “Break Up” or not?

Do you always vote by party only? Have you already decided who you are going to vote for in the 2012 election?

Or, are you waiting to watch the presidential and vice presidential debates first before deciding your vote?

Here is the upcoming presidential debate schedule:

OCTOBER 3, 2012

6:00-7:30 PM PT/9:00-10:30 ET

President Obama – Governor Romney

Debate Format – Domestic Policy Topics

University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

OCTOBER 11, 2012

6:00-7:30 PM PT/9:00-10:30 ET

Vice President Biden – Congressman Ryan

Debate Format – Domestic and Foreign Policy Topics

Centre College, Danville, Kentucky

OCTOBER 16, 2012

6:00-7:30 PM PT/9:00-10:30 ET

President Obama – Governor Romney

Town Hall Format – Domestic and Foreign Policy Topics

Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York

OCTOBER 22, 2012

6:00-7:30 PM PT/9:00-10:30 ET

President Obama – Governor Romney

Debate Format – Foreign Policy Topics

Lynn University, Boca Raton, Florida

Mayor Castro’s DNC Keynote “Government Investment in Opportunity”

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:37:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Flickr Common

San Antonio, Texas Mayor Julian Castro delivered a keynote address at the Democrat National Convention with a theme of “America must invest in opportunity.” He proclaimed opportunity today creates prosperity tomorrow.

Many watching immediately made a comparison between San Antonio Mayor Castro and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Both men are young, attractive, Latino, third generation Americans, and have lovely families. Both are excellent speakers and rising stars in their respective political parties.

Castro invited the comparison taking on Rubio’s line about his father, “He stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years, so one day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room.” with his own line, And my mother fought hard for civil rights so that instead of a mop, I could hold this microphone.”

Both spoke about grandparents coming to the United States – Castro’s grandmother from Mexico and Rubio’s grandparents from Cuba. Both spoke about the “American Dream” and generations before them working hard and wanting better for their children.

Castro touted investment in education from pre-K to college. He compared his high school classmates and his college classmates, “They had the same talent, the same brains, the same dreams as the folks we sat with at Stanford and Harvard. I realized the difference wasn’t one of intelligence or drive. The difference was opportunity.”

Castro touched on support for many of the elements of the Democrat party’s platform including passing the Dream Act, same-sex marriage equality, government programs for individuals and some businesses, education spending, blaming Republican opposition, and higher taxes on the rich so they are paying their fair share.

While citing many times respect for the individual and success, he also directly or indirectly embraced big government, more spending, and collectiveness in thought and responsibility. Investment in anything seemed to mean investment by the government, not the private sector except through higher taxes on them to pay for government investment in the collective.

Castro portrayed all of the economic philosophy and policies before President Obama as failures. “First they called it trickle-down. Then supply-side. Now it's Romney-Ryan. Or is it Ryan-Romney? Either way, their theory has been tested. It failed. Our economy failed. The middle class paid the price. Your family paid the price.”

What was troubling was Castro, and perhaps the majority of Democrats, are not willing to acknowledge Obamanomics has failed the economy, the middle class, and your family. It has led to a record number of Americans on food stamps and living in poverty during President Obama’s term.

Obamanomics has led to record deficits that will in fact negatively affect the next generation if not the next two or three.

Castro touted the Democrat talking points regarding President Obama’s job creation numbers, Romney’s Massachusetts record, and the Romney-Ryan plan would raise Medicare cost as well as others.

The National Public Radio online, not exactly a right leaning outlet, ran an immediate fact-checking tally article the next morning “DemocratsUnleashed Some ‘Dubious Or Misleading Claims,’ Fact Checkers Say.”

An economy that does not create job opportunities that even keeps up with the population growth will not lead to those new college graduates having opportunity from their investment. We have already seen this.

Castro supported, “It's a choice between a politician who rewards companies that ship American jobs overseas—or a leader who brings jobs back home.”

No one can hear this statement and not think of the stimulus money, American taxpayer and borrowed money, that went to build opportunity in other countries: Australia, China, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and Vietnam to name a few.

No one can hear this statement about companies that ship American jobs overseas and not thing of General Electric shipping jobs to China and General Motors,yes the bailed-out Democrat touted success story in the 2012 election campaign,shipping jobs to China, Mexico, and South Korea.

We have seen American dollars being invested in oil exploration in Brazil, so we can be their best customer, yet private investment in American oil exploration has been stymied as much as possible by the Obama administration. We have seen thousands of jobs lost and communities collapsed by President Obama going to war with coal companies and towns.

It is very troubling the government investment Democrats like to solicit for and highlight is most often investment without accountability. We have seen this in the many failed “investments” that were made by this administration from housing loan modification programs, to Cash for Clunker, and to Solyndra and other green companies.

We have seen a trillion dollar stimulus that did not effectively create jobs, did not lower unemployment, and did not invest in shovel-ready infrastructure jobs as promised. It enriched several Obama campaign money bundlers, but it did little to ease the pain of the middle class or strengthen it.

The problem in general with the focus on investment by government instead of investment by the private sector is one is with public money and no choice by the public, and one is with private money chosen by the investor.

I wish I could legitimately say one is never with accountability and one is always with accountability, but that would be untrue. As long as government allows crony capitalism in their investments and privatization of profits and socialization of losses in the political process, that will remain untrue.

What should always be true to move America “Forward” is investment is for an appropriate purpose by the appropriate investor and with the appropriate accountability. This may never be true with politicians believing they must be the main investors for creating opportunity.

This must be true for investment to actually create opportunity and for future generations to realize the American Dream.

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on ThoughtfulWomen.org.

Condoleezza Rice RNC Speech Reaffirmed American Exceptionalism

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:36:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Flickr Common

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice delivered an eloquent speech with strong domestic and foreign policy messages at the Republican National Convention.

Rice received a rousing welcome as she entered the main stage and five standing ovations as she delivered her presentation. Even the most ardent, yet honest, Democrats would agree she is sincere, honest, intelligent, and credible.

She is a foreign policy expert whom understands the importance and reality of a strong standing in the world for the U.S. She knows what makes or breaks this global U.S. position and why it matters not only for Americans and our allies, but also for those people around the world who seek their own stable, responsive government and dream of freedom and liberty.

Rice gave many examples of why America is exceptional by founding design with ideals allowing her people to succeed no matter where they started in life and by encouraging personal responsibility, individual ambition, free people, and free markets.

She offered, “After all, when the world looks to America, they look to us because we are the most successful political and economic experiment in human history. That is the true basis of ‘American Exceptionalism.’ The essence of America, that which really unites us is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion. It is an idea, and what an idea it is - that you can come from humble circumstances and do great things. That it doesn’t matter where you came from but where you are going.”

Rice poignantly noted, “Ours has never been a narrative of grievance and entitlement. We have not believed that I am doing poorly because you are doing well. We have not been envious of one another and jealous of each other’s success.”

“But the American ideal is indeed endangered today. There is no country, no not even a rising China, that can do more harm to us than we can do to ourselves if we fail to accomplish the tasks before us here at home.”

Her main messages to American voters were the United States must reclaim its strength economically to restore its strength in global influence and must not step down from a leadership position in the world. She proclaimed we must solve our problems domestically to elevate our weaker standing in the world today.

Rice detailed the domestic areas that must be addressed – fair trade, energy independence, economic foundation rebuilding, effective debt solutions, and maximized education standards and delivery reform. She proclaimed, “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will rebuild us at home and inspire us to lead abroad.”

Rice began her speech addressing the need for U.S. leadership in the world. She spoke of those in the world who look to the U.S. for support of freedom. She spoke of the burden and hardship for America in leading and the consequences in the world if America abandons her Exceptionalism and relinquishes her leadership role.

She noted what we have already seen in the world with a weaker U.S. with our current acceptance of leading from behind when others seek direction and support – “China and Russia prevent a response; and all wonder, where does America stand?”

She continued, “Indeed that is the question of the moment, ‘Where does America stand?’ When our friends and our foes alike do not know the answer to that question, clearly and unambiguously, the world is a chaotic and dangerous place. The U.S. has since the end of World War II had an answer – we stand for free peoples and free markets, we are willing to support and defend them – we will sustain a balance of power that favors freedom.”

Rice is right in her strong observation, “We cannot be reluctant to lead, and one cannot lead from behind.” This has led to our current weaker influence in global affairs reflected in foreign leaders openly threatening the U.S. and a complete disregard for our stated and unstated foreign policy goals.

She told the RNC audience and millions of Americans watching and listening, “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will rebuild us at home and inspire us to lead abroad. They will provide an answer to the question, ‘Where does America stand?’ The challenge is real and the times are hard. But America has met and overcome hard challenges before.”

“Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have the integrity and the experience and the vision to lead us – they know who we are, they know who we want to be, they know who we are in the world and what we offer.”

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s insightful conclusion reaffirmed America’s Exceptionalism. “That is why this is a moment - an election of consequence. Because it just has to be that the most compassionate and freest country on the face of the earth will continue to be the most powerful.”

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on ThoughtfulWomen.org.

Gov Christie’s RNC Keynote Speech Highlighted “Leadership Delivers”

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:12:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Flickr Common

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered a keynote speech at the Republican National Convention with a theme of “leadership delivers” taking on status quo politicians that cannot say no when needed.

He appropriately and effectively called out the weakness in leadership which panders for votes with a “yes” when a “no” is needed. Most importantly, he explained why it matters to future generations that the status quo is broken now at this point in our nation’s history.

Governor Christie continued a strategic Republican theme that it is possible to return to sound fiscal management by reviewing spending priorities, being honest with citizens, and treating voters as adults and not children to be taken care of by government. He put forth we are in a “new era of truth telling.”

He followed a parade of Republican governors, many elected during the last three years, during the recession years, who have faced hard decisions and shown true leadership in delivering on election promises to balance budgets, cut wasteful spending, and attracting new businesses and jobs to their states without raising taxes.

Most notably these governors included Scott Walker from Wisconsin, Nikki Haley from South Carolina, and John Kasich from Ohio. Bob McDonnell from Virginia noted, “Conservative fiscal policies are working, and so are more Americans in states with Republican governors. Now, just think what we can do if we had a President who would support us, not obstruct us.”

Ohio Governor John Kasich put exact numbers in his conservative principles leadership delivery detailing, “Ohio was 48^th in job creation and is now 4^th in the U.S. and 1^st in the Midwest.”

Christie brought the theme “leadership delivers” home with exact examples from his work in New Jersey. “They said it was impossible to cut taxes in a state where taxes were raised 115 times in eight years. That it was impossible to balance a budget at the same time, with an $11 billion deficit. Three years later, we have three balanced budgets with lower taxes. We did it.”

He continued, “They said it was impossible to touch the third rail of politics. To take on the public sector unions and to reform a pension and health benefit system that was headed to bankruptcy. With bipartisan leadership we saved taxpayers $132 billion over 30 years and saved retirees their pension. We did it.”

Christie challenged out-dated and entrenched special interests with “They believe in teachers’ unions. We believe in teachers.”

He challenged Washington politicians with “If we can do this in a blue state with a conservative Republican governor, Washington is out of excuses.”

He challenged President Obama directly with, “You see, Mr. President, real leaders don’t follow polls. Real leaders change polls.”

Christie challenged those who believe big government is the answer. He challenged those who believe a less than exceptional America is acceptable with, “I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my children and grandchildren to have to read in a history book what it was like to live in an American Century. I don’t want their only inheritance to be an enormous government that has overtaxed, overspent and over-borrowed a great people into second-class citizenship. I want them to live in a second American Century.”

He spoke directly to the American people in a personal and compelling way when he offered his vision of generational pride and duty. He reminded us of America’s history and the sacrifices of past generations for us now.

He spoke in a serious yet uplifting way regarding American values being handed from one generation to the next. “This is the American way. We have never been victims of destiny. We have always been masters of our own. I won’t be part of the generation that fails that test and neither will you.”

"What will our children and grandchildren say of us? Will they say we buried our heads in the sand, we assuaged ourselves with the creature comforts we've acquired, that our problems were too big and we were too small, that someone else should make a difference because we can't? Or will they say we stood up and made the tough choices needed to preserve our way of life?”

Leadership does deliver. And part of this “delivery” must be for this generation’s leaders and citizens to resolve the debt and deficit realities we have and to not accept future generations living with problems saddled on them years ago.

Christie showed he deserved his political rising star status in reflecting a new generation of Republican leadership willing to tackle big issues with big vision. He made any campaign that wants to focus on “free birth control” as a main issue or wants to divide the country by fear and smear seem very small in the big picture for our country.

Our next generation deserves leadership now who has proven experience in delivering effective results and is committed to delivering results now without whining about what they inherited and without blaming others for their failure to deliver.

We need leadership who will face challenges head on and reclaim the vision of America we were given by our founding fathers and restore the values of America we know built this great country. As Governor Christie highlighted, we need leadership that will deliver now more than ever.

We also need citizen leadership that will deliver. Governor Christie understood this too. "It's been easy for our leaders to say not us, and not now, in taking on the tough issues. And we've stood silently by and let them get away with it. But tonight, I say enough."

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on ThoughtfulWomen.org.

GOP to Take Away Women’s Cars & All Driving Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:07:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Flickr Common

The Republicans have announced they will not support American car companies, and taxpayers ultimately in some cases, providing cars free for all women in America as a right.

In this latest assault on women, they are taking away the rights of all women to own a car and to drive one.

Wow! Really?

No, not really. This headline is completely untrue as is the premise that anyone is proposing free cars for women as a right. It is as false as the manufactured GOP "War on Women" in fact.

Did this headline get your attention? Did it have you immediately thinking about those “crazy or evil” Republicans? Did you believe it was, well, at least possibly true somehow?

Did your mind go to, “Republicans hate all women and want to put them back in the days before women could drive, or vote.” even if just at first glance?

It is simply an illustration of the 2+2=5 logic being used in the 2012 election campaign strategy of manufacturing a Republican “War on Women.”

This “War on Women” mantra was the Democrat leadership’s reaction to Republicans not supporting health insurance buyers, and taxpayers ultimately in many cases, being mandated to provide for birth control and the morning-after pill in Obamacare at no co-pay or essentially free to all women.

If Republicans, and many Americans in general, do not fall in line with agreement of the government mandating free birth control coverage, even those that object on freedom of religion grounds, then this amounts to them wanting to take away “access to birth control of any kind for all women.”

The evil Republicans in fact want to take away “all health care access” and “all reproductive rights” for women.

How did women, any woman, have birth control services or any health care services prior to Obamacare at all?

Even those women that could not legitimately afford health care services apparently had no access to low cost or no cost clinics or Medicaid prior to Obamacare.

Democrats often use an all-or-nothing approach in their political rhetoric. They often “awfulize” to make their argument, thinking it makes their case stronger. It doesn’t.

We see it every day. President Obama, Vice President Biden, Former Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and many other Democrats are good at doing it.

The liberal slant in the main stream media does it too. But, most Americans see through its ridiculousness.

The all-or-nothing approach is typically a divide-and-conquer approach. It is an appeal to emotion meant to produce a “We are all good.” and “They are all bad.” political talking point. Some of the worst examples include:

· President Obama, “And then you got their plan which is let’s have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.”

· Vice President Biden, “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

· Former Speaker Pelosi, “If you could depend on the government for one thing, it was about you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this is the E. Coli Club [referring to the GOP]. They do not want to spend money on this.”

· Senate Majority Leader Reid, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.”

· Hardball’s Chris Matthews on the Tea Party, “You got birthers, truthers, secessionists, nullifiers, people that are gun nuts…”

· The Ed Show’s Ed Schultz, “The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They'd rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for her."

The all-or-nothing approach comes out of hyper-partisanship those that use it hope to transfer to the voters.

It is most often illogical, because after all, 2+2 does not equal 5 in reality. But, they are counting on that 1 point difference between 4 and 5 being made up by manufacturing mind bending emotion around an issue.

Politicians and the media outlets that use these tactics are counting on six things.

If they say it with a straight face and with conviction, they can control the message and will be believed.

If they repeat a lie often enough, no matter how outrageous, it becomes fact to many.

If they provide an emotional frame around an issue, voters will vote out of emotion ignoring all fiscal realities.

If they provide a “you deserve this” frame around an issue, voters will vote for new entitlements and feel those not offering the same new rights are taking something they deserve away from them.

If they can instill confusion or fear around an issue, many voters will vote out of fear – real or imagined, real or manufactured.

If they present a political talking point or spin as fact, most voters will not do their own research on the issue to detect any inaccuracies.

What these politicians and media outlets may not be counting on is the majority of Americans are smarter than they think.

What they may not be counting on is the majority of voters are invested in the 2012 election and are doing their own research - no matter the headlines or political ads put forth to influence their opinion and ultimately their vote.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter and join her on ThoughtfulWomen.org.

Women Tell President Obama – “I am not Julia.”

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:10:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Library of Congress

A new YouTube video reflects American women are speaking out and telling President Obama, “I am not Julia.”

American women are smart. They are independent, self sufficient, and personally responsible. They want to make their own choices in life.

They care about their children and grandchildren. They know what is best in making decisions for their life and for their family.

They also understand economics – deficit government spending, new or expanded entitlement program costs, and reforms needed – better than some are giving them credit for in government.

They care about the future of this country and about the future they are leaving for their children.

I recently asked in my ThoughtfulWomen.org column article, "Do Women Really Want A Life of Government?"

They are directly responding to President Obama’s new reelection campaign strategy directed to the female voting bloc. “The Life of Julia” campaign strategy video asks women to “Take a look at how President Obama’s policies help one woman over her lifetime and how Mitt Romney would change her story.”

The campaign directed at women presents a government program for every phase of life from education to childbirth to starting a business to retirement. President Obama is given credit for providing Julia the government help she needs throughout her life to have any chance of a good life.

“The Life of Julia” also presents a picture that women will not receive a good education, health insurance, equal pay, a small business loan, and a retirement provided by the government if Governor Romney becomes the next president.

It paints the picture that women will not have a good life or survive at all if government is not central to their life. There is a government program touted for Julia at 3, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 27, 31, 37, 42, 65, and 67.

What is most interesting is Julia enrolls in Medicare at 65 and starts receiving her social security benefits at 67. It notes Julia has contributed to social security her entire life.

As many already know, contributing to social security during all your years of working is true enough. What many are also realizing is, but is not addressed anywhere in the video, if there is not reform in both the Medicare and Social Security programs, no matter how much you have personally contributed to these programs, they will run out of money in the next 12-14 years.

It is also perplexing that the “The Life of Julia” video touts Julia receiving a small business loan at 42, but why start a business if after all “You didn’t build that.” is the true feeling about business from President Obama once you build it?

Certainly raising a few eyebrows in its double speak in reality is the trumpeting of “President Obama’s tax cuts for small business like Julia’s help her to get started. She's able to hire employees, creating new jobs in her town and helping to grow the local economy.”

Isn’t it government according to President Obama that creates jobs in his constant stimulus backing philosophy and campaigning?

His practices have shown he supports government deciding which industries and companies get taxpayer loan help (think Solyndra and the other now bankrupt green companies) and which get government shutting them down regardless of the number of jobs lost or the collapsing of the local economy (think coal mining and no pipeline).

Will all the new regulation upon new regulation upon new regulation with his administration, more from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies than Congress, allow Julia to start a new business or have a fighting chance to be successful if she did?

And what if Julia did become very successful from all her hard work in her new business? Then would she be demonized for being successful by President Obama?

After all, his sentiments of there come a time when you have made enough money and class warfare is central themes in his speeches about business in reality.

One thing is for sure, Julia may not be able to hire employees at all with the crushing cost of Obamacare if she grows to be a company over 50 employees.

She may not be able to stay in business if she makes over $200,000 per year and then becomes subject to the tax increases President Obama wants to put in place.

As the women in this video explain, they do not want nor need government help to create a happy and successful life for themselves.

They recognize many of these government programs are about creating government control in their life choices and ultimately their lives overall.

Women are saying no, “I am not Julia.” They are reflecting their own values which include being personally responsible for their own lives. They do not want nor need government to direct their lives.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on ThoughtfulWomen.org

Immigrants Who Escaped Socialist Countries Warn the U.S.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:50:00 +0000

I met Reina Howard through her son Alvaro Watson. I met Alvaro through my work as a journalist with AXcess News.

As a journalist, I am always looking for interesting people doing extraordinary things to interview. I came across Alvaro’s Facebook page on his Temple University student group. The group had the mission of fostering free speech and critical thinking on campus.

After interviewing Alvaro, I ended up doing a four-part series on him and the original Purpose Group. You can read about this extraordinary young man in that series first published in March, 2011 here.

I have since come to know where Alvaro gets his passion, courage, and intelligence - his mother.

Reina was born in El Salvador to her American father and Salvadoran mother. She is married and has one grown up son, Alvaro, and two step children.

Presently she is working on her Master degree on Professional Counseling. Her interests include politics, gardening, crocheting, drawing, painting, cooking, walking, dancing at home for exercise, and writing.

Reina came from El Salvador in the late 1980s during a time of severe political turmoil and attacks from the Communists guerrillas to the population and financial targets that would devastate the economy.

She is a new Contributor with the new ThoughtfulWomen.org. Reina expressed, “When readers get to know about why she left El Salvador, they will also understand why she is so passionate against agendas that pretend to care for the poor but enslave entire nations.”

She notes, “First they do it through indoctrination and then radically transforming the system when people finally see those changes as okay and acceptable.”

She believes, “My experiences would help American women to have a clearer view of the importance of their participation in politics and in the coming elections.”

She explains why women must understand the power of politics in her first ThoughtfulWomen.org article “Why Politics Must Matter to Everyday Women.” She details the realities of life she experienced under a socialist country as a warning to Americans:

Ended my mother’s small business in El Salvador.
Affected the budget of the university where my father worked reducing his income to a small pay check every few month.
Created class warfare.
Increased anti-American sentiment.
Led people to want to remove free enterprise and individual rights to create “equality.”
Politics made business owners move to other countries and stopped job creation where these businesses started.
Increased taxes on everything possible including some groceries.
Redistributed land and wealth in the name of social justice and income equality.
Persuaded some that killing business owners was okay to punish the wealthy and anyone who had more than what they had.
Isolated entire nations keeping them in poverty and without freedoms.
Changed health care systems to become socialized and promised people medical care for everyone, but instead many died while waiting for government approval to see a doctor or to have a test.
Caused some to be without or not enough food.
Took away from parents the freedom to choose how they would educate their children.
Took away their religious freedoms.
Imposed dictators indefinitely.
Produced the exodus of people escaping their own countries while others less fortunate remained captive.

She is one of many immigrants to the U.S. who have escaped from living under socialist or communist political philosophies that now warn those in the U.S. who hail this for America.

Here is Reina Howard’s personal story of her escape to the U.S. in her own words.

My father was an adventurous American chemist and my mother a lively Salvadoran whom worked in accounting. She was also an entrepreneur with at least two different kinds of businesses – and did well in both.

El Salvador has been shaken through history, not only by earthquakes, but also by political uproar.

In the search for answers to alleviate poverty and suffering, some people adopted the concepts of social justice and redistribution of wealth. This was promoted by the religious left in the form of the theology of liberation and imparted in schools and universities as social justice.

This manipulated the needs of people, and the agents of class warfare created the environment which would advance their agendas by increasing the hate among different groups in the Salvadoran society.

In the late 1970s the country was at a sweltering point; secular and religious leftists were harvesting the fruits of the indoctrination of the masses. They recruited and forced those who refused to join them to become members of their guerrilla groups which had been organized in cities and in the country side.

Now good people in need, who had been convinced that a Cuban-style revolution was the answer to social problems and poverty, were armed and had been trained to terrorize those who had more than what they did.

They kidnapped and assassinated national and foreign business men, placed explosives in public transportation, took radio stations hostage, and passionately expressed their hate for Americans and Capitalism.

In this environment, my parents thought it was time to leave. The bulletins from the American embassy in El Salvador sent to American citizens were telling them the same - leave or stay at your own risk.

The attacks from Communists terrorists, in the name of social justice, created political instability. There was an exodus of foreign companies that provided jobs for Salvadorans. Salvadoran business owners were bankrupted and the economy devastated.

The university where my father taught chemistry paid him every few months instead of monthly, and the small business my mother had where I worked with her was almost non-existent. All that my parents could do, even when they could not afford it, was to send their children to the United States one by one.

This was very difficult for them since they did not know when they would see each other again. I was the third one who was supposed to leave, and the week before I left the Capital, San Salvado was violently shaken due to an earthquake.

I cannot describe my sadness at having to leave under such terrible circumstances. It is hard to express my grief at having to leave my son with my parents for about ten months.

My son was a little boy, and I had never been away from him. My mother convinced me leaving was the best option if I wanted to save my son from having to stay permanently in El Salvador. I felt I was leaving part of me - my son and my little boy.

The American Embassy told me I could not bring him with me, because he was not an American citizen. They said I needed to come first to the U.S. and find a job to support my son and then bring him as a permanent resident. That is what I did.

During my first months in the U.S., and for many years after, I had nightmares about losing my son and not being able to find him. I missed him agonizingly.

As some of you already figured it out, I was a single mother. I did not speak English. I just did not know what I was going to do for living and to provide for my son.

As many women, without education or who do not speak English do when they come to the States, I started to look for houses to clean. My first customer had asked me how much I would charge for cleaning. My younger brother whom had been in the U.S. a few months translated for me.

He translated what I had said - $5.00 an hour. I did not calculate my charges very well. I cleaned the lady’s house in an hour since it was not too big. I vacuumed, dusted, cleaned the kitchen, cleaned the one small bathroom with a bath tab, and pressed two of the lady’s nurse uniforms.

I received what I asked for which was $5.00 for this day. I quickly learned I needed to charge by the job and not by the hour. After the unforgettable $5.00 house cleaning, I changed how I charged for my work.

One of my next jobs was working at the home of a Texan family who owned a cattle company. They paid me very well. Impressed with my performance, they also offered to have me clean their cattle company’s offices. I happily accepted the offer.

Now I was able to send to my parents what they needed to pay for the application for my son to come to the U.S. as a permanent resident. I could show the immigration authorities that she could support him.

I was reunited with my son almost a year later. This gave me even more desire to continue to work hard and at the same time brightened my life again and made me very happy.

In addition to working for this Texan family, I also worked for a Texan chain of grocery stores where I worked in different departments and later was accepted at their school of retail management.

Completing this program was one of the first experiences of accomplishment I felt after coming to the U.S. The very first accomplishment was bringing my son to be with me.

During the time when I was working at different stores of this chain, I also attained my GED. I began to take classes at a community college.

Later, I decided to work in a different line of business and began to work as a beauty consultant for Estee Lauder. My son Alvaro learned English very fast and excelled in school. He became my English teacher.

I have been married for almost twelve years, and I have two stepchildren.

My son Alvaro received his bachelor degree, and a year later I received mine. Presently we are both working on our Master degrees. We often tell others how grateful we are. We are thankful to God first and second to the U.S. which gave us an opportunity to start again after having to leave El Salvador.

Due to political instability and the terror Communists groups created in order to advance social justice and socialism, I left El Salvador without knowing how I would start again.

But thankfully, God sees the “big picture”, and He knew we would thrive and love this land. He knew we would defend it when our country needs its citizens to stand up the most for freedom - giving God the glory for utilizing for good every difficulty I have had and every tear I have shed.

Will Americans embrace the Romney/Ryan Come-Back Team’s political honesty?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:20:00 +0000

Can we handle the truth? The Romney/Ryan come-back team believes we can.

Political passion is running high in America with what many feel are out-of-control problems mainly being caused by weak politicians and powerful special interests.

Americans seem sick and tired of ineffective politicians and no workable, or even proposed, solutions as a result of no political will to reform unsustainable future legacy spending and other big spending programs we cannot afford locally and nationally.

Americans want solutions that are fair and work for American citizens, and put America first. Americans are wary of political correctness which now seems to defy common sense and the interest of our own well-being as taxpayers and as a nation in many cases.

Will Americans in 2012 embrace and reward blunt honesty in politics? Will they accept it even if the real solutions put forth equate to reformed entitlements, being called racists, or being mocked by federal government officials and the media with scare tactics?

With the Paul Ryan choice by Governor Romney as his Vice President running mate, big ideas and big reform will be front and center in the presidential election. It provides an in-your-face contrast in the vision for the future of America.
It is going to get brutal. It is going to get even nastier, and even more dishonest, than Romney being called a felon, tax cheat, and murderer which we have already seen in Democrat backed attack ads.

Ryan was announced on Saturday, August 11. Democrats went on the offensive on the August 12 Sunday morning political talk shows painting Ryan’s budget as “out of the main stream – radical and extreme.”

Considering President Obama’s polities over his term would be considered very far left, which 2012 presidential ticket is out of the main stream – American citizens, not the main stream media main stream? Much to the dismay of many, the U.S. is still a center-right country in reality.

More importantly, which political vision and direction are best for Americans and the U.S. in the near future and the long run?

Will the strangle-hold of political correctness fear in the US crack out of necessity - even in politics? All you have to do is watch political speak on both sides of the isle put up on YouTube to see this may have growing acceptance.

Frustration with the current political system and a national deficit, which will hit $16 Trillion by the end of Obama’s first term, grows every day.

New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie pledged to balance the state budget with no sacred cows in spending cuts and no new taxes. He has on unions and the press.

Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker won his recall election in June by 7 points more than he won his original gubernatorial election. He has taken on curbing union control and legacy cost on behalf of Wisconsin taxpayers.

Is acceptance of blunt honesty in politics a force in America or just a passing novelty? I believe it is a force that will strengthen as the impact of higher taxes and higher healthcare costs on less private sector job creation reality have hit Americans in 2012.

As Dr. Phil always says, "You can't fix what you don't first acknowledge is broken." Americans are acknowledging our current government solutions and career politicians have created an unsustainable financial mess.

The current political system and direction are not working.

Democrats are counting on fear tactics and class warfare as 2012 campaign strategy. Where is their “specific” plan to tackle our very real deficit problems as a nation?

Their theme of raising taxes on the greedy; the wealthy that can afford it and are not after all already paying their fair share, will be examined under the microscope with the Ryan VP pick.

The truth is almost 50% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes at all while the top 20% of taxpayers pay approximately 70% of all federal income taxes collected now.

What is the definition of fair share in reality?

The truth is if 100% of all of the annual income of “millionaire and billionaires” were collected, it would finance approximately 8-9 days of federal spending at current levels of spending.

Is a lack of more revenue really the deficit spending problem generator?

The truth is if nothing is done to reform social security, the program will run out of money in approximately 12 years.
Isn’t the truth part of the social security money problem is a lot of the money collected for social security was never really kept in a “lock box” for social security? It was instead already spent by politicians on projects other than social security

While Democrats loudly trumpet Ryan’s budget plan will cost seniors thousands of dollars in Medicare reform, they ignore one of the funding elements of Obamacare was transferring $500 Billion away from Medicare to Obamacare.

Do politicians care about big spending programs bankrupting America? Who is being honest in the debate? Who is proposing solutions?

Who will employ demonizing their opponents with half-truths or even outright lies? Who cares about the future of America over their own next election? Who will put forth proposed solutions to get America back on track?

Americans may be looking at the 2012 presidential and congressional elections differently this time around. They voted for hope and change in 2008. Now many want truth and reform in 2012.

Unapologetic honest politicians who will tell it like it is are needed now more than ever. When the rubber hits the road, the majority of Americans are honest. They want politicians that will be too.

Americans are tough enough to personally sacrifice to restore integrity in our political system and for a better future for coming generations.

Our Founding Fathers and the WWII generation were not the last Americans with the integrity, courage, and resolve to face and beat daunting challenges.

Do not underestimate the ability of Americans to handle the truth.

One thing is for sure, as Albert Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

Follow Brenda on Twitter and Facebook. Join her on ThoughtfulWomen.org

Are Democrats Ignoring Voter's Voice in Wisconsin Recall So Soon?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:59:00 +0000

Photo Credit - Flickr Common Creative

One conclusion that may be drawn in the seven point recall election victory of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker just two short months ago is voters want balanced budgets and lower taxes.

Another may be voters, even in a solid blue state, have rejected the cost of big government and excessive demands of public unions.

In crisis public relations mode Democrats may downplay these realities blaming big corporate money’s influence in the Wisconsin election. At the same time they ignore the big union money’s influence in the same election on their side.

Former President Bill Clinton recently had favorable comments on Romney’s Bain Capital business experience and on extending the Bush tax cuts for at least another year in direct opposition to the Obama campaign messaging.

Like Mayor Cory Booker walked back his recent favorable comments on Bain Capital and capitalism, Clinton walked back the tax cut extension talk shortly after he said it. In both cases, it is impossible to un-ring a bell though.

It was announced recently both President Clinton and Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (running against GOP incumbent Scott Brown) will be prime time speakers at the Democratic National Convention in September. That should be interesting.

Warren was credited by many as being the original author of the “You didn’t build that.” collective theme strategy picked up by President Obama in his now infamous, and walked-back stump speech that drew a huge outcry from hard-working small business owners across America.

Will Warren repeat this theme in her speech? What will President Clinton do with this class warfare strategy in his speech? In reality, will Clinton help or hurt President Obama in the obvious contrast that will be drawn between the two even as he formally announces President Obama as the Democrat nominee for President in 2012?

While many politicians in Washington, and some states like California and Illinois, continue minimizing the effects of huge annual deficit spending, it appears voters understand the danger zone.

Voters, many of whom are unemployed or underemployed, also comprehend the effects of the rapidly increasing national debt on the health of the economy and a true recession recovery as well as the global value of the American dollar.

Are Democrats making a huge mistake by doubling down on new entitlement programs? This administration has seen record increases in Americans on food stamps and has even marketed the food stamps program as a new government benefit that Americans should embrace.

Yet, are bigger government programs out in 2012? Is fiscal responsibility, no matter the pain of austerity measures and far left raging, in? Will Americans reflect they really are not Europeans after all in culture and mindset?

Were politicians in Washington watching the outcome of the Wisconsin election with an eye toward the November national election? You bet they were whether they publicly admit it or not.
Should the Walker victory change the script of more big government spending and tax increases in the President Obama reelection campaign?

Unlike President Clinton, President Obama does not seem capable of moving to the center to get things done in Washington or to appeal to more fiscal independent voters. He has only doubled down on class warfare, collectivism, and executive orders while many Democrats in Congress run from this and even from attendance at the party convention next month.

The upcoming presidential debate will certainly be quite telling to Americans.

Even if the President will not, will Democrats in general be forced to start talking more like Republicans on fiscal matters to effectively compete for the votes of Independents?

Is fiscal responsibility back in 2012 after four years of big government spending and staggering increases in multi-trillion dollar debt that did nothing to significantly decrease unemployment and increase real economic recovery and stability in the revenue producing private sector?

Will it take a GOP controlled Congress and Senate to enact reforms and rein in spending? Most certainly we have seen it will take a senate majority leader that will allow bills to go to the senate passed by the House to get things done.

What will it take to finally get a budget passed by Congress?

With the presidential power of executive order and unelected agency head appointments, which this administration has effectively used to go around Congress, will it take a Republican president in the White House even if the GOP controls both houses of Congress?

Can you think of anyone that would not like to see the eras of President Reagan and President Clinton’s national prosperity back? Both administrations enacted major spending and tax policy reforms as well as entitlement program reform.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter.

What is all the buzz about ThoughtfulWomen.org?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 00:02:00 +0000

I am pleased to announce I am a partner and columnist of "Real Zone - Real People, Real Life, Real Talk" with the new online media site ThoughtfulWomen.org. See our new Facebook page and explore what all the buzz is about! Click to our site and sign up to join the conversation.

What is Thoughtful Women?

ThoughtfulWomen.org is an energized group of business women, mothers, and daughters have joined forces in creating a new website and blog discussion format to challenge the status quo and the idea that the media and government bureaucrats know what’s best for us in our daily lives.

ThoughtfulWomen.org is a safe place for women to engage in considerate discussion with women, by women and for women. As a new platform for civic engagement, ThoughtfulWomen.org provides meaningful, balanced commentary on issues that affect all of us as mothers, daughters, wives, and working women.

We’ll look at the role of government in our daily lives, talk about the economy, health care, and jobs and offer a meeting place for collaboration and fun.

Sometimes, we’ll divert from politics, sharing recipes, offering celebrity commentary or health & wellnesses tips, and create topical discussions on work-home life balance, flexibility and relationships.

At ThoughtfulWomen.org, we believe in open public debate, quality journalism and reporting and will actively seek and publish commentary by real women – independent citizen journalists whose points of view offer fresh perspective and vision on issues of the day.

We’re real women in the real world – not “Inside the Washington Beltway” pundits who talk at you, and tell you what to think. At ThoughtfulWomen.org, we want to talk with you and hear what you have to say.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brenda Krueger Huffman’s journalistic background includes being an internationally syndicated political commentary and business writer as well as a Journalist with World City Press North American division AXcess News and the award winning BusinessInsider.com.

Her writing focus is national political commentary, business, technology, and social media with an occasional article more on the humorous side of life.

Her talk radio work has included being a Co-Host and Political Analyst on the popular shows Women on the Move Presents The Round Table and WEI Network’s Fresh Talk in addition to being a guest political analyst on talk radio.

Brenda’s background includes business development, marketing, and operations. She is an entrepreneur specializing in the information industry and social media sectors.

She has been a highly successful executive at some of the foremost national information technology corporations such as Transamerica, Homestore.com, Realigent, REBIG, VIS, and Planning Research Corp.

Her client list includes start-up regional and national companies and industry directing, predominant national Corporations, the majority of U.S. local government agencies, and non-profit or for-profit enterprise.

Brenda is a partner with Thoughtful Women and is the resident columnist of “Real Zone – Real People, Real Life, Real Talk.”

She writes from a common sense observational eye. She brings an honest relativity to the current topics of the day that affect the lives of Americans. An independent political thinker, she provides an insightful view of national policy and politics as well as on other topics in the news.

She has a knack for being highly relatable, for she brings to light what many people are thinking and perhaps are not willing to say out loud. Her column often makes it ok to start or join a discussion.

Real Zone is a popular, must-read column for everyone no matter one’s political party affiliation or usual level of news interest – if any at all!

Campaign Mobile Use Increases as Voters Tune Out Radio and TV Ads

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:46:00 +0000

Geotargeted texting used in WI to engage ad overloaded voters.

With the rough and tumble Republican primary just winding down and the general election campaigning already in full swing between President Obama and Governor Romney, even before he has been officially selected by the GOP delegates, many voters are already showing signs of dueling ad war battle fatigue.

And, if the Wisconsin recall election of Governor Walker is any indication of what the next five months are going to be like on a national level, we are in for a lot of loud noise.

The Wisconsin election on June 5 was just that – loud – robocalls, TV commercials, radio commercials, direct mail pieces, more robocalls, and more TV commercials. Each election year candidates and political groups spend more and more on getting their message out. Each election year voters hear more.

Years ago candidate campaigns were doing the ads. Today we have the campaigns, unions, political action committees (PACs), Super PACs, and various special interest groups doing ads and get out the vote (GOTV) campaigns.

What if the electorate is on overload and has tuned out? All but the political junkies in Wisconsin stopped reading newspapers, unplugged their phones, fast forwarded through TV ads, turned off their TVs, turned off their radios, and looked away from social media networking sites and online media.

At what point is enough enough? At what point does it all turn into white noise – or just noise?

The money being spent is astronomical. It is estimated that $66 Million was spent on the June 5 Wisconsin election alone. It is estimated $6 Billion will be spent on the 2012 presidential race. It is expensive. There is little way to gage the actual return on investment (ROI) in real terms.

Is it worth it? Does any of it change the mind of voters or get a lot of potential voters that do not normally vote to the polls? Is the messaging personal enough to be a call to action? Is it in a format that voters want to hear it?

Times have changed. Not all political campaigns have, but they should. Approximately 35%, or one-third, of Americans no longer have landline phones and 35% do not watch live TV anymore. Time –shifting is changing the way consumers accept information.

Politicians must now become more creative and in-touch with how voters consume campaign messaging. The challenge for today's digital campaign strategist is how to leverage technology to gain an advantage. The early adopters will gain a decided advantage.

Political advertising, whether by the candidate or groups outside the actual campaign, must understand the consumer, the voter, has changed. They no longer will put up with being yelled at in advertising.

Voters want to be engaged. Those wanting to engage them hopefully message them with a more targeted approach than in the past and with something that is important and interesting to them – something that will engage them to support the candidate, talk about the candidate, perhaps donate, and certainly vote for them.

Technology is anything but stagnant, and the newest social media tool momentum is the mobile application. Just like Facebook and Twitter in the 2008 political campaigns, mobile apps are the latest “must have” in reaching out and “touching and engaging” potential voters and supporters.

A June 2 article in Mobile Marketer, the news leader in mobile marketing, media, and commerce, detailed why mobile marketing is a good tool for engagement and value. It provides, “By creating mobile-only search campaigns, advertisers benefit in several areas such as control, messaging, targeting and reporting.”

It explains, “Geotargeting has become an important part of the mobile search experience. It is a great added value for consumers and a big opportunity for advertisers.”

“Mobile advertisers can geotarget in the same way they target their desktop campaigns: by country, state, metro, city or custom ranges.”

Political campaigns are catching on to the benefits of spending their money more wisely. Geotargeting by district, state, and issue help combat voter ad fatigue and meets the need to engage voters with something they is meaningful to them.

Campaign Touch CEO, Cami Zimmer works with political candidate clients in this environment every day. She began her career working at The White House in Washington, D.C. For over a decade, Ms. Zimmer worked on public policy issues, managed campaigns, and ran non-profit organizations.

Campaign Touch was founded on the idea of helping create powerful campaigns through the use of technology. They have partnered with the nation's best mobile companies for app development and SMS (text) campaigns and surveys. Zimmer brings her knowledge of digital and mobile communications to assist political consultants and candidates, PACs, non-profit organizations, ad agencies and businesses.

She explains, “Tradition media, while necessary on most levels, has the strategy of ‘Spray and Pray’ - throw a bunch of ads out there and hope and pray they hit the right audience. It is expensive. There is little way to gage the ROI.”

Zimmer shakes her head when noting, “Many Minneapolis/St. Paul people were flooded with TV commercials and radio commercials during the Wisconsin election - and they can't vote there! What a waste of money.”

Campaign Touch ran mobile ads for a client during the Wisconsin election. Zimmer details, “Mobile ads were strategically targeted in a Senate district in Wisconsin. In a five day mobile campaign, we were able to hit voters 4-8 times with an ad for the candidate. We had 471,105 views, 2,914 clicks, and a .62% click through rate.”

Many large companies are using mobile advertising to strategically zone in on their advertising. With Campaign Touch’s campaign and elections specialty, they are showing their clients how to successfully use mobile to reach voters. Zimmer adds, “We are showing clients an option at extremely less money than traditional marketing and providing a ROI.

She summarizes, “Mobile is great for the GOTV as 98% of Americans carry a mobile phone. It is perfect for GOTV. And keep in mind that 50% of mobile traffic comes after 5pm - as people are driving home from work. Campaign Touch is happy that campaigns are finally starting to see how mobile can work in campaigns. Our clients engage voters!”

Are you among those that have not tuned out and cannot get enough? Do you find who is buying ads and what the main issues are in the ads interesting? Track ad spending during the primaries and general election here.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter and Facebook.

Is Big Government Spending Out and Fiscal Responsibility Back In 2012?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:28:00 +0000

Francis X. Becker

U.S. Congressional District NY4 Challenger Fran Becker talks about what middle class Americans really want.

One conclusion that may be drawn in the 7 point recall election victory of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker yesterday is voters want balanced budgets and lower taxes. Another may be voters, even in a solid blue state, have rejected the cost of big government and excessive demands of public unions.

In crisis public relations mode Democrats may downplay these realities blaming big corporate money’s influence in the Wisconsin election. At the same time they ignore the big union money’s influence in the same election on their side.

Former President Bill Clinton recently had favorable comments on Romney’s Bain Capital business experience and on extending the Bush tax cuts for at least another year in direct opposition to the Obama campaign messaging.

Like Mayor Cory Booker walked back his favorable comments on Bain Capital and capitalism, Clinton walked back the tax cut extension talk shortly after he said it. It is impossible to un-ring a bell though.

While many politicians in Washington, and some states like California and Illinois, continue minimizing the effects of huge annual deficit spending, it appears voters understand the danger zone. Voters, many of whom are unemployed or underemployed, also comprehend the effects of the rapidly increasing national debt on the health of the economy and a true recession recovery as well as the global value of the American dollar.

Are bigger government programs out in 2012? Is fiscal responsibility, no matter the pain of austerity measures and far left raging, in? Will Americans reflect they really are not Europeans after all in culture and mindset?

U.S. Congressional New York District 4 challenger Francis Becker thinks so. He shares his thoughts on what middle class Americas want and the fiscal reform that is needed.

BKH: Has there been any major changes in the demographics of NY4 with the political redistricting?

FB: As a result of the 2012 re-apportionment, the geography of NY4 has moved east here on Long Island, changing the demographics and political makeup of the district.

While the district still leans Democrat, there are significantly less Democrats now in the new district than the old district. Also, the geography of the district has shifted away from areas along the New City border that overwhelmingly (80%) vote Democrat and into areas that for the past 10 years that have voted overwhelmingly for Republican Congressman Pete King and for Republican members of the state legislature.

BKH: Have these demographic changes had an effect on the focus or politics of the NY4 district?

FB: Long Island is a quintessential suburban community whose values, in political lingo, are center right. The Nassau population is also highly educated and well versed in the issues. The new district, largely comprised of middle class families, will be more responsive than ever before to the Republican message of growing the economy, creating jobs, and reducing spending and taxes.

BKH: From your day-to-day interaction with the NY4 community, what do the residents tell you they care about most?

FB: I am a financial planner and on a daily basis I work with families from all demographics and walks of life as they plan for their futures and for their children’s futures. I hear the same worries and concerns from just about all of them of not being able to save enough money for retirement or for their children’s education.

They are concerned about the security of their jobs and making ends meet. In the past, only on occasion, would I counsel a person who had lost their job or was in between jobs. Now, and for the past three years, I am doing this on a regular basis.

Before even getting to the planning part of our meeting they will express their worries wondering if the economy will ever improve and will there be better days ahead. Invariably they also express their concerns about the future of our country and the national deficit and what impact it will have on their children and future generations.

Nassau County is also one of the highest taxed counties in the nation, and they are fed up with taxes.

As someone who cares very much about my community, it takes a great toll on me to see people suffering like this. It makes me angry because I feel it does not have to be this way. As a person well versed in finances, I clearly see the policy failures that have created this economically devastating scenario in our country today.

BKH: What are the top challenges in your district?

FB: There are three top challenges. The first is to build a strong economy and provide a secure economic future for individuals and their families. The second is to reduce the onerous tax burdens that are making it very difficult for the average family to pay their bills including property taxes. The third is to reduce the national debt and restore confidence that future generations can have the same or better standard of living than people enjoy today and of those of prior generations.

As has been documented in the media and by economists, they say that for young people today, this may be the very first time in the history of our country that their economic outlook will not be as good or better than the prior generation. For young people today, this is a tragic notion and we must do something about it.

BKH: What are the types of meaningful solutions you propose for these challenges?

FB: The first step is to remember, as the various Socialist governments of the past and present demonstrate so clearly, that government-controlled economies do not work. If we want our economy to grow, we cannot impose more government regulations and controls on the private sector.

Instead, we need to unshackle our economy from the burdensome taxes, government regulations and red tape that are strangling our economy.

Second, we must learn from the Solyndra disaster and the billions of tax dollars that have been wasted propping up the green-energy movement that government should never be involved in picking the winners and losers in an economy or industry. When market forces are best at work, an economy will thrive.

As is also evidenced by the failed trillion dollar stimulus packages, government programs will never create a strong economy and only wastes tax dollars as well as robbing necessary capital from the private sector to finance new businesses and expand and grow existing ones.

Third, we must remember that no country has ever taxed its way to prosperity. Just look at the problems many states have in our country today. The states with the highest taxes and largest bureaucracies with governments that place onerous regulations and red tape on their businesses are shedding jobs, watching their deficits grow and watching their economies shrink.

Meanwhile, the states with low taxes and streamlined operations that welcome businesses are seeing their economies flourish and their revenues grow.

Fourth, we must address our national deficit before it is too late and we have saddled our children with a burden they can never escape.

Fifth, we must stop running our country for the benefit of the public employee unions, the teachers union and special interests. Until we do, we will never be able to bring the cost of government in line with what taxpayers can afford.

Sixth, we must stop our reliance on foreign oil. Oil, natural gas and clean coal are plentiful right here on our continent but government regulations prevent us from tapping into them or utilizing these abundant resources.

Recent studies indicate that we have more energy reserves within our own borders than Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries. This not only makes us dependent on foreign governments but sometimes funds the very terrorists who want to destroy us.

The recent decision by the government not to approve the Keystone Pipeline is a classic example of the Democrats catering to environmental extremists at the expense of American families who need inexpensive energy sources.

BKH: What are the funding solutions for your proposals?

FB: As I have said elsewhere, government cannot tax its way to prosperity. As President Ronald Reagan so famously said, “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”

Thus, my first “funding solution” is to stop funding wasteful and inefficient programs, stop political earmarks wasting billions of dollars solely to benefit special interests and for the politicians to stop “buying” votes with other peoples’ money.

The second “funding solution” is for government to turn the free market economy loose and, when it does, more tax dollars will miraculously start flowing into the federal treasury. I heard an economist say once that with every 1% increase in GDP the deficit will be reduced by one trillion dollars.

The third “funding solution” is to simplify our tax code and eliminate the loopholes that benefit only the special interests.

BKH: What type of tax policy reform do you believe is necessary?

FB: America’s tax code needs reform. Today’s tax system discourages saving, investment, and entrepreneurship. It’s a drag on productivity, job growth, international competitiveness, and wages. It’s complicated beyond belief, and it needs to change.

We need to simplify the code and eliminate the loopholes that benefit only the special interests. Unfortunately, we cannot wait until next year to address taxes.

Unless the President and Congress act this year, an enormous, unprecedented tax increase will fall on American taxpayers starting on January 1, 2013. The Washington Post called the looming tax increase “Taxmageddon,” and the Federal Reserve chairman called it a “massive fiscal cliff.” That’s because on January 1, 2013 significant deductions and tax policies that benefit American families are set to expire.

BKH: What are the main elements of the "pro-growth economic agenda" you propose?

FB: We need to empower small business owners, reform the tax code to help job creators, increase competitiveness of American manufacturers, encourage entrepreneurship and growth, maximize domestic energy production and pay down our unsustainable federal debt.

BKH: You are a strong opponent of Obamacare. What do you propose to reform health care if Obamacare is struck down by the Supreme Court?

FB: We need to end today's bureaucracy driven, heavily regulated third-party payment system and move to a new patient-centered system of consumer choice and real free-market competition. In such a system, individuals and families would make the key decisions and control the flow of dollars which will likely help resolve many of the problematic issues in our health care system today.

One thing we know for sure, Obamacare will ultimately lead to government run health care and this is unacceptable. Can you imagine having to call a government employee who will make the decision for you as to whether you should have a particular life-saving procedure or treatment that you need?

As a person who understands insurance, having worked in the business for over 30 years, there is no question in my mind this is where we are heading if Obamacare is not stopped in the courts or in congress.

BKH: What are your proposals on cutting the national debt and spending?

FB: In order to cut the national debt we need to reform entitlements and cut wasteful spending. We also need to take the shackles off our economy with lower taxes and put an end to the onerous regulations that are now stifling the free enterprise system. This will spur the economy into producing more revenues.

Under both President Regan and President Bush we saw these policies expand our economy which led to unprecedented revenues flowing into the treasury. What we need to do is stop the wasteful, out-of-control spending which has been the nemesis of our government and local governments across the nation for decades.

BKH: Do you see raising taxes as inevitable to bringing down the annual deficit spending and debt - even with significant spending cuts?

FB: No. Once again, an expanding economy will increase revenues and entitlement reform will reduce spending. But we have learned from the past that more government spending, more taxes are not the answer. Lower taxes mean more money in the hands of consumers to spend.

The more government spends the more it removes money from the private sector which will keep us in this economic doldrums. Today we tend to complicate things and solutions which are simple to implement. Much of this is almost Economics 101.

BKH: Why do you think D.C. and Congress are so dysfunctional right now in general?

FB: I can remember back in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s listening to my grandfather when Dwight Eisenhower was President. I can remember as a young man visiting him in Washington. Those were times when Congress and our nation were respected at home and around the world.

Thinking of my grandfather, who was a congressman from this area; those times seem a distant memory. If I am fortunate to go to Washington, I want to renew that great national pride we once held in our government institutions where in spite of peoples’ differences, they worked together for the good of the country.

While there are still many elected officials worthy of admiration, it seems when they go to Washington, it changes them as it did, in my opinion, our present congresswoman, Carolyn McCarthy.

In my opinion there are too many politicians who are more interested in being in power than in addressing the real challenges facing our country. It’s as if they’re more interested in reaping the spoils – for themselves and for their friends – than in dealing in a serious way with the problems of our nation.

We need to do better—a lot better. That is why I am running for congress.

BKH: What are your proposed solutions?

FB: I believe the solution is to create a framework of beliefs and objectives first and then to seek out Republicans and Democrats who are in agreement with these beliefs and objectives. The next is then to put together solutions and find common ground to each of issues that need to be addressed within this group who choose to stand with each other and work together.

In other words let us amongst ourselves, outside of the leadership, put down the shield or designation of a political party that divide us and dream and create a vision together that will resolves the issues facing our country for the betterment of all citizens but, most of all, for our children and future generations.

What kind of legacy are we now leaving them I ask? Also, if we are going to change Washington, we have to change the people we send there.

BKH: Many people long for the days under President Reagan or President Clinton. How do you think President Obama stacks up to either?

FB: President Obama cannot stack up to either President Reagan or President Clinton. President Clinton experienced the same event that President Obama did when the Republicans won the majority in Congress while in the Whitehouse.

But Clinton was wise and worked with the new congress to the benefit of the nation. President Obama has decided to blame congress for the problems, which he, in fact, created. Also, unlike President Obama, Presidents Reagan and Clinton believed in a free-market economy.

And unlike President Obama, who in just fewer than four years increased our federal deficit by $5 trillion or 35%, both President Reagan and President Clinton knew that such an unsustainable debt would be a millstone that would destroy our economy and ruin any hope for a brighter future.

And finally, unlike President Obama, neither President Reagan nor President Clinton wanted to “re-distribute” money from those who work and are productive in order to give it to those who don’t and aren’t.

BKH: How do you think a President Romney would stack up to either?

FB: While it’s impossible to know beforehand how any president will perform, it’s clear to me that if he were elected president, Mitt Romney would stack up well to Presidents Reagan and Clinton, because the most important difference is he believes in and has shown he understands our free enterprise system and way of life.

BKH: What in your life experience makes you the best choice for the citizens of NY4 to represent them in Congress?

FB: I believe growing up on Long Island in a typical middle class family, and striving to make the American Dream come true for my family, just like those of many others that reside in NY4, has prepared me well in knowing and understanding the concerns and hopes for the future we all share together here on Long Island as a community.

As a kid, I swam in our oceans at Jones and Long Beach, fished in our bays and went to our public schools. I married my high school sweetheart, Clementine. We bought a house in Lynbrook and raised our three daughters there, who then went to the same public schools we did and where we met.

I pay the high taxes and experience the same every day concerns and problems that families experience here in Nassau trying to raise a family and achieve the American Dream.

As a County Legislator, I have fought to reduce the onerous tax burden on our residents and to reduce the size of government so that future generations will want to live and raise their families here on Long Island.

If elected to be their congressman, I will take the hopes, concerns and dreams of the families of NY4 with me in my heart and spirit to Washington, because I know them well having lived and breathed them myself.

Once there, each and every day I will fight for their best interests and for their families and children. I will fight for our country that it will one day be the great nation it once was.

It is clear to me that after spending a decade and half in Washington D.C., Carolyn McCarthy has become out of touch with her constituents and ineffective in resolving or providing solutions to the important issues facing us here on Long Island and in our country today.

Her answer is more of the same: more spending, more taxes and more red tape. In fact she has made matters worse. She has been ineffective in fighting taxes and the high cost of living here on Long Island.

She must be held accountable for her support of Obamacare, which is very unpopular here on Long Island, and her votes and support for the out of control and massive spending and debt proposed by her party, the Democrats and the President, that we are now experiencing in our country today.

Carolyn McCarthy has voted for every corporate bailout, every failed stimulus, every wasteful earmark, every entitlement, and every sell-out to the special interests and every tax that her party proposed. Enough is enough. It’s time for a change.

BKH: Thank you. Join Fran Becker on Facebook and Twitter. Visit his campaign website.

Were politicians in Washington watching the outcome of the Wisconsin election with an eye toward the November national election? You bet they were whether they publicly admit it or not. Will the Walker victory change the script of more big government spending and tax increases in the President Obama reelection campaign? It is hard to say, but the upcoming presidential debates will certainly be quite interesting.

Will Democrats in general be forced to start talking more like Republicans on fiscal matters to effectively compete for the votes of Independents? Is fiscal responsibility back in 2012 after four years of big government spending and staggering increases in multi-trillion dollar debt?

Will it take a GOP controlled Congress and Senate to enact reforms and rein in spending? Can you think of anyone that would not like to see the eras of President Reagan and President Clinton’s national prosperity back? Both administrations enacted major spending and tax policy reforms.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter and Facebook.

At 24% of Registered Electorate, Independents Will Decide the Congressional CA47 Primary

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:41:00 +0000

CA47 Candidate Kahn Pushes for Tax Reform and Real Economic Growth

Sanford Kahn

Independent or “no party affiliation” voter registration has been a growing trend across the country in recent years, even in states considered solid red or blue. This reflects voters not buying into the increasing hyper-partisanship coming out of Washington. It may be a result of it in fact.

With U.S. economic indicators going up and down the last several months, and with all reports reflecting weaker and slower growth than needed for a true economic turnaround, the 2012 election will be all about the economy and jobs no matter the calculated distractions or nasty campaign ads.

What the American people care about is solutions, not more tired partisan rhetoric and politicians only focused n keeping their jobs and not the millions of Americans without jobs. Voters are weary of what seems like a deep recession that is lasting forever with no significant job creation in the private sector. Millions have lost their current financial stability and future confidence.

While politicians play political games, non-politically connected Americans have suffered and disapprove of both major parties. A citizen registering to vote as Independent or with no party affiliation has grown, even in Democrat political central California.

Most agree Independents nationally will decide the 2012 presidential election. In Congressional races all over the country, they may also decide the victors of both primary and main elections. By nature, the majority of Independents are not blindly tied emotionally to either political party or fiercely loyal necessarily to any incumbent politician.

In what began in 2010, 2012 continues the trend of normal everyday citizens fed up with Washington’s “politics as usual” stepping up and running for political office. These citizen candidates hope to bring real life experience, outside of the beltway, and real change to Washington.

Congressional District 47 in California has eight candidates in their open primary on June 5.

Sanford Kahn is one of the eight. He does not have a lot of campaign money, and he is not considered a front runner, but he does have ideas to move America forward. He believes he can bring solutions to Washington, touting “He is not an incumbent or an attorney.”

He received an engineering degree from the University of Florida and moved to Long Beach, California to work for McDonnell Douglas Corporation in 1969. For the past seventeen years he has been self employed as a business author and professional speaker.

Kahn is passionate about America digging out of her economic hole. He offers, “We must grow! A secure future lies in economic growth.” He is also steadfast in his desire for quality education which he believes is one of the vital issues. He supports all children having equal access and choice in education reform.

Kahn is the only candidate of the eight pushing for a flat rate federal income tax and a full school voucher system.

California District 47 open primary candidate Sanford Kahn shares his thoughts.

BKH: Has there been any major changes in the demographics of CA47 with the political redistricting?

SK: Yes. The district now includes part of central Orange County. Before, the district included Long Beach and communities close to Long Beach but only in Los Angeles County. With the district now going into Orange County, there is a significant increase in Asian representation, especially the Vietnamese community.

BKH: Have these demographic changes had an effect on the focus or politics of the CA47 district?

SK: Yes. The old district was significantly Democratic in registration. Now, by including parts of Orange County, the Democrats have only a 10% point lead in registration.

More importantly, the independent registration is 24% of the electorate. They will decide the outcome of the June 5th primary.

BKH: Do you live and work in the CA47 district?

SK: I have been living and working in the district since I came out to California after graduating from the University of Florida in 1969. I started work for McDonnell Douglas Corp. as a mechanical engineer. I made a significant career change in 1995 by becoming self-employed.

BKH: What motivated you to run for Congress as a citizen politician?

SK: We really are at a turning point in our nation's history. We have two and only “two” choices for our future. Either we will have a set of policies that empower the individual or policies that will empower the government.

One leads to a growing and vibrant economy with expanding opportunities for all and the other to economic stagnation. Government is not your friend but your competitor for personal power.

BKH: From your day-to-day interaction with the CA47 community, what do the residents tell you they care about most?

SK: Getting the economy growing again to produce jobs, jobs and more jobs.

BKH: Why do you believe a flat rate tax policy is best for America?

SK: I believe a flat income tax rate is the best policy for America because it is the only fair way to tax individuals. Everyone pays the same rate after a large standard deduction indexed to inflation. It also does not subsidize one behavior over another.

The beauty of it lies in its simplicity. It can be filled out on the back of a post card. No more spending hundreds of dollars going to a tax professional to get your taxes done. I probably will not get the vote of the society of tax professionals, but that is the way it goes.

BKH: Some believe a flat rate tax rate policy would disadvantage the lower income Americans and result in the highest income Americans not paying their "fair share." What do you say to critics of a flat rate tax policy?
SK: This is garbage! The lower income Americans will be protected by the large standard deduction that will completely or almost completely eliminate them from paying income tax.

One of the numbers that has been mentioned for a standard deduction is $35,000 for a family of four. I agree with this. This number is above the poverty income level for a family of four.

BKH: Why do you believe a full voucher system is what is best for education in American schools?

SK: Education will not be reformed by throwing more money at it. Per pupil spending today is more than three times what it was in 1960 measured in constant dollars, and the quality of education has deteriorated.

The only way to really reform education is to introduce competition. Parents and legal guardians know what is best for their children. They should have the choice of where to send their kids - public, private or parochial schools.

BKH: What are the top challenges in your district?

SK: The unemployment rate in California is higher than the national average. The top priority in my district is to focus on tax policy that will get the economy galloping again to spur new job creation. Without new job creation, there will be no meaningful solutions to our societal problems.

BKH: What are the types of meaningful solutions you propose for these challenges?

SK: Tax policies that encourage work, saving and investment is the only solution to getting the economy galloping again. The genesis of economic growth is individuals, namely entrepreneurs. New business investment and risk taking should be rewarded and not penalized by bad tax policy.

BKH: What are the funding solutions for your proposals?

SK: Strong economic growth will produce a river of revenues to the federal and state governments. On the other side of the ledger, baseline budgeting should be eliminated. Federal spending should increase no more than the sum of the percent increase in population growth and inflation or about 3% a year.

BKH: Why do you think D.C. and Congress are so dysfunctional right now in general?

SK: They are dysfunctional, but there have been other times in our history they have been dysfunctional also. I expect after the 2012 elections the two major parties will start to cooperate more.

BKH: What is the new approach needed to once again have those in Congress represent the values and desire of their constituents over party loyalty?

SK: Elect new individuals to Congress. I am also a firm believer in term limits for U.S. Congressmen and Senators. I believe in the citizen politician not the professional one.

BKH: What in your life experience makes you the best choice for the citizens of CA47 to represent them in Congress?

SK: I am neither an incumbent nor a lawyer. It is like religious dogma to me that economic growth comes from giving individuals the incentives to work, save and invest for their futures. None of the other candidates have even expressed anything remotely like this. They probably don't have an understanding of this concept.

BKH: Thank you.

Are state and federal establishment politicians considering the “why” of the increase in Independent voter registration? Chances are citizen politicians running for office and citizens registering to vote with no party affiliation are trends that will continue and increase.

Will these trends finally force the hand of real economic solution policy coming out of Washington in the future? Hopefully they will sooner than later. Americans need real economic growth indicators and reality to get back on their feet, not manufactured facts or manipulated numbers for an election season.

Hopefully this will also lead to policies that benefit those living in the real world outside of the recession proof and job performance immune political class in Washington. And this American need is not a red or blue state thing or a Democrat or GOP thing.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter and Facebook.

Schley Challenges Charles Rangel in NY13 Primary with 21st Century Realities

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 25 May 2012 00:17:00 +0000

Craig Schley

Democrat Incumbent U.S. Representative Charles Rangel has been in Congress for thirty-eight years and has been a popular political figure in Harlem, even after being found guilty of 13 of 15 ethics charges in 2010 and being censured by the House. Do you believe it is possible for him to lose his primary election in 2012?

It is very difficult for a challenger to unseat an incumbent in American politics. The odds are stacked against a challenger. It is very daunting to raise campaign money to challenge an incumbent.

Challengers most usually cannot overcome the name recognition, unequal press coverage, numerous political connections, and entrenched campaign money donor advantages of an incumbent politician.

After each census, completed nationally every ten years, congressional districts can be lost or added with a state’s population changes. In a redistricting cycle some districts are also redrawn.

In a redistricting cycle, the odds of a loss for an incumbent in a primary election can increase due to the possibility of incumbents facing each other in a primary, and some incumbents may be new to constituents in their new district.

Another factor recently may be a more meaningful and active than usual anti-incumbent electorate mood. We saw this in 2010, and it seems to be continuing in 2012 to some degree. At only 10% approval, the most recent Gallop congressional approval rating poll, conducted February 2-5, 2012, reflected the lowest rating in Gallop history since they began polling congressional approval in 1974.

A March 8, 2012 New York Times article, titled Super PAC Increasing Congress’s Sense of Insecurity, detailed the anti-incumbent mood and the new anti-incumbent political action committee (PAC) Campaign for Primary Accountability’s (CPA) possible impact on incumbents.

The Campaign for Primary Accountability, a nonpartisan anti-incumbent PAC based out of Houston is looking to help incumbent challengers in both Democrat and Republican primary races. They note on their website, “Between 2002-2008, more incumbents died in office than lost Primary elections.” They ask that people join them, “because nothing will change until we change.”

With their Equalizer Campaign, CPA summarizes, “Our goal is to bring true competition to our electoral process, to give voters real information about their choices, and to restore fair, not fixed, elections.

So far in 2012, key swing states have already seen some incumbent’s fall in their congressional primary bids – Republican Schmidt and Democrat Kucinich in Ohio and Democrat Holden in Pennsylvania to name a few. Even powerful Republican Senator Lugar lost his primary election in Indiana.

One challenger to New York’s Representative Rangel is a young, yet experienced community leader named Craig Schley. He hopes the new blood momentum will continue in New York’s District 13, formerly District 15 before the redistricting cycle.

While Schley has on occasion felt a sense of being told to “get to the back of the line and wait your turn.” by current black civil rights leaders, he is moving forward in the uphill battle to defeat Rangel. He notes, “While it is compelling to write about this, I think there are other issues more relevant to this race.”

He continues, “After forty years of Rangel, black male unemployment exceeds 50%, and older residents who lived here all their lives are no longer able to afford living in their homes. These are the new realities that Rangel is not addressing or to which he is just oblivious.”

Schley sued the city to protect local business owners and residents. He has fought the system from the outside. “I realize the failure of leadership from those presently in office - Rangel and Espaillat. I am running to fill this void.”

He is intelligent and passionate about fixing problems, especially root problems like education and unemployment. His own life story is a great example and given him an understanding of workable solutions.

He was a firefighter in Atlanta before moving to New York in 1990. He learned a trade and became an electrician. With these skills, he paid for his own tuition to New York University.

Schley explains, “I want to see an emphasis placed on teaching the trades to lower skilled workers who don’t have access or the desire to go to college so they can still achieve the American dream. This alone would help the employment situation. This is the ‘new’ thinking Rangel is incapable of, but which will profoundly impact the district.”

Schley offers, “Rangel was a true civil rights leader, but now that we have a black president, the realities have changed. Yet, Rangel is still operating under an outdated set of realities. The community is suffering as a result. To us, this is a far more relevant story. It is also one that matters in every other urban center, but to us, District 13 is our focus.”

In what some might call ironic, Schley served as an intern in 2003 for Rangel.

New York District 13 Democrat primary candidate Craig Schley shares his community insights and 21^st Century realities.

BKH: Has there been any major changes in the demographics of NY13, formerly NY15, with the political redistricting?
CS: The district has undergone fundamental demographic changes. The Hispanic-American community was able to grow larger in size, while the White-American community is decreasing in numbers. I was able to unify a large number of Hispanic endorsements within the district, and I am grateful for their support and their faith in me to bring progress to NY13.

BKH: What are the main differences in the challenges of the 20th Century, the times of the 1960's civil rights movement, to the challenges of today in the 21st Century?
CS: The challenges have developed from claiming basic rights in the 60s to benefiting from having those rights today. For example, while it’s nice to not be discriminated against at work, unemployment is higher today than in the 60s.

In order to guarantee this necessary progress for our district, we require new leadership. The incumbent is not able to face the new challenges and serving the urgent needs of the community.

As Dr. Manning Marable, professor for African-American history at Columbia University so rightfully states, today’s issues are much different. They are mass unemployment, mass incarceration, and mass disenfranchisement. Charles Rangel has not been addressing these issues.

BKH: What is the balance to respect the message of the civil rights leaders of the 1960's and yet move forward to acknowledge the times and challenges have changed in 2012?
CS: I obviously respect the 1960’s civil rights leaders since they paved the way for me being able to run for Congress today. I also acknowledge Charles Rangel’s achievements during these important times for the African-American community.

The only problem is that the issues have changed, but the leadership’s thinking has not. We are in dire need to adjust legislation in order to address the urgent problems that are facing the district - the creation of jobs, the stabilization of businesses in the district, targeted-income housing in order to stop displacement, and the education of our future generations.

BKH: Do you live and work in the NY13 district?
CS: I do. I have been involved in the district since 1990, the year I moved here and founded the human rights organization “Vote People For Change” (VPFC) designed to help the residents of this community. As Executive Director of VPFC, I fought against the re-zoning proposal of 125th Street, arguing that the city “had not sought the input of the actual community” when it put together its proposal.

I also made the argument that the current proposal does not adequately protect or serve the interest of the local community or the historic character of the commercial district.

With my VOTE People research team, I found a century-old clause in the City Charter that could slow the rezoning process. The clause says that if the owners of at least 20% of the land either adjacent to or across from the area being rezoned disapprove of the development, 75% - not a simple majority of the Council must approve the rezoning for the process to continue.

My legal involvement saved about 70 businesses on 125th street in the end.

BKH: From your day-to-day interaction with the NY13 community, what do the residents tell you they care about most?
CS: Residents of the 13th district, and I am talking about African-Americans, Latinos and Whites, are concerned with jobs and housing they can afford. These are issues that are essential to my platform.

BKH: What do the NY13 community business owners care about most?
CS: Today I know many former shopkeepers around 125th Street who are now street vendors. Unfortunately the cost of doing business became so onerous that they could no longer hold on to their storefronts.

Big banks have taken over these spaces to the detriment of the local community that lost a hair dresser, an ethnic restaurant or a grocer. We must protect and encourage local business, often the biggest job creators, through better zoning ordinances.

I have already sued the city on behalf of hundreds of local businesses and impacted legislation. But, as long as Rangel accepts over one million dollars from the real estate industry, local businesses will be at a disadvantage.

BKH: Are Harlem business owners more conservative than workers on the "tax the rich" solution to raising government revenue?
CS: I am not a friend of ideologies, but practical solutions. New York City is a very diverse city, home to more billionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world.

And sometimes I believe that the privileged in this country have forgotten that wealth comes with an obligation. An obligation to make this society a better one, by creating access to education, creating jobs and giving business opportunities, which ultimately serves their interests as well.

So to me this is a practical issue calling for sensible solutions. If we invest our tax dollars wisely, we all benefit. One example of a wise investment is to train lower-skilled workers in the trades, following the philosophy that if you teach someone to fish, they will become self sufficient.

BKH: Why are blacks not more involved in the Occupy Movement?
CS: If you work multiple jobs a day, without making a significant income; or you have no job at all, because education is unaffordable; if you can’t place your children in good schools, because they are too expensive, therefore inaccessible; and you have to worry about where you are going to live within the near future, because rents are sky-high - you simply have other problems.

Unfortunately, the present leadership has ignored this community’s problem, so they cannot even begin to relate to the Occupy Movement’s concerns about being saddled with too much college debt or the like.

BKH: Does the media portray what is happening on-the-ground in the black community accurately?
CS: Some journalists do a great job, some don’t. The African-American community in the 13th district has significant problems that were able to develop and manifest themselves over the past 40 years. Dr. Manning Marable is someone who has accurately reported on the black community. In addition to the African-American community, my district includes many other races and ethnicities that need help too.

BKH: What are the top three challenges in the 21st Century Harlem?
CS: First, we need jobs. Second, we have to make sure that workers have the right skill-sets applicable to the new challenges the 21st Century. Third, we need housing that is affordable for Harlem’s population.

BKH: What are the types of meaningful solutions you propose for these challenges?
CS: I want to make sure that it is more affordable for businesses to get established in the 13th district, hence I sued the city. Now I want to put legislation in place that allows businesses to flourish.

I believe that I am a great example of what can be possible, given the opportunity. I learned a trade by becoming an electrician. This allowed me to pay my way through NYU. It is important that children have the opportunity to learn a trade, since not everyone can afford higher education or wants to go to college.

I also want to make sure that the funds the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is providing are being used appropriately. In the past, incumbent Charles Rangel has allowed HUD funds to assist his own needs at the expense of the very residents who live in our district today.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel was soliciting donations from corporations with business interests before his panel, hoping to raise $30 million for a new academic center that will house his papers when he retires.

The congressman had corralled more federal money as well, securing two HUD grants totaling $690,500 to help renovate the college-owned Harlem brownstone that will house the center.

I will ensure that HUD monies are used for what they should be, so residents can continue to live in their own neighborhoods.

BKH: What are the funding solutions for your proposals?
CS: Sadly there already is much funding out there that is just being poorly allocated as I noted. But also, something as simple as funding training in the trades will allow more people to seek better employment. This allows them to get off the public dole and contribute to our tax base.

Many of my proposals will pay for themselves in this way.

BKH: What do the people of NY13 care about most in their elected representative to Congress?
CS: People in my community and within the entire district want to be able to sustain themselves. They are looking for real leadership and representatives that provide realistic solutions to their problems.

BKH: Why do you think D.C. and Congress are so dysfunctional right now in general?
CS: In my opinion, the partisanship in Washington and Congress contributes to their dysfunction. I have been cross-endorsed by both, the Democratic and the Republican Party.

With a broad consensus like this I will be able to heal the partisan divide in NY13. Both parties understand that I am reaching out to all voters, which is obviously crucial to win this district over and turn it around.

BKH: What are your proposed solutions?
CS: They key lies in overcoming partisanship and truly serving our voters. I have already begun this process by working with both parties in my district.

BKH: What can new leadership in Congress bring to NY13 - you as a new Congressman for them in particular?
CS: I can provide solutions to problems the incumbent has been neglecting. We can create prosperity and well-being for all the people in the district.

As I mentioned, I’m a living example of how we can turn this district around. My story can translate easily to everyone living here.

The key to prosperity is education. I want to support and fix public education in the district as well as promote charter schools. Education programs have to be in place to promote different trades as well. This will help reign in unemployment.

BKH: Why do so many politicians get elected to Congress and then end up serving themselves more than their constituents?
CS: It is exactly the frustration over these types of politicians that made me run for Congress. I sued the city in order to being able to help my fellow residents when I was not even running for office. I am standing for real public service rather than self-service!

BKH: What is the new approach needed to once again have those in Congress represent the values and desire of their constituents over party loyalty?
CS: We a need an approach of real public service, which includes settling of partisanship in Congress and Washington. And we need fresh ideas for the district that will promote prosperity and well-being for everyone.

BKH: What are the top three qualities you bring to representing NY13 in Congress that make you a better choice than Charles Rangel in the Democratic primary?
CS: I understand today’s problems better than our present leaders. I bring a commitment to this community that I demonstrated as an outsider when I sued the city before I even thought of running for office. I am a living example of what is possible and hope to inspire the next generation.

BKH: You embody what is possible in America even for those that started with few, if any, advantages in life. What advice do you give the children of Harlem in pursuing their dreams?
CS: Keep a positive attitude, embrace your chances when you see them, work hard to achieve the goals you set for yourself, and follow role-models you can trust and be critical, yet open minded.

BKH: You can contact and support Craig Schley by going to his congressional candidate website.

Many frustrated voters call for term limits on Congress. Voting incumbents out in primary elections is the people’s voice in enacting term limits for now.

“Politics as usual” in Washington will start to really change when partisanship, to the point of endless gridlock with each party pointing blame at the other and talking to media cameras with hyper-partisanship rhetoric, is no longer acceptable to voters.

Incumbent Washington politicians will take notice for sure when voters reward those that run for office speak and act in ways that promote progress in solution formulation instead of negative campaigning and self serving governing.

When a member of Congress is sent to Washington to speak for those that elected them, and they become out-of-touch with their constituents and community, or even the realities of the current century we are in, it is the responsibility of the community to replace them.

When a politician begins to only serve themselves, they should no longer be elected to a position to serve their community by the community. When power corrupts, as it unfortunately so often does, voting out an incumbent must be the only acceptable action by voters.

Voters must also change their behavior as a part of any real change in “politics as usual.” It is the only way for a community, and voters, to take back control in ensuring meaningful representation in Washington. Anger and words are not enough. Actions speak louder than words. Voting action keeps all incumbents in check on who works for whom.

Follow Brenda Krueger Huffman on Twitter and Facebook.