Did the demeanor of the two Presidential candidates in last night’s third and final debate provide a signal as to how the individual candidates and their campaign brain trusts view the current status of the race?  To this observer, the answer is a resounding “yes!”

 

In most debates, the candidate trying to gain ground with the electorate is the aggressor.  In the first debate this year, that individual was Mitt Romney whose campaign, at the time, was languishing as reflected by weak poll numbers and diminished fundraising success.  Romney’s decisive victory over a seemingly detached, disinterested Obama in that first debate fueled a turnaround that dramatically altered the electoral landscape in a way unaffected by the President’s better performance in the second debate.

 

Last night, in the third and final debate of this Presidential campaign, Barack Obama came out swinging.  With “foreign policy” as its subject matter, the debate provided the President the opportunity to display the detailed insider knowledge that only a resident of the Oval Office can accumulate.  Romney, as has been the case with every challenger to an incumbent President, clearly did not and could not have the same level of subject matter expertise as someone who has been intimately involved for the past four years.

 

Yet, Romney faired reasonably well.  He agreed with the President often, with contrasts expressed in terms of degree or timing of a particular action or initiative.  The President, on the other hand, was not content to simply state his Administration’s achievements or explanations of purported failures.  Uncharacteristic of most participants that I have witnessed in Presidential debates past, Obama used each answer as an opportunity to attack either Romney’s stated position or Romney himself for purportedly changing his position on an issue.

 

And, it was this behavior on the part of the candidates that I found telling about last night’s debate.  It appeared to me that the Romney team had made the conscious decision that their candidate should avoid confrontation as much as possible and provide safe answers that would not be a source of significant concern to the general electorate.  The Obama team, however, seems to have decided that this was the moment for the President to “come out swinging” and “knock out” his opponent.

 

Pardon the sports analogy, but I’ll continue in the same vein.  In short, the President appeared to have tossed up a “Hail Mary” in a desperate attempt to retain his job while his challenger appeared to be “running out the clock.”

 

It is often said that “actions speak louder than words.”  The actions of the candidates in last night’s debate indicate to this observer that the internal polling done by the campaigns of the respective candidates shows that Mitt Romney has a more significant lead with two weeks until Election Day than the retrospective polls broadcast to the general public would suggest.  In fact, my suspicion is that trend analysis indicates that Romney might be pulling away and that this election might be a Romney landslide, similar to the Reagan landslide in 1980.

 

Did Obama score enough points to convince voters that they should stay the course with him despite global turmoil and a dismal economic record?  Did Romney appear “Presidential,” a commander who can keep America safe from foreign and domestic threats?  We’ll have our answer on Election Day; or perhaps, a day, week, or month later.  Yet, at this point in time, I’d caution those with heart conditions not to be shocked should Romney win handily.

 

 

Many events that shaped our country were recorded; perhaps just as many were not.  To protect our citizenry, our military, and the masterminds involved, certain military missions and materials were labeled Classified, Secret, and Top Secret.  These were privy only to members of government sworn to secrecy.

Within our Department of Defense, clandestine matters were relegated to the broad category of “Intelligence.”  Under Intelligence, the OSS and the CIA were formed.  Prior to their formation, the U.S. Army and Navy had separate decoding departments for purposes of national security and defense. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) in the midst of World War II: June 13, 1942.  He fashioned it after British Intelligence. 

The OSS was charged with the collection and analysis of strategic information.  This information facilitated strategic decision making on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  During 1943 through 1945, the OSS also recruited and trained troops in China and Burma to fight the Japanese Army.

In January 1946, President Harry S. Truman established the CIU (Central Intelligence Unit), which later came to be known as the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).  So much for history of the CIA, whose directors and agents were was skilled at keeping secrets.  As I just said, that was history.  Now, it’s a new dawn, a new day, and the concept of Top Secret has devolved.  Case in point:

Recently, the world learned of the demise of Osama bin Laden.  Based upon information concerning his whereabouts, our Intelligence developed a covert mission: via the U.S. Navy Seals, we found and destroyed the engineer of 9/11.

Although the Secretary of Defense wanted the mission considered Classified at the very least, the White House either indulged or cultivated the media’s frenzy to break the news before President Obama had announced it.  In light of Obama’s subsequent escalating ratings in polls, one wonders if this was done to elevate the President’s sinking popularity.

Needless to say, the bin Laden coverage has been an unending soap opera depicting everything that went down, including the burial at sea.  It was originally announced that the bastard “swam with the fishes” in an undisclosed location because a) no nation would receive his remains and b) we wished to discourage reprisals from Muslim terrorists.  Explain, then, how the media has now come to reveal the body of water in question as the Arabian Sea, as well as the name of the ship charged with the burial!

I guess the next step will be paparazzi divers taking photos of the deceased in Davy Jones locker, or maybe an underwater tour.  You’ve heard of The Hunt for Red October?  Well, get ready to book passage on The Search for Osama bin Laden!

Our media hounds also informed the world that during the siege of bin Laden’s compound, Navy Seals risked their lives in an attempt to locate the weasel’s diary and other vital information.  Who needs spies and lip service to “transparency” when we have the media?

In addition to the media fest, we are now being criticized by the United Nations for improper conduct (!) and condemned by Muslim extremists for bringing the 9/11 butcher to justice.  Maybe Secretary Gates was right.  But, in the words of a well-known rapper, “It’s too late to debate.”

Our friends the Chinese are now examining the wreckage of the destroyed Blackhawk helicopter for knowledge of Top Secret stealth equipment.  I don’t know why they’re wasting their time on this investigation.  All they had to do was tune into the media, which gives away military secrets for the sake of boosted ratings.

During World War II, any plans or movement on the part of Allied troops were considered vital information to our enemies.  To guard against this information falling into enemy hands, posters were placed strategically to warn of the threat of spies in the area.  Some of the slogans were, “Loose Lips Sink Ships” and “The Enemy is Listening.”  By contrast, our military men and women are now exposed to unnecessary risks while the media expounds, “We support our troops.”  Sure it does!

During WW II, the British Intelligence managed to keep confidential a plan that helped POWs escape German prison camps.  Before finally making the plan public in 2007, England had maintained this secret for more than 62 years.  But us?  “We can’t keep two beans in our mouths,” as my grandmother used to say.

In bringing bin Laden to justice, we rid the world of a terrible evil.  Martha Stewart might remark, “It’s a good thing.”  How, then, do we classify the resultant media exposés?  I guess that will have to remain a secret.

After more than a year of hot debate, National Healthcare became the law of the land with the stroke of the Presidential pen.  With it, however, America has become a more deeply divided nation.

With the historic inauguration of President Barack H. Obama, “change” came to America.  Gaining both the Presidency and overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, the Democrats became well positioned to institute the liberal/progressive agenda that their core constituency has long awaited, with national healthcare as its crowning jewel.

Despite public opinion polls demonstrating popular disapproval of the legislation, the national healthcare reform bill swept through the House of Representatives with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi leading the charge.  Amidst the cheers and accolades of the bill’s supporters, the President felt vindicated having achieved his bid to become the first President to legislate national healthcare reform.

Despite Republican attempts to derail the bill, its passage has created a rift in our government with trouble in River City.  Vowing to repeal should the balance of power shift as a result of the 2010 mid-term elections, the Republicans are currently employing various tactics to force the bill back to the House for a revote.

Increasing numbers of Americans, after witnessing the power struggle in Washington, are wondering if the path that the Democrats have chosen is the right path for America.  Many questions are unanswered and the lack of transparency in the language has not been addressed.  All we know is a number of people in the country who do not have healthcare will ultimately be required to secure coverage or face a penalty issued by the IRS (Income Removal Service).

The ultimate question, however, is how burdensome taxes will become to pay for this legislation.  With a struggling economy and high unemployment, on whom will the burden fall?  Sources indicate that the heaviest tax burden would fall upon the wealthy.  But, who defines the word wealthy and how is it defined?  

Another thing of which we are certain is that some people will be exempted from the mandate.  Included among this latter group are illegal aliens, prisoners, the present Administration, and the good ole boys in the social club we call the U.S. Congress.

However there is a bright side to this, as it is estimated that the IRS will have to employ a minimum of 10,000 new agents to do the job.  The primary requirement for employment will be that those selected will have to be ruthless, because some of them may be chasing their relatives.

This bill is highly complex with a good portion of the mandates not taking place until 2013.  Some aspects of the new law, however, will take effect immediately.  According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi “pre-existing conditions and being a woman” happen with the stroke of Obama’s pen.  And, now that the bill has passed, the Speaker announced, “now we will know what exactly what we voted for.”

To summarize the passage of this historic piece of legislation, the losers are the wealthy and the big winners are the illegal aliens and the prisoners who will get free healthcare, because they are not citizens or subject to the mandate to purchase coverage.

If you think we have problems with our borders now, wait till the rest of the world hears the good news. We may have to change the sign on the Statue of Liberty to:

“Give me your tired, your poor, and your sick (with or without pre-existing conditions),

Your huddled masses, yearning to get free healthcare…” 

The Copenhagen Summit was hailed as the greatest agreement upon which nations the world over could not agree.  President Obama led the charge, offering billions of dollars to resolve the man-made global warming crisis.  In light of our plummeting economy, one must wonder from which well these billions will spring.  In 2010, recipients of Social Security will not get a cost of living increase, a situation that may extend into 2011, 2012, and beyond.  Does that begin to give you a clue as to this mysterious well?

 

In addition to the President’s munificent offer, Americans continue to suffer for their generous hearts; we are asked to empower third world nations with our charity, A.K.A. our rapidly dwindling funds.   The charitable endeavors include digging water wells for Africans, installing porta-potties for Afghans, and presenting “little blue pills” to Bolivians.

 

There is an old saying, “Charity begins at home.”  With thousands of senior citizens saddled with medical, utility, cable, phone, and food bills, President Obama could issue an Executive order, allowing the elderly to enjoy their golden years.  Not drilling those wells, installing those porta-potties, facilitating the horizontal mambo of those in the continent below ours, or single-handedly saving the planet can accomplish this.

 

The answer to solving the problems of senior problems can be found in Gitmo.  It can be reopened.  Instead of hosting purported and admitted terrorists (“detainees”), the facility can be reopened to house the elderly.  Given all the privileges of the former occupants, the aged will have no bills, no worries, and all the comforts of home in a tropical paradise.  I can see myself now, sipping a Cuban Libra and watching the sun set on Guantanamo Bay, the soft sounds of Spanish guitars being strummed by field laborers after a hard day’s work.  My little town in New Jersey was never like this, with no cold winters and no bills, just balmy breezes and warm tropical days and nights. It’s great for aching bones and arthritis!

 

While the spirit of Christmas is still upon us, what better gift can be given the American seniors, who made this greatest nation on the earth, than the ability to enjoy the twilight of their years in peace and harmony?  “Peace on earth and good will towards men [and women]” — indeed!

Friday the 13th arrived, living up to its reputation.  Yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the man proudly calling himself the mastermind behind 9/11 will be tried not in a military trial, but in a civilian federal court in downtown Manhattan (New York City, for those of you not from the Big Apple).  Holder’s decision dovetails with President Obama’s plan to slam the doors on Gitmo, both literally and as an uncomfortable chapter in U.S. history that the President would rather have gone unwritten.

 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not the first Guantanamo Bay detainee to face trial in New York City rather than at the hands of the military; one of his cohorts, Ahmed Ghailani, claims that distinction.  However, the administration chose, at the time of Ghailani’s trial, not to seek the death penalty.  One wonders, then, what is to become of the man who alleges to have pitched his evil plan to Osama Bin Laden, negotiated funding from the rebel Afghani leader, trained the assassins, and then blessed the systematic extinction of more than 3,000 innocent American lives.

 

The ramifications of Holder’s decision are both widespread and complex, and if you are interested in those legalities, start surfing the web.  I am not an attorney or a politician.  I am but a New Yorker whose city has been irrevocably altered by a handful of madmen.

 

If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is to attain a fair trial, as is his right under Constitutional Law, will he receive one?  The prosecution will have to journey to a mountain in Tibet to locate a single New Yorker yet to hear of and/or unaffected by the horror and tragedy of 9/11; New Yorkers, of course, do not live in Tibet.  But even if juror objectivity can be established, how can those jurors possibly be Mohammed’s peers, when his peers, by his own admission, are terrorists?

 

In the days shortly following 9/11, when the Bush administration linked Bin Laden to the fallen Towers and the 3,000-plus cold-blooded murders, I had thoughts of what I’d like to see happen to the terrorists.  At first, I thought it might be fitting to roast Bin Laden and his cronies over the still-smoking embers of Ground Zero; I meant this literally.  I added to this fantasy by envisioning the loved ones of those killed taking a pound of flesh, again literally, from the bastards.  One pound at time, strategically incised, would not kill them outright and would surely not kill them immediately.  They would have died a slow, torturous death. I thought this a fitting end for the filthy lot of them.  With the full knowledge that such fantasies might call bad karma to befall me, I maintained them nonetheless, struggling with my morals as a Christian and with my civic duty as a native New Yorker.

 

A part of me would still like to see Mohammed and his cohorts let loose into the streets of my city.  If the faint-hearted are afraid to venture there, imagine how the terrorists might feel, facing a righteously enraged mob unrestricted in addressing those who plotted for five years (according to Mohammed) to annihilate their loved ones. And some part of me would dearly love to see these proceedings televised.

 

The other part of me says that the dirty bastard deserves a fair trial, for that is the only way to preserve what the terrorists sought so hard to destroy and what they still seek to obliterate.   Our justice system only works if it works for all, terrorists or not.  To deny the self-proclaimed architect of 9/11 a fair trial is to negate the tenets underpinning our Constitution.  And the toppling of the Constitution was their ultimate objective, not merely the felling of two mighty skyscrapers and their occupants.

 

Having said that, I hope the bastards do get the death penalty once they are tried as fairly as we can manage within our system.  And I hope that the executions are televised, to send a small message to every other anti-American murderer, including terrorists-in-the-making.

 

In the words of Jesus Christ, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.  And render unto God what is God’s.”   The execution of Mohammed and his followers for their crimes of terrorism would kill both of those birds with a single stone.

 

In an election with national repercussions, New Jerseyans will go to the polls tomorrow to elect a Governor.  Many view the New Jersey race, along with the Virginia gubernatorial election and a Congressional election in New York state, as a referendum on the year-old Obama presidency and Democrat control over Congress.

 

As a not-quite impartial observer, I, as I am sure many of the State’s residents, have been amused by the nature and tone of the campaigns.  If you watch and accept as true his commercials, incumbent Democrat Governor Jon Corzine has done a fabulous job over the past four years – reducing property taxes, protecting the environment, improving access to healthcare, bolstering education, fighting unemployment, and leading an affirmative response to the recent economic downturn that has saved the State from disaster.  Of course, if you believe the ads of his Republican challenger, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, Corzine’s term of office has been a total disaster and Christie has the answers and expertise to solve the State’s problems.  Then, there is independent challenger Chris Daggett.  A former Regional Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection under Republican Governor Kean, Daggett represents somewhat of a wildcard in the campaign.  His candidacy could potentially benefit Governor Corzine by siphoning votes from his challenger, Chris Christie, and has led some critics to assert that that is precisely his motive in the race.

 

As the campaign has unfolded, the mudslinging has intensified, including apparent attacks by the Corzine campaign on Christie’s weight (yes, Chris – if not yet married – could have been the bachelor on More to Love).  It seems that candidates will do or say anything to get elected; only to renege on campaign promises once elected.

 

In this vein, I have collected and below present some advertisements by the candidates.  Unfortunately, independent Chris Daggett’s campaign had fewer resources, making his advertisements harder to find.  Yet, I feel that the ads below are a fair sampling of what the candidates were saying about themselves and each other.  I will attempt to caption them according to their content.

 

The following ad is a Corzine commercial targeting one of his core constituencies – liberal women concerned about women’s health issues and the right to choose:

 

 

The next ad is an anti-Corzine message distributed by the Christie campaign, appealing to his more conservative Republican base:

 

 

The next ad is a Corzine attack ad:

 

 

Our next advertisement is a Christie attack ad amateurishly mimicking Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone:

 

 

The next ad impugns challenger Christie by implying that he is fat:

 

 

The following example is a form of testimonial in which former Governor Tom Kean praises and endorses Republican candidate Christie using the famous “perfect together” expression that Kean had use in various state promotional advertisements:

 

 

Finally, this last ad is independent Daggett’s. It uses footage from a gubernatorial debate to suggest that he (Daggett) is, in fact, the favorite of both of his rivals:

 

 

I hope that you have enjoyed these ads and that they have enhanced your confusion as to whom you will support in tomorrow’s election. Whomever you are supporting, be sure to vote!

As we enter the new millennium of the “audacity of hope,” one has to wonder if the current direction of government conforms to the promised future of this country.  It is the first time in the history of our country that government has taken over the financial system including mortgage lending, a major national enterprise in the form of an automobile company, and is in the process of taking over the health care system.  This truly is audacity in action.

 

Our President claims he is a Christian, but he insists he has a Muslim background and announces it to the world.  Biblical teachings say you cannot obey two masters, which leaves us wondering the master that President Obama obeys.

 

I guess we are receiving the answer to that question as we witness what he does and not what he says. Recently, the enemies of our country were released from internment at Guantanamo Bay Prison and sent to Bermuda at the taxpayers’ expense to live the life of Riley. Can anyone in this country explain to me how sworn enemies of our country get away without punishment for their actions?  How can we as Americans look in the eyes of families who have lost sons or daughters to men such as these?

 

The Founding Fathers created a constitutional government with three branches to insure that checks and balances can be achieved so one branch could not dictate to the other two.  It is the sworn duty of these branches to uphold that rule regardless of party affiliations.

 

History will record the actions that take place today and if we are a constitutional government or not.  Let’s hope our elected representatives adhere to the rules of a constitutional government and show their true colors.