Anyone who has listened to the conservative icon for any length of time knows that he prides himself on delivering a message that is positive, uplifting and optimistic.  And from the beginning he has evinced a confidence in the American people that he maintains the left does not have (they believe the American public is dumb and needs a liberal elite to make decisions for them and essentially run their lives). 

Not so anymore.   During one of last week’s shows, a caller reminded Rush of his stated confidence in Americans at large, which the Great One confirmed, but in a less than assuring tone - and then moved on.  Several times he mentioned that it doesn’t matter what Obama says, but how he says it.  All he has to do is sound like he knows what he’s doing and mesmerize the public with his platitudinous speech.   That way, it’s a foregone conclusion that he can sell any plans he, Pelosi and Reed come up with.  In fact, Rush maintains they will get 95% of everything they propose (with a little help from bowed and timid Republicans).      

“If you think a demagogic, flowery-spoken president with an accomplice media can’t convince people things are great when they’re really bad, you got another think coming.” – Rush Limbaugh

All this contributed to his decidedly unoptimistic exclamation that “We’re screwed!”  But not only in losing out to the Democrats, but in rescuing the nation as a whole.  Rush rightly knows that what the left proposes will not solve our economic problem, but instead will have the same effect as the Roosevelt era work relief and social welfare edicts – prolong the economic malaise for years.  And not only that: The unbridled spending will eventually bankrupt the nation and make our currency worthless.    And this time, we may not have a World War to rescue us.  

But that possibility is even more of a dire threat.  The probability that a nuclear or biological attack will be launched by terrorists within Obama’s tenure is real.   This time, it won’t be the economic savior for the United States.  Instead it will seal our fate.   How can a country run by avowed leftists, who tell us we are the problem, recover the American will when devastated by a double whammy of recession and unspeakable death?  

Rush knows this, and has stated several times that the bus is going over the cliff and he is not going with it.   Could there be an island resort somewhere for sale that has a football team and a golf course?  I hope that’s not the case. 

One last point: Rush’s latest stated tally of how right he has been is 98.8% of the time.   I believe him – and especially this time because I believe his past faith in the wisdom and discernment of the American people at large was founded in emotion and wistfulness.   And it will continue on its downward spiral as long as liberals dominate the media, academia and entertainment.  That’s why Rush recently mentioned an effort by a Breitbart group in Hollywood to help culturally reverse the trend.   We need this desperately.  

Rush is right – we’re screwed.  And not only that — Without Divine intervention (and I don’t mean Mike Devine), “We’re toast!”  

Ever since the 1992 election when America voted for Bill Clinton, this film has haunted me – not the Steven Spielberg/Tom Cruise travesty of a few years ago, but the 1953 George Pal classic. Based on the H. G. Wells novel of a Martian invasion, the movie casts Gene Barry as Pacific Tech scientist Dr. Clayton Forester who leads the effort to uncover the invader’s weakness. All military attempts, both conventional and nuclear, fail to stop the invaders so finding another solution is paramount.

As the Martians cut swathes of destruction across the globe, Gene Barry and his Pacific Tech scientists are forced to flee the encroaching Martians in a motorized caravan containing all their precious equipment. They are abruptly halted in center city by a mob of citizens who loot and commandeer their vehicles, destroying all chances humankind has. Gene Barry is later found wandering aimlessly amid the ruins by a Military Police jeep. The soldiers try and persuade him to leave the city, but he instead violently waves them off and shouts, “The fools! They’re cutting their own throats!”

This scene played over and over again in my mind after the 1992 election, again in the gut wrenching 1996 election, but not near as sickeningly as now. The metaphor is clear. By electing Obama the American people think they are ensuring their future, but in effect they are committing unknowing suicide

The way is open. America will be a faint shadow of herself. She will no longer be a strong force in the world, and individual freedoms will be severely eroded. Free enterprise, innovation and American exceptionalism will be fatally hamstrung.

To get an idea of what this will mean to the world, imagine if America had not existed in the 20th century – the world would most assuredly be in a new dark age. What will the world of the 21st century be like without America as we know it? There is no other country with the resolve, the power and the goodness to keep the world from plunging pell-mell into oblivion.

Now there are those, most probably the 52% that placed unfettered power in the hands of the Democrats, who will protest that this is drivel, exaggeration, fear-mongering and things will go on as they always have. The sun still shines and the birds still sing, and besides - the individual, not the government, has always determined success.

But the evidence is there if anyone really seeks to examine it. The War of the Worlds is really a war of worldviews. And the most liberal, socialistic, authoritarian worldview has what is tantamount to absolute power and no qualms in wielding it relentlessly - unlike the moral and weak Republicans. The Object: Prevent Republicans from ever again regaining a majority. Use their new found absolute power to craft laws and appoint judges and bureaucrats that will take years to undo – if that were possible given how deep seeded it will be. Continue their control of the propaganda structure – public schools, academia, print & electronic media, and Hollywood. As long as they dominate these, talk radio is fighting a losing battle. Finally, a new America that has no resemblance to that envisioned by its founders, with the words “freedom” and “liberty” curiously absent from Webster’s.

At the end of The War of the Worlds, Gene Barry locates his girlfriend Ann Robinson praying with hundreds of other people in a downtown Los Angeles church as the Martians close in. They are saved, as well as the whole world, by a miracle. The Martians are infected with ordinary everyday microbes that are harmless to humans, but devastating to their unprepared immune systems. America, this go-around, will need an equally powerful germ – and miracle.

What will Obama’s first international crisis be - one with life or death consequences. I’ve thought much about this, because it will come; there is no argument about that. The question is what and when? Here is my take on the most likely scenario:

Israel will hold elections early next year. Last month, a coalition could not be formed by the ruling centrist Kadima party, primarily because the Shas faction demanded a steep boost in welfare spending. In addition, peace negotiations with the Palestinians have essentially fallen through. Tzipi Livni, head of Kadima, called for elections.

Most opinion polls in Israel predict Benjamin Netanyahu of the right-wing Likud party to win. Netanyahu is not one to hesitate to take decisive action, and he is faced with a dilemma. Iran is going to develop a nuclear weapon; probably as many as a few dozen. They have sworn a blood oath to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth.

This begs a question that has been out there for some time: Will Bush launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities? He didn’t. The new question is, will Obama? This question has an obvious answer, and Netanyahu knows it, so he faces a dilemma - a very tough one.

Should Israel then launch a preemptive strike itself? This possibility has been tossed around as well. Several issues here Israel has to address - one being do they have the capability to hit all the nuclear facilities, especially since they have been dispersed and some placed deep underground. Has Bush helped them technologically in anticipation of Republicans losing the Presidency? Also, striking Iran will trigger a war with Iran; at least an undeclared one. If Israel is not outright attacked, terrorist and suicide bombers will most assuredly descend on them in apocalyptic hords.

Regardless, Israel has to decide if risking not completely taking out the Iranian nuclear capabilities, and starting a war with Iran (and maybe others) is worth it. The alternative? Wait for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and either truck them to key areas in Israel or launch them on their Korean missiles. Just one well-placed nuclear detonation in Israel, and the country will cease to exist. Defense would be useless and Israel would be overrun from all sides.

What do you think Netanyahu will do? What do you think Obama will do? What to do, what to do!

I make my living as a certified Six Sigma Black Belt, so statistics are an integral part of my life. Knowing what I know, I am dumbfounded that Poll results are as reliable as they appear to be – at least up to this point.

They are more accurate the closer they are taken to an election, which is logical, but this could also reflect an abandonment of political bias by pollsters at the last moment! In any event, by most ways of thinking, polls should have gone by the wayside by now (as obsolete as 8-tracks) at least in their current telephone format. Here are some of the things that make polls problematic:

• Non-sampling Errors: These are errors that are not associated with the methods used to obtain a representative sample of the population. Some of the more common and egregious errors:

1) Using voting age adults or registered voters rather than likely voters (LV). Using anything other than likely voters is highly unreliable. Another question is how do you know they are likely? Using past voting historical data is one thing, but depending on the respondent to tell you is asking to be lied to!

2) *Introducing bias due to low response rate. * This refers to selected survey participants who are not available or refuse to answer. Having a high percentage of these in your sample can potentially skew the results. It is much more common of late (because of the perceived bias in the media) for many respondents to refuse to participate or even to outright lie. Also, a larger and larger percentage of the population is using answering machines to screen calls and cell phones (which are largely exempt from solicitation) over landlines.

Such instances will be magnified if there is a direct correlation with a voting segment. For example, say most Republicans refuse to cooperate in a survey–the results would be compromised. Therefore it is important to know the non-response rate for a poll and what was done about it. Be wary when it is not reported in survey results. Typically, it is not given in national polling media stories. If the non-response rate is more than 15%, here is what should be done:
• A non-response bias analysis is performed according to the National Center for Education Statistics, Standard 4-4.
• This usually involves a follow-up survey to a random sample of the non-respondents using incentives to respond.
• The response rate to this follow-up survey must be 70%. I would be very surprised if any national polling organization followed this methodology given their short turnaround time.

Read More →