Saturday, November 17, 2012

The "Best Intelligence Available" Bald-Faced Lie

Clearly, Obama's administration lied to the American people and to the international community at the UN about the Bengazi attack. What they told us for weeks was NOT "the best intelligence available" as they kept claiming. Indeed, the true "best intelligence" left the CIA's hands but someone in the Obama administration chose(!) to reword it into something totally different and then lie about their fabrication being what the CIA told them.

Questions remain about who chose to do that, when and who else was involved in the deception as well as who knew it was a deception. We need to know WHY they consciously deceived us too.

I have other questions that I've heard no one asking. For example, if President Obama didn't know about the deception initially (as his representatives seem to be implying) someone must have gotten the truth to him very quickly considering what was as stake. So, why wasn't the president the FIRST to find out who did what, when and why ... and then tell us?

How is ANY of this consistent with Obama's promise of openness? Either he had no intention of running a transparent administration or he decided not to do what he promised. Liar or promise-breaker. Take your choice. Are either okay?

Friday, November 16, 2012

Per Capita State Deficits Map: Democrat-Led States Are Worst Off! Surprise!

A US map showing which states have the highest per capita state budget deficits looks strikingly similar to the election map. The states with the highest per capita state budget deficits are on the West and East coasts and in the upper mid-West. Could it have anything to do with the fact that those are all democrat-led states? Naw. Couldn't be! Gotta be a coincidence! ;-)

Click HERE for a link to such a map.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Founders INTENDED Tension Between Political Parties But Those In Power Have Become Cowards

This form of government based on "Balance of Powers" and "Separation of Powers" was intended by The Founders to produce results that represented the combined(!) interest of BOTH conservative and liberal political thinking. Conservatism and liberalism EACH have something of value to continue making this a more perfect union. The Founders intended for legislation and legislative action to produce a combination of what each has to offer that's overall best for the country.

Too much government and too little government are BOTH bad outcomes. The challenge is to meet somewhere in the middle, compromising as necessary in as balanced a way as possible. Our representatives are as obliged to compromise as to represent the interests of their political 'side'. In fact, because of the way the constitution is set up they are required to do so.

In the title above I said they've become cowards. Indeed! Here's proof of that:
  • Since the creation of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our education system and others our representatives have not had the courage to manage ANY of it properly. Those are ALL good programs but ruining our country economically in their pursuit is irresponsible. It requires courage(!) to manage them properly. Telling constituents the truth that the government cannot do all they want takes courage. Doing what's right for the country's future in spite of pressure for more free stuff takes courage. Allowing those programs to BOTH fail AND bankrupt our country is irresponsible and cowardly. Compromising with the opposite party in the COUNTRY'S best interest takes courage.
  • Facing failure of all those programs our representatives made only trivial modifications that did nothing for the past 50 years other than push out their day of reckoning. Same with immigration reform. Time after time after time they FAILED to actually FIX ANY of them.
  • Facing an imminent fiscal Armageddon with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid ... OF THEIR COLLECTIVE CREATION ... our so-called representatives took the coward's way out. Instead of fixing it they created a 'doomsday device' that was supposed to be so horrific that it would force them to work together before it exploded. Their legislation that kicks in automatic, severe cuts on January 1, 2013 was supposed to MAKE them work together. What? They couldn't CHOOSE to work together? They had to have some artificial creation to force them to do what they chose not to do in a responsible way? Anyone, ANYONE with half a brain knew two things about that 'doomsday device'. First, it was cowardly not to take the bull by the horns and fix the programs. Second, everyone except the cowards who voted for this thing KNEW it would NOT make them work together and we all KNEW we'd still have the same problem come January 1, 2013. What SHOULD happen in such a situation is for the country's leader to ACT LIKE a leader ... step in and force them to work together rather than sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at only one set of cowards.
President Obama has FAILED to lead on this. When he did 'lead' early in his first term he did so by picking sides. Remember, he said to Republicans in the meeting he called "we (Democrats) won" the election so we get to say what will be done. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about leadership and conflict resolution knows that's a formula for failure. Leaders should never, ever go into a divisive situation announcing(!) a winner before the negotiations even begin. What's obvious to anyone with half a brain is that this president is NOT interested in resolving the conflict; rather he's totally invested in stoking it. Yes, by his actions and words he is clearly more invested in making/keeping the country divided. What he did and said is NOT leadership; it's dictatorship pure and simple and it's nothing more nor less than intentional division of our country politically.

Passing ObamaCare without a single Republican vote in either House or Senate was an abdication by Democrats of their responsibility to ensure the interests of ALL Americans are represented in legislation. Yes they had a majority and had the ability to ram it through totally their way. THEY are the ones who CHOSE to pass one of the most important bills in our history without Republican representation. What The Founders intended was for majorities in the House and Senate to have the responsibility to ensure the opposite party is involved in all legislation. Just because they could(!) do it without Republican help doesn't mean it's consistent with constitutional principles. Wise and responsible leaders use their power to unite and ensure all participate, not use their power to unilaterally take what they want. What The Founders intended majority parties do was act benevolently and in support of the opposite party to PROACTIVELY ENSURE their participation, NOT PROACTIVELY PROHIBIT participation. Responsible leadership was intended by The Founders. After all that kind of behavior of our leaders is the essence of a Republic ... which we are. Or should I say that past tense ... which we were?

Saturday, November 10, 2012

History Proves Decreasing The Tax Rate On The Rich Increases Revenue Or Don't You Care About Factual Historical Data?

According to government records, immediately after G.W. Bush reduced everyone's tax rate by about 10%  (on May 28, 2003) federal revenue began increasing. It INCREASED STEADILY for the next 4 years (until the Sub-Prime Mortgage collapse sent it back down) to a RECORD $2.5 Trillion, 20% higher than the revered Clinton's best year. Go to federal government records to see for yourself if you don't believe me: Federal Revenue Record


See if you who survived the American education system can follow my logic now. About 90% of federal tax revenue comes from those making more than $250,000. Therefore that record revenue came mostly from taxes paid by those Obama says are those evil rich people. Let's see now. When we decreased the tax rate on the rich by 10% federal revenue sets a new record.

What kind of knucklehead denies actual data and history to claim not only the opposite happened (factual lie!) but that increasing tax rates on the rich back to what it was before Bush's tax rate cuts will have the same effect as decreasing it in the first place?

Let's see. We have actual historical data that says reducing the tax rate of the rich resulted in record tax revenue. And President Obama wants to increase their tax rate back to what it was and wants us to believe that will also produce more revenue? Those can't both be true. Clue: we have actual historical data that proves the former to be true. All we have to support President Obama's claim is his word for it. Which is more believable? What actually happened according to actual government records or what President Obama claims will happen based only on his word?

We deserve what will happen from increasing the rich's tax rates if we're ignorant enough to disbelieve actual historical records that prove President Obama is lying.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Obama Has Inherited A Mess ... From ?

By virtually any historical standard, what faces President Obama in his next term in office is a mess.

The BIG question for which I'd like to hear his answer: from whom will he say he inherited this one?

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

A Message For President Obama

I just sent the following message to President Obama on the White House website to challenge whether he's serious about unity this time or whether what he said in his acceptance speech is all hot air just like it was four years ago. And I requested a response. If the response is anything but patronizing I'll be surprised. If he regrets dividing our country instead of setting an example how to unite people with differing views we need to hear him say it publicly and we need to see it for a change(!) by his behavior with Republicans in congress. After all he IS the president of ALL The People whether that's consistent with his instincts or not.


Dear Mr. President,

By castigating me as unpatriotic by not supporting your economic plan and a traitor for the same reason, telling me to be quiet when I joined Tea Party protests and especially for saying I'm someone against whom you called for revenge you have shown me extraordinary disrespect.

By choosing to be the president of only those who support you you have shown me extraordinary disrespect.

By choosing to ignore the Representatives and Senators who represent my interests in congress you have shown me extraordinary disrespect.

All the while doing most of that you still received my respect. But by calling for revenge against we who have different political views that's entirely gone.

By all that and more, for the first time in my 70 years you have earned my disrespect.

To the extent you are interested in trying to have my respect back I suggest you start by giving a heart-felt(!) apology to me and most Republicans for the gross disrespect you've shown us and by working in an honest fashion for a change to engage Republican congressmen in honest debate about the domestic and international issues we face.

I still wish you well but do so in the hope that you recognize and cease the partisan divisiveness that you've practiced for 4 long years and instead show all(!) Americans the respect they deserve, not just those who do what you want.

Best Regards,

Dennis Olds

Monday, November 5, 2012

Obama's Bogus Claims Of Accomplishment: Does Truth Matter Any More?

Does truth matter? Americans' votes tomorrow will answer that question.

The Media has been completely dishonest in their coverage of President Obama's accomplishments. I've blogged about the truth over the past three years and decided to compile a summary of my findings in one list as follows.



“I ended the war in Iraq!”
Actually it was ended according to an agreement with the Iraqi government that Bush negotiated. The best President Obama can claim is not getting in the way of what Bush planned and promised (ie, by the end of 2011). This was Bush’s accomplishment, not Obama’s. In fact, he was able to do that because of the troop surge that Obama vehemently opposed as senator. If it weren’t for that surge, Obama would have had a real mess on his hands there when he took office.

“I removed our troops from combat in Iraq!”
Actually, while campaigning for president, then senator Obama promised to bring our troops home six months earlier than Bush’s plan. Only after he was sworn in did he move it out to 2011, the date that Bush had promised to withdraw them himself. The best President Obama can honestly(!) claim is not getting in the way of what Bush planned and promised. This was Bush’s accomplishment, not Obama’s.

“I’m bringing troops home from Afghanistan!” (as if he’s doing something that Bush wouldn’t have or that Romney wouldn’t have)
Yes he is. However, did you know that he’s doing it according to the same plans as Bush? All Obama rightly can claim credit for relative to Bush is having the same plan and doing it basically the same as Bush would have. Don’t believe me? Check this out: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/03/afghanistan-the-obama-bush-exit-strategy/

“I have deported more undocumented immigrants than any other president!” True but the policy that got it done is Bush’s. Bush doubled the number of border patrol agents. Obama therefore inherited from Bush double the ability to deport more people. It would have been gross incompetence by President Obama if he had not deported far more undocumented immigrants. Again the best he can truthfully take credit for is not getting in the way of Bush’s plans/actions for increasing deportations.

“I got health care reform done!”
Actually he didn’t get it done as he promised. Remember that the title of the legislation is “The Affordable Care Act”. In fact, it is significantly increasing the cost of medical care. In addition, many of the other key things he promised won’t happen. For ex, “you can keep your health care and doctor if you want”. Not true by a long shot. “Everyone will have affordable health care.” So not true. There are still millions without coverage because they cannot afford it or if they’re on Medicare doctors anywhere near them will no longer accept Medicare patients. Many businesses are no longer providing health care coverage for employees because it’s now too expensive for them to do so. In fact, many businesses are turning full-time positions into part-time positions so they can avoid having to pay for health care coverage.

“We’ve increased oil production!”
Oil production has only increased on privately owned lands that the federal government had nothing to do with. In fact, Republican governments in most of those states can honestly take way more credit for making it possible and making it happen. The best President Obama can honestly claim is not getting in the way of what states want to do with private land.

“My policies decreased private sector unemployment!”
So not true. Unemployment has decreased but almost all of it has happened in Republican-led states where Republican governors have instituted business and tax reforms that encourage business growth and hiring. Republican Governments’ policies, not Obama’s, created most of the new jobs. The increase in employment is almost all due to what Republicans have done in the states that are leading the recovery. Texas, for example, has had the greatest employment increase and it is totally due to the Republican governor there lowering taxes and regulations on businesses. Obama has no factual basis on which to claim his policies did this. His policies mostly helped the public sector, not the private sector where the health of an economy is determined. The best President Obama can honestly claim credit for is not getting in the way of Republican state governments’ economic reforms.

“Better international relations!”
Hogwash! Israel’s leadership is nothing but upset with his policies in the region and with them directly. His so-called reset with Russia has resulted in what? They oppose us more than ever on everything. Iran’s leadership despises him at least as much as any previous president and won’t do anything he wants them to do. The war on terrorism is not over as he claimed; it has gotten much, much worse and he won’t be honest with us about that.

“I’ve tried to work with Republicans” & from his 2008 victory speech: “In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let’s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” Then this happened on major political issues:
President Obama’s divisiveness in action and speech exceeds all presidents in my memory. As a matter of historical fact (see the above link), he wasted very little time reneging on his claim to lead bipartisanship. Now he’s pitching bipartisanship again! Why would a rational person believe he has any intention of practicing it on nationally important matters when his record and, apparently his instincts, are to do the opposite?

“Bush’s tax policies caused us to stop producing the budget surpluses that Clinton achieved!”
Factual nonsense. It’s a documented fact that the federal budget stopped making a surplus beginning the end of March 2000, a full ten months before Bush was sworn in, due to the collapse of the high tech sector. By the time Bush took office, deficits were guaranteed no matter what Bush did.

“Bush’s tax cuts hurt federal revenue!” so “We need to increase the tax rate on the rich to reduce our deficits!”
Factual nonsense. About 3 or 4 months after 80% of Bush’s tax cuts were enacted at the end of May 2003, federal revenue turned around and after 3 ½ years had set a new federal revenue record at $2.5Trillion, a full 25% higher than even Clinton achieved. It was congress’ spending that caused the increasing debt during Bush’s terms in office.

“Bush’s tax cuts hurt employment!” so “We need to increase the tax rate on the rich to get our economy going again!”
Factual nonsense. Only one month after 80% of Bush’s tax cuts were enacted at the end of May 2003, the unemployment rate turned around and after 3 ½ years we were back to full employment. The unemployment rate lowered to 4.4%, just a few tenths above Clinton’s best year.

“I created more jobs in one year than Bush created in eight!”
Since both Bush and Obama inherited recessions the day they took office, Obama’s statement compares apples to oranges. Comparing it for one man from the start of the recession he inherited to the other man’s best year regarding employment numbers is illogical, dishonest and unfair. There are two ways to make a fair and honest comparison. Guess what? Obama loses on both in a very big way.
1.      Compare term in office to term in office.
Net # jobs created while Bush in office: 1 Million
Net # jobs created while Obama in office: 61,000
2.      Compare the same periods after each man’s economic recovery actions are fully in place.
# jobs created in 3 ½ years following Bush’s economic stimulus (May 28, 2003): 8 Million
# jobs created in 3 ½ years following Obama’s economic stimulus: 4.4 Million

NOTE:  1. Bush’s tax cuts for everyone worked far better than Obama’s $800 Billion giveaway. The only logical conclusion (assuming common sense matters): tax cuts DO work and government money giveaways are far less effective. One has to ignore factual historical records (ie, truth) to conclude otherwise.
            2. Reference for both comparisons is Bureau of Labor Statistics.
            3. Additional reference where a variety of similar info is compiled from the BLS:

Hope and Change Becomes Hate and Divide






VP Biden has exhibited much anger during the current presidential campaign. Pictures like the one above are commonplace. He looks that way when he's describing Republicans in general, conservatives in particular. And this expression has been standard when talking about the Republican candidates opposing him and President Obama.

Then there's President Obama who has set a new low in demonizing the entire Republican party and their representatives. In the past two weeks he has called Romney's economic plans and, therefore, anyone who supports them unpatriotic. The Democratic SuperPac said something similar saying supporting Romney's plans makes him an economic traitor. Obama owns that traitor comment just as if he'd said it since he hasn't refuted/disavowed that comment from one of Obama's primary campaign contributors. Besides it's consistent with his patriotism comment.


The latest? Friday President Obama encouraged an audience of supporters in Ohio to "get revenge"on Romney by voting for Obama. What did Romney do to Ohioans to deserve a call to revenge by the President of the United States?

These terms don't just apply to Romney because they're all directed at Romney's policies. By supporting those policies one therefore one becomes likewise defined as unpatriotic and a traitor on whom revenge must be taken.

This is hateful and very divisive(!) talk coming from the two most powerful people in our country. It's unbecoming and flat unconscionable for them to talk that way to half of the country's citizens. Y'know, half of the people for whom he works! The President of the United States is the president of ALL Americans, not just those who support his policies. He has a constitutional duty/responsibility to treat ALL Americans with respect while disagreeing with half of us on policy.

Telling half the country to take revenge on the other half is outrageous talk by a president. Those are not the words of a uniter, rather a divider. That's so contrary to his constitutional obligations.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Manipulating, Flip-Flopping, Deceiving, & Lying. Do You Care That Describes Your President?

Three problems are undermining the fabric of America. We have such short memories, integrity matters too little any more and so does the spirit of our constitution.

Everyone understood the seriousness of our economic troubles four years ago. That's why ANY legislation that created a tax, especially a big tax, was doomed before it began. Even Democrats embraced "The Bush Tax Cuts" as necessary and good for our ailing economy ... albeit while holding their collective noses.

Three plus years ago President Obama and Democratic leadership were lock-step vociferously proclaiming that the individual mandate IS NOT a tax. (Remember the exchange between Stephanopoulos and Obama described in this article?) Was it because they believed it wasn't a tax? Hardly, and their charade was exposed in this month's arguments before the Supreme Court and in that court's ruling today.

The reason the "individual mandate" was upheld today: White House lawyers convinced the Supreme Court that the individual mandate IS a tax. If even the Supreme Court believes it is a tax, most certainly in their hearts those in the Obama administration believed three plus years ago that is a tax. To argue otherwise is to claim Obama is even more clueless than most conservatives think. The proclaimed (self- and otherwise) smartest person on the planet couldn't possibly change his mind on something so fundamental as whether the biggest tax in our history is a tax or not. A rational person doesn't change his mind on something so fundamental. (Note the assumption.)

That leaves us choosing between only three possible conclusions. Either he knew it was a tax all along and he lied to us to get it passed, he's completely irrational or he's so politically vested in the progressive agenda that he doesn't understand or care(!) what he did (ie, he's not so smart after all, just off-the-scale 'political').

So, his own words prove he's a flip-flopper (check the Stephanopoulos reference above). That fact also means he lied to and deceived us (unless you're willing to admit he's so not smart after all).

Bottom line: he and the American people are losers in this proposition. Yes, he's a winner in terms of this battle but how he did it defines him in terms of integrity, honesty and genuine fairness as a loser. Americans are losers for two reasons: ObamaCare was upheld and we have a proven, totally agenda-driven deceiver as our president. If a Wall-Streeter had consciously mislead investors about what an 'investment' would cost them in this way liberals would be outraged, he'd be sued for all he's worth and he'd likely be going to jail. What just happened is a crime. It may not be a crime in a legal sense but it is a crime punishable by removal from office.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The President of the Unitied States Doesn't Know The Difference Between "Outsourcing" and "Offshoring"! Seriously! You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

The Washington Post ran a story a couple of days ago and it's quoted in a NRO article yesteray about our president mocking Romney for thinking there's a difference between "outsourcing" and "offshoring". Trouble is, Mr. President, the joke's on you because there IS a difference between them.

Here's President Obama's quote from the Washington Post: "Yesterday, his [Romney's] advisers tried to clear this up by telling us that there was a difference between "outsourcing" and "offshoring". Seriously. You can't make that up."

Indeed, Mr. President, one CANNOT make this stuff up!

That's not even the best part of the NRO article. In the last paragraph, Williamson tells a story about the famous economist, Milton Friedman. Friedman was touring an area of China and asked his guide why construction workers were using old-fashioned shovels, picks and wheel barrows instead of bulldozers and other heavy machinery. The guide's answer: "We care about creating jobs for our people." Friedman's question back at him: "Then why not use spoons?"

What's funny is that exact conversation could happen in principle here in America if you substitute "union leader" or "progressive" for the 'guide' in the previous paragraph. Whatever it takes to create more jobs is imperative but productivity, useful product, competent service, and most certainly profit are irrelevant.

Monday, June 25, 2012

GOP Health Care Alternative Covers Everything Liberals Say Will Go Away If ObamaCare Repealed. Why Is It Okay For Them To Lie?

For several years now, Republicans have been promoting their version of health care legislation. Most interesting, it does pretty much everything Democrats say will go away if ObamaCare is repealed.

Over THREE years ago the primary Republican alternative embraced all the following things that lying Democrats said and continue to say will go away if the country allows ObamaCare go away and Republicans have their way on health care reform:
  • Universal coverage
  • Coverage for uninsured
  • People keep coverage they already have
  • Provide more choices
  • Rein in health care costs
By the way, the so-called "Affordable Care Act" turned out NOT to actually accomplish the last three bullets above even though Democratic leadership in the White House, House and Senate guaranteed them. Perhaps most important is the promise that ObamaCare would be more affordable. Even though that term is laughably(!) in the title of the legislation, the resulting health care program is MORE expensive. Or didn't you notice that because the media won't tell you? So, the last three bullets above are things ObamaCare promised but didn't deliver after all. Like that's a big surprise!

Why have so many of you never heard about the Republican alternatives? Because liberals and liberal media do not want you to know.

Why is the media letting liberals get away with their lies about the Republican alternative? Because they're in the proverbial tank for the liberal/progressive agenda regardless of the truth of the matter. This is no way to run a country!

Sunday, June 10, 2012

President Obama's Job Creation Nonsense

For the past 3 1/2 years President Obama and most liberals have depended on Americans to remain ignorant of facts so we don't know what's really going on or what really happened. Now he and they are hoping our math skills are so weak that we'll believe his claim of creating 4 Million jobs in the past 40 months of his policies is supposed to be impressive ... as if that amount of jobs represents an economic and employment policy success.

Problem is, Mr. President, that many of us can do basic math. The number of new jobs required to keep unemployment relatively stable is in the neighborhood of 125,000 per month. That is the number we hear consistently from both liberal and conservative analysts/commentators that are needed to keep unemployment steady.

We've also heard that approximately 300,000 new jobs are needed each month to pull America out of a recession of this size. 125,000 just to tread water. 300,000 would represent a successful economic policy. These are numbers we've heard consistently from reputable people.

If President Obama has created 4 Million jobs in 40 months under his policies that means he's created 100,000 jobs per month. Hmmmmm. That's well short of the 125,000/month needed just to hold unemployment relatively stable. (Note: the only reason the unemployment rate has fallen at all is because millions of people have stopped looking for work and are no longer counted as job seekers who are unemployed.)

4 Million jobs created may sound like a big number but when we've needed around three times that many to dig our way out of the recession you can't possibly expect us to believe your policies have been successful at all, much less more successful than your predecessor's (which drove unemployment down to 4.4% after 'his' recession).

We're not as stupid as you expect or want us to be sir.

Friday, June 8, 2012

We REALLY Need Government To Get On These Evil Bankers

Yeah, we really DO need government to do something about this banking overdraft fees problem don't we?

But, do you know the easiest and best way to fix it? Be a responsible person and don't overdraw your banking account! HELLO!

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Congratulations Chris!


Check out the happy grad (San Jose State U; Music Ed)!

Good job Chris! We're so proud of you and the effort it took to accomplish this!

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Chris Graduates Saturday With A Music Ed Degree!

It's been a long (7 year) haul going to school part-time and working part-time but the goal has been reached! Congratulations Chris on getting your Bachelor Degree in Music Ed this Saturday! Mom and I are so proud of you! It's quite an accomplishment. Well done!

Monday, May 21, 2012

My Sons ... Good Men!!!

My two sons are taking on life's challenges with resolve and integrity. I couldn't be more proud of them.

Friday, May 4, 2012

Ah, For The Good Old Days After Bush II's Tax Cuts!

Don't you all long for the good old days created by Bush II's tax cuts? Remember what happened after the majority (80%) of his tax cuts were implemented at the end of May 2003? One month later the unemployment rate peaked out at 6.3% and began a steady decline in only 3 1/2 years to 'Clinton levels' of 4.4%. And only three or four months after Bush II's tax cuts cut in, federal revenue began a steady climb to a record(!) $2.6 Trillion (also in only 3 1/2 years), some 30% higher than achieved under Clinton for the same unemployment rate?

Of course The Left loves to fallaciously tie the 2008 economic problem to those Bush tax cuts and policies in spite of the fact(!) that they had nothing to do with it and in spite of the fact(!) that his tax cuts helped both unemployment and federal revenue until something totally unrelated cratered the economy. Remember that the 2008 collapse was triggered instead by the sub-prime mess that had nothing whatsoever to do with Bush tax cuts or policies? I'm sure those drinking The Left's Kool-Aid still choose(!) not to remember those inconvenient facts but that's what actually happened for those of you who 'can handle the truth'.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Democrat Hypocrisy Regarding The Killing Of OBL

President Obama criticized Romney last week for saying something he didn't even say and taking a position he didn't even take regarding going after Bin Laden.

Romney NEVER said not to go after OBL but he did say we'd best not lose our focus on the bigger problem we have with international terrorism. He always said we should go after OBL but warned against taking too many resources off the general threat in order to accomplish that. So, President Obama is quoting Romney totally out of context and stating a supposition as if fact that maybe Romney wouldn't have approved such a raid as the one that killed OBL. OBL committed the greatest act of terrorism against our homeland in our entire history. Does anyone except president Obama actually think ANY American president would not go after OBL? Turns out however that there is one president who actually failed to act and he's now lecturing Romney. (More on that below.)

Well, not so fast with your criticism Mr. President! Don't you remember that, contrary to what Romney actually said, your own VP (Biden) actually said we should not go after OBL? Obama's own VP actually said what Obama is falsely accusing Romney of saying. Hmmmmm. Mr. President your hypocrisy and tendency to bend/twist the truth are showing again.

We've also just seen President Clinton get on this bandwagon and criticize Romney for saying/believing something that Romney did not say/believe. I almost fell off my chair when I heard Clinton criticize Romney when it is factually true that Clinton is the only president who in fact did choose not to get OBL when he could have. And he did so not once but at three different opportunities!!!

The country's leading Democrats are coming unglued folks. This kind of nonsense is unbecoming a president and we have the last two Democratic presidents practicing this hypocrisy and mean-spirited behavior.

Friday, April 20, 2012

To MSNBC: What About President Obama's "Economic Acumen"? How Has That Worked Out?

Funny, FUNNY headline today on MSNBC: "Romney sells his economic acumen, but voters may not be buying".

That's flat hilarious!!! Of course they mean compared with Obama's "economic acumen", right? Our economy is stuck in a ditch that Obama said he'd have fixed long before now and HE has "economic acumen"? He was hailed as the smartest president ever. He AND the lame-stream media went out of their way to claim that no one on the planet knew what was wrong and how to fix it better than he did. If he was so smart, why is he now saying he didn't know how bad it was? Isn't that an admission that he was ignorant regarding the problem instead(!) of being the smartest about it?

How the media can say such things with a collective straight face is amusing isn't it?

Thursday, April 19, 2012

President Obama Once Again Proves(!) He Doesn't Understand Our Founding Or Our Constitution

President Obama doesn't understand what the founding of this country was all about any more than he understands the constitution (as I explained a couple of blogs ago)

Regarding the constitution, just because he taught constitutional law doesn't mean he understands the constitution. One can attempt to teach something without truly understanding it. Just because you teach a subject doesn't mean you understand it correctly.

What he was teaching is the progressive view of constitutional law that what's lawful is not what the constitution says or was intended to mean. He was NOT teaching the constitution; rather how to change it!!! Hello People! What he was teaching is the progressive view that legal precedence trumps(!) the constitution. By that vehicle, therefore, the Supreme Court could have the power to change the constitution (the way progressives want) instead of defending its principles. Once they say something is constitutional, that makes it so ... whether either the founders or the constitution itself said so in the beginning. In effect, they can choose to define something as lawful that the founders tried mightily to prevent. It is they who can say what they want the constitution to support now whether that was supported originally or not. That is NOT what the founders intended ... AT ALL!

Now President Obama has the audacity to claim he's actually in sync with the founders. What a crazy idea that is! In a 4/19/12 article titled "The Governing Class and Us" the Heritage editors described his disconnect as follows: "President Barack Obama delivered a politically charged speech (on 4/18/12 in Elyria, OH) in which he hearkened back to the country's roots, saying that his opponents "don't seem to remember how America was built." In his view, taxpayers want their money spent in ways that will help further "the larger project we call America." In other words, more spending and bigger government paid for with higher taxes."

America was built on the principle of a small federal government with very limited power. President Obama's goal is to increase the scope, size and control of the federal government, period! As a progressive he believes there is no ill in our land that the federal government cannot fix ... if we give it sufficient money and bureaucratic power. That is what the founders worked hard to prevent!!! Even the liberals of those founding days ('old' liberalism per Herbert Hoover) understood the evils of big, powerful and controlling government. After all, they had just fought for our freedom from England over that very thing.

President Obama thinks his Republican opponents don't remember how America was built? Good grief! It is he who doesn't know our history! It's a good thing he never taught that subject ... progressives are terrible at teaching it but revising history is what they do best!!!

Learn from the evils in history or you'll be doomed to repeat them. Our founders knew that. They knew from history and their own experience with King George the inevitable results of big and powerful government. They did their best to prevent it here and they succeeded for about 200 years. Now this knucklehead of a president wants us to believe his revision of our own history. He must think we're stupid!

Monday, April 16, 2012

Taxing The Rich At Odds With The Electric Car Agenda

President Obama's progressive policies are running headlong into each other, mutual destruction style. Mr. Obama's tax plan, meet Mr. Obama's 'plan' for electric cars!

There's a big problem with electric cars. They're expensive. So expensive in fact that the market for them is pretty much limited to people making more than $200,000 per year according to Robert Bryce's quote of Deloitte Consulting about this.

But, wait a minute! Aren't those the same people whose income is about to take a big dive if Obama gets his way with his tax-the-rich scheme? Seems to me that those 'evil rich' people will be less able and less inclined to buy those electric cars that only they used to be able to afford.

Progressives tend to believe they can create (force) a market where one doesn't exist by force of power or taxpayer money. Problem is, that only works in college classrooms ... at progressive institutions. In the real world, the market is determined by what people want and can afford. Progressives may not like capitalism but, in the end, it rules the day. Produce a product few people want (because it doesn't work or meet a real need) or can afford and they won't buy it.

That approach didn't work in communist Russia when the government decided to control shoe production. They created a standard shoe that would be made throughout the country and they made more than enough for everyone. Yet, there was a shoe shortage. Why? Because no Russians wanted the shoe designed by their government. Those plentiful shoes piled up in government-owned shoe stores and people went without shoes because that was easier on their feet than wearing a bureaucracy's creation.

Hmmmmm. Is it 'back to the drawing board' time on your policies yet Mr. President? Perhaps on your progressive approach to things as well?

Even Progressives 'Get' The Issue With ObamaCare

"The Far Right" wasn't so nutty after all! We claimed from the beginning that ObamaCare would cost more, not less, and that it would add to the deficit in spite of President Obama's assurances to the contrary. We used common sense at the time. We had no choice because ObamaCare's instigators were hiding the truth and playing shell games with our tax money. We suspected, based simply on common sense, what has become provably true now. Check out two NRO articles.

First, John Fund's description of what happened includes this:
"As early as last September, a panel of liberal journalists on NBC News consisting of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman, and David Ignatius of the Washington Post all agreed that Obama’s “biggest political mistake” was devoting so much time and attention to health care. “The idea of launching a major change in social legislation without having a consensus in the country and in Congress about what that should look like was a mistake,” Ignatius summed up. “That’s just not how a president makes good policy.”"

The reaction of us on 'the far right': Well, DUH!!! Those kinds of comments are startling to progressives across America but we far right crazy people can reasonably and quite rationally claim We Told You So!

Second is Michael Barone's article on the real cost of ObamaCare. Smoke and mirrors at a minimum. Lies and subterfuges would be a more honest assessment.

It's Ironic That President Obama Is Accusing The Supreme Court Of Activism

So, the Prez is accusing the Supreme Court of judicial activism should it overturn part/all of ObamaCare. That's ironic because creating ObamaCare was an act of progressive activism and of executive activism. Actually, I guess the Prez ought to know what activism is since he's the most practiced president of it in our entire history. Who better to judge what is or is not activism? ;-)

Well, if it is judicial activism, I say so be it. Sometimes it takes an act of activism to counter an activist action. One can accurately say, however, that it's not the Supreme Court that would be activist in this case. The real activism in this case was the Prez's health care law. Overturning it would be an act of patriotism and constitutional support/enforcement. It would be honoring, y'know, that pesky oath they ALL take to uphold, preserve and protect the constitution of the United States.

The Prez, by that legislation and his threats(!) toward the Supreme Court, has proved once again the irrationality of his claim that he understands the constitution. It proves his claim to knowledge based on having taught constitutional law is invalid. Just because you teach something doesn't mean you understand it correctly and he's proving that he doesn't by actions he takes nearly every day he's in office. The only thing he really understands about the constitution is the progressive agenda for changing it into something it was never intended to be.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Progressives Probably Can't Connect The Dots Between Over-Protective Parents And Over-Protective Government. Government = Our Helmet For Life!

Interesting story about crash helmets for crawlers and toddlers. It's kinda funny to read about the fairly liberal Today Show talking about that as bad for kids because they'll become risk averse and be less likely to succeed at things that have potential for being rough, physical and risky.

An over-protective government does the same thing to people's psyche folks! Too much protection robs people of the opportunity to grow to their maximum ability. Dependency creates a "I prefer safety and comfort" over doing anything that might be difficult, require real sacrifice and at which they might actually fail.

Progressives want to create an over-protective government. That might feel good to lots of people (both the provider and the recipient) but it robs the dependent ones of the opportunity to experience real things in life because it inherently encourages them not to take risks. Life can be exhilarating in both good and bad ways. Thing is, we LEARN IMPORTANT THINGS FROM BAD EXPERIENCES! We become more resilient and less likely to repeat what caused it. We become better survivors!!! Living in the government's protective bubble does the opposite of encouraging people to become survivors and experience all they can in life.

Yes, crawlers can bang their heads into things and there are probably statistics 'out there' that can show some number of crawlers hurt themselves seriously. But a far worse problem is that keeping a helmet on them doesn't teach them what to avoid in the future when they have no helmet. The only solution then will be helmets for life sold in all sizes from one minute old to the latest possible age.

Same for government. Progressives think we need government to protect us throughout our lives so we don't experience any of the vagaries of life. Under their plan, government becomes our helmet for life. Problem is, we'll never actually get to experience life that way! How boring and unfulfilling is that? Hello! Earth to Progressives!

Thursday, April 12, 2012

We Need To Understand What We're Up Against With The Middle East And Islamism

Too many Americans don't know history very well thanks largely to the sanitizing efforts of the progressive movement in our education system. Too many of those who have heard the historical facts don't know how to add them up, thanks again to PC-think being ingrained in our kids for several generations now. And the media whose job used to be informing us about the facts of things are so invested in the progressive PC-think culture that they won't share the truth because it doesn't line up with the appeasement philosophy within the progressive agenda.

Every once in a while however someone in the media explains elements of what's going on in the Middle East in an informative and honest way. We should pay more attention for our future's sake. If you're one of those rare folks who are interested in the truth, won't hide from it, won't irrationally dismiss it, and care about where it'll take us if we ignore it, read Clifford May's article, "It's Not The Arab Spring, It's The Nahda". in NRO earlier today.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Four Articles Dealing With Fundamental Issues Dividing Left From Right In America

There seems to be little necessity to add my own commentary to the following articles. They do much to describe and illuminate the divisiveness that's growing rapidly and, too often, rabidly in America. These aspects of the problem are important for us to consider for the sake of our future. We need to care about understanding what divides us and why it does. We can't make much progress turning away from this unfortunate trajectory on which the political left has set us until we begin to care about our country, indeed our constitution.

They (Liberals) Don't (Can't!) Know Us by Dennis Prager.

Saving Sovereignty by John Fonte.

Argument From Disparity by Thomas Sowell.

The Constitution's Comeback by Michael Barone.


For The PC Sake We Ignore The Far Worse Violence Problem Among Young Blacks

A recent article on black-on-black violence caught my attention. Average Americans are too little aware of the problem that Lee Habeeb's description of the problem illuminates. I'm shocked that the media and our country's leaders spend so little time/effort addressing this, aren't you?

A President Of The USA Who Doesn't Know The Role Or Authority Of The Supreme Court Doesn't Know Squat About The Constitution Or Maybe He Just Doesn't Care

Per President Obama: "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress". And he said that it would be an act of "judicial activism" to overturn his health care legislation.

There are so many things wrong with those knuckle-headed statements that I hardly know where to begin. Basically, he doesn't understand the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Nor does he understand either the authority or role of the Supreme Court.

First, ObamaCare did NOT pass by "a strong majority". In the House it passed 219 to 212 ... by 4 votes out of 431 (4 yea votes going the other way would have defeated it 216 to 215). Even 34 Democrats voted against it! To call it "a strong majority" and to claim it would be "unprecedented" are nothing short of lies as Thomas Sowell had the courage to say. Sowell also exposed the deceptive nature of so much that President Obama does/says. He's expertly adept at distortion and at cover-ups when his deceptions are exposed.

Second, it is nowhere near unprecedented of the Supreme Court to strike down a law of economic or any other importance. It's what they do! Hello!

Third, to say that the Supreme Court isn't paying attention to the 'will' of the majority in the legislature President Obama is demonstrating his complete lack of understanding that the Supreme Court's job is to NOT rule based on any will of any majority. Their job is to determine whether the expressed will of Congress' majority is constitutional. It doesn't and, constitutionally, ought not matter to the Supreme Court justices how popular a piece of legislation is. OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT (IE, OUR VERY FREEDOM AND LIBERTY) IS, IN FACT, DEPENDENT ON THE SUPREME COURT NOT BENDING TO THE WILL OF EITHER OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT!!!

And to hear President Obama claim "judicial activism" is laughable! His policies and actions comprise the very definition of (progressive) activism in a major branch of government!!! He only needs to look into a mirror to see who's practicing 'activism' in our federal government ... executive activism in his case.

He is SOOOOOOO off-base with his comments directed at the Supreme Court that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh about how ridiculous his thinking is. Cry about what his approach to national governance means to our constitution and our freedom.

John Fund's article covers all the various aspects of President Obama's 'warning' to the Supreme Court is the best of many I've seen.

GADS PEOPLE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW SERIOUS A PROBLEM THIS IS? HOW SERIOUS A RISK IT IS TO OUR REPUBLIC?

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Muslims Murdering Their Own Children Because Of The Clothes They Wear?

I have to begin this blog with a prayer that this story is completely bogus because it's so horrible but with various sources reporting it the story appears to be credible. I hope you're sitting down.

Incredible as it sounds, according to an MSNBC story today it appears that Muslims don't have any qualms about murdering their own youth. According to MSNBC, 14 children have been stoned to death so far in a wave of this in various areas of Iraq the past three weeks.

That's the number according to some of Iraq's more official sources. Incredibly, an unofficial report in the Brussels Tribunal estimated the number of killings to be between 90 and 100. The childrens' crime? Unacceptable hair and clothing styles. Check out MSNBC's story here:
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/10/10634539-iraqi-teens-stoned-to-death-for-wearing-emo-clothes

I strongly desire to go on a rant about this but I can find no words sufficient to describe the horror I feel about this. Perhaps it's not necessary because, for people with an ounce of humanity, the story says all that needs to be said about what's going on there except it begs one question. This kind of behavior within a claimed religion of peace? Really?

Monday, March 5, 2012

President Obama: "I Don't Bluff!!!" Uh, Pardon Me Sir But What About All Those Pesky Campaign Promises?

When commenting about the challenge of keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons and America's promise(!) to not let that happen, President Obama said a few days ago that "I am not a bluffer!". Are you kidding me?

Based on President Obama's campaign promises (most of which went unfulfilled) one could easily justify labelling him The Bluffer-In-Chief because he didn't keep his word on most of his promises ... to his own citizens!. And he now expects us and Israel to believe that we can trust his promise to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons! C'mon folks! Does it make more sense to base our belief whether he's bluffing on words or on his historical lack of action on previous promises?

IMPORTANT QUESTION: If you were Israel's leader would you (based on President Obama's actual track record) trust President Obama's promises when your country's very existence depended on it?

President Obama's campaign promises didn't become truth so were they lies or bluffs or naivete? If naivete is the reason, isn't it likely that he's being naive now and will back down to Iran when real consequences loom? If his campaign promises were lies or bluffs, that's no better than naivete is it? Regardless how one dissects President Obama's latest not-a-bluffer claim, his record (assuming actual facts matter to you) is one of not doing much of what he says he'll do. If you were Netanyahu, what would you think and do? Be honest now!

Friday, February 24, 2012

Political Cage Fights Are NOT WHAT WE WANT!!! KNOCK IT OFF MEDIA!!!

The Lamestream Media is so transparent it's humorous. They're working very hard at creating a food fight among Republican candidates so that we can avoid a national discussion of the substantive issues of our times.

CNN is the absolute worst. Their moderators spend entire debates framing questions in ways that require candidates to attack each other rather than the issues themselves. I suspect CNN sees those as one in the same but they're not.

WISE UP MEDIA! What we NEED from you is to frame and present questions in ways that candidates have to explain(!) their positions, not defend them. What we want is to hear what each candidate's positions are on substantive issues presented to us clearly and directly. THEN LET US(!) decide which positions we favor. We DO NOT WANT YOU to create brawls on the stage such that the last guy standing is the winner.

Yes, we WANT to hear them each differentiate themselves from Obama so that we can decide FOR OURSELVES which one represents our interests the best relative to his administration. The more time the spend defending themselves, the less time the have to explain how they'd do better than Obama.

Somehow The Media has gotten it in their collective minds that they have to create an environment where debates become like a Survivor season. Or create a Roman gladiator kind of environment. These debates are becoming the political equivalent to cage fighting and we're sick of it.

We care more about the content of their policies than their ability to survive a cage fight on stage at these debates. Yeah, we do want a good fighter for a president but policies matter more. These debate cage fights are good theater to some but we want to know what these candidates think are the root of our problems and what they think will fix that. We're not getting that so KNOCK IT OFF!!! PLEASE!!!

Thursday, February 23, 2012

It's Okay For Muslims To Puposely Kill Christians And Destroy Their Churches But Burning Qurans Deserves Protests And Requires Accountability And Profuse Apology From Our President

We Americans do NOT have as an objective or policy to destroy or deface Qurans much less kill Muslims for simply being Muslims. As a matter of choice and fact we make a strong effort to show respect for Islam and what Muslims hold sacred. We even practice self-accountablility.

On the other hand, whole Islamic countries have it as their primary goal in life to destroy America, especially Christian Americans, and actually do so at every opportunity. Muslims destroy Christian churches and kill Christians for simply being Christians.

When an American does mess up and deface a Quran our own policies as well as Muslim demands result in profuse apologies and strong accountability. If many Muslims had their way our response would include the severist of penalties (inlucing death) for those who'd do such a thing. Such an offense requires of many Muslims to conduct angry protests demanding retribution.

On the other hand, when Muslims kill Americans and Christians we do nothing in retaliation and Muslims feel no obligation to apologize for it, much less hold the responsible people accountable in any way.

What's wrong with this picture?

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Santorum's Comment About Obama's "Phony Theology": More True Than Not

So, here's Santorum's quote that's in the news this week about Obama adhering to an inaccurate theology: Obama adheres to "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

There are two ways in which Obama's own actions and words prove that to be true.

One way is that the president spent a couple of decades attending a church in which the pastor advocated "black liberation theology" and the president was fully aware what that was all about. There are many who think that theology, to express it kindly, takes liberties with the Word of God. Overcoming "mal-distribution" of materials/resources is a good thing but achieving the desired "economic parity" by forced redistributive means preached in support and application of that theology is by no means what God had in mind. (And it has nothing(!) to do with the parable to which the president referred but more on that two paragraphs below.)

Of course we're obliged to take care of the poor and disadvantaged but that isn't meant to replace productive labor with an attitude of not needing to earn what one gets in life. In the Bible God values productive labors in order to take care of one's self and one's family. He encourages Christians to work hard, thus earning whatever it is they collect of material worth. Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus say everyone deserves "economic parity" regardless whether they earn it. Taking from others just because they have more is not biblical. And it has nothing to do with the parable in question.

The second consideration is associated with things that Obama says about Christianity. Wanting to sound all smart, he instead demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of biblical teachings that suggest his theology is inconsistent with the true meaning of things in the bible. The most recent example is his latest claim that his policy "as a Christian ... coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'" The bible verse he references, Luke 12:48, has nothing to do with taking from the rich to give to the poor. In fact, it has nothing to do with material matters at all.

It's a parable about whether one is a Christian who understands scripture and is therefore thereafter accountable to God for obeying His commands! It's a parable that refers to what's expected of Christians once they really understand what is required of Christians. MUCH MORE is required of them in teaching others about Christianity than of those who don't understand it yet. The point is, once Christians understand what God expects of them, they are accountable to behave accordingly ... choosing to live a moral life according to God's laws and to teach scripture to others accurately. It does not mean, now that you know the truth about being a Christian, you are obliged to be okay with the government forceably taking your material possessions and giving them to others. The lesson of the parable has nothing to do with sharing material wealth. It has everything to do with sharing God's eternal wealth.

What that parable meant therefore was this: For unto whom much KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING has been given (about the kingdom and what comprises a moral Christian life), much MORAL LIVING AS WELL AS SPIRITUAL TEACHING AND LEADING shall be required.

Note that the parable therefore was NOT talking about our moral responsibility regarding material wealth, the environment or anything else that's material in nature, rather about God's eternal wealth and our eternal souls. That President Obama does not understand what that parable was talking about discredits his pious and pretentious thinking and attitude. I apologize for being blunt but it's deserved ... this guy really needs to get over himself and get real with his Christianity if he's going to presume to preach gospel to us.

So, those are only two ways in which President Obama's theology is inconsistent with what the bible actually means. How 'Christian' does President Obama prove he is then by claiming a parable means something it does not and by pontificating to us that it is supposed to be applied in a way that was never meant by Jesus? For him to lecture us that we Christians aren't doing the Christian thing by not supporting his redistributive agenda is amazing to me. That he would basically chastise us as not being good Christians for not supporting or, worse, daring to challenge that agenda says much about how highly he regards himself. He presumes to understand something about the Word of God and then proves he completely doesn't understand it himself. His statement indeed, reflects accurately the "black liberation theology" of his religious mentor for all those years, Pastor Wright, in stark opposition to the point Jesus was actually making.

The section of scripture President Obama was referring to actually divided people into two groups ... those who understand what's required of Christians and those who don't. By failing to understand that parable, President Obama proves himself to be in the latter category of people Jesus was talking about who do not understand Jesus' commands and are, therefore, not accountable for falling short as Christians. Maybe he is a Christian but he has a lot to learn before he has sufficient cred or authority (per God's 'rules') to lecture the rest of us about what it means to be a Christian. All he accomplished by his misunderstanding of scripture is substantially validate what Santorum said.

Santorum's comment may sound harsh but President Obama's own words prove Santorum is more correct than not, eh?

By the way, Charles Krauthammer expressed it well too with additional relevant commentary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gospel-according-to-obama/2012/02/09/gIQAngvW2Q_story.html

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Agenda And Supporting Spin Matter More Than Truth, Integrity, Principles, And The Constitution

To this administration, spin has become an art form. Just as in art, what they're doing doesn't make a lot of sense to a lot of people but something that's going on this week makes their "spin versus principle and honesty" instincts clear to everyone.

Penalties for not purchasing health care ARE TAXES!
The adminstration sent its Justice (HA!) Branch attack dogs to the Supreme Court this week to defend the ObamaCare penalties. Their argument to the justices: the penalites are taxes and therefore are constitutional because the executive and legislative branches have constitutional authority to levy taxes. In fact, however, this administration doesn't actually care whether they are taxes; it's strictly an argument of convenience and necessity not honesty.

AND(!) Penalites for not purchasing health care ARE NOT TAXES!
The administration also sent it's budget director to Capitol Hill the very same day(!) this week to defend ObamaCare. The budget director was asked by a congressional committee this week whether those penalties were taxes. He evaded and evaded and evaded but the congressmen persisted and insisted he answer the question. When he finally relented, he said, the penalties are not taxes. Why does this administration want Congress to believe the opposite (HUH?) of what they want the Supreme Court to believe? Because this administration knows that Americans, even their own supporters, are intolerant of tax increases on the middle class and that Congress would therefore be inclined to toss out some/much/all of ObamaCare if it raised taxes on the poor and middle class.

What do people possess in the way of principles when they argue before Congress one thing and at the same time(!) argue (as a matter of choice!) before the Supreme Court the exact(!) opposite? It's one thing for different entities on opposite sides of legislation to take opposing views. It's another thing altogether for the same entity to take totally opposite positions at the exact same time to different groups of people. What is that? Schizophrenia? A political kind of insanity? Or just agenda taking priority at all times, at all costs and over all things including reason and common sense?

Does this administration not understand that they've made a conscious decision(!) to lie? Either to Congress or to the Supreme Court? That places them in technical legal contempt of court or contempt of Congress because one claim must be untrue. This administration has no problem being dishonest to one of the three brances of our federal government. Which implies that they'd have no problem being dishonest to either one or, by extension, to The People. And what about being consistent with, much less submissive to the Constitution? Isn't it therefore fair to assume that, to this administration, agenda trumps the Constitution if they can find any possible way make it submissive to that agenda rather than the other way around? Maybe that defines progressivism.

It turns this into a plausible, sensible question: how are we to know when/whether they're lying to the American people if they have no problem choosing(!) to lie to Congress or the Supreme Court for purely agenda-driven purposes? If they're willing to consciously lie to one of the branches of government this way, doesn't it mean that, to these people, agenda trumps honesty, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution ... at ALL times? The Constitution thereby being something to bend to the will of one's agenda, ie to progressivism.

The CLEAR bottom line: What's hilarious if it weren't so incompetent, this adminstration doesn't know OR care whether the penalites are taxes and will argue it whichever way meets the approval of whomever they're speaking to at any one time. Truth, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution are irrelevant. All that matters is getting their current audience whomever it is to believe what they're saying at any given moment so that ObamaCare (or any other item on their agenda) survives. Protecting that trumps everything, period, no exceptions. If they'll purposely distort truth before Congress and/or the Supreme Court, how much more easily are they capable (and driven!) to do the same with us citizens? Are you okay with that? I'm not!

In Fact, it's not even a rhetorical question any more ... they played the same truth-distorting game with us on this already! Do you remember when they were trying to get Americans' buy-in on ObamaCare and they encountered resistance because those penalties looked like taxes to us at the time? Do you remember that they already said to us before that these are not taxes? Doesn't it bother you that they're now before the Supreme Court arguing that they are taxes? Their lawyers believe these are not taxes but they have no difficulty telling us they aren't!!! So it isn't even a question whether they'll play games with and distort truth to us. They have already done so!!! Do we care about honesty and integrity in our president? I do!

Monday, February 13, 2012

This White House Believes It's Own Lies And Nonsense Spinning

Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, made the rounds on Sunday talk shows to begin spinning President Obama's upcoming 2013 budget. Y'know that inconvenient constitutional requirement that led Obama to produce a budget last year that got no yes votes at all in the Democratic(!) Senate. I guess the White House figured that insufficient spin was the reason it wasn't passed last year when in fact it was due to outrageous spending that even Democrats couldn't swallow.

When asked why the senate, controlled by the president's own party, hasn't passed a budget in 1,019 days, Mr. Lew trotted out the standard spin line, "You can't pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes." Only problem with that is a budget only needs a majority of 51 votes to pass in the Senate and they have enough Democrats there to pass it without a single Republican vote. By the way, Mr. Lew, President Obama couldn't create a budget last year that could get a single supporting vote from his own party so good luck with that spin thing.

President Obama and his administration are so sold out to spin and twisting truth that they seem to think that just because they think and/or say something it must be true because they thought it. If these guys aren't competent enough to get basic constitution-based requirements right, they're not competent to do something as complex as running the country.

It's interesting that the White House is sending out their spin doctors in advance(!) of the president's budget this year. I guess they think the reason it didn't get a single vote last year is because they didn't explain it well enough. Ms. Pelosi's rule for getting things passed, "we have to pass it so we can see what's in it", isn't going to work any more so they just need to spin it better to fix that problem. Two problems with that President Obama.

First, a fundamentally flawed (ie, far too expensive) budget won't pass regardless of spin. Second, you guys don't know what you're talking about. So stop talking and just do your stinking job. Better than you have for the previous three years please!