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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578089420407119466.html

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:

            http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2012/10/has-obama-created-more-jobs-than-bush.html

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.