Presidential Dishonesty

My posting of the question, “Is Obama the most dishonest president in history?” on Facebook provoked the following question from someone I respect: “More dishonest than Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan and his Iran-Contra debacle? George W, and the lies about WMDs?” After giving a necessarily short answer on Facebook due to space limitations, I am posting more information here.

Nixon’s mistake was to stonewall an investigation of something he did not create, implement, or manage. Many books have been written on this so I would have to spend a considerable amount of time to explain fully Nixon’s part in Watergate. For now, I will only say it is my understanding that there is no hard evidence to indicate that President Nixon had any prior knowledge of the break in. It seems he was not only surprised when he learned about it but that he wondered who could have been so stupid to have done such a foolish thing. Also it is clear that he was seriously misled by his Legal Counsel, John Dean, whose self-serving misdirection was instrumental in Nixon’s ill-advised cover up. Then there were the infamous tapes. As one leading Democrat at the time said, “He should have destroyed the tapes.” (paraphrased) However, unlike Obama, one cannot assemble a long list of Nixon lies because they, apparently, do not exist.

Reagan was troubled by one sticky incident. Most politicians would be thrilled with such scarcity. With that duly noted, after multiple investigations, Reagan was essentially cleared of any foreknowledge of the Iran-Contra adventure. He also appeared at least twice on national TV to take full personal responsibility and to apologize for the operation—a rare event in U.S. Politics.

George W, and the lies about WMDs: That “W” lied about WMD is nothing more than a persistent Liberal myth. I can only think that some who perpetuated the myth are lying themselves while others are simply ignorant of the facts. There is a huge, highly credible amount of evidence to support this. There is also a simple explanation: All major intelligence agencies around the world, including our own CIA, believed that Saddam Hussein still had stockpiles of WMD and that he intended to use them against the U.S.A. Notice I said “still” because everyone knew he had them and used them on his own people. So Bush proceeded with the best intelligence available and with the approval of virtually all the Democrats in Congress. If he had not acted on the intelligence and Hussein did use them on us, Bush would most certainly have been widely condemned and, perhaps, even impeached.

With Iraq and other major military matters regarding war, Bush always took his case to the Congress for approval while Obama has repeatedly chosen to ignore Congress and proceed on his own. If Bush had done the same, he would have been crucified by the media and the Democrats. Hypocrisy is rampant on the Left.

For the record …

Please read the following quotes and then answer the question at the end:

STATEMENTS ON IRAQ WMD — Part 1

Bush and Republican statements on the existence of Iraq WMD

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

“Hussein has… chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

“There is no doubt that… Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years… We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”

First, mentally, answer the question: “Do you believe the statements you just read were made to deceive people into thinking that Saddam Hussein had WMD when, in truth, he did not?”

And then click here.

The Romney Obama War On Women

Women are smart, Mr. President. Watch out!

92.3 percent of jobs lost under Obama were lost by women!

While Hypocrite-In-Chief Obama fabricates one false charge after another against Mitt Romney, he and the Obama Media hide the devastating consequences Obama’s policies have had on American women. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between January 2009, when Obama took office, and March 2012, there has been a net decline of 740,000 jobs for both men and women. But (it’s a big BUT) among women there has been a net loss of 683,000 jobs. So 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women! Whoa, wait a minute, that can’t be. Obama loves women. He gives them all kinds of free stuff for goodness sake. I mean you don’t give free stuff to someone unless you love them. Right? Or unless you want them to vote for you. Hmm, yeah, there’s that.

The truth is, Obama’s economic flimflam has wreaked havoc on both men and women but it has taken a monumentally disproportionate hit on women. I repeat: 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama have been lost by women! That means only 7.7 percent were lost by men. You can play with the numbers until your head bursts but it won’t change the facts. So did Obama sit down behind his big president desk one day and figure out how to hurt women more than men? I certainly hope not. No, it’s just that his policies happened to hurt women much more than men. But no matter what he had in mind, the net result is that women have suffered enormously under Obama and there is no relief in sight. It’s no wonder women can’t afford to pay for their own birth control pills!

“Romney’s War On Women”

Now, let’s take a look at “Romney’s War On Women.” Oh, we have a little problem: There is none. Come on all you Liberal hard heads, just for a few short minutes I want you to take a deep breath, imagine that Barack Obama is not the Messiah, and use some good old-fashion common sense. Why in the world would Mitt Romney declare a war on women? Come on now. You can do this. It is absurd! It is just as absurd as all the other bogus charges Democrats have made against Mitt Romney. (That he was responsible for a woman’s death for just one example.) Does Romney hold some positions that you don’t share? Of course he does. And Obama holds some positions that millions of other Americans don’t share. That is why we have elections. That is how we do things in America. But what we should not do is make up lies about whoever we disagree with in order to destroy their character for the sake of winning an election. You know, like Obama does.

Romney is Pro-Life. He also supports the de-funding of federal taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, and government mandated free contraception for women. He doesn’t think it’s right that taxpayers who oppose abortion should have to pay for abortions. Nor does he think it is right that people who oppose the use of contraception should have to pay for others to use it. We should all take personal responsibility for our choices. That philosophy has made the United States the most successful country in human history and if we lose it, we will surely fail.

While you have every right to disagree with Romney’s beliefs, you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others. Again, that is why we have elections. Furthermore, to disagree with a candidate’s position on an issue should not give anyone a license to mount unfair, dishonest, vicious attacks on that candidate.

Obama the baby killer?

What if Romney called Obama a baby killer for his position on late-term abortions? As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted repeatedly to defeat a law that would have saved the lives of babies born alive during botched abortions. He did so in spite of at least one case in which a live baby was unceremoniously placed on a towel and allowed to die while distraught nurses in the delivery room were prevented by law from administering life-saving procedures. Of course my point is that even in that factually-based issue, Romney has refrained from exploiting it. Yet Obama never misses an opportunity to viciously attack Romney with wholly fabricated charges. It is despicable.

The Obama Administration Mistreats Women: Wage disparity and much more …

Now, let’s look at a few more examples of the Obama War On Women. Records show that female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues. What? Where do I get this stuff? Glad I asked. According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees, which was $71,000. Oh me and my facts. Yeah, I know. But it gets worse. Even though Obama White House women earn considerably less than their male counterparts, the Obama campaign trashed Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which extended the time in which women could file lawsuits against employers that discriminate against women on equal pay. To be perfectly clear for all you Liberal diehards: Romney is for (NOT AGAINST) equal pay for women. But the real question is: Did any female employees at the White House file lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act, and if not, why not?

There’s more

Former Obama Economic Advisor, Christina Romer, “I felt like a piece of meat.” (working in the Obama White House”)

“Even when women are in the room with Obama, they are sometimes seen but not heard.” Time Magazine

“… Obama himself is responsible for a work atmosphere that marginalizes and ignores women.” Time Magazine

“The president has a real woman problem.” Reported in book by Nia-Malika Henderson, Women In Obama White House Felt Excluded And Ignored

Alright, if you insist, I’ll throw in one more: Former Obama White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, described attitudes in the White House as fitting

“… all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” – and “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace.”

So how is Obama doing with the female vote? He is not doing great with married women and women with children but he is winning with young single women. But let’s be clear: Women are smart and if the media starts to do their job and they tell the truth, even the young women will change their minds about Barack Obama. After all, he is hurting them right now and under his policies, their future’s don’t look bright at all. The majority of married women and mothers have already figured it out and it is just a matter of time before the young single women do the same—at least for their sake, I hope so.

It’s a hard pill to swallow

There, there. I know this has given you Liberals a migraine. It is because your brains are overloading trying to compute this horribly dissonant information. Not to worry. There is a cure. As foreign as it may sound to you, it is really quite simple: Just open your minds to new, honest information. One of our presidents rightfully cautioned that, “The nine scariest words are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Thomas Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

While President Obama tells you that he is your guardian angel, his treatment of women in his own administration is deplorable and his economic policies have wreaked havoc on women in particular. Those are incontrovertible facts. You are being conned! Barack Obama is not in love with women, he is in love with the female vote. Ignore the facts at your own peril.

Personal responsibility is at the heart of American greatness

Learn to respect the rights of other people with whom you disagree. Accept the idea that you cannot always get your way and that other American citizens should not have to pay for free stuff for which you, yourselves, as adults, should be responsible. They aren’t asking you to pay for their stuff so don’t ask them to pay for your stuff.

To Liberals: You have read the facts. Now it’s time to take action. Call the White House, your congressional representatives, and the Obama Media and demand that President Obama end his War On Women. No, I will not hold my breath, but thank you for asking.

Big Government Destroys Nations

By MacPundit

The Five Truths

1. Human beings are corruptible.
2. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
3. The more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
4. The more corrupt government is, the more the people in government (the ones with the power) will make laws and regulations to maintain and extend their power over we the people. To do so, they will favor those who support them over those who do not. Think of “favoritism” and “special interest groups.” This is corrupt.
5. The more power government has over us, the less freedom we have—less freedom to make our own life decisions to decide for ourselves what we think is best for us. Less freedom to speak out against the government. Less religious freedom. Less freedom in every part of our lives.

Without an active, watchful citizenry, government grows exponentially and takes on a life of its own. The people in power create government jobs for their friends and supporters as payback and to help them manage and direct our lives, including our economy. Soon, the free market system is at the mercy of politicians and it can no longer function as the engine of economic creativity and job creation. Unnatural limitations are imposed on economic growth, and we the people suffer financial hardship and loss of freedom. At this point, political power has been successfully taken from the people and it is now in the hands of the ruling class of politicians.

Watch these videos from governmentgonewild.org

And this one …

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

President John F. Kennedy delivered those wise words in his Inaugural Speech. At the very least, President Kennedy would be a right-of-center Democrat today as compared to President Obama who is the most radical left-wing president in U.S. history. Kennedy understood why our political and economic systems work so much better than all others. Kennedy also described himself as, “An idealist with no illusions.”

I don’t know if Obama is an idealist but I am convinced that he wants to strip the United States of its super power status. I believe this conforms with his worldview in which no nation dominates any other. While this idea sounds noble on its face, given the realities of human nature and the history of mankind, it is simply one more fatuous notion that can only appeal to the uninformed or naive. Yet when proposed and aggressively sold to disillusioned masses by a masterful rhetorician, it can become a potentially dangerous idea. If in the late nineteen thirties all nations were essentially equal economically and militarily, who would have been able to stop Adolph Hitler from realizing his demonic vision of a world ruled by his “super race?” The Treaty of Versaille imposed clearly defined restrictions on Germany’s ability to rebuild militarily, yet they did it anyway.  Of course history is replete with similar examples.

To realistically imagine a world without a powerful United States, is to imagine a world dominated by Fascist regimes of one sort or another. Remember the Five Truths. Big Government is our enemy. Government of any size is a necessary evil. Know your history, be informed and involved, and stay free.

The Obama Miracles

No wonder Barack Obama doesn’t reflect the heart and soul of America

Who is Barack Obama? He’s been our president for almost four years, yet he remains a mystery to even the most astute among us. What little we do know tells us that his life has been extraordinarily different than the lives of typical Americans. To understand this is to understand who Barack Obama is and what he wants to do with America. The following video is not a hit piece. It is honest and forthright. It tells us at least some of the things we would have known four years ago if our media had done their job.

As noted in the video, one of the problems fair and concerned critics of Barack Obama have is a tendency of Obama supporters to accuse them of racism whenever they ask probing questions or mount rational arguments against Mr. Obama. It is an old and despicable tactic of the Left. By tainting the character of their opponents they hope to destroy their credibility and avoid having to confront the real issues. It is possibly the lowest form of political engagement and if we are to have any chance of becoming the best we can be as a nation, we must absolutely reject such tactics.

Of all people, our president should be an open book to us. We, nor the world, can afford to risk giving so much power to anyone who we really don’t know—and we really don’t know Barack Obama. So why did we elect someone we knew virtually nothing about? You can find the answer to that in How Obama Got Elected and The Presidential Election Of 2008. I encourage you to read them because we must not make the same mistakes in 2012 that we made in 2008.