PRESIDENT OBAMA: KILL THE 'STIMULUS' BILL

It seems like everyone is bashing politicians these days, including myself. Being a family-friendly writer doesn't allow me to repeat the names they've been called, but let me just say, they haven't been flattering.

Some of this spike in criticism comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, (aka: Obama Stimulus Plan), the President's "home-run" legislation aimed at "stimulating," or "fixing" the economy. Remember the original TARP program and the "emergency" and "crisis" that was going to happen overnight if they didn't ram it down our throats? How did that work out? And, why aren't we holding our politicians accountable? Shockingly, if this is such an emergency, then why, according the the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, does almost 80% of the money get distributed after this year? Why the rush?

Everyday there is more and more politically embarrassing (at least I think they should be embarrassed) spending programs being revealed as being hidden in this several hundred page, behemoth of a bill. These daily, if not hourly revelations of pork tell me why the President was so forceful with his pleading that "swift action" is required. The more time we have to analyze the bill, the worse it looks.

Some (Al Gore would have a tizzy at the reams of paper it would take to list them all) of the most disturbing inclusions in the bill, that have absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy, include:

* $650 million for digital TV coupons.

* $600 million for new cars for the federal bureaucrats.

* $6 billion for colleges/universities – many which have billion dollar endowments.

* $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.

* $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.

* $200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod.

Yesterday, the bill passed the House with zero Republican votes, even after being wined and dined by the President. The House Democrats below, also voted, "No," on the bill and should be acknowledged and applauded for their heroism, patriotism, bipartisanship, and courage for voting their conscience and going against a popular president and their own party:

Allan Boyd (D-FL)

Bobby Bright (D-AL)

Jim Cooper (D-TN)

Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)

Parker Griffith (D-AL)

Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)

Frank Kratovil (D-MD)

Walt Minnick (D-ID)

Collin Peterson (D-MN)

Heath Shuler (D-NC)

Gene Taylor (D-MS)

To add perspective, these bold mavericks stood up against a greasy, pork-laden bill that has a price tag, so far, that is more than the combined total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! This is the cost of politicians getting to pay back their political cronies and special interest groups (ACORN, for example).

In a disingenuous attempt to satisfy President Obama's promise of a middle-class tax cut, the bill would provide up to a piddly $1,000 per family, for two years, but only to the families that the wizards of Washington deem worthy. Oh, and guess what, you don't even need a Social Security number to get your check! Illegal Aliens, get in line! You don't even have to be a friggin' American to get your Obamabucks!

The scheme establishes 32 (at last count) NEW government programs at a cost of $136 billion, meaning that over one-third of the spending is dedicated to new government programs. This is nothing but an attempt by corrupt, self-serving, sleazy politicians to grow the already bloated, federal government, and to buy votes. They are spending in at least 150 different federal programs in total. The Founding Fathers would turnover in their graves at the thought of there even being that many federal programs! It makes me want to jump in mine.

President Obama ran on "change" and if this fraud gets passed as is, none of us, including our children and grandchildren, are going to have any change left. President Obama, please show us the leadership you promised. The promise to cut out wasteful government spending. President Obama, show us you are a man of your word, and "Kill this Bill!"

The Obama Inauguration Address, My Take, Part I

Like most Americans, I listened in earnest to Barack Obama's Inaugural speech today. Given the historic nature of this particular address, my expectations were very lofty, especially with all of the buildup and hoopla surrounding it,

I was expecting a "home-run" type of memorable phrase that would be remembered and quoted by all Americans throughout time. I was assuming that I'd walk away with a timeless, golden soundbite that would be repeated by generations, along the line of FDR's, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," or John F. Kennedy's, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

What I was left with, unfortunately, was an ambiguous, melancholy, and conflicted speech that was beautifully delivered.

Below, I've chosen a few excerpts from today's speech, in quotation marks, followed by my brilliant commentary:

"My fellow citizens"

I think this was a nice touch. I rather, however, that he had used the term "my fellow Americans".

"I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and co-operation he has shown throughout this transition."

The first sentence was an excellent choice and I'm very happy to hear that he is aware of the sacrifices that our ancestors have went through to obtain and continue our personal liberties. The second sentence above shows great class and should be a wake-up call to the Bush-haters and those that suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome," also known as BDS.

"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

Technically, there have only been 43 when you consider Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms, but who's counting? President Obama probably attended public school.

"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents."

Actually, America has carried on in spite of the politicians in high office. I'm glad to hear that the President has changed his stance on our Constitution. Previously, he was quoted as saying that it was "inadequate and represented a "blind spot" to the nation. I consider this a retraction on his part, a welcomed one at that.

"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood."

I know, because you constantly remind us. I think "crisis" is the most overused word in the English language. Former President Bush was accused by the left and the media of "talking down the economy," when he talked about the mini-recession of the early '90's. You can get away with it, because there is a double-standard in the left-leaning mainstream media. I'd recommend stopping the repetitive nature of the "worst economy since the Great Depression." We get it, already, and the echo is depressing, and the power of your words become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want to lead us out of this, begin by leading with your words. Great Presidents have been masterful at doing this. You can too.

"These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

How are we going to not feel fear when you continually thrust the doom and gloom upon us? The campaign is over, and you won. If you want to inspire us, please be less negative in your rhetoric.

"Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met."

He uses "met" here twice. I think he could have chosen a better word like "conquered."

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

I'd really like an end to the "false promises" that political leaders have used to hoodwink the American public over the years. Hopefully, the media will hold President Obama, and his administration, accountable (although in a much kindlier, gentler way than they did with the previous POTUS).

". . .the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."

I'm glad President Obama acknowledges that our freedoms and rights come from God. I'm sure many atheists didn't like this one, but it even benefits them. If rights come from men, then men (or women) can take them away. With God, it's a lot tougher!

"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom."

I thank President Obama for writing the above paragraph just for me. I guess the President will have to cancel that notion of giving tax-cuts to people who don't pay taxes. We used to have a term for that. . . welfare!

"Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."

I'm going to have to disagree with you hear, Mr. President. American doesn't have to be remade. It was made by our founders and we must fight to insure that it isn't "remade." I’d also like to inform you that we don’t need the government to pick us up.

"For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth."

We'll do the work, Mr. President. Please, just get the federal government out of the way. We’ve gotten out of every recession without the government's help, and we can do it this time too.

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short."

By "big plans," do you mean, "Big Government?" If so, our memories are excellent. We know that politicians tend to use "crisis" as a segue to more government power over our lives. And, we know that the big government plans of FDR were very popular politically, but only prolonged the Great Depression. Please don't go there. Please!

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."

I'd love to hear which political arguments you're referring to, Mr. President. That statement has me a bit worried, quite honestly. Economic principles are timeless and don’t change, Mr. President.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works."

Is this because in your mind, there is no such a thing as a government that's too big? Big government doesn't work, Mr. President, which is why your Democratic predecessor said, "The Era of Big Government is Over!"

I'll continue with the second half of my critique of President Obama's speech tomorrow.

Celebrating a Great Republican, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Monday, January 19th, 2009, we will celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and in remembrance and honor to Dr. King, a great man, I find it necessary to expose a major misconception. Many will be shocked to learn, since this hasn't traditionally been taught in the liberal dominated public schools and left-wing media, that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a conservative REPUBLICAN! In fact, Dr. King is considered, along with Abraham Lincoln who fought to free blacks from slavery, as one of the greatest Republicans in all of history.

When one really studies history, instead of listening to politicians, this revelation shouldn't be all that shocking. After all, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as the "anti-slavery" party, and fought to abolish slavery, as well as passed:

The 13th Amendment (granted freedom)

The 14th Amendment (citizenship)

The 15th Amendment (right to vote)

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

The Reconstruction Act of 1867

Republicans even started the NAACP (on Lincoln's 100th birthday in 1909)! And, for extra credit, can you name the President that began affirmative action? The Republican, Richard Nixon.

Where were the Democrats during the freeing of the blacks and the civil rights movement? They were starting such wonderful organizations as the Ku Klux Klan, who had as an officer of the black, racist lynch mob, none other than Robert Byrd. How did the Democrats punish Byrd? They made Byrd the longest serving member in U. S. Senate history. And where was the outrage when Christopher Dodd, a fellow Democrat Senator, glorified Byrd (nicknamed "Sheets," by his political opponents, for obvious reasons), as someone who would have been a great senator for any moment, including the "Civil War." Well, I guess we know what side of the war Senator Byrd would have been on. What did the Democrats nickname Senator KKK Byrd, "The Conscience of the Senate!"

The Democrats enacting the "Jim Crow" laws and, in fact, the Democrats fought to prevent the passing of every single piece of civil rights legislation from 1860 through the 1960's.

It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It was also Ike who sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. Democrats supported segregation in the nation's schools. And, in 1958, Ike established the permanent Civil Rights Commission, which had been rejected by prior Democrat presidents, including that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Even though FDR received the majority of black votes, it was he who banned black newspapers from the military!

Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, whose war on poverty and "Great Society" promised to eliminate poverty, referred to Dr. King as "that nigger preacher." Democrats have dominated the management of most American inner-cities the past 40 years, and blacks have seen very little, (after trillions of dollars of government programs), if any, improvement in the conditions they suffer from. Many other popular, powerful Democrat leaders were racists and against black rights. Two that come to mind are former Georgia Governor Lester Maddox and former Alabama Governor, George Wallace.

Today, the Democrat party has fought to keep blacks dependent on the federal government for assistance, hence securing their votes, and in the meantime keeping them poor and powerless. Democrats even oppose school choice, which would give blacks access to the same private educations that the elitists in Washington D.C. enjoy for their children. Does anyone honestly believe that blacks wouldn't be better served by having access to the better educations available outside the monopolistic public school system? If the public school system is so wonderful, then why did Barack Obama enroll his daughters in private school? Shouldn't all blacks have that opportunity?

Another famous Democrat (not popular to criticize), who along with his brother, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated, in an attempt to undermine him, was John F. Kennedy through his brother (Attorney General, Robert Kennedy).

Throughout its history, despite empty accusations to the contrary by their opponents, the Republican party has always championed equality and empowerment of blacks.

This Monday, when we are all thinking about the color-blind society that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned, we can thank another Republican who made Dr. King's birthday a national holiday -- Ronald Reagan.

Obama Inauguration to Top $150 Million! Bush's reported as "excessive" at $42 million in '05!

In 2005, the Associated Press (AP), as well as many other mainstream media outlets, reported that President Bush's inauguration party, which cost $42.3 million as being excessive and in poor taste. To add further perspective, the Partying President, Bill Clinton, only spent $33 million in 1992.

Prior to the last inauguration in 2005, following the 2004 victory of G.W. Bush, the media was saying the money could be better spent on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Will Lester, the AP writer on the 2005 article asked, “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”

Presently, unlike the other during two inaugural examples, we are fighting a war on terrorism in two countries, our financial system is on shaky ground, and the unemployment rate is increasing faster than you can say, "Big Government." The deficit is projected to be over $1 trillion (that's with a "T") and that is before PE Obama's massive "stimulus" plan. One would think that it would be considered inappropriate to hold such a extravagant, over-the-top event when so many people are in distress. After all, what kind of message is this sending to the non-attending citizens who can't afford the reported $10,000 tickets?

Well, apparently, $42 million for George W. Bush was excessive for the AP, but $150 million for Barack Obama is applauded. On Tuesday, January 13th, they ran an article entitled, “For Inaugural Balls, Go For Glitz, Forget Economy,” which actually attempted to make a case for the largest amount ever spent on a inaugural party--by far! I'm no bean-counter, but I'd have to think that $150 million would even pay down more national debt than $42 million would, and probably buy more Humvees.

A spokeswoman for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies, Carole Florman, said: "We are always very budget conscious. But we are sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you do not want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is."

They should be able to pull that off for $150 million. That is, if they're "budget conscious." I don't happen to know (or really care all that much) what is considered excessive for an inauguration for the President. What bothers me is another example of the two-face, double-standards, and lack of objectivity of the mainstream media that seems to have one set of rules for conservative politicians and another one for liberal ones.

Mr. Limbaugh Goes to Washington? Limbaugh "Rushes" to meets with Obama/team?

This morning something very interesting happened: The influential Rush Limbaugh wasn't on his extremely popular (over 20,000,000 listeners per week) radio program. Of course this has happened before, but it was always announced in advance, as in Rush taking vacation time off, etc.

With interest, I pulled up the show's website and saw the following message, prominently displayed:

"Rush has been called away to a super-secret meeting in Washington. Jason Lewis of KTLK in Minneapolis guest-hosts. Rush will return tomorrow."

Yesterday on his radio program, Mr. Limbaugh explained his economic plan, "The Limbaugh Plan, Bailout the Rich," (I believe the title has a tiny bit of "tongue in cheek" in order to aggravate the left):

" I would be willing to present this plan personally to the president-elect 'cause it works, and I've got Ronaldus Magnus taking over for Jimmy Carter, which is where Obama might end up in four years, with all this massive unemployment, high interest rates, thermostats turned down to 67 degrees in the wintertime, 78 degrees in the summertime, Reagan came in, cut taxes across the board for everybody, spurred economic growth, unemployment went down, interest rates went down, the experts said it couldn't happen, but it did. We can compare that to what he's doing, which is FDRnomics. FDRnomics prolonged the Great Depression for seven years. Herbert Hoover, was in charge of it for one, got all the blame. But we could do it. We could have a side-by-side comparison here of how really to jump-start the economy. We know that Obama's way hasn't worked before; we know that Reagan's way has. I'm just offering a personal trip; nobody even has to know about this. I would fly anywhere under the cover of darkness. I would slink in in an old rented car that nobody would think was carrying anybody special. We could do it in Blagojevich's office. We could do it in Roland Burris' office, wherever -- (interruption) no, I'm not going to make an airdrop. I'd do it on the phone. He's open to good ideas, bail out the rich, cut their taxes, get the economy going."

Prior to the above, Rush had referred to an AP story that reported the difficulty "high-end" retailers, whose customers are typically more affluent, were having in this economy. The message here, according to Mr. Limbaugh was that when the rich start demanding price reductions, it exemplifies how deep the current economic ditch is.

Rush Limbaugh is not given any credibility by the far-left or it's media. What will be the reaction of the left now that the future President of the United States, Barack Obama, is bringing Rush to the table?

President-Elect Obama, "Tear Down This Tax Code!" Abolish the I.R.S...that would be Real "Change"

President-Elect Obama,

Do you want to be considered by all, Democrat and Republican, conservative and liberal, rich and poor, the greatest President of all-time?

Abolish the I.R.S., and start over with a Tax Policy that is fair to everyone!

Sources vary (I'm not even sure if the IRS knows), but there is reportedly over 9,000,000 words, and growing, in the Internal Revenue Tax Code, with it's regulations, (or about 9 or 10 times that of the entire Holy Bible). If you ask fifty tax professionals to do your taxes, you'll probably get fifty different answers.

The American Revolution was fought over the British Monarchy's "divine right" to impose a 3-5% income tax on the Colonists. Eight years of killing, maiming, property destruction, expensive battling and decades of bitter relations...just over a 3-5% tax! That's less than the several state sales tax rates alone!

In 1913, when the current income tax system was born, only 1 out of 271 Americans even paid it. The top bracket was 6%, and that was for incomes of over $500,000, in 1913 dollars (see picture at right)! It was, truly, a tax on the very wealthy. Today, according the the IRS's own figures, roughly 97% of all federal income taxes are paid by 50% of the public!

And, it was a simple, one page document that any American third grader could complete. Today, it is a tedious, time-consuming, unproductive, stressful, complex, and resentful process that requires trained professionals, Accountants, CPA's, and Tax Attorneys, to get the myriad of pages completed. Each one of these pages was once a productive, living, beautiful, tree!

This monstrosity of a tax code is way too large to reform or be tinkered with, as many have tried to do in the past. This national embarrassment deserves the trash heap of history.

President-Elect Obama, you promised us change. Trash this tax code and start over with one that is fairer, simpler, and less of a strain, both emotionally and financially, on the citizens of the United States.

Thank you.

OBAMA "DOUBLES-DOWN" ON BUSHES MISTAKES

When asked recently to comment on the war in Gaza between Israel and militant Hamas, President-Elect Obama answered that there could only be one president at a time. That didn't stop him, however, from proposing the largest federal government spending program in the history of the United States of America. Apparently, there can be two presidents when government spending is being proposed.

What makes my jaw drop is that many of the same people who bashed President Bush for his deficit spending are now supporting President-Elect Obama's massive spending spree. Ironic.

When George W. Bush talked about the recession of '90-91, he was accused by the left of "talking-down" the economy. PE Obama can repeatedly talk-down, not only the current economy, but with complete confidence, talk down the future economy with his "Great Depression" analogies and projections. Perhaps a study of the economy of the late 70's and early 80's is warranted by the President-Elect.

Of course this type of fear mongering by the President-Elect is naively swallowed by the naive public, who are duped into thinking that the government can "fix the economy." Mr. Obama is craftily using fear tactics to make the case for the largest expansion of federal government since The Great Deal.

When the federal government spends money, it has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is taxpayers, the producers of society that foot the bill. Governments cannot, will not, and has never "stimulated" the economy by taking more money from the tax payers. Where did we get the ill-conceived notion that giving our money to the federal government, only to have it funneled through wasteful, inefficient bureaucracies, then returned to whom the politicians deem worthy. No country or economy can thrive by punishing achievement and rewarding failure. These government bailouts have the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. Everyone has their hand out. This must stop!

The reason why our country is great is not because of the government. It is because of the lack of government that we, until now, have been protected from as intended by the founders. We are on a dangerous fast-track to socialism which has never produced prosperity anywhere. Is this what we want? Do we want politicians to have control of our lives?

Has anyone noticed that there is no plan to pay for this?

If big government spending could pull us out of this mess, wouldn't we not be here in the first place, with the out-of-control spending by President Bush? Mr. Obama seems to think that doubling down on the fiscal mistakes of the Bush administration will pull us out of our current malaise.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon we're talking real money. God help us reclaim our sanity.

"Regulation" Caused the Economic Crises

The government caused the economic problem and these charlatans are the same who offer the solutions. I don't think so.

The first step in solving a problem (other than admitting that there is a problem), is identifying "what caused the problem." But before we delve into that, a little history is warranted.

In the good old days banks had to be a lot more careful because the mortgage loans they made stayed on their books. If the borrower defaulted on the loan, the bank took the financial hit. Of course, not everyone could afford to own their home, and this was unacceptable to certain politicians who, in their Utopian beliefs, felt that everyone should be able to participate in the "American Dream."

Potentially sincere politicians and community organizers pushed for the now looked down upon, Community Reinvestment Act, which grew over the years, legislatively, to force banks to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify for mortgages, in the real world. In addition, even more onerous, was the creation of the “securitization” of home mortgages, in which banks were encouraged to dump their mortgages (getting them off of their books) on Wall Street firms (some of which are now defunct or had to be acquired or bailed out) which in turn packaged them into securities that were sold to investors.

As an unintended consequence, banks no longer had to care whether the borrower ever paid back the original loan. The banks simply pocketed the myriad of fees for processing the loans, then sold the loans to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, two now nationalized (formerly "quasi" government agencies) or handed them off to investment firms. And, since Fannie & Freddie would guarantee these loans, with the "implied" backing of the federal government (recently proven) who cared?

Thus, the cause of the current crisis has not been too little regulation, but too much. Or, at bare minimum, the wrong kind. Had the government not attempted to “regulate” the housing market, meddling with free markets, the financial crisis would certainly never have occurred. Did ordinary people get greedy? Of course! But who set up the game pieces to this debacle? That's right, the same exact people (i.e., Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, the Federal Reserve, etc.) who created the mess in the first place, and we're swallowing it hook, line, sinker, fish, pole, fisherman, tackle, and boat!

What followed the government's interference in the free markets, was the greatest housing bubble in American history, fueled by government-issued “fake money” in the form of subprime loans. Recessions are a normal, healthy (albeit somewhat painful) part of the economic cycle. They cannot be outlawed or legislated out of existence any more than gravity can. However, government can make them worse, as is shown in this current case. We cannot continue to trust the same people who cause our problems with the solutions to our problems. It was not deregulation that caused the economic problems we are in today. It was regulation. It was regulators. It was the government.

Who Pays How Much in Taxes?

The Party That Lied About WMD's. . .The Democrats?

I know, you're probably saying, what? The Republicans, led by the "Chief Liar" himself, President George W. Bush were the ones that "lied" to us "hundreds" of times, telling us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, weren't they?

Why would President Bush throw the nation into an unjust and unprovoked war? Two motives are given, none having anything to do with 9/11, or keeping our country safe. First, because he wanted Iraq's oil for all of his perceived rich, greedy oil buddies. Second, is that Saddam had a hit out on the elder President Bush (#41), and "W" was using the circumstances as "payback time."

No, these are not theories, opinions, or stories. This explanation has been chiseled in stone as the gospel truth. There is no room for any other possibility. End of story, although we should repeat it over and over again for emphasis. After all, war is a terrible atrocity (except to the warmonger Bush).

What I don't understand, and maybe somebody can help me out there, is why there is no outrage at the other liars? I've done some reading and have identified a few of the other prominent "liars" about Saddam having weapons of mass-destruction (WMD's). I had to shorten the list, for brevity's sake. Otherwise, this article might have fallen in the classification of a book.

Please read the quotes carefully, paying careful attention to the dates of the quotes:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- DEMOCRAT, Former President, Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- DEMOCRAT, Current Secretary of State-Elect, Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- DEMOCRAT, President Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- DEMOCRAT, Secretary of Health & Human Services-Elect & former Senate leader, Tom Daschle in 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- DEMOCRAT, former Vice-

President, Al Gore, 2002

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

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- -- DEMOCRAT, Senator, Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts, September 27, 2002

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- DEMOCRAT, Senator, Carl Levin, Michigan, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- DEMOCRAT, Senator Patty Murray, Washington State, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- DEMOCRAT, Current Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, California, December 16, 1998

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- DEMOCRAT, Representative, California, Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

As you can see, George W. Bush has a lot of accomplices in his lies. Of course, as I alluded to earlier, this is not a comprehensive list. I could have, of course, included many more Democrats and a multitude of liars from the Republican side of the isle as well.

They all lied, just like Bush.

I also could have included all of the foreign leaders and diplomats that unabashedly lied about Saddam's having WMD's. People like former Secretary of State under the Clinton Administration, Madeline Albright, and President Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger. Britain's Tony Blair, and most other world leaders.

They're all liars like Bush.

So why isn't there the outrage against all of the liars with a "D" next to their name. You tell me and we'll both know.

Did President Bush have more information than the others? More than President Clinton had in 1998? More than Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor. Did he have more than the other liar who gets a free pass, Colin Powell? More than former Secretary of State Madeline Albright? More than former Vice President, Al Gore? Is it possible that President Bush had information, the type of security information that wasn't available to former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen?

Why is Bush being singled out?

And, why, if he wanted the oil for his "cronies" aren't we taking Iraq's oil? Why didn't his father take Kuwait's oil after the first Gulf War of 1990? Why aren't we occupying Kuwait?

I suppose President Bush could have wanted to get Saddam for going after his dad. But, that doesn't explain why Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Ted Kennedy, William Cohen, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, Patty Murray, Tony Blair, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, and many others too numerous to mention, all (except Powell, supposedly, although he did support a Democrat for President), Democrats. Would they all want to get even with Saddam too? Would they all want to go to war for oil too? Why would they lie about WMD's?

The biggest proof that the United States had weapons of mass destruction in World War II, was that we used them, nuclear in this case, against Japan. This is historically and scientifically irrefutable. One does not need to find the weapons that were used to verify this. It's verifiable.

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

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, Feb., 18, 1998

The evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction is that he used them on his own people several times. If he had them in the past, why wouldn't he be able to use them again in the future (of course, he can't now thankfully).

Who were the real liars in regards to weapons of mass destruction? Were all of these knowledgeable, informed, intelligent (don't start!) leaders, from all political persuasions intention liars?

NO!

The liars left are those reading this article that for years have repeated the nonsensical mantra of, "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied." The deepest deception is performed by the same people who had the information and knew that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, said that he did, then when the war wasn't going well, created a story that "Bush lied." Those that spouted these lies for political gain, while putting aside our nation's best interests are traitors. Those who repeated these "lies about the lies," blinded by their invidiousness against President Bush, are shameful Americans.

If President Bush lied, he had plenty of help from the Democrats, even before he became President. The lies must stop.