Today, CNN published an article written by Contributor Ruben Navarrette Jr.

After reading it, I'm shocked:  I agree with much of what Ruben has written!

I didn't expect that at all!

Why am I surprised that I would agree with him?

On Sunday, Joseph Curl of The Washington Times asked:

"Is Obama a Pathological Liar?"

He writes:

Today, Fox News reported:

Today, CNN reported: 

"China spoke out strongly Sunday against a meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama, saying it 'hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and harmed Sino-U.S. relations.'

'This action seriously interfered with China's internal affairs,' said Ma Zhaoxu, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, in a statement, adding that officials have lodged formal complaints with their U.S. counterparts in Beijing and Washington."

Awwwwwwwww.  China's feelings were "hurt"?  US-Chinese relations were "harmed"?  Obama was meddling in China's internal affairs?

Good for Obama.  That's the very least he can do!

After all, China certainly deserves it.  Considering how China has treated America, China more than deserves it!

Consider:

First, let me provide some context for my article.

Regular readers of mine know that I very much dislike Obama.  I dislike Obama because his policies tend to be illogical and harmful to America.  I dislike Obama because of the people he has associated with and hired: People with disturbing histories.  In fact, I've written a six part expose showing just how troubling it is that Americans actually voted for him.

Although Obama usually acts illogically (well, only illogically if one assumes he wants the best for America!), he sometimes does act logical.  I think it's important for me to highlight some of these instances!  After all, I aim to call it like it is, to be unbiased:  "Not Liberal.  Not Conservative.  Just Logical."

Something he's done recently is plausibly logical:

Regular readers of mine should have little doubt that Obama is a left wing radical. After all, my six part series extensively made that clear.

Now, is Al Gore a radical?  Well, I know he's left wing.  Yes, many left wingers are irrational, but I wouldn't assume most are radical.  Many left wingers could have good, but irrational, intentions.

Al Gore certainly may be a radical, however.  After all, a judge ruled that his movie “Inconvenient Truth” included nine significant untruths.  I find it hard to believe that a filmmaker would make so many errors, unless they were made intentionally!  So, I think it's plausible that Al Gore is a climate change radical.

If Obama and Gore are both left wing radicals, wouldn't you think they would agree on things and be nice to each other?

CNN reported Wednesday:

"Former vice president and environmental advocate Al Gore sharply criticized President Obama's 'failed' approach to global warming Wednesday, forcing the White House to defend its record on climate change.

Gore was supportive of Obama's action in the first six months of his administration, but the former Democratic presidential nominee said the administration has not made the case for action among the American people."

"Obama, he said, has not defended the science of global warming..."

Well, perhaps Obama thinks the science of global warming is not defensible.  After all, 31,487 scientists signed a petition agreeing in part that:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

If Obama isn't attempting to defend the science behind global warming, again, is it possible that's because he thinks it's not defensible?

Well, since when has Obama let a few lies stop him from pursuing an agenda?  And isn't global warming a left wing issue?

What are the odds that Obama, the man selected as 2007's most left wing Senator, would choose not to defend global warming?

I think I may know the reason.

First, back to Al Gore, for context:

"Obama, he said, has not...provided a 'presidential venue' to bring the data before the public."

Well, perhaps he doesn't want to convene a press conference about it.  If he does, he might end up in the position White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was in:

Conclusion

When it comes down to how far he's willing to go, perhaps Obama does have his limits!

Today it was reported:

"Federal and local authorities are investigating an apparent airline security breach after an American Eagle Airlines employee allegedly used another man's identity to get a job as a flight attendant.

Jophan Porter, 38, has been charged with six counts of identity theft and three counts of forgery among a lengthy list of other charges, according to the Miami-Dade corrections website."

My advice to Jophan is this:

Next time, raise the bar!  I hear that you can become president of the USA with no ID!

And if it turns out that someone asks you for ID, you won't have a problem with forged ID, no matter how crude and obvious the forgery is!

First, let's look at today's news, for context.  From CNN:

“'Everybody wants an agreement,' Biden told reporters after a meeting in the Capitol with the bipartisan group of lawmakers and other top Obama administration officials. 'That is sufficiently realistic to get to $4 trillion over a decade or so – in terms of reductions.'"

In light of the never-ending, seemingly annual debt and deficit talks, I did a bit of research into past debt reduction talks.

You may be surprised at what I found!

From 1992: 

"In a second defeat for the Administration, the Senate killed a Republican amendment striking a provision from the package that would have permanently extended two tax increases for wealthy taxpayers established in the 1990 budget agreement."

Republicans tried to prevent the tax increase on the wealthy from becoming permanent. OK, that's not really a surprise.  But that's not the surprise I was referring to!

Look at what Bush Sr. offeredas his debt reduction proposal:

"...campaign proposal offered by President Bush to permit taxpayers to earmark up to 10 percent of their income tax payment to reducing the national debt."

Yes, you read that right!  Bush Sr. wanted to allow taxpayers to generously, voluntarily, donate to reduce the national debt!

I bet there would've been a lot of takers for that offer!

As I've previously written, I still don't think either side actually wants to reduce the national debt.

The current talks, involving the Obama administration, are likely to be theatre.  Pure theatre.

Fox News has just released poll results:

"All in all, 49 percent of voters approve of President Obama’s job performance and 47 percent disapprove. Last month, 49 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved."

Wow. No, let me try again. Wooooooooooow.

More Americans approve of Obama's job performance than disapprove?

More Americans approve of Obama's job performance than disapprove!

How could any American, perhaps outside of his family and friends, approve of his performance?  He's a complete disgrace!

This isn't just my opinion...it's fact! It's the only logical conclusion, and is based on overwhelming evidence!

Looking at scandals alone, how could any reasonable person approve of Obama?

If you go to ExposeObama.com, there is credible, disturbing news being published about Obama every single day!


SCANDALS AND LIES PRIOR TO HIS ELECTION

There've been so many scandals he's been involved in, so many lies he's been caught making, that I've forgotten many of them in an attempt to stop my brain from exploding!

My article outlined many Obama scandals that occurred prior to his election. Here are just a few of them:

1) Canadian officials claimed Obama's team privately told them that Obama didn't mean it when he claimed to be against NAFTA.

2) Obama was caught in a lie, and his team actually admitted the lie, regarding the reasons for his disturbing 2001 vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

3) Obama broke his word by suddenly saying he would no longer accept public financing of his campaign.

4) Obama broke his word by decideding to grant immunity to telecom companies.

5) Obama, several times, radically changed his timetable regarding withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

6) Obama refused to wear an American flag lapel pin.

7) Obama was the only politician on stage who refused to place his hand over his heart while the National Anthem was sung.

8) Obama refused to strongly denounce and distance himself from unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers.

9) Obama dubiously claimed that he wasn't in church any of the many times Reverend Wright was caught on tape spewing anti-American venom.

10) Obama's wife Michelle said:

"'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."


Given the long list of pre-election scandals, and given that Obama's popularity at that time was even greater than today's 49% rating, his pre-election popularity could be considered an even greater indictment of the psyche of some Americans than their current approval of him!

Consider that his approval ratings were even higher at that time, and then ask yourself this:

When someone becomes aware of his refusal to wear an American flag pin, what would make that person think to himself: "Oh, I think i'll vote for that un-American guy!"

When someone becomes aware that Bill Ayers was involved in bombing a police station and the Pentagon, when they become aware that Obama knew Ayers at least fairly well, and when they become aware that Obama, instead of strongly denouncing Ayers' actions, instead downplays knowing Ayers and weakly claims that Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood, what would make that person then think to himself: "Oh, I think i'll vote for that guy, a guy who doesn't find it important enough to condemn a bomber of a police station, a guy who was caught downplaying his relationship with a terrorist!  That guy sounds like he would be a great president!"

And so on, and so on.


SCANDALS AND LIES AFTER HIS ELECTION

It didn't take long for more scandals and lies to come to the forefront.

Several of Obama's nominees for crucial Cabinet level positions were forced to resign before they even took power!

Why?  Disturbing allegations and/or evidence came forward:

Bill Richardson was rumored to be under investigation by the FBI regarding bribery.  Tom Daschle also stepped down.  If I remember correctly, he had tax issues?  Another nominee, one who actually didn't resign, was Tim Geithner, even though he actually admitted not paying his taxes!  And there were at least one or two other nominees that were forced to resign.

Boy, I tell ya, I can just see how the majority of Americans approved of Obama, can't you?

Or was it the case that people who voted for Obama didn't follow the news?  Was that it?  McCain backers read the news, Obama backers don't? (Maybe they bury their head in the sand and say "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" over and over and refuse to acknowledge reality)?

And don't forget all the other post election scandals and lies surrounding Obama! Here are a few:

1) The early term scandal involving his Chief of Staff.  I believe it had something to do with housing?  I'm too depressed to even look it up!

2) Obama submitted the multi billion dollar economic stimulus legislation...but he went against his promise of transparency, and refused to remove earmarks from it!

3) Obama attacked Libya without Congressional approval, going against his own word.  He may have broken the War Powers Act as well!

4) One of the czars Obama hired, Van Jones, stepped down after it was exposed that Obama had hired an admitted communist.

5) After the 2010 midterm election's shift in power, Obama threatened to become a dictator, threatening to use Executive Orders to avoid democracy and write the rules himself.

6) Obama refused to be transparent and release the names of visitors to the White House.

7) Obama reported his own country (actually, a state in the country, Arizona) to the UN Human Rights Council, after Arizona attempted to step up efforts to enforce immigration laws!


There have been so many other scandals surrounding Obama...but I don't need to list them all in order to make my point.  I haven't even gotten into the irrationality of Obama's economic, fiscal and social policies...but that's another article! Or perhaps a book!


ARE SO MANY AMERICANS CLUELESS?

How is it that 49% of Americans approve of Obama's performance?  Are these 49% of Americans part of the 50% of Americans that score below average on IQ tests?  Isn't it true that even a dim person should be intelligent enough to realize that Obama is disturbing?

In light of everything Obama has done, I can think of several explanations for the disturbing approval by those 49% of Americans:

1) They are either extremely unintelligent, or

2) They almost never read the newspaper, or

3) They almost never watch the news on television, or

4) They almost never speak to friends, family or coworkers about politics, or

5) They haven't read any of the many bestsellers exposing Obama, or

6) They simply like the idea of approving of Obama, or

7) They find it difficult to believe that a mild mannered, excellent speaker could be so corrupt, so they act illogically and choose to approve of him, or

8) They voted for him and have trouble admitting to themself they now disapprove of him, or

9) They believe that Obama's policies have benefitted them in the short term, regardless of how his policies will affect them long term, and regardless of how his policies affect the entire country inboth the short term and the long term.

10) They actually don't approve of Obama, but are so afraid of Obama's corrupt reputation that they claim to approve, for fear of retribution, or

11) They are evil.


Maybe citizens should be required to attend monthly educational classes, classes that summarize the month's political news.  That would require enough space to accommodate many citizens; if there are early space limitations, perhaps the priority should be to give the educational spots to those who need them most, Obama backers!

I'm serious about this.  Wouldn't that really help?

When I read things like this, I don't know whether to laugh or cry:

"President Obama listened to dozens of jobs-spurring recommendations suggested by his jobs council Monday -- and then he made one himself on deficits and debt.

'We need to solve our medium and long-term debt problems, not just for abstract reasons, but because they're a concrete impediment to growth and jobs,' Obama said at the second meeting of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The jobs council met in Durham, N.C., to discuss different ideas for jobs creation, which mostly revolved around things the federal government can do to speed up or cull back regulation of private businesses."

Really? That's the best Obama's team can come up with?

Ideas about how to add, remove or alter government regulation of businesses?

Ideas about solving debt problems?

Well, the two ideas are at least admirable, but are extremely unlikely to increase business hiring by much, if at all!  (And what reason is there to believe that Obama actually wants to reduce debt, anyway?  Most of his actions suggest he actually wants to increase the debt).

Obama's administration obviously doesn't have people that are intelligent enough to solve the problem. The problem is easily solvable.

Here's a lesson for Obama:

Businesses feel the need to hire workers when their revenue is increasing.  When businesses sell more goods and services, they need more workers to fulfill that demand.

If an American business increases revenue by selling only to Americans who switched brands from another American business, that does nothing for overall American employment levels.

The business with the increased revenue will hire more Americans, but the business that lost market share will lay off more Americans.

When you look at the aggregate level of business revenue nationwide, there is only one way businesses can increase their revenue overall.

They must sell more to foreign countries than they buy from foreign countries.  Otherwise, American businesses will slowly shrink over time.

This has been occurring for over 37 years straight.  37 years!

Why is it that several consecutive presidents, along with their staff, apparently don't understand that nothing will stop the American decline until they start selling more than they buy from foreigners like China?