Category: government
Barack Obama: Changing his Changes…you better “Believe” it!
Written by Ron McClure Jr.
Saturday, 28 February 2009 11:14
3 Comments

Not again?! BO promised “change,” but he didn’t make it clear that his policies would be the prime target of these “changes.”

Most of us are still trying to figure out what our new president is all about, and if he stands behind his statements. Well good luck! Apparently he’s still not sure either. In less than a year, Obama has “vowed” to end the war in Iraq three times, with each target date subsequently “changing.”

First, in March of '08 we had his prickly response to former President Clinton’s admonition of Obama’s stance on the Iraq war: “Bill, said Obama's depiction of his longstanding opposition to the war was a ‘fairy tale.’"  Feeling obligated to defend himself, then Democratic Nominee Obama snapped back; declaring that, “Clinton ‘doesn't have any standing to question my position on this issue.’ And he added that, ‘I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused.’"

Next, after winning the Democratic primary and selecting his VP, the Obama camp launched a website – barackobama.com – to publicly display his future  policies; which by the way, included at least one “change” from his previous promises. When addressing the Iraq war, the site showed his “new” promise: “…Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war…Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months,” which would effectively push the date well into 2010.

Now, here’s Obama’s latest installment: “President Barack Obama on Friday promised to end the combat mission in Iraq in 18 months, vowing to follow that by pulling all troops out by the end of 2011.”

So, if your still sizing up your new president, one thing is certain: his promises “change” like the chromatophores of a chameleon.  And you can take that "change" to the (government run) bank!

Incidentally, recent research indicates that a chameleon uses color changes “…as a method of communication, including to make themselves more attractive to potential mates.”

Hmmm? Is our prez a lizard?

 
*Obama redefines “Change We Can Believe In”
Written by Santiago
Wednesday, 04 February 2009 04:53
1 Comment

(Editor's note: Due to the lack of timely editing, this post should have been posted on Tuesday morning. In light of Wednesday's news, Santiago must be credited for Obama's disowning of Mr. Tom Daschle. Thanks Santiago for keeping BO in check.)

It was reported in The New York Times yesterday that Barack Obama’s rhetoric of ushering in a new era of responsibility in ethics reform, etc., is at odds with his actions thusfar as president. As a side note, it makes for comical reading as The Times desperately tries to justify the obvious inconsistencies between the Anointed One’s rhetoric and his actions. But I digress…

From the New York Times:

Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a “new era of responsibility..” What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.

Oh, those pesky asterisks. I’m sure the liberal nutroots and quasi-intellectuals who elected Obama thought the man really meant what he said. However, he has shown he had other things in mind when he spoke of his "new era of responsibility " in cleaning up the beltway. So far, his commitment to clean up Washington has resulted in two cabinet picks who neglected to pay their taxes–one of which has withdrawn in disgrace. The other, former Senator Tom Daschle, while not withdrawing his name from consideration, has assured the American people that he is deeply sorry for his failure to pay $128,000 in back taxes. That’s “comforting.” I’m feeling much better now, especially since Obama has tendered his unconditional support of Daschle.

If that weren’t enough, there is the lobbyist who is now set to become the No. 2 guy at the Pentagon, and there are others who have been brought onboard the O’Train which we could rightfully call unregistered lobbyists. And let’s not forget how Obama’s administration worked their butts off lobbying legislators in order to pass a trillion dollar bailout package.

Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. That’s what I call, “Change We Can Believe In.”

 
Proof that government handouts work
Written by Chad Phillips
Thursday, 11 December 2008 15:59
4 Comments

This just in from the AP: "More than half of all homeowners who had their loans modified to make the payments more affordable in the first half of the year are already in default again." Imagine that. This is exactly what any normal well adjusted intelligent human being would expect. Yet, somehow Uncle Sugar never saw it coming. And that's not the worst of it. They plan on rewarding the attendant bad behavior of mortgage holders by giving away more of your money.

One article had the audacity to print this "The main goal of the program is to get financial institutions to lend money more freely again, which would help revive the economy." Yeah…that makes a lot of sense to me. Let's "lend" (wink wink, nod nod) more tax payer money to those who can't or won't pay that money back. I mean, it's working already isn't it?  This is insanity.

And now the Bush administration with the connivance of liberal democrats are poised to lend tax payer money to the auto industry. This is all under the auspices of saving jobs. Jobs for which employees are overpaid, CEO's are overpaid, and for a company infrastructure which has failed to remain competitive. I'm wondering, if the auto industry was ever going to get their act together, wouldn't they have done it already?  So why or how is another taxpayer funded handout going to get them to fix their broken machine now? Here, I'll make a little prediction: This loan isn't going to fix anything. It's just going to prolong certain death. Just as the $700 billion bailout isn't fixing anything, but only prolonging the inevitable. The reason none of this is going to work is because bad choices (behavior) is largely behind it all. The money won' t change the behavior that led lenders into the shape they were in. It won't change the behavior of irresponsible mortgage holders and it won't change the behavior of the fat cats running the auto industry. It will merely enable these people to continue behaving in ways which harm themselves and others.

But even if these spending policies worked. Is it right to give away someone else's money without their consent, especially, when that money is being used to enable the bad choices of others? I don't think so. I think what our "representatives" are doing is morally wrong and I am outraged. You should be too.

Still, our fearless leaders press onward seemingly oblivious to the fact that the house is coming down all around them. They remain deaf to the cries of a majority of Americans who are begging them to, "Please, for the love of God, STOP!" Their stealing from public coffers so they can sink their teeth into private enterprise won't save them or us. What it will do is make things worse by enabling mediocrity at taxpayer expense. Yes, it's sick; it's obscene; it's immoral…and what's worse is that, practically speaking, those of us who are paying the tab are powerless to stop it.

Editor's Note: I wish to thank, MTW contributor and resident photoonist, T.R. Oglodad for whipping up the liberal Fudd graphic which accompanies this commentary.