Here
and
Now

opinions

Where is Obama's change we can believe in?

47 Comments
By Chuck Baldwin

"Change you can believe in." This was Barack Obama's campaign slogan. There is no doubt that the American people were fed up with George W Bush and his fellow Republicans. Who can blame them?

After campaigning for change back in 1999 (What political challenger doesn't campaign for change?), President Bush and his fellow neocons promptly set out to continue business as usual in Washington, DC. Federal spending and meddling exploded under the leadership of the GOP. In fact, one has to go back to the administrations of Franklin D Roosevelt to match the increases in Big Government and Big Brother by Bush and Company. Add to the out-of-control spending habits of the GOP an unnecessary war, a near-Depression economy, and a burgeoning police state. It is no surprise that the American people were ready for change. And Obama excelled in delivering the message of change. So, what kind of change will Obama actually deliver?

Will Obama remove U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably not. Oh, he might reduce troops in Iraq, but if anyone believes that he will not leave a significant U.S. presence in Iraq, they are living in a dream world. Furthermore, many, if not most, of the troops from Iraq will most likely find themselves in Afghanistan. Mark my words; Obama has no plans to remove U.S. troops from the Middle East. Net result: no change.

What about America's economic woes? What changes will Obama bring to the table? Hardly any. America will continue it's trademark deficit spending; we will continue to send manufacturing jobs overseas; so-called "free trade" deals will continue to advance; big Business will continue to receive government bailouts; the Federal Reserve will continue to call the shots for America's financial decisions (and reap gargantuan profits in the process); Congress will continue to be inept, irresponsible, and clueless; there will be no attempt to return the United States to sound money principles; and there will be no reduction in foreign aid. In a nutshell, it will be business as usual in Washington, DC.

Don't get me wrong: Obama will doubtless throw out some bones to his liberal supporters in much the same way that Republican presidents throw out a bone or two to their conservative constituents. Watch for Obama to overturn the ban on embryonic stem cell research. America's upper income earners can expect some sort of tax increase. No doubt, oil companies will end up losing some tax exemptions. Watch for additional environmentalist policies to be enacted. And, yes, there will be some sort of "universal health care" proposal. But the Bush administration has already given America a socialized financial system, so how can Republicans complain about socialized medicine?

Obama might try to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine." Some suggest that Obama might try to rid the prohibition of homosexuals serving in the armed forces, but I doubt that he will take on this one. The political net gain would not be worth the potential fallout.

Although he might want to, I doubt that Obama will actively promote additional gun control (Democrats always lose when this happens). He may push for a ban on "high capacity" magazines that hold over 10 rounds, as Bill Clinton did. If Obama does not go after guns directly, we can expect some sort of attack on ammunition (which is already happening) that will drive up the cost of ammo even more. Of course, some sort of gun confiscation or martial law could materialize in the wake of another "terrorist" attack. But a McCain administration would have acted no differently, so, again, the net result is zero change. Remember, it was Republican George W. Bush who expunged Posse Comitatus and deployed 20,000 army troops on U.S. soil to be used for domestic law enforcement. If Obama really wants to bring about change, he would reverse Bush's draconian decisions, would he not? Don't hold your breath.

We can also expect more harassment of gun owners and lawful gun dealers by the BATFE. But this is no change at all. The current leadership at BATFE is already about as hostile to gun owners and gun dealers as it can possibly be. An Obama BATFE will be no worse. But neither will it be any better. Net result: no change.

So, what will be the overall change to the direction of America? Answer: there will be no change to the overall direction of the country. There will be no change to the welfare state. There will be little change to the warfare state. No change to NATO, except to expand it. Very little change, if any, to foreign policy. No change to America's open sieves, otherwise called national borders. And there will be absolutely no change to the burgeoning New World Order that began in earnest under both Bushes and Bill Clinton.

The NAFTA superhighway will have the support of the Obama administration. The North American Community will proceed unimpeded by the Obama White House. In all likelihood, the Amero (a common currency with Canada and Mexico) will materialize during Obama's first term. But this would all have happened had McCain been elected. No change here.

One reason why it is so easy to predict a business-as-usual Obama presidency is the people that Obama has surrounded himself with. Former New York Federal Reserve chairman Timothy Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury; former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers for National Economic Council director; Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates will keep his job; Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel for Obama's Chief of Staff; Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State; Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano for Secretary of Homeland Security; former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle to head the Health and Human Services Department; former Assistant Attorney General Eric Holder to be Attorney General; New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce; Susan Rice for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Paul Volcker for the Economic Recovery Advisory Board; James Steinberg as Deputy Secretary of State; Mona Sutphen for Deputy White House Chief of Staff, and Louis Caldera for Director of the White House Military Office.

Does anyone see "change" with the above names? Every one of them is a longtime political insider. And at least 11 of them are members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In fact, six out of the 11 cabinet-level positions in the Obama administration are CFR members.

The CFR has dominated both Democrat and Republican presidential administrations for decades. Presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have all been members of the CFR. Vice presidents such as Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, and Dick Cheney have been CFR members. And over the last several decades, practically every secretary of defense, secretary of the treasury, and most CIA directors have been CFR members. And let's not forget that this year's Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, is a CFR member.

Do you now see why -- no matter who is elected president of the United States -- nothing changes? Republican or Democrat, it does not matter: the CFR and their collaborators remain in power. And as Sonny and Cher used to sing, "The Beat Goes On."

There will be no real change in Washington, DC, until the CFR and their elitist cronies are thoroughly and universally removed from power. And the only way this will happen is if we elect an independent president of the United States (someone who truly understands the New World Order and is dedicated to defeating it), because the two major parties will never allow someone opposed to the CFR to become their nominee. The only Republican candidate for president in 2008 who demonstrated those credentials was Ron Paul. And to a lesser degree, the only Democrat who even seemed to vaguely understand this was Dennis Kucinich. Notice that both men were thoroughly repudiated by their respective parties' leadership and all but totally ignored by the national news media. (The CFR and their surrogates also control the national news media. What a coincidence!)

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

47 Comments
Login to comment

That was an embarrassing article to read.

Moderator: Why don't you point out where you disagree with the writer? That's what the discussion board is for.

First of all moderator thanks for deleting my comments and the comments of others questioning the choice and quality of feature writers in japantoday.

It seems pretty obvious to both the left and right why this whole article is of such low quality. The whole article and critique is centered around the assumption that Obama is already in power as president - to which everyone knows is completely false thus making the headline incorrect, deluded and embarrassing. To see that he has already dismissed the new president before he has had a day in power should be the first sign of Chuck's flimsy intellectual rigour! Then to add insult to injury he charges forward with pre-judged ideas about how change is not possible by setting up a line of straw men (that is irrelevant and/or distracting facts) to easy burn down in the name of making an argument. To quote black flag

"waiter, this soup is cold" "sir, I havent taken your order yet" "yes, but I'm sure it will be cold when it gets here get it and probably have a fly in it too"

So the most striking question to come out of this article is really how did it get through the J.T editorial filters? Is J.T just trying to suck readers into a bit of a good old red vs blue flame war? Whilst the rest of us look for journalism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, but take your own advice and realize that more government spending and other intervention is not the answer.

Let us see this response for what it is, propaganda. The belief that we can pull ourselves out of this without Government involvement, is a nice pipe dream.

This is bigger than a single business or two going bust. This my friends is another great depression. Every nation is feeling this one and everyone is scared. This depression took 8 years to create and now there is no way to get around Government involvement. No company, no person, no group can fix this. This will take leadership and government to fix it. To believe otherwise is to believe the far right Fantasy.

Every nation's governments have seen it for what this is and they have begun aide programs for their people to get to work. I am glad that McCain did not get elected. He would just have been more of the same far right propaganda/fantasy.

President Elect Obama sees this for what this truly is, a great depression. I hope when he becomes President Obama that he regulates wall street and takes back fiscal control of the US government.

Time to reverse the deregulation policies of Clinton and Bush. Time to break up some monopolies and time to get our Country and the world on the right road. A stable road to recovery.

We can't afford the spending that we've had for most of the past few decades, the national debt is going to the moon, foreigners-especially the Chinese and the Japanese-largely finance our profligate ways, yet you think that some more social welfare spending is the key to an American economic revival.

When the Dot-com bubble burst in 2000 our leaders in Government and business should have had an idea what was to come. But by the time the burst came President Clinton was no more than a puppet. He had been hunted down like a bank robber and he and Hillary had barracked themselves in the Oval office.

When President Clinton left office he left a strong Government with some surpluses. When Bush came into office he had what all in coming Presidents dream of having

Control of Congress Senate and House

Strong reserves

Support of the people

But now Bush leaves, the Country is in dire straits. Accept it or not, under his watch the world suffered. His policies and his parties policies did not work. His policies nearly brought the house of cards falling. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. He and his party needed to go and the people spoke!

I for one am glad that change is coming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe Bigs wrote:

"I think that when President Elect Obama becomes President Obama and he gets some social work programs started our economy will begin to move forward again."

Ah yes, let's get "some social work programs started" and everything will be just fine and dandy.

We can't afford the spending that we've had for most of the past few decades, the national debt is going to the moon, foreigners-especially the Chinese and the Japanese-largely finance our profligate ways, yet you think that some more social welfare spending is the key to an American economic revival.

There are undoubtedly construction projects nationwide that could use the financial assistance of the national government. But such spending will not have an immediate impact on the economy once Obama takes office, and it won't produce the kind of long-term jobs we need to compete in the global economy. Like I said before, Obama seems keen on the Japanese model.

Americans have wanted to have too much, too easily for quite a long time, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

"we need to get up and help ourselves"

Yes, but take your own advice and realize that more government spending and other intervention is not the answer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now when FDR made the great leap to get America moving it saved our country and got it's economy moving again.

Wrong. FDR prolonged the Depression.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If everyone is tossing their two cents in the ring, let me not be one to stay out of it.

To start all great empires survive because of the Infrastructure. If the road are not repaired then it is hard to move about them. If the bridges are not kept up then they fall. If the people are not cared for then they can not work and pay taxes. We can go on and on and on.

The moment a government decides that it cut spending on these things, then the country begins to decline.

Some would claim that all a nation needs is prayer and a god to follow. This god will provide all and care for the people. That in the thinking that has brought down older civilizations.

Now when FDR made the great leap to get America moving it saved our country and got it's economy moving again. I think that when President Elect Obama becomes President Obama and he gets some social work programs started our economy will begin to move forward again.

We can not still and wait for a god to save us, we need to get up and help ourselves. But no one person can do this it will take the masses. Only government can make such a move and not just one person.

This may sound like a Lefty idea, but maybe just maybe we need more lefty ideas to get us out of this Righty problem.

I think President Elect Obama has a very sense and may have what it take to get us out of this Republican mess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Barack Obama promised to go through the next federal budget "line by line" in order to find and eliminate wasteful spending. While he won't be able to do such a thing, millions of voters believed such nonsensical talk from the new leader of Camelot.

Let's look at it in detail:

In fiscal 2008, Social Security spending will total some $658 billion. Fat chance of cutting into that in fiscal 2009 with baby boomers retiring in droves, and average life expectancy at levels never imagined when Social Security was started in the first place.

Defense outlays reportedly come to $595 billion, although we all know there is other spending going on, and the general public is not privy to the details. How is this amount going to be sliced and diced by the Obama administration? Sure, they will try to start in motion a drawdown of forces in Iraq, but quite a number more military personnel will find their orders stamped, "Destination Afghanistan," in the next few years. Should we believe that Obama has some secret plan that he is working on with Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, to eviscerate billions in spending on various new weapons programs? Not going to happen, in my opinion.

Speaking of military-related matters, the $85 billion budgeted for the Veterans' Administration will undoubtedly balloon in the coming years.

Medicare spending in this fiscal year will total at least $461 billion, while Medicaid's portion of the budget pie comes to $201 billion. We often here of a bunch of "swell ideas" to eliminate waste in these programs, but I think there's a snowball's chance in hell that much of anything will be done during Obama's first term to change the skyrocketing costs, and where would the bipartisan agreement and political will to do so come from anyway?

Obama's magic wand can't do anything about the burgeoning costs of servicing the interest on the national debt, which was $451 billion last fiscal year, and will continue to increase unabated for the foreseeable future.

How about taking a sizable bite out Homeland Security's lifeline? I can't see that happening in the near future.

That pretty much leaves us with domestic discretionary spending. How about carving up education's budget? Why not pull the plug on various foreign aid programs? Farm subsidies? Even doing so would be a drop in the bucket of the federal government's $3 trillion budget.

And to think that Obama is planning to drastically increase spending on public works across America to create jobs-aka "Japan-style economic recovery." I guess there is a town in Japan named after him for a reason.

What to do, Mr. Obama, what to do? Sounds like to me that there is virtually no hope of making any substantive changes to the bankrupt federal government budget for many years to come.

Things are not going to get better anytime soon. They are going to get worse, much worse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't it premature to be talking about whether or not we can believe in Obama's change? He's not really in a position to do anything yet given that he is not the president. The writer of this piece seems to be pre-judging rather seriously. It's important to remember that George Bush is still president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Memo to the far right, Presdent Elect Obama is not President Obama yet. I think President Bush is still Commander and Chief. Wait until he is in Office, then you can start going nutz.

Sheeesh........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

change? obama was referencing his turn at the white house. that is all. same old tune sung by a different impersonator.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even if McCain had won the election, I wouldn't have been criticising his record BEFORE his inauguration.

Get that chip off your shoulder, Chuck - and let's criticise Obama once he has actually had a chance to have some influence on matters

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if barack obama was a white person, would you be so critical of him?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TPOJ: He's still jumping the gun in a petulant, childish manner.

I cannot see how he was petulant or childish. Maybe his view could have been prettied up more, but to what purpose?

The rest of your post was 24 carat however.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Where is Obama's change we can believe in?"

Stay tuned?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Moderator: The editors welcome contributions from readers. Would you care to submit a commentary?"

Sure!! When and where?

Moderator: Please contact the editor at editor@japantoday.com

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, actually Mr. Baldwin is closer to the truth than what most people realize. If you research your rear off on how the US Govt. works academically, the ceiling one hits is CFR. Now, if a person is researching outside the US, the overview is different - there is something higher than CFR. For the people who MUST know this, it would be fruitful to take a look at the Executive Orders of former Pres. Truman. There is now an organization who answers to no one, they are above the US Constition and the US President, and the US Govt. is finding out they can't afford the schemes implemented by them. From personal exposure, they are run like a dictatorship and this will affect how the US develops. For the layperson, the books and bibliography written by top researchers like Bamford would be fruitful. Sooooooo much has been analyzed about them, they may opt to create other branch(es) invisible to the US public. Prof. Chalmers Johnson explains symptoms, but the bottom line is coming - geopolitical burnout. US Constitution is dying, and Pres. elect Obama is just being told how things are in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey! Way to make a ton of needless predictions & unsubstantiated claims without skimping on the puerile whining.

Moderator: Why don't you state where you disagree with the writer? That's the purpose of the discussion board.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, I seem to recall the GOP leading the charge for an unfunded war, an unfunded expansion of social programs and tax cuts all at the same time. Yeah, sounds like LBJ but this time it was GWB. And guess what, now we get to re-live 1970s economics all over again too.

Taka, what the heck is Obama Derangement Syndrome? I must have missed a post.

I really don't expect Washington to change. There is so much entrenched in that town that you can't find a lever big enough to move it.

The article is quite a screed and so amazingly narrow minded that you can only wonder why it was published. Probably to get the JT posters in a lather...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What does Obama have to do with the Federal Reserve system? The Gov't gets ONE vote on the board, that's the extent of the control we have. The author has a lot to say, but not a lot of facts to work with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let me tell all you rich dudes the changes that will happen, like, kinda.

I'm gonna have a bigger trailer flat screen tv and more money because Obama is the man.

The rich have to pay now Bush lose and people like me can have better life.

I beleieve in Obama , him the man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Chuck Baldwin sounds like a libertarian. Thanks for assaulting the Republicans and the Democrats as both parties deserve it. The only change that I can see Obama bringing to the table is more intelligence and less cowboy diplomacy so in that alone he will be a welcome relief. That said everyone should recognize that nothing ever really changes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Furthermore, many, if not most, of the troops from Iraq will most likely find themselves in Afghanistan. Mark my words; Obama has no plans to remove U.S. troops from the Middle East. Net result: no change.

No sense in reading this guy's rant any further. President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama campaigned with the promise of taking us out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, inarguably the winning strategy. No change other than a US victory in the war on terror. Of course, the neoCons don't want that anymore; they'd rather lose the war entirely than have a Democrat win the war. I sure am glad the vast majority of my US military colleagues voted for Obama!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Out-of-control spending habits of the GOP"

Who's been in control of Congress since 2006 again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Black Flag one of the worst articles ob here in quite a while. "waiter, this soup is cold" "sir, I havent taken your order yet" "yes, but I'm sure it will be cold when it gets here get it and probably have a fly in it too"

Brilliant analogy...love it! This "Chuck" guy needs to listen to the people instead of being bitter his failed choice was utterly smashed in the election. I wanted to "chuck" up after reading his conservative drivel...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So...if CFR controls American politics and John McCain is a CFR member that means the CFR allowed their man to be defeated by Obama because they had foreknowledge of all the appointments that he would make to his cabinet? This conspiracy theorist needs to evaluate his thinking. It's akin to predicting the future by placing chicken bones in a wooden bowl shaking it around and getting the answer to the financial crisis. Give me a break!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

P.S.

The days of Obama Derangement Syndrome are already upon us.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As derisive as everyone is being, I hope all will be equally as conciliatory if Chuck is proven correct.

Well, I won't. He may be right. He's still jumping the gun in a petulant, childish manner.

(In response to my post) Why does everyone on the left scream that as loud as they can?

GAAAAHHHH! I am SO SICK of people assuming I'm on the left just because I'm not a jingoistic idiot. If my post made you think I'm a Dem just because I didn't agree with an attack on Obama, I truly pity you.

"Change takes time?" What happened to "Yes, we can"?? Why are you lowering expectations?

Are they lowering expectations? Or did you completely, totally, and utterly misread what was meant by the word "change," and are now blaming them for your mistake...much like you did with my post? If your understanding of "yes we can" was that poor, I can't help you.

Let me see how far I can dumb this down: I am not a Democrat. I am a lifelong conservative. I am also a realist. If we get our panties in a bunch at every opportunity, we're going to completely squander all our political capital before the guy even takes office.

He WILL screw up, and we need to keep him in line. How do you propose we do that if, every time we talk, we prove (as you did with your post) that we're just as bitter and sopolistic as our opponents say we are?

"Traffic is bad today. I thought we voted for CHANGE?" It was snowing yesterday, and it's snowing even harder today. What happened to CHANGE?"

Please. I implore you. Stop it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anybody who expected a radical change in DC is really naive. The only difference I've noticed between the Dems and Reps is who gets the government money. I imagine the far left is in for a disappointment. How the rest of the country fares is TBD.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That was an embarrassing article to read.

Moderator: Why don't you point out where you disagree with the writer? That's what the discussion board is for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More guns are being sold now than before Obama was elected -in fact some gun shops are selling out. This is the primary factor in driving up gun/ammo costs. 7.62x39 ammo went up about 3x to support the Iraq/Afghan militaries. With inflation some of these purchases make sense and you have cities like St. Louis saying that the police cannot protect you. People are concerned and with less jobs are expecting more crime.

I am expecting to see more tariffs on foreign goods, not a VAT like the UK, but a way for the Gov to make monies on foreign import sales.

Change happens slowly. Wind farming in the U.S. has grown substantially the last 2yrs -but no one talks about that. America has tremendous resources and doesn't need all these foreign products that increase debt. -Many products are cheaper, but they are cheaper and don't last as long either. =You buy more of the same product =bad for the environment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gets their panties in a bunch over a guy WHO HASN'T EVEN TAKEN OFFICE YET is a textbook case of whining.

Why does everyone on the left scream that as loud as they can? I hate to inform you, but picking his CABINET members IS DOING SOMETHING. The FIRST STEP in a presidency is assembling his cabinet and it must be done prior to day 1.

Has he taken office yet? No. Has he done things that bear an IMMEDIATE effect on the nation? Yes... we don't have to wait until the resurrection for things to actually happen BECAUSE of his pending presidency.

Why is it so hard for the left to realize that?

"Change takes time?" What happened to "Yes, we can"?? Why are you lowering expectations? WE CAN DO IT. CHANGE YOU CAN DEPEND ON. Are you telling now that the reality of the world, and politics, means that "YES WE CAN" is actually "Well, we might"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This article is a waste of excessively hot air. Or a disappointed GOP fan who is nursing wounds following their disasterous election results. So a little advice.

Obama is not yet in office. Patience young one.

The Cabinet is a tool, Obama is the user and we have yet to see how the dynamics will work. Especially in a climate where the box top is open and new ideas are being encouraged. Patience again young one. Let's see what happens when he is actually in office.

If you are looking for miracles you had better be looking for Santa and not ANY President. Change takes time, especially after 8 years of leadership by the peanut gallery Bush administration. Not to mention two wars and a near depression on.

If we all want real change we need to fundamentally change how we see things. We can no longer sit by and ride it out. We need to get involed and support the administration. That means changing how we behave, supporing change with our own sacrifices and volunteer work. It means backing the right people to get the job done. And it means having a clue about the political process which this writer clearly lacks.

JT shame on you for publishing such garbage. This is low even for your standards. There must be some good writers out there. If you don't know any, maybe we can introduce a few.

Moderator: The editors welcome contributions from readers. Would you care to submit a commentary?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where is the wrong question, its better asked when. And the answer is Jan. 20th.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Things will start to change from next month (i hope)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Obama will spend a lot of money but that's standard economics when times are tough. You stimulate the economy and employment. Bush was President in excellent economic times but instead of saving for winter he spent massively and now the US is about to lose its AAA credit rating.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As derisive as everyone is being, I hope all will be equally as conciliatory if Chuck is proven correct.

Obama may not have taken office yet, but his appointments are there to see. His statements are closely followed. Some plans have been hinted at.

I am glad Obama won the presidency, but, like Chuck, I remain skeptical that much change will be delivered. I remain hopeful, but I am not betting the farm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you kidding me?? He is not even in office yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There seem to be a lot of crap pieces like this recently on JT. Ok, maybe not recently, I just haven't checked it out in while and only came back recently, so it may have been going on for longer.

Who is doing the choosing of these things? Can just anyone with a keyboard expect to get his rant published? Where's the quality control?

In any case, I thought Obama's change was all about the WAY in which leadership is conducted. Chuck needs to cool his heels and wait at least a year before his tantrum should even be considered.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

one of the worst articles ob here in quite a while. "waiter, this soup is cold" "sir, I havent taken your order yet" "yes, but I'm sure it will be cold when it gets here get it and probably have a fly in it too"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, what a nice rant on someone who hasn't even taken office yet! I do believe his policy on Iraq and Afghanistan has been made clear, and the iraqi government is paving the way for it already. As for gun laws he also has mentioned repeatedly that he won't touch the subject.

But sure, throw in some bits of conspiracy theory to wrap the whole thing up!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yea OHHBAHHMAH, where is this "change?" i better wake up a month from now a see $100 bills falling from the sky.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't know if anyone told you this Chuck but he won't become President for a month yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He'll be sharing that office with more than half of the Clinton Addministration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope that he learns to stand on his own and doesn't become a puppet!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm old enough to remember when it was the left who were hand wringing drama queens.

Look, "change" doesn't mean "uproot every damned thing in the country and make up totally new stuff." It means stop being satisfied with the status quo. Try harder. Don't simply look over your shoulder, say "we're still ahead, why bother trying anything difficult" then assume everyone will love you because you "deserve" it (I'm thinking of, among other things, the moral relativity brought up by torture advocates, who say our enemy would treat us worse. As if America wasn't about trying to be the best. Apparently, America is about trying just hard enough to not be as bad as insane people.)

I'm sick of the left, I'm sick of the right, but essentially, I'm sick of whiners. Complaining about a lack of "change" from someone who (1) doesn't seem to grasp what the word "change" realistically involves in the real world, and (2) gets their panties in a bunch over a guy WHO HASN'T EVEN TAKEN OFFICE YET is a textbook case of whining.

Chuck Baldwin, and those like him, I implore you. STOP. CRYING. WOLF. You're spending opposition credibility as if it were a bottomless pit. We need some of that political capital to keep Obama in line when he, y'know, ACTUALLY TAKES OFFICE.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Will Obama remove U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably not. Oh, he might reduce troops in Iraq, but if anyone believes that he will not leave a significant U.S. presence in Iraq, they are living in a dream world.

Stopped reading there. What the hell is this drivel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It doesn't matter who the President is... http://darrenhardy.success.com/2008/11/it-doesnt-matter-who-is-president/ Check it out!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Chuck is too young to remember when Clinton became president after 12 years of Reagan-Bush and things changed (budget balancing, budget surplus, employment increases). On the other hand, after Bush II became president everything changed back so maybe Chuckie's right. Or maybe it was the person who became president after Clinton that changed it all back. Can Obama change things? You bet. But first, he has to be president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's a lot of presumption in this, considering that Mister Obama has not yet served ONE DAY as president! He's NOT president yet, how the heck could ANYTHING have changed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites