Barack Obama has waffled on one of his central campaign promises: No more earmarks on spending bills. But don't take our word for it. Here's B.O. waffling without the help of his teleprompter:
Obama may be the Waffler In Chief, but he isn't the Lone Waffler . . . back in January of 2009 Nancy Pelosi raised her hand in the air on national TV and pledged to Wolf Blitzer that there would be no earmarks or pork barrel spending in the so-call economic recovery bill. It took Pelosi about a week for her to break that promise.
No surprise, then, that the Obamacare bill contains hundreds of millions of dollars in earmark spending to help "buy" the support of key Demoncat senators. Chuck Norris points out a number of such scandalous back door dealings. If only America could send Norris to Congress to kick their butts back into line.
Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean President Obama, Sir. Um . . I know you're busy, and important and stuff. I mean running the country is very important and — ah — I hate to bother you, Sir. I will only take a minute. Ok, Sir?
See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering Sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.
Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once!
Oh, sorry Sir. I didn't mean to get off the track.
So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island , Sir? No? I didn't think so...
Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "Not released" or "Not available." I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are — I — I have them written down here somewhere — I'll just read it to you.
Could you please help me find these things, Sir?
Occidental College records — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia Thesis paper — "Not available"
Harvard College records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Not released
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate schedule — Not available
Your Illinois State Senate records — Not available
Law practice client list — Not released
Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
Record of your baptism — Not available
Oh and one more thing, Senator, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir?
Oh but, hey — listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now — I mean — tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out.
I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after.
[We'd like to thank the author of this clever guest editorial, although we have been unable to track him/her down.]
Will the real Barack Obama please stand up? In November of 2008, ABC New's reported a pro-traditional marriage statement by then candidate Barack Obama. Speaking to MTV viewers, Senator Obama said: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not in favor of gay marriage."
In true wafflishesh style, last month President Obama waffled on his one-man, one-woman view of marriage. We're not surprised, just disappointed that Obama continues to waffle on such core issues.
On October 10, 2009, President Obama stated, "I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act." His comments were made to the Human Rights Campaign, considered the largest advocate of same-sex marriage in the country.
Obama added, "I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afford to any married couple in this country." We're not sure how that squares with his prior statement: "I'm not in favor of gay marriage."
So, we can only assume Obama was really FOR same-sex marriage before he was AGAINST it—in order to get elected—and now he's FOR it again. Children on a playground would probably respond with a hardy chorus of "Liar, liar, pants on fire" if one of their own pulled a stunt like that.
Last week Texas Gov. Rick Perry blasted President Obama's health care plan, saying, "This is an administration hell-bent on
taking America toward a socialist country—and we ought not be afraid to
say that because that's what it is."
Going a step further, the Texas governor said, "This administration is passed 'I don't care about Texas.' I think this administration is interested in punishing Texas." Perry has the evidence to backup his claim—evidence ignored by the major media. Watch as Gov. Perry exposes the damage Obama's "Alien Transfer and Exit Program" will have on the Lone Star State:
On July 11, 2008, president wannabe Barack Obama bashed President Bush's Afghanistan policy, saying, "We allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm president."
On October 8, 2008, Mr. Obama offered this assessment during the presidential debates: "We took our eye off Afghanistan. We took our eye off the folks who perpetrated 9/11." The folks? You mean the terrorists, right?
On December, 28, 2008, the president-elect said "we took our eye off the ball [in Afghanistan] when we invaded Iraq" and promised that disrupting the ability of terrorists to train in Afghanistan and attack America was "my number one priority as president of the United States."
Then came the inevitable Obama waffle:
For months Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been requesting additional troops to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan—without them the general warned our mission would be at risk. The White House appears to have turned a deaf ear, considering the fact that Gen. McChrystal has only had the opportunity to speak with the president 1 time in 70 days—while troop losses continued to mount.
Meanwhile, President Obama found plenty of time to hang out with golf legend Arnold Palmer in the Oval Office and jet off to Copenhagen to lobby the Olympic Committee on behalf of Chicago. That's strange behavior from the Commander in Chief who assured us winning in Afghanistan would be his "number one" priority as president.
Why the reluctance to get the job done?
On September 21, 2009 President Obama told ABC's Charles Gibson, "Until I am satisfied that we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there beyond what we already have."
The right strategy? What did President Obama mean, then, back on March 27, 2009 when he said, "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review . . . that I ordered as soon as I took office"?
Guess he had the right strategy before he didn't have the right strategy.
WorldNetDaily has reported evidence suggesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows more about Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president than she is publicly admitting. At issue are two internal documents both dated August 28, 2008.
Entitled "Official Certification of Nomination," these documents appear on Democratic National Committee (DNC) stationary and purport to certify Barack Obama and Joe Biden's eligibility to serve as president and vice president.
The documents are virtually identical—with one primary difference. The first version includes this language with regard to then-candidates Obama and Biden, who "are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution":
However, the second document omits the statement verifying the eligibility of these candidates. As WND points out, the two documents appear to be "identical, down to a typographical error in 'through.'" The other difference is the stamped date of receipt by the election committee the following day, August 29, 2008:
WND picked up this breaking story from a piece in the Canada Free Press written by commentator, JB Williams. WND is now asking the logical question: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up? Williams thinks so. He writes, "Now this is the stuff real conspiracies are made of! Please allow me to connect the dots . . . The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one."
Williams adds, "One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama. The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of president is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama."
If both documents prove to be authentic it's clear Nancy Pelosi waffled . . . or worse.
Williams believes "the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was under way, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful."
To his credit, Williams double checked the Republican National Committee's nomination form and found "the RNC nomination form filed with the states certifies that John McCain met all constitutional requirements for the Office of President."
The makers of Obama Waffles are pleased to present a free box of waffles to JB Williams for his stellar reporting.
Just in time for Barack Obama's birthday, on August 4th WND Films released a "A Question of Eligibility: Is Obama's Presidency Constitutionally Legitimate?" WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah says, "What we have produced here is a compelling and shocking documentary that will appeal both to those already steeped in the details of the eligibility story and those who need a video introduction to the major issues."
Filmed in Washington, D.C., Farah believes the facts revealed in "A Question of Eligibility" will "keep Obama awake at night. This eligibility issue is the only issue that threatens not only the future of his presidency, but almost everything he thinks he has already accomplished as president."
The 60-minute documentary features interviews with Alan Keyes, Dr. Jerome Corsi, Orly Taitz, and Janet Porter and is available here. Below is a 90-second trailer.
"You'll Lose Your Lunch" is a cartoon spoof of Barack Obama's policies worthy of MAD Magazine. Hats off to BIGFURHAT and the folks at iOwnTheWorld.com for another biting illustration.
The Naked Emperor has unearthed the following November 22, 2004 interview by lefty radio host Randi Rhodes chatting with the newly elected junior senator Barack Obama in which Obama blasted President Bush for rushing through budgets "that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them."
Does that ring any bells? Think President Obama's 1,071-page Porkulus Package—a measure rushed so quickly, Congress didn't have time to read it before voting to pass it.
Sounds like another Obama waffle . . . or a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Recent Comments