Obama's actions are disgusting

I'm so ticked off that the president would lower himself way beneath the presidency on the fiscal mess we are in. Let me set the stage:
On January 10th, 2010, Obama said both political sides need to come to agreements, not demagogue the other sides plans. Doing this, he said, would be unhealthy to our political process. And remember, this is from the former candidate who said he would change the poisoned political well.

Obama had several chances to discuss our fiscal crisis; all of the Continuing Resolutions the congress kept passing, the State of the Union Address, a response to his own debt commission's findings, his 2011 budget proposal, etc, etc, etc.... As you can see, he had ample opportunities to discuss his broad plan to tackle our fiscal problems.

Instead, it was reported in about every media outlet that the Obama plan was to "wait" for Budget Chairman Paul Ryan to come out with his proposal, a plan that would tackle our long-term problem of the entitlement programs. A solution that would protect those at or entering retirement age, and enabling the plans to continue. Obama's team thought that they would wait for Ryan's plan to gain the upper hand politically. After all, it's much easier to lambast the other persons proposal than coming up with a plan of your own.... especially when it hits on sensitive topics as Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. These of course, are our biggest drivers of our fiscal mess. And now, Standard & Poor's said yesterday we are on the verge of having our credit rating downgraded our debt from "stable" to "negative".

Here's the order of what happened when Obama FINALLY gave his address, weeks after Ryan's proposal:

1. Invites Paul Ryan to have a front row seat at his speech on our financial mess.

2. Spends more than half of his speech ridiculing Ryan's plan; essentially saying Ryan's plan didn't want to help kids with autism, down syndrome, the elderly, helpless, etc.; saying these people can fend for themselves under the Ryan plan. All the while, Ryan wanted to only protect the millionaires and billionaires (hello class warfare). Not only was this untrue, this was EXACTLY what Obama said in 2008, as well as in his speech on Jan 10, 2010 that is corrupting our political process. Nonetheless, Obama does this to Ryan. Very ugly!!
To the issue of Ryan's plan- According to Obama's own deficit commission (which he cites often in speeches, yet hasn't embraced much of it in policy), it says that there would be 3 different tax rates- 8,14, and 23 percent, all the while taking out many tax loopholes and deductions we are used to. In Ryan's plan, the top rate is actually HIGHER than Obama's commission's 23 percent (for the rich). However, Obama is either demogoguing without knowing the facts, or he is flat out lying!

3. Obama only gives broad strokes to his plan. In other words, he doesn't really have a plan; he's just used theories in a few speeches. This includes: taxing the rich (read: Small Business Owners), cut defense (although the Pentagon shot back the following day that this is a pipe dream that cannot happen right now), and cutting waste in Medicare and Medicaid (that's a cop out proposal, something that if it could be done, wouldn't it have been done by now?). He didn't mention Social Security, apparently thinking this has long-term solvency. Even many liberal commentators said his plans were all well and good, but did NOT offer specifics. If we're to get serious about our mess, shouldn't specifics have been offered?

As most Americans are clearly seeing, this president has more interest in getting re-elected, than tackling our country's problems. And two smart people can disagree on ideas, but at least Ryan showed the moxie to come out with real ideas with meat on them. Obama on the other hand, showed he's a flat wimp on this issue!

On the Paul Ryan front: Man, that guy has class. He sat through the whole speech, even though it distorted his plan from a to z. Nonetheless, he sat through the wreckage of the teleprompter in chiefs failed leadership on this issue. Here's hoping that Ryan would run for President. Not only would Ryan most likely win, but he would wax Obama's ass on the floor when the debate came to budget/fiscal matters. That would be incredibly satisfying to me, as someone who had his blood boiling during Obama's speech.

Finally, I can't help but once again think how a basketball or football coach would view Obama as a leader? Would you ever want to follow him into battle? He NEVER shows leadership aspects... never. Case in point: Punting on our fiscal crisis as mentioned above, saying the Libya leader HAS to go, yet also saying we WON'T force him out, failing to lead on the trainwreck known as Obamacare, the gulf oil spill, etc.

PAUL RYAN in 2012!!!

Polls and Obama

Team Obama is seeing some pretty bad poll numbers. Here's a look:

• He's under water in Gallup, Marist, Rasmussen, WashPo/ABC News polls, all disapproving by at least 3% more than approve.


• His overall approval is down to 46% average, and dropping.


• Obamacare is at its lowest support since inception, only 35% support it.


• 46% strongly disapprove of his handling of the economy; only 23% strongly approve.

On most polls, he's narrowly beating his Republican opponents. However, Romney is beating him by 2 points in a recent poll. Nonetheless, a sitting president SHOULD be beating any unnamed opponent, or named for that matter, even before the election season has started.

General Electric and Taxes

As most now know, GE made billions in profits, yet didn't pay ANY taxes last year. Do we hear the populous Obama, or his liberal friends decrying this? Of course not! Reason being, GE has a stake in MSNBC (liberal network), and GE's CEO, Jeff Immelt, is working now for Obama. Change we can, ummmm.......never mind!!

Obama's lack of leadership

As hard as I am on Obama, I truly do not blame him for his lack of leadership skills. The fact is, his resume showed him community organizing, being a little known state senator, and a US senator, who really didn't lead on any issues. In other words, it was his soaring rhetoric, not leadership ability, that got him elected. So why are conservatives torching him so much for his failure to lead? It's kind of a double-edged sword. We know he's not a leader, yet he wanted a job that by definition is the top leadership job in the world. Go figure! Anyway, here's some areas where is lack of ability to lead has definitely hurt him:

1. Health care Reform- It surely wasn't popular then, at it's surely not popular now. Fact is, Obama said he wanted huge changes in this system, then gave the baton to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (both VERY unpopular figures in our country) to write legislation on health care. Obama really didn't get involved, which showed by his lack of clarity when he didn't know if many aspects would be in the bill.


2. Libya/Egypt conflicts- In Egypt, he basically sat on his hands without saying anything. On Libya, he waited for France and England to take the lead.


3. Libya continued-- Instead of letting congress know that we were sending cruise missels into Libya, he notified the UN. Breathtaking!


4. Gaddafi- In one swath, Obama said Muammar Gaddifi must go (as in be overthrown). The very next day, he said the United States policy was to NOT overthrow the evil dictator. Fine, but which is it? For some reason, I believe President Bush would have shown more leadership, one way or the other.


5. Failure to shown interest in deficit three times- In the continuing resolution last December, his State of the Union Address, and the last minute continuation of the government from a shutdown last week. In neither case did he mention ways we can get out of our mess.


6. Attacking Paul Ryan's plan during his "fiscal speech", instead of laying out a plan of his own. He didn't give specifics as to how he would reduce our deficit on entitlements, which everyone knows are the big drivers of our debt.


7. Promising to punish the rich with taxes0 He did say that he was going back on last December's passage of the Bush tax cuts. Agree or disagree with lower taxes on the ones who create jobs, he can't have it both ways.

Raising the debt ceiling

Here's Obama's flip-flopping on raising the debt ceiling. Of course now that he's president, he thinks it would be irresponsible for Republicans to vote against the raising of the debt ceiling. Here's what he said on the issue when he was a senator: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It's a sign that the US cannot pay its own bills.....Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here". Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren." Apparently, Obama's minnions are now saying Obama regrets that vote 5 years ago. Ummm, damage done, Mr. President. There are certain things you can regret, but how can you go from principled...... to unprincipled..

Government shutdown and whose fault?

The government may be coming to a shutdown within the next several hours. Of course both sides are blaming the other. But whose fault is it really? I'd go out on a limb and say the 111th Congress (we are in the 112th now). In the 111th congress, they failed to enact a budget. How incredibly disappointing is that? And the kicker is, Democrats controlled the White House, House of Reps, and the Senate. So where's their excuse? It's nice and refreshing to see the House Republicans hold the hard line on having 61 Billion in cuts, which was promised when they were elected in the 2010 landslide. If our government cannot cut 61 Billion (when we are in the whole 1.65 Trillion alone this year), we've got problems. Problems similar to Greece. Finally..... Didn't Obama say that in his first term, he'd reduce the size of the deficit in half? Instead, he's pushed it up another 5 Trillion or so (he's been around 1.5 Trillion each of his three years).

Libya and Obama's response

It isn't really surprising that a President who has such little experience with anything other than teaching and community organizing has everybody confused as to what the Libya mission is.
He has the left ticked that he lifted a finger at all with airstrikes.
He has ticked the right off because, despite many in his administration (including Clinton) saying the time for Gaddafi to go is now with regime change, they are walking back on that statement. I presume because Obama's left flank is throwing a hissy fit because we've used force at all. Nonetheless, can anyone explain the mission coherently?

Finally, he has legislators from the left and the right upset because he thought going to the UN for its approval was more valuable than filling congress in on what he was doing. Oh, he did. But that was without asking for input, and minutes before the strategy was set in motion on the battlefield...

Now just stop and ponder... What if Bush decided not to notify congress of these plans before striking a country? Man, what a scene that would be.

Finally, remember Biden and Obama saying in the 08 campaign that without congressional approval, a US President cannot go to war. Well, I guess Obama's being a hypocrit now! I think the constitution grants the commander these authorities....maybe Obama had a change of heart once Bush left office and he got into office... insert sarcasm here.

My heart is pondering the thought of us having a president who is an actual leader!!!

Gas prices and politics

As most observers will know, presidents probably get too much credit when things are going well. Likewise, they get too much blame when things are not going well. This is so true of the economy. Of course there are policies that may trigger economic output (eg- lower tax rates, less regulation and government interference, etc.).

One of the chief economic (and therefore political) indicators are gas prices. When gas prices get high, who gets the blame? Remember back in the mid 2000's, how the liberal left accused the Bush Administration of having bad energy policy, therefore making gas prices in the 3 dollar range? As I said then, and will say now, there's only so much a president can do to affect gas prices. There are too many factors an American president has no control over that can aversely affect gas prices. The biggest one is global unrest; drilling down further, Mideast unrest. Since so much of the worlds outflow of oil comes from many of these countries, this can cause panic in the markets. Until things stabilize in places such as Libya, gas may even go higher, especially as we start to enter the high drive months of the Summer. A few random thoughts on energy policy, what a president can do, and political fallout:

• Any positive press to the oil markets will drive speculators away. Remember in 08 when President Bush made proclamations of more drilling? The prices went down dramatically in 2 days.
• Any signs of more drilling does more for the psyche of the market short term (ie- more oil will soon come) as well as the long term (ie- actually more supply for our country).
• Moratorium's on drilling KILLS the psyche and therefore drives the speculators to raise prices of oil and bet on the long. Obama did our country or the oil job force no favors by saying no drilling after the oil spill last Spring.
• I'm willing to not blame Obama totally for higher oil prices. He can only do so much with all the tension in the middle east.
• Politically, Obama will be toast in '12 (or at least very vulnerable) if prices remain in the 3-4 dollar per gallon range for gas. The fact is, this affects every industry in our country. Fair or unfair, this would be the political reality.

Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act, enacted by congress in 1996, and signed into law by President Clinton, is now under assault by Obama and his minnions. So much so that they have promised not to defend "DOMA" in court. Say what???? Just because Obama now thinks DOMA is unconstitutional, he orders his justice department not to defend a law? That's very unusual. How could a president pick and choose what current laws to defend? If that were rational thinking, when Republicans regain the White House, should they not defend Obamacare?

Whatever your opinion is on this matter, it sets a very scary precedent if the executive branch picks and chooses what laws to defend.

Speaking of DOMA, Obama seems to be struggling with this issue. Here's his positions since the 08 campaign:

• He believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman; gays should be entitled to civil unions.
• He believes DOMA is unconstitutional; even though it protects the issue that he says he believes in (defending marriage).

Whatever the outcome, he's surely to piss off huge factions of his liberal base. Since African Americans support DOMA (traditional marriage) by 75 percent, and Mexicans support it by 65 percent; this while his gay base and liberal elites want Obama to do a reverse and allow federal gay marriage. Either way he's boxed himself in. It'll be interesting to see how the liberal media "allows" him to escape this jam he's put himself in.

Why conservatism beats liberalism

In a manuscript I write, I explain why conservatism fits into my view on life, mainly as a Christian. This is the main reason why I vote like I do. But, as Winston Churchill explains, there are very logical reasons to to be conservative:
"If you aren't liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you aren't conservative at age 40, you have no brain."

Here are some quick reasons why voting for the more conservative candidate always wins:

• School choice- As much as liberals say they are all about choice, they aren't when it comes to schools. Instead, liberals suck on the Unions teet and therefore oppose school vouchers, school choice; as well as rip private schools and home schooling to shreds.
• Abortion- This happens to be the only thing where liberals support "choice". In fact, as more technology proves the point that life begins at conception, public support is now on the side of life. Honestly, liberals support abortion on demand, plain and simple. We have a president who supports partial birth abortion; and is in the tank for Planned Parenthood, Now Organization for Women, is opposed to parental notification. Do I need to go on? Fact is, if you are pro-life, how can you support Democrats?
• Less Government intrusion- Liberals want government more in our lives; conservatives want citizens to make more choices themselves.
• Health Care- Liberals rammed through a mandate where it demands us to buy health insurance or pay a fine. How unconstitutional is that?
• Giving to charity- In every metric polled, conservatives give FAR more to charity in time and money than do liberals. Fact is, conservatives would rather make that decision personally; while liberals would rather FORCE this on citizens through higher taxation.
• Marriage- The Defense of Marriage Act is under assault by liberals again. This, despite around 65 percent of our country believing that marriage should be between ONE man and ONE woman. This doesn't take away rights for gay couples, as they should have rights. But you can't change a definition (or law) based on what a minority of Americans want. For Christians, this shouldn't even be an issue.
• Accountability- Conservatism by and large, serves to the folks who believe in accountability for their actions. Get pregnant, don't kill the unborn. Are you a bad rated teacher? You may lose your job. Commit murder? Death penalty may be the result of taking a life.
• Imminent Domain- Conservatives believe private property is just that... Liberals believe that private property can be taken away by the government if they determine it would be more useful for public consumption (parks, building, etc.).
• Taxation- Despite living in a society where our government spends trillions more than it has, liberals think we still don't tax enough. This despite already living in a progressive system where the higher earners already pay the lions share of taxes... and the poor pay next to nothing.
• Unions v. Business- Liberals support big union because unions ONLY support Democrats. Therefore, they receive sweetheart deals-- pensions, healthcare, wages, in exchange for electing liberal politicians. It's the gift that keeps on giving.... for liberals.

Obama and lobbyists (unions, abortion industry)

The Obama Administration has touted that they are full of transparency, and they are the enemies of lobbyists. Remember all of the campaign rhetoric in 2008, railing against lobbyists? Well, as Politico is reporting, instead of inviting lobbyists to the White House, Obama is meeting with them at Jackson Place (near the White House); therefore these meetings don't have to be disclosed.
Business as usual......

Also, if anyone didn't know the Democrats (Obama included) weren't in the back pockets of big unions and the abortion industry... Union chiefs Andy Stern and Richard Trumka have made combined over 100 visits to the White House in 2 years. In addition, Trumka said he visits with White House officials 2-3 times per week. How can Obama be objective with both sides when...

• He only gets visits from unions and not the "other side" (eg-Chamber of Commerce)
• Big unions are the biggest financial givers to Democrats in elections.
• Obama rails against Governors at a state level, who are trying to rein in big unions.
• He invites abortion providers for meetings; but not pro-life groups.

Is big money really Republican??

Contrary to popular political belief, the big money really lies in the Democrat party. Of the top ten contributors to political campaigns since 1989, 5 of them are from unions. Of course, unions PAC's vote Democrat 100% of the time. In the 2010 election, 10 of the top 20 PAC's were from unions. Finally, the top 10 industries gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in 2010? This includes the likes of lawyers, Securities, Real Estate, Pharma, Unions, Health professionals, etc.

So despite hearing all of the liberal psychobabble when it comes to this issue, just remember the facts. This is true with the unions fighting Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. They are pissed off because they are proposed to have to pay a little more into their healthcare and so forth. Nonetheless, these public unions still pay FAR less for these expensives than the private sector. And what do they do? Well, they take their toys and go home. All of the Democrats in the state senate have left the state in protest. Didn't Obama say that elections have consequences in 08? I guess that doesn't include his own party when they get taken to the woodshed! Also, they wonderful teachers who are protesting are calling in sick instead of going back to work to teach.

As conservatives always say, performance is way more important than tenure. Of course these teacher unions who are so powerful, usually get their way; even though it hurts the children the most.

Senate for 2012 taking shape

There are 23 Democrats seats up, along with 10 Republicans. As usual, most incumbent seats will remain safe. However, there are several that are ripe for the picking. Since 2006 was a GOP bloodbath, many of those senate seats picked up that year were an anomoly, likely to be one time deals.

With a 47-53 minority, it looks like there are some easy chances to flip 4 seats. If the GOP gets the White House, they will only need three turnovers, as the new VP would hold a 50-50 tiebreaker in the senate.

Onto some that may flip the chamber in '12:

• North Dakota- With retiring Democrat Kent Conrad in an already GOP state, as long as the GOP picks a decent candidate, this is an easy layin.
• Montana- Another GOP state that has Democrat Jon Tester. Since he voted for Obamacare, he's gonna have a tough road here. Congressman Denny Rehberg is the GOP guy, and he's the ons on favorite here. Another pickup.
• Virginia- Let's face it, George Allen doesn't barely lose his seat in 06 if it weren't for self induced errors... even in a bad GOP year. Nonetheless, he's back challenging, and he's the cream of the crop, both parties. Webb, the Democrat, is retiring instead of fighting a rematch. So Dems need a challenger. In a state where Governor McDonnell slaughtered the Dem last year by 18 points, this is very likely a GOP pickup.
• Nebraska- In the red of the reddest states, Dem Ben Nelson only survives by supporting GOP judges, pro-life, for our foreign wars. But since he voted for Obamacare, that was WAY too much for this conservative state. Call it the last cornhusker straw. His approval's in the tank; he's facing a strong candidate in GOP AG Bruning. And it's likely gonna be a nasty night for Nelson, ala Lincoln in 2010. Party is over for these conservative Dems. If they vote for socialism, they will go down, plain and simple!
• Missouri- Claire McCaskill, a devout Obama supporter, won barely in 06. Obama lost there, and Obamacare referundem to get rid of the mandate passed by 70%. And Claire voted for it. Oops!! Chickens may be coming home to roost here. If the GOP has a decent or strong candidate, this is a very likely pickup.

More later, but here's 5 likely switcharoos, before we even start trying.... Of course, we have to watch for a couple seats, namely Nevada. Not sure about GOP incumbent John Ensign.

Debunking more Obamacare lies

1. The Medicare Actuary was asked two simple questions during a hearing- that it will bring down medical costs, and that people can keep their coverage if they like it.

The actuary, Richard Foster said, "I would say false, more so than true" regarding the costs. Regarding whether people can keep their coverage: "not true in all cases."

2. As people have pointed out, the Obama Administration STILL trots out what the CBO scored as cost savings. First of all, they score what is given to them, not what happens in the real world. They are simply given math equations to fill out. In other words, if a program costs $540 Billion and taxes are increased by $760 Billion, there will be a savings. Of course, all experts say these proposed numbers of cost savings are only true if you believe in flying cows.

3. Tax? In 09, Obama promised it was not a tax, rather a fine not to get insurance. Now, they are boxed in a legal corner and are screaming from the rooftops that it is indeed a tax. So did they lie twice, or just didn't get their "facts" straight??

Repealing Obamacare succeeds in House

Probably the best line on repealing Obamacare came from an editorial from the Wall Street Journal:

"Obamacare cannot be fixed at the margins when it is so destructive at its core."

Well said....

Liberal doozies for the week

Just in case the mainstream media didn't catch these greatest hits for the week, here are some outrageous comments by liberals this week:

• Our buddy Harry Reid calling China's President a "dictator" while he was visiting.
• House Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee saying the repeal of HC is unconstitutional. Umm, what about forcing us to buy something, I don't see that in the constitution!
• Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying her party would have lost "more seats" if HC reform wasn't passed. Umm, do she not know that over half our population want it repealed in every poll? Or that 2/3 of doctors are against it?
• Liberal meda like David Corn STILL saying the likes of Sarah Palin caused the deranged nutcase in Arizona to go on a shooting spree. Breathtaking!

Arizona shootings

Several people were shot in a public meeting, with congresswoman Giffords, a Democrat, and a federal judge, who is a Christian conservative. Right after the massacre took place, liberal pundits went on the air proclaiming it was the political right- Palin, Limbaugh, Tea Party are partly responsible because of all of the heated rhetoric. This is just breathtaking that they would take this tack, though not suprising in the least. They do this all the time. When there's a shooting, blame society, blame gun owners, blame Christians, but never ever blame the insane person who carried through these violent acts.



The above is the classic difference between a liberal and conservative mindset... Liberals believe there's always a societal reason behind anyone's violent actions.... Conservatives believe that we should be all held accountable for our actions and not always want to blame other things for ones actions-- it's called personal accountability!



So when Obama says to his political enemies to "get in their face and argue with them", or "if they bring a knife, we will bring a gun", or when the Democrat organization puts out a "target" map of Republicans they want to take down... I can go on forever with these examples.



The fact is, that's what politicians do. It's not a call for actually carrying out these acts; they are metaphors, even when conservatives do them, not just liberals.



And the backlash is under way. This is the reason why the NYT is getting DESTROYED by The Wall Street Journal. This is why MSNBC is getting spanked by Fox News. This is why network coverage is about non-existent. Period, end of sentence!

Obamacare unconstitutional

Now that a Federal Judge has ruled that mandating a citizen to buy a product is indeed unconstituional, backers of the Constitution have won a major battle. There are several other lawsuits that have yet to be determined on this issue. Ultimately, this is headed for the Supreme Court. Wouldn't it be something if a President's biggest piece of legislation during his term was ruled unconstitutional? That would be amazing!

And talk about double-speak. During the healthcare fight, Democrats and Obama promised those who didn't buy insurance would be fined, not taxed, is now not true. Since the constitution prohibits the action of fining someone for not buying a good or service, they are now saying it is indeed a tax. If they were so certain it was not a tax last year, how can it all of a sudden be defined as a tax this year?

Change we CANNOT believe in!!

Repeal Obamacare

Now that the GOP has won in a huge landslide in the House of Representatives, they are fulfilling the promise to the American people if they took control of power again- they are voting next week to repeal Obamacare. Of course, this will not pass the Senate or the President's veto pen. Nonetheless, it sets battle lines for 2012. And the advantage on this is clearly with the GOP. As it stands, there are STILL no polls out there that think Obamacare is good. Moreso, majorities not only are against it, but want it repealed.

And for Democrats to say Republicans are going to starve the "good parts" of it, that's a non-starter. If they only wanted the good things in it (reducing the donut hole, not allowing insurance companies to insure pre-exisiting conditions, etc.) they are making the case for Republicans. In fact, Republicans are in favor of these parts. But there are things that have to be repealed in order to get rid of the bad (mandating us to buy or receive penalty) and adding the good (such as tort reform) into the overall health care reform.

It cannot be repeated enough- Republicans won a huge majority in the House and Governorships, as well as reducing the deficit in the Senate, largely on this issue. And the support AGAINST Obamacare is the only position that has major support from both parties.

I'd also be interested to see those Democrats who voted for Obamacare last year in the Senate, to see where they stand now. These would be the vulnerable Democrats who are up for re-election in 2012 and represent states that clearly are against Obamacare. This would include Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Jim Webb of Virginia, and so on. I'd venture to guess that if this group decides to keep their support for Obamacare this year, they will indeed be an extinct species when it comes time for re-election. So much so that they will be wiped off the map in the way many Democrats were this past election (see Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas).

Raising the debt ceiling

The White House Economic team is saying that it's completely irresponsible and "dangerous" for Republicans to stall or vote no on raising the debt ceiling. Would this be regarded as hypocritical if their boss did exactly the same thing in 2006?

As senator, Obama voted no on raising the debt ceiling because it was a Republican in the White House. Was it reckless then? In addition, in 07 and again in 08, Obama was a non-voter for this same thing. So in these cases, was it not important enough to vote on these things?

Once again, Obama being hypocritical. And his policies/actions/statements fly in the face of "change we can believe in". As all non kool-aid drinkers now know, this was all just words..... no actions to support change he promised.