It's time to take a gander of the sort of "change" we've really gotten since January 20.
** We elected a guy who sat in a church for some 20 years listening to the rantings and ravings of an Al Sharpton-esque racial grievance huckster whose church hands out pamphlets with the "news" that Israel has developed an "anti-Arab/anti-black" bomb that will kill -- you guessed it -- only Arabs and blacks. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright (you knew that, right?) is also a racial phrenologist, believes in a "black value system," is a Hamas supporter, and believes Jews "won't let Obama talk to him" now that Barack is president.
Of course, Obama claims he was aware of NONE of this during his, yes, twenty years in the church's pews.
** Obama willingly collaborated with unrepentant former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers in the past.
** Obama is an extremist on abortion, period. He favored infanticide -- if a baby survived an abortion, Obama favored its subsequent killing. He once flat-out said that if a woman makes a mistake, he doesn't want her "punished with a baby." He has a 100% rating from the abortion-rights group NARAL.
** In foreign policy, Obama has poo-pooed the blatant election fraud in Iran, pledging that we'll still work the current regime; on the other hand, when a would-be Hugo Chávez-esque dictator in Honduras is ousted by its country's army (after being rebuked by the country's legislature and its supreme court and still refused to vacate office), we castigate the latter and complain about the old-style military coups of the 1960s and 70s ... putting us in the same camp as Chávez and Fidel Castro.
** Speaking of Hugo Chávez, Obama has a continued predilection for abusing basic facts, and/or just not getting them even close to correct. He blamed George W. Bush for Chávez's ascendancy to power; he thought ten thousand people were killed in a Kansas tornado strike; didn't know basic facts about WW II while boasting; displayed ignorance about presidential term limits; didn't know on which committee(s) he served in the Senate; thought inflating your tires properly would negate the need to drill for more oil; and, denied having any contact with disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich when he actually did.
** Obama's appointments. Eric Holder as Attorney General has waffled on the issue of terrorism and terrorist rights more than Eggo. Holder, who had said that terrorists "are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention," had indicated that he would not seek an investigation into Bush-era potential CIA-prisoner abuses, but now says that he will. This, even though Obama's very own national intelligence director Dennis Blair "left open the possibility that techniques beyond the 19 currently approved for military interrogators could be authorized!"
If you're wondering why Holder flip-flopped, look no further than Obama's sinking poll numbers and the massive unpopularity of the healthcare debate. After all, why else would the administration risk national security in this manner, all the while failing to prosecute rather obvious voter intimidation cases and ceasing the investigation of well-connected Obama buddy?
Then there's Dept. of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano. She drops the term "enemy combatant" for "suspected terrorist," replaces "terrorism" with -- wait for it -- "man-caused disasters," and doesn't think crossing the U.S. border illegally is a crime "per se." But best of all, she thought the 9/11 hijackers crossed the border illegally from Canada! And of course, who can forget the infamous DHS memo?
Obama's "science czar" John Holdren who back in 1977 wrote that
Obama's surgeon general pick Regina Benjamin serves on the board of Physicians for Human Rights. This group has the typical far-left view that democratic countries must be investigated while those of communist/dictatorial/authoritarian nations ... eh, not so much.
Obama's "green czar" Van Jones has radical roots to rival those of Jeremiah Wright!
The FCC created a new position -- "Chief Diversity Officer" -- filled by one Mark Lloyd. There's absolutely no doubt about Lloyd's radical past: In his 2006 book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, he called for an all-out "confrontational movement" against private media. He has a rather ... unique view on the First Amendment, too:
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
This view isn't all that surprising considering how Lloyd feels about Hugo Chávez's Venezuela:
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.
"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
Yeah -- it's weird that these folks "rebelled" when Chávez began seizing their property, eh?
Lloyd came up with this brainchild: He "wants private broadcasters to pay a sum equal to their total operating costs to fund public broadcasting." This shouldn't come as a surprise considering he co-wrote a report in 2007 for the far-left Center for American Progress titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" which concluded in large measure what Lloyd advocates above (operating cost funding).
All the above doesn't even take into consideration Obama's desire to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy by first, trying to ram it through Congress before anyone could have a chance to read the legislation, then by constantly either lying about its contents (and/or the administration's actual views on aspects of it) or grossly misrepresenting them. After that, the tact was to demonize the bill's opponents as Nazis, "evil-mongers," and at the very least "uninformed."
It also doesn't take into account Obama's overall continuation of Bush-era policies with regards to terrorism (er, "man-caused disasters") only briefly touched on above. Hell, even perpetual Bush administration critic Human Rights Watch conceded that (now, under Obama) "under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place for renditions." That's probably because the Obama admin. has continued the practice of rendition so widely criticized under President Bush! And remember how Bush was "shredding the Constitution" by holding terror suspects indefinitely? Obama is all for it! Remember the furor over Bush's warrantless wiretapping? Check out this power the Obama admin. will have. And what about "waterboarding?" It's torture, apparently, when Republican administrations utilize it, but probably isn't when Democratic ones do.
This is the change we've gotten -- a hard move to the economic and social left, while continuing (and even strengthening) Republican/conservative policies in the foreign arena and assuming authoritarian practices here at home.