Yes, despite the documented evidence that he had voted numerous times against funding of troops, refused to talk with generals fighting in the current wars (FYI – Wesley “I only served as a general in NATO peace-keeping operations” Clark doesn’t cut it as ‘talking to current generals on the ground’), or even taking time to listen to their advice,  and had been an outspoken arrogant advocate against anything military-related. Despite all of that, I was wrong when I declared that Obama’s outright opposition to taking care of our military would be his position as President.

Newsflash, liberals – the fact that Mrs. Obama wore a t-shirt that says she supports the troops doesn’t make her husband’s track record of not supporting the troops disappear. I’m sorry an NYT Op-ed outlining your strategy in Iraq while refusing to meet with the troops and generals on the ground TRUMPS a blue t-shirt worn once on the campaign trail at a Rock the Vote rally.

So, wouldn’t you know it. Now that the Kool-aid man is in office, guess what the policy on the military is. You guessed it – anti-military. Turns out, the White House’s position to “save money” was to make wounded veterans pay for their own medical costs through their OWN private insurance. Can anybody say… Booooooooyah!

The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

Riddle me this, President Unicorn Princess – how does making wounded veterans pay for their own medical care to treat wounds that were caused by the US government sending them to war constitute as your administration supporting the troops?

I mean even Democrat whip-boy and youth-golden-calf-idol, Jon Stewart is asking WTF??? (via HotAir)

I also found this excellent rebuttal via Trying to Grok. Yesterday, the White House backed off the unaccepted proposal.

The White House on Wednesday backed off a controversial plan that would have dramatically altered the way the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) handles insurance claims, after veterans groups staged an all-out fight against such a proposal.

I guess kudos may be in order for some, but, sorry, none from me. I’m sure we’ll hear it spun out of control for the 2012 elections. But the fact is that it shouldn’t have been a proposal in the first place! It’s like when people say they’re sorry and retreat ONLY after they get called out. Umm, we’re onto yo’ game, Barney – you’re only sorry you got caught, not that you think you did anything wrong.

But that’s what makes this the “greatest administration EVAAAA!”

Get ready for round two of YET another spending bill. Another one after the President decided to sign off in secret (cough*more transparency, yeah, right!*cough) last night what he deemed an “imperfect” appropriations bill because it had too many earmarks. (Side rant: I love how now he acknowledges ‘earmarks’ after claiming the ‘no earmark’ defense on the last bill which was nearly 80% earmarks)

As Ed at HotAir notes, wasn’t the first stimulus supposed to create 2, err, 3, uuuuh, I mean 4 million jobs according to President Obama. So why can’t we wait at least ONE MONTH to see how it’s going before our government forces us to flush more money down the drain???  Oh, that’s because it turns out they don’t know what they’re doing or even saying when they are selling their “projections for the stimulus plan.” Remember with the first stimulus when President Wizard said we need to stop asking questions because they’ve got the best economists around – Gee, real glad he never got around to answering the tough questions for the American public who’s funding his pet projects.

“I think our focus is ensuring that that money gets out there as quickly as possible so that we can get our economy turned around again.”

Again, want a direct impact on how to get money in the economy without forcing taxpayers to give up their money before receiving any (and really IF any) benefit after it circulates through the government. Geee, what worked  in the 80s when we faced a very similar recession…Oh! That’s right – tax cuts, especially many for small businesses. And it’s estimated that 40 million jobs were created as a result of Reagan’s tax cutting policies. I’m sure if you state that to a liberal they’ll be real quick to tell you how supply-side economics are a failed policy. Ummm – let’s take a trip down memory lane on government spending vs. tax cuts, shall we?

Say it with me – Hooooope & Chaaaaaange!

Oh, and looks like most of Americans except the ones in the Beltway are not fans of the additional proposed spending (according to Rasmussen)

Just 27% of voters nationwide favor passage of a second economic stimulus package. The latest Rasmussen Reports nationwide telephone survey found that 55% are opposed and 19% are not sure.

So remember that when you’ve read the post directly beneath this one and then see this new proposed legislation coming out of Houston, Texas.

The “Credit Score Enhancement Program” will give up to $3,000 in grants to individuals who are trying to qualify for mortgages through the city’s homebuyers assistance program. City officials say some applicants fall short of eligibility by only 10 or 20 points on their credit scores, and paying off some debt balances can quickly improve their numbers.

So now because people have outrageous credit card debit, loans on cars, and can’t pay their bills on time resulting in bad credit score – because of this, responsible taxpayers now have to fork over more of their hard earned money so that high-risk/low-income people can by a home they probably have no business, especially from a financial standpoint, buying???  I’m so sick and tired of the “wooooe is them who can’t be financially responsible and now believes he/she has the ‘constitutional’ right to own a home” tales.  The Constitution says you have the fundamental right for the pursuit of happiness, not that you are entitled to happiness just that you have the fair opportunity to do what is right and responsible to EARN success and benefits like owning a home.  Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh, what is this country turning into! 

Chicago Tea Party – HERE. I. COME!