Mr. Obama spent two years on the campaign trail.  Most of it, he spent telling us of the evils of Washington, the politics, the lies, the broken promises, the unethical behavior.  He promised  “Change.”  He promised to change the unethical behavior so rampant in ‘Washington.’  I’m not sure if he will ever defend himself by stating, “It depends on your definition of Change.”  I am sure that the change I see is not the one that I believe a majority of voters wanted.  Either we need a new definition of ‘change’ or Mr. Obama needs to stop lying to us.

Change in Washington Ethics, Example One – The day before yesterday speaking on Energy, Cap and Trade, etc., Mr. Obama said,”In the late 1970s, the state of California enacted tougher energy-efficiency policies. Over the next three decades, those policies helped create almost 1.5 million jobs. And today, Californians consume 40 percent less energy per person than the national average–which, over time, has prevented the need to build at least 24 new power plants. Think about that. California–producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country, and yet they have been able to maintain their energy usage at a much lower level than the rest of the country.”    His obvious intent is to convince you that strict energy laws (like the soon-to-emerge-from-Congress Cap and Trade Bill) will have us creating lots of jobs and consuming far less energy.  That is disingenuous at best, probably simple deceit, and may just be lying.  California’s population is concentrated in areas with a very mild climate and as such, most Californians require far less energy to heat and cool their homes.  My guess is that they have always used far less than the national average amount of energy.  Also, during the period Mr. Obama uses in his example, the population of California grew by 14.3 million people.  If his “create almost 1.5 million jobs” happened to be 1.43 million, that would mean one job for every ten people.  Could this be one reason that California has seen a huge exodus of industry and now has the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the country?  If a salesman used this argument on you, you would be upset and would not deal with him.  That doesn’t appear to be a choice in this case.

Change in Washington Ethics, Example TwoThe Obama-Biden plan posted online laid out the changes needed in Ethics in Government.  High on the list was the promise to eliminate pork from our government budget:  “Slash Earmarks: Earmarks grew from $7.8 billion in 1994 to $29 billion in 2006. Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994.”  In the stimulus bill alone, the $7.8 Billion wouldn’t amount to a shadow of the included earmarks (see here and here among many others). Talk about challenging us to believe him!  In the same document, it reads, “Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.”  Have you seen that yet?  Maybe Mr. Obama is saving that for his 2nd term.

Change in Washington Ethics, Example Three – Also in the same document and in many speeches, “Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”  To date, he has broken this promise 5 times and is planning no such ‘Sunlight’ before signing a cap and trade bill.  Breaking a promise once may be forgiven by some.  Breaking it on a regular basis has no defense.  It is pure and simple fraud.

Change in Washington Ethics, Numbers Four through 10,000 will come with the sale of Socialized Medicine, a Value Added Tax, selling a new Associate Justice who was chosen for her race and gender, not her qualifications, etc., etc., etc.  I’m afraid we have only seen the beginning of this ‘change’ (for the worse) in Washington Ethics.

When a Republican President  (Mr. Bush) had a Republican Congress and they proceeded to spend money like drunken sailors, I was highly disappointed.  When a Democrat President (Mr. Obama) plays the ethics card for two years then acts in a blatantly unethical manner to achieve his goals I wonder about our society and our future.