American Thinker: 

Can you imagine the international outcry if a President of the United States went to the United Nations and demanded that a UN military force invade a hostile, sovereign country? Sure you can; we already lived through that over Iraq. Now imagine that President Bush had made the demand that our allies like Canada and Australia should invade, but not offer a single US infantry soldier beside them. Wouldn’t that be a bit embarrassing?

Then get ready for the foreign policy of an Obama Administration.
Of late, Obama has sung a decidedly noninterventionist tune. But it wasn’t always so. The senator sounded quite hawkish just a few years ago in 2005,when he urged military intervention in the Darfur conflict. Senator Obama coauthored an op-ed piece for the Washington Post  in which he lauded the Bush Administration for trying to end that conflict, a fight that has little to do with US national security. He urged an escalation, a surge if you will, of American diplomatic and military support to end the humanitarian crises created by ethnic-religious conflict. He wrote, “It has become clear that a U.N. - or NATO-led force is required” to end escalating violence in Sudan.However he did not say US forces should be in direct combat roles. So what exactly did he mean?
The Senator continued to push for stronger outside military involvement in the Sudan civil war in late 2006. He told the Chicago Sun-Times “my overarching sense is the great urgency to get a United Nations protective force on the ground.”
Again, this sounds like an interventionist policy.
Can that be right I wondered? Surely no reasonable Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America helps crystallize who Barack Obama is.

To be sure, the wife of a candidate is perfectly free to have views that are distinct from her husband’s. But on a matter that is so fundamental to one’s being as love of country, it is difficult to imagine that Michelle Obama would publicly twice make such a statement suggesting disdain for America unless she felt it comported with her husband’s views.

Equally important, her statement aligns perfectly with the hate-America views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s minister, friend, and sounding board for more than two decades. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in his church magazine Trumpet. “White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

Wright has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in December, honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement, saying he “truly epitomize[s] greatness.”

Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals.

Those who think two of the closest people to Obama could publicly make anti-America statements unless Obama himself felt that way, are fooling themselves. To date, Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than a great orator, rendering the statements of those around him even more important in illuminating his true character and agenda. During his Senate career, he skipped 17 percent of the votes and sponsored only one bill that became law. That bill was to promote “relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

Bereft of official accomplishments, Obama has distinguished himself mainly by being against measures that protect American security, such as finishing the mission in Iraq. If we were to leave Iraq quickly, as Obama vows he would do, it would become a launch pad for al-Qaida attacks on the U.S.

Obama avoided voting on extending the Protect America Act, thus putting America at risk when immediate interception of terrorist communications is required. Last August, Obama voted against a measure that would have allowed the U.S. to continue to monitor overseas conversations of terrorists like Osama bin Laden without first obtaining a warrant.

If his radical vote had prevailed, bin Laden would have been given the same rights as Americans.

To this day, Obama has not distanced himself from Continue Reading »

1 Comment »

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much.  Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.”   Pope Benedict XVI

A messianic fever grips a segment of the American populace and media.  A great leader seems to them poised to redeem our collective sins and change nearly everything, bringing about a new era in which permanent solutions are found to age-old conditions.
Whenever I watch Barack Obama, listen to his eloquent but nonspecific oratory, and see the near-swooning young people who invariably follow him wherever he goes, I cannot help but think of the pied piper and wonder toward what destination he is marching our youth.  Obama is having this pied-piper effect not only on kids, but also on a large swath of  Democrat and not a few independents and Republican voters, too.
Call me skeptical, but this whole Obama phenomenon seems downright eerie.
Over and over again, Obama invokes his double mantra: “It’s time for change!”  and “Yes, we can!”
Singer Wil.i.am’s (Yes, that’s right; it’s Wil I Am.) YouTube “Yes, we can!” video has already had over 2 million hits, and it has a hypnotic quality reminiscent of eastern religious meditations.  I urge every American still capable of thinking for himself to take a serious look at this video.
Then, consider these numbers on  recent Google searches using only Obama’s name plus one other word:

• Obama + messianic  75,200
• Obama + savior  226,000
• Obama + prophet  312,000
• Obama + Christ 504,000
• Obama + change 4,540,000

A number of internet postings indicate that a great many see Obama in not only political terms, but also Continue Reading »

No Comments »

By Margery Eagan  |   Thursday, February 21, 2008  |  http://www.bostonherald.com

–

I’m an Obama girl and my man throttled Hillary Clinton, again, Tuesday night.

Suddenly, the impossible is real.

Suddenly, I’m nervous. Very nervous, actually.

I’m nervous because an otherwise normal grownup told me yesterday she’s watched the will.i.am (Black Eyed Peas) “Yes We Can” Obama video about 100 times and gets “weepy” every time.

I’m nervous because a longtime political type, normally quite cynical, now waxes rhapsodic about Obama’s “cool.”

“He’s elegant, controlled, the best-dressed candidate ever,” he says. Never a red tie, yellow or bright blue. No, Obama does a subdued lean charcoal gray suit with a gray or silvery tie. Everything muted, measured, fluid. “He floats onto the stage, a bit of the Fred Astaire thing going.”

Fred Astaire?

This same man, 100 percent anti-illegal aliens, fears Obama could pull a Reagan or a JFK on the Mexican border, head down there, chanting, “Tear down this wall!” or even do an “Ich bin ein Tijuana!!!”

He’s with Obama anyway.

I’m nervous because Harvard political genius Elaine Kamarck told me Hillary understands the various messes we’re in far better than Obama.

Suppose Kamarck’s right?

I’m nervous about the “O’Bambi” factor. Will the terrorists move in next door when Obama’s in the White House?

I’m nervous because Michelle Obama, about whom I just wrote a fawning puff piece, now says that until her husband’s stunning ascendancy, she’s never before been proud of America. Huh?

Barack now claims she didn’t mean it. Oh, yes she did. We all know the insufferable, holier-than-thou, Blame-America-First types who lecture the unwashed from the rarefied air of Cambridge and Brookline.

If I wanted lecturing, I’d be Continue Reading »

1 Comment »

1.  If Hillary Clinton is going to be effective against Obama, she needs to find a new voice.  Currently, she is trying to do for oscillation what Bill did for triangulation.  She first found her voice in New Hampshire, and then turned it over to Bill in South Carolina.  Then she found it again after Wisconsin, saying she was honored to share the stage with Obama.  Then she followed up by (a) accusing him of using Karl Rove tactics, (b) shouting “Shame on you, Barak Obama” and (c) dripping with sarcasm about his feel-good speeches.  

She needs a consistent new voice that will make people smile.  My suggestion:  before every speech, inhale some helium. 
2.  The Democrats are about to nominate a man who has no experience, has had an undistinguished term of service in the Senate, invariably votes the liberal line on every issue, and thinks he is the change his wife has been waiting for (or something like that).  His minister is a guy who honored Louis Farrakhan, and Farrakhan himself has virtually endorsed Obama.  Perhaps Hillary is on to something:  Obama may in fact be a creation of Karl Rove.
3.  Obama’s wife thinks we all need a new soul.  According to her, “Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that [there is a hole in our souls], that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls.  Our souls are broken in this nation.”   When Mike Huckabee started talking like this, Democrats thought Continue Reading »

No Comments »

American Thinker: 

1.  It seems remarkable that Barack Obama is in striking distance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination despite the naked ambition he demonstrated in a Kindergarten essay, his defense of political eloquence by using another politician’s words, the endorsement of his opponent by the first black president, and his obvious inexperience since he has not yet served eight years as First Lady.
2.  The issues the Clinton campaign has raised so far have had limited resonance with the voters.  They need to think of other issues.  The campaign has not yet raised the issue of Obama’s middle name, but they obviously have to proceed with caution on the issue, lest that one backfire on them as well.  Maybe they should focus more on Obama’s initials:  is America ready to elect a candidate who will be known as B.O.?  Will this smell right to Europeans?

3.  I’ve watched the “Yes We Can” video at least five times - it’s mesmerizing - and it has perhaps tainted my normally acute political judgment.  I am this close to announcing my support for Scarlett Johannsen for president.
4.  Obama’s supporters have had a little trouble coming up with any legislative accomplishments of Senator Obama.  Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, a “strong supporter” of Obama, was pressed three times by Chris Matthews to name one, and said he couldn’t do it.  Matthews thought this might be a “problem,” but I think not.  The Democrats may have found the perfect candidate:  a senator who can confidently promise he will never do anything inconsistent with his prior legislative record.
5.  In his 45-minute stem winder of a speech after the Wisconsin primary, Obama set forth a long list of proposals that he will accomplish over the next four years, notwithstanding his paucity of achievements over the last four.  One of them struck a cord Continue Reading »

No Comments »

I’m not buying the Obama campaign spin on Michelle Obama’s patriotic faux pas this week, any more than I’m inclined to believe that Barack Obama’s refusal to wear our flag pin in his lapel is a meaningless gesture.  Both Michelle’s stated lack of pride in America until this precise moment in history, and Barack’s unwillingness to don our national symbol are in perfect keeping with the doctrines of their church, Trinity United Church of Christ.

The simple truth is that if any of us exposed ourselves to the kind of teachings espoused by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, we might find it downright impossible to do any better than Barack and Michelle in the loving-America category of citizenship. 
We probably couldn’t summon a whole lot of American patriotism if our brains were  stuffed on a weekly basis with sermons like this:

“Racism is how this country (America) was founded and how this country is still run!”

or this:

“We (Americans) are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!”

If I listened to stuff like this every Sunday for 20 years, I probably wouldn’t be all that proud of my Country either, and certainly would feel it hypocritical to wear the symbol of this God-forsaken Nation in my lapel.
Wouldn’t you?
Trinity’s Black Liberation Theology
The Chicago Tribune’s religion reporter, Manya Brachear, interviewed Rev. Wright in January 2007, writing:

“Wright sought to build on the black theology of liberation introduced in 1968 by Rev. James Cone of New York, by emphasizing Africa’s contribution to Christianity rather than that of mainstream white theologians.”

If only it were this simple. 
But it isn’t.
According to Cone:

“Christian theology is language about God’s liberating activity in the world on behalf of freedom of the oppressed.  Any talk about God that fails to make God’s liberation of the oppressed its starting point is not Christian.” (Speaking the Truth; James H. Cone; p. 4)

The gospel according to Cone revolves around a single dimension of the Christian faith and necessarily interprets the very nature of “oppression” as solely material and of this world.  In effect, black liberation theology reduces the entire Gospel down to a Marxist people’s struggle and hijacks the Christ for political purpose.

“What else can the crucifixion mean except that God, the Holy One of Israel, became identified with the victims of oppression?  What else can the resurrection mean except that God’s victory in Christ is the poor person’s victory over poverty?”  (Speaking the Truth; p. 6)

This certainly puts an altogether different light on the crucifixion than Continue Reading »

No Comments »

American Thinker: 

Last week several conservative columnists, with one voice, declared presidential candidate Barack Obama an empty suit. At least, they reckoned that his speechifying demonstrated an astonishing lack of content. Charles Krauthammer complained about the idea of getting people to pay with their votes for something that ought to be audaciously free: hope. John Hawkins called Obama an empty suit who excites “gullible dimwits” by reciting words like “hope” and “change.” Barack is old wine in a new bottle, reckoned Mona Charen, “an utterly conventional, down-the-line liberal Democrat.” You could say that the Obama operation acts like a marketing-driven winery, selling an ordinary wine with a colorful label and promoting it onto supermarket shelves everywhere. You can get a flavor of Senator Obama’s conventional, liberal program on his website. That’s where he has published his platform, a set of detailed policy prescriptions called The Blueprint for Change. Mona Charen is right. Barack Obama’s platform is standard Democratic boilerplate. He proposes universal health insurance to cover the presently uninsured. On education he proposes a Zero to Five program of learning and care for children and families, adds funding to No Child Left Behind, and makes college more affordable. On Social Security he is “strongly opposed” to privatization, opposes raising the retirement age and proposes to “choose a payroll tax reform package” to keep Social Security solvent. He’ll bring all our combat brigades home from Iraq in 16 months. There will be no permanent bases in Iraq, but there’s an out. If al Qaeda “attempts to build a base in Iraq” he’ll use US troops for “targeted strikes” on al Qaeda. It’s interesting to compare the listing of Obama issues on BarackObama.com with the issues on JohnMcCain.com. You can tell that the two candidates are running in different parties. Obama writes about Civil Rights, Disabilities, Faith, Family. John McCain talks about Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life. Where Obama writes about Economy and Fiscal, McCain writes about his “Economic Stimulus Plan,” his “McCain Tax Cut Plan,” and “Government Spending, Lower Taxes, and Economic Prosperity.” So when you compare the two platforms you realize that both are predictable. The candidates are building them of the same old planks that have been used in Democratic and Republican presidential campaigns for the last several elections. This suggests that the 50-50 nation politics of the past twenty years is likely to continue through the November election. As they have for the last generation, the Democrats will Continue Reading »

No Comments »

by Alan Reynolds

This article appeared in the New York Post on February 15, 2008.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both propose to “turn the economy around” in a novel way - by raising tax rates on small businesses, working couples and stockholders in general, including retirees.

Of course, their plans are also meant to raise revenue for their various hundreds of billions in new spending - but the move would fall flat on that front, too.

Start with the deficit. The Bush administration predicts a $409 billion budget shortfall for fiscal 2009. But that rests on absurd assumptions - a sudden $104 billion drop in the price of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a freeze in non-security discretionary spending - and a speeding up of economic growth.

In fact, this election year’s “stimulus” bills are likelier to slow things down in 2009. Seven of the 10 postwar recessions began in the year after a presidential race, including 2001 and 1981.

So, with luck, the next president may start out with an economy that is only fragile or feeble and a deficit not much above $500 billion.

Now, on to tax hikes.

Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.

The federal government now takes 33 percent of taxable income above $200,000 on a joint return and 35 percent of income above $357,700. Both Democrats would raise those tax rates to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively.

Even the Tax Policy Center (a think tank famously friendly to tax hikes and Democrats) estimates that raising the top two tax rates might bring in a mere $32 billion in 2010. That’s 6 percent of the likely deficit - not a license to start a dozen new programs.

To squeeze a few more pennies from top taxpayers, Clinton and Obama would also phase out all personal exemptions at $250,000. That means large families would pay higher taxes than childless couples with the same income. They’d also phase out itemized deductions - which would force two-earner families in New York and California to pay more federal tax than those living in Texas and Florida.

And this politically suicidal tax discrimination against New Yorkers, Californians and big families would bring in only an extra $15 billion a year.

All in all, these tax hikes add up to, at most, $47 billion a year - only 1.5 percent of federal spending and 0.3 percent of Continue Reading »

No Comments »

This article appeared in the Sacramento Bee on February 21, 2008.

– 

Barack Obama is now the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. He’s risen high on his inspiring persona and uplifting rhetoric. At a time of prolonged war and economic uncertainty, he appeals to Americans’ hope for something better than the bitter partisan infighting that has paralyzed Washington. And Obama offers an opportunity for closing America’s racial divide. It is hard not to cheer his success.

Yet, politics is also about issues. And on this score, Sen. Obama represents less hope and change than a wish list for every conceivable liberal special interest group.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. According to the respected and nonpartisan National Journal, Obama is the most liberal U.S. senator, with a voting record actually to the left of Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s self-proclaimed socialist. Consider what Obama actually promises to do:

TAXES AND SPENDING: There is no doubt that an Obama presidency would represent a return to traditional tax and spend liberalism. According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has so far proposed at least $287 billion per year in new government spending. And that was before he unveiled his $150 billion “green energy plan” last week. Nor does that include the spending proposals he has supported in the Senate but not discussed on the campaign trail. For example, Obama is the co-sponsor of a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion over the next five years to fight global poverty. CNBC economic analyst Larry Kudlow estimates that, when all is said and done, Obama’s new spending plans will cost us more than $800 billion per year.

He would pay for all of this with higher - much higher - taxes. He would, of course, allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010. But that’s just the beginning. Obama has also called for removing the cap on Social Security payroll tax, a $1.3 trillion tax hike over the first five years. And, at a time when the U.S. economy is slowing down, Obama would significantly increase taxes on business, investment, and job creation, including nearly doubling taxes on capital gains. Americans would face some of the highest marginal tax rates in the world.

HEALTH CARE: A President Obama would take America down the road to a government-run health care system. He supports a concept known as “managed competition” under which insurance would remain privately owned, but would operate in an artificial marketplace with strict government regulation, much like a public utility. The government would determine what types of benefits you would be required to purchase and how much insurers could charge. Young and healthy people would have to pay more than they ought to in order to subsidize premiums for older sicker individuals.

While he would not actually mandate that individuals buy health insurance - a point of contention with Hillary Clinton - Obama would mandate that all employers provide their workers with insurance. That proposal would almost certainly end up hurting workers. An employer is indifferent as to whether compensation comes in the form of wages, taxes, health insurance or other benefits. Employers will therefore have to find ways to offset the added costs. This they can do by raising prices, lowering wages or reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits such as pensions, or hiring fewer workers. As always, employees will be the net losers, with the low-skilled suffering most.

REGULATION: A health care mandate is not the only new regulation that Obama wants to impose. For example, he would require businesses to pay an undefined “living wage.” He would require paid “family and medical leave.” He would regulate mortgages and credit card interest rates. He would impose a host of environmental and labor restrictions. The net cost of this regulatory burden will almost certainly be higher unemployment and greater poverty.

And it’s not just businesses that would feel the regulatory hand of an Obama presidency. Consumers too will have to pay, as he imposes new costs on products ranging from homes to automobiles and appliances. In almost everything we do, Obama sees a need for the government to intervene.

A President Obama would mean a much bigger, more intrusive, and costlier government. Indeed, when considering his policies, one searches in vain for any break with liberal orthodoxy. Personal accounts for Social Security? Entitlement reform? School choice? Obama rejects them all, calling such proposals, “Social Darwinism.”

That’s a lot less inspiring than Obama the candidate.

No Comments »

This article was written in January.  Taken from The Fact Hub. 

– 

This morning, Sen. Barack Obama claimed that President Clinton “made several misleading statements about my record” on Iraq. Actually, everything President Clinton said was true:

It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he has been against the war every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time — not once — well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there is no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since.

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.

‘When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards’ votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq:

In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]

While running for Senate, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it “dated”:

Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because “the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff’s desire to continually provide fresh news clips.”

Finally, Sen. Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq:

In fact, Obama’s Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton’s. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. [ABC News, 5/17/07]

No Comments »

From NewsMax: 

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that a pair of mailings sent to voters by rival Barack Obama’s campaign criticizing her health care plan and trade views are false, misleading and a betrayal of his pledge to practice a new style of politics.

“Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public—that’s what I expect from you,” Clinton said angrily, waving the mailings in the air.

“Meet me in Ohio, and let’s have a debate about your tactics,” she added.

The two candidates will meet in a televised debate in Cleveland Tuesday.

Clinton spoke to reporters after an early morning rally at Cincinnati Technical College, one of several events she has held across Ohio this week. After losing eleven straight contests to Obama since Super Tuesday, the former first lady is banking on a strong showing in both Ohio and Texas on March 4 to save her fading candidacy.

With so much on the line and the clock ticking, Clinton ripped into Obama much more directly and forcefully than she has in the past.

“Enough about the speeches, and the big rallies, and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove’s playbook. This is wrong and every Democrat should Continue Reading »

No Comments »

We just created a new advertisement video for True Obama Facts. Pass the link out to your friends!

2 Comments »

I just created Barack Obama Info Cards that have this website’s address on them.  Download them, and then print them out and pass them around to family, friends, co-workers, neighbours, or anyone you come in contact with.  Click the thumbnail below to view the image.  To download the image, right-click it, and then click “Save file”.

If you have any suggestions for other cards, brochures, posters, etc, post them below.

Thanks!

True Obama Facts

1 Comment »

2 Comments »