Obama is asked by fawning press, “Are you comfortable?” The video start in the middle, but still gives a good view of the media of this year’s campaigns bias. To see the whole video go to AlterNet Blogs The Media has never played to a candidate like this before. They refuse to look at his record, and don’t look the Obama/Rezko problem. They don’t look at his experience record, or his lack of it, for that matter. They just by into the “Obama is the Messiah” hype. Just wait until the actual race if Obama gets the nomination. He will crumble under John McCain, who has REAL experience.

Obama’s health care plan is not what he says it is. His stance on the Iraq War was not what he said it was. In 2004 he wanted to hit Iran and maybe Pakistan with Missiles. His budget plan is insane, adding $860 Billion in the next ten year for… Global Poverty!! Obama supports Partial Birth abortion, a practice most liberals are disgusted by!

Senator Obama is NOT WHAT HE SAYS HE IS!! Please, for America’s future, look at the FACTS!!

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 »

During a speech the other day, Michelle Obama said she is proud of the U.S. for the first time in her life.  The FIRST TIME IN HER LIFE!!!  What a thing for the wife of a presidential candidate to say!!

Why is she proud of America for the FIRST time??? Because her husband, Barack Obama, has got millions of young people fooled enough to vote for him.   She says the reason she is proud is because people want a change.  I agree, we need change. But NOT the change Barack Obama wants to bring to this country! (See Obama’s Gloomy Big Goverment Plan, and Do Obama’s Supporters Really Know Him?) It would ruin America!

First, Obama has virtually no experience for the Presidency. He spent 7 years as a junior Senator in Illinois, and 2008 would be his fourth year as Illinois Senator in Washington. During his time as U.S. Senator he had exactly one bill, co-sponsored by a Republican, enacted into law. (Since he’s been running for president full-time for the last year, I’m not counting that last 12 months.) He did better as a State Senator–which is a part time job in Illinois, but there was only one bill of his that a governor signed, one that required videotaping police interrogation in potential death penalty cases, that can be called groundbreaking. 1

On a different post we talked about how the Government is already spending way more than it should be, (see Obama bill: $845 billion more for global poverty) and Obama just wants to up it more! Like WAY more, he wants to increase the budget by $840 Billion, not including the $845 Billion for global poverty!!  Obama is NOT the right man for the presidency.  Give him 10 more years of experience, and a governorship if Illinois, then let him run again!  NOT now!

Video Link: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4f9af_obama_news?from=rss
 

No Comments »

From New York Times

–

The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama involves health care. It’s a division that can seem technical and obscure — and I’ve read many assertions that only the most wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals.

But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.

Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.

Let’s talk about how the plans compare.

Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.

And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.

But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan Continue Reading »

No Comments »

February 15, 2008
Obama’s Gloomy Big-Government Vision
By Lawrence Kudlow

Senator Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he’s aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic party in hopes of coming to the nation’s rescue. His proposal? Big-government planning, spending, and taxing — exactly what the nation and the stock market doesn’t want to hear.

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to “reopen” trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit (EITC) and triple the EITC benefit for minimum-wage workers.

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won’t pay for it. It’s the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.

This isn’t free enterprise. It’s old-fashioned-liberal tax, and spend, and regulate. It’s plain ol’ big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

Obama would like voters to believe that he’s the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals he’s looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a “Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan,” and it’s totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop “shipping jobs overseas” and bring Continue Reading »

No Comments »

We at True Barack Obama Facts wonder where this money is coming from?  There are two places for that money to come from: 1. YOUR Taxes, 2. Printing more money, and as most people know, that just drives the value of the dollar down, and makes your money worth less.   Neither option is any good, yet they are the only options, and Obama will use them both!  He will tax you out of your house, and also make your money worth less!
Obama already plans to up the Federal spending by 480 Billion.    The United State’s debt is already way to high, at 7.4 Trillion dollars.  Running it up hundreds of billions more is NOT the solution.   

–

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations. The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, “We can – and must – make … a priority,” said Obama, a co-sponsor. It would demand that the president develop “and implement” a policy to “cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief” and other programs. When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate. “It’s not our job to cut global poverty,” said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. “These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot.” Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could “result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States” and would make levels “of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.” He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion “over and above what the U.S. already spends.” The plan passed the House in 2007 “because most members didn’t realize what was in it,” Kincaid reported. “Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.” A statement from Obama’s office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces,” Obama said. “It must be a priority of American foreign policy

Continue Reading »

No Comments »