The Great Obama Lie

President Obama promised that 95% of workers would not see their taxes raised by one single dime. Well, he really didnt mean that. The buget Obama released includes a cap and trade policy. Dont let the administration lie to you this is a tax that you will see. It will be a tax that affects every single taxpayer (well as long as you have electricity) through their power bills. Those households already struggling to hang out during the recession will be faced with a new tax that comes every month. Not exactly what the President would have you believe.

To make matters even worse, in the middle of the recession President Obama is proposing a plan that will drive manufacturing jobs out of the United States. In Europe where they have already instiuted a similar policy steel workers have been protesting as they are losing jobs by the day and the manufacturing sector is shrinking at an alarming rate.

Obama would like everyone to believe that none of these policies will hurt them. But, the reality is far from what the administration would have us to believe. This is not the time for failed social movements like climate change fearmongering. But, a time where we should be helping buisness and households recover and prosper when the recession ends.

Sphere: Related Content

The Obama Plan: 1 Trillion in Taxes

President Barack Obama came to office promising Hope and Change. But, since taking office he has just offered us fear and misdirection. Now as the Presidents budget is presented we see exactly what he has planned for us all. He loves bigger government and more taxes. In a economic downturn it would seem crazy to offer higher taxes not for obama he plans for an additional 1 trillion of them. What will the money be used for? Well 600 Billion is going to be set aside for socialized medicine. We are also going to pay for alternative energy that will not work with out talking about Nuclear power plants. Oh, and from the guy who wanted no waste there are a mere 9,000 earmarks. And today he comes out against guns. I wonder why he would do that? Because he wants to make sure no one will have any when they decide to follow the Declarations of Independence and try to "alter or abolish" their government.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Would Howard Dean want to eliminate the Electoral College?

Howard Dean told Time Magazine this week that he was in favor of eliminating the electoral college. Why would he say that?
USA Today stepped up the answer the question with this

Republican strategists can envision a scenario in which Obama wins the popular
vote but loses in the Electoral College -- he might galvanize Southern black
turnout, for example, but still fail to switch a state in the region.
Among
the 10 strategists interviewed by Politico for this story, there was
near-uniform belief that had any other Republican been nominated, the party's
prospects in November would be nil. ...
The case they make for a comfortable
McCain win is not beyond reason. Begin with the 2004 electoral map. Add Iowa and
Colorado to Obama's side, since both are considered states Obama could pick off.
Then count McCain victories in New Hampshire and Michigan, two states where
McCain is competitive. In this scenario, McCain wins the Electoral College
291-246, a larger margin than Bush four years ago.
If Obama managed only to
win Iowa from Republicans and McCain managed only to win Pennsylvania, McCain
would still win by a much greater margin than Bush - 300-237.

Sphere: Related Content

Florida Speaker of the House expresses why Obama is wrong on Cuban Policy

Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, the first Cuban-America ever elected to the post, released a statement showing why Obama is wrong on siting down with Castro.
"I support the current U.S. policy against Cuba, including the travel ban for most Americans. I also recognize that some people may respectfully disagree with my support of these limitations on Americans visiting Cuba.
In my view, however, there should be no disagreement with the fact that under no circumstances should the U.S. negotiate the future of Cuba with Raul and Fidel Castro. The Castros do not govern officially over a foreign state; such a view would be naïve and, to many, even offensive. They do not govern, they dictate, and the result is tyranny because they have never had the consent of, nor have they been elected by, the people they control.

Negotiation with the Castros would violate that most precious of all American beliefs that the only power government can possess is the power that the people consent to bestow.
The United States is the great single beacon of hope for Cuba.
We must ask: 'What type of message do we send if an American President sits across a table from a tyrant like Raul Castro?'"

Sphere: Related Content

The Barack Obama Lobbyist Show!

Barack Obama, his supporters, moveon.org, and other liberal messengers all love to attack McCain for lobbyists working on his campaign staff. The fact is their side is far from pure and the whole thing is kind of crazy anyway. Lobbyists are people too, and they need work in non-election years. This issue just shows that the Obama campaign is so busy trying to act pure that they have not come to term with what they are preaching.

National Review online had this to say,

"But if our friends on the left want to have this fight, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So can we expect a front page story on:

Daniel Shapiro, one of Obama's foreign policy advisers on the Middle East, registered to lobby for several corporate clients in the last year, since leaving the office of Rep. Bill Nelson (D-Fla). Shapiro, who worked during the 1990s for President Bill Clinton's National Security Council, counts some of America's biggest corporate names among his clients, including beermaker Anheuser-Busch, carmaker Daimler Chrysler, the American Petroleum Institute and Freddie Mac.
Obama considers the point that he doesn't take money from oil companies (no one does; he just takes money from their employees) worth mentioning in an ad. So if their money is tainted, why is it okay to take advice from their lobbyists? How can Obama say he'll get tough on automakers to make sure they make fuel-efficient vehicles, if a Daimler Chrysler lobbyist has his ear?
Stupid argument? No more so than the idea that Charlie Black will be setting McCain's Africa policy. More:
Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.
The BP connection is through Teal Baker, who worked for the Podesta Group.
Or how about lobbyists for those dreaded insurance companies?
Brandon Hurlbut, Obama's liaison to veterans, union members and senior citizens in New Hampshire, represented clients such as the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Allegheny County Housing Authority from January to June, according to public records. Six clients paid B&D Consulting $380,000 for Hurlbut to lobby their causes.Or how about pharmaceutical companies? They're popular in Democratic circles.
Hillary Clinton's campaign, which accepts lobbyists' donations and is now trailing in the polls, has sought to question Obama's commitment to his lobbying ban. In a debate Saturday night in New Hampshire, she noted that Obama's campaign co-chairman in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state-based lobbyist whose clients include pharmaceutical companies. He is not registered at the federal level.
Wait, there's more. How about AT&T, opponent of "net neutrality" and a company that cooperates with the NSA on wiretaps?
The Washington Post previously reported that Moses Mercado, a veteran political adviser to the likes of Dick Gephardt's former presidential bids, was negotiating last fall to become an adviser to Obama. Mercado was registered in Washington to lobby on behalf of several several corporate clients, including AT&T.
Mercado said today he ultimately decided to skip becoming a paid adviser and instead is volunteering his advice and time in hopes of sidestepping the questions about being a lobbyist on the Obama payroll. Mercado was departing today to Nevada to help Obama with that state's caucuses.
How about a lobbyist as chief of staff in an Obama administration?
One of Obama's chief surrogates, former Senator Tom Daschle, is being talked up as possible chief of staff in an Obama administration. He's currently a "Special Public Policy Advisor" at Alston & Bird, where his duties are described, "as a non-attorney, Senator Daschle focuses his services on advising the firm's clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy with a particular emphasis on issues related to financial services, health care, energy, telecommunications and taxes. In addition, he advises on trade and international matters." His title may not be "lobbyist ," but when he joined the firm in 2005, NPR described their interview with him this way: "Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, discusses politics, the party and his new job as a lobbyist."
Now, all of these folks may be fine folks - I think rather highly of Daschle for the way he handled the anthrax attack in his office - and if Obama wants them on his team, that's his decision. But I don't see why McCain should be raked over the coals for Black while Obama gets a pass for his lobbyist staffers, advisers, surrogates and helpers."

Sphere: Related Content

Combating the Bush Haters

The Bush haters have been around for a number of years bashing The President and blaming every car accident and wildfire on him. They attack John McCain as a third bush term and refer to him by the loving term McSame. The fact is the reality of the Bush Presidency is much different than they discribe. Investors Buisness Daily had a great editorial describing that the Bush Presidency is much better than Barack Obama and the Demcorats want you to believe

"How about a dose of reality?"

• The editorial points out the real deal of what happened.
• We have had great economic times and we seem to be pulling out of the current downturn without even a recession, thanks in part to tax cuts
• We have had no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11
• We are safer than we thought we would be after 9/11 thanks to taking the war to the terrorist and tougher anti-terrorist efforts.

Lets Hope the American people see the real deal not the distortion that the Bush haters, Democratic Hitmen, and Barack Obama want you to see.

Sphere: Related Content

The divisive Obama Cantidacy

Barack Obama's canidacy is becoming apparently more and more divisive. With terms like Racism and Sexism floating in the air it looks now like he cannot count on long time democratic support. Geraldine Ferraro the one time Democratic Nominee for Vice President of the United States has said in a New York Times that, “I think Obama was terribly sexist.” Compare that with the fact that NBC reported on the air tonight that 41% of the Clinton voters in the democratic primary in Kentucky would vote for McCain over Obama. It is hard to trace why such a division has taken place. The division seems to be happening on just gender lines but also the fact that moderate democrats find Obama to be too far left for their taste. The question now as Obama emerges as the presumtive nominee is can he moderate his message to pick up the rest of these votes and in doing so can he prevent from alienating his current supporters?

Sphere: Related Content

Who is to blame for Gas Prices?

There has been a lot of talk from Democrats about Gas Prices and Oil Prices. They want to tax the oil companies and force them to produce more oil. That leaves a problem we still would not have enough gas as there are not enough refinearies. Democrats have fought them as well as other good alternatives, President Bush said this yesterday, "Those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration, against the development of nuclear power and against expanding refining capacity,"
We also have added ethenol to our gas which makes it tougher to refine and cost more because we subsidize the corn production. We should also limit speculation in these markets as they are vital to our national economy. But, we will not get any of these solutions as long as the Democrats that are in charge want to appease too many groups and increase taxes while refusing to fix any of the problems facing the country.

Sphere: Related Content

I thought that Democrats were for a total and complete seperation of Church and State

I have heard over and over again Democrats attack republicans and President Bush over having personal feelings about Religion. They have said they should keep religious feelings to themselves and there should be a total and complete seperation of State. If thats true why is Barack Obama sending this ad out in Kentucky? But, wait didnt Michelle Obama and Barack Obama not like those who clung to their religion and guns? I guess double talk never gets old.

Sphere: Related Content

Who is Really Running the Show?

Robert Novack is quoting sources inside the Obama campaign as saying that he will not be able to pick Hillary Clinton as a Vice Presidential Cantidate because Michelle Obama has vetoed it.

That leads us to a bigger question about the Obama campaign, Who is really in charge? It seems like every Democratic Nominee is beholden to his spouse (Clinton, Kerry, and now Obama). So if that is the case why has been Obama been attacking the two for aspect of the Clinton Campaign when his house is no different.

For a Cantidate we already do not know enough about and has big questions in regards of Leadership, can he really afford this perception. We need a strong leader as President of the United States not First Lady.

Sphere: Related Content

Did Obama plagiarize? The Video says yes

Sen. Barack Obama was caught in copying a speech From Gov. Patrick. The Obama camp says they share style, etc. The Video shows it was rearranged but the same words. Sen. Joe Biden's 1988 campaign was stopped by a simiar charge. Will History repeat itself?

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton Retreats on Pile-on Poltics and White House Papers

Hillary Clinton has had a bad week. In what was a horrible debate performance this week she flubbed a couple of questions and then refused to give straight answers when pressed by her opponents and the moderator. She followed this up with running ads on what she called "Pile-on Politics" where all her opponents were unfairly attacking her because she was a woman and they were all men. Barack Obama responded quickly to this line of reasoning saying that when he was attacked he did not run out and scream it was because of the color of his skin.

The New York Times now reports she is backing of this stategy:

“I don’t think they’re picking on me because I’m a woman; I think they’re picking on me because I’m winning,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference at the Capitol after filing papers to run in the New Hampshire primary.

Also in the debate the issue of the Former First Lady's White House papers emerged. The Clinton have been working to block the release of any of her records until 2012. Now after pressure has emerged what appears to be a self-serving withholding from public judgment the Clintons now indicate the documents could be ready as soon as January of 2009. This does not appear to help Obama or Edwards as the early state primaries will be over, but will put the documents out as the General Election starts to heat up.

In what could only be referred to as the Hillary Camp's worst week ever. She has taken positions and backed off them when put under pressure. In what appeared just a week ago to be an unflappable and flawless campagin they are now forming holes fast and quick.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama and Edwards want to change Social Security from a contribution based Insurance system to wealth redistribution system

Presidential Cantidate Barrack Obama today proposed a similar plan to what John Edwards has mentioned to change Social Security. Social Security was set up as a contribution based insurance system to make sure people could live if they lived extremly long lives or became disabled. It was designed as a voluntary system that people could join to gain security. Over time it was shifted to a mandatory system, but they maintained the contribution based system that promises you get back most of what you put in. Now, Obama and Edwards want to change that. They think that those making over 97,000 a year should now be forced to pay payroll taxes on the amount over 97,000. This in fact changes the system form a contribution based system to a new method of wealth distribution. While it seems nice to make others pay it is a further encroachment of our Federal Government, and a step towards the socialization of America. These were not the principles that our country was founded on. We need to look back and decide what America really needs and it is not a method to tax our way to sucess. We must look for creative solutions to fix our problems and make our society better but increased taxes and socilaization is not that path.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3638710&page=1

Sphere: Related Content