The New York Times reporter finally got direct with Obama: ”Is there one word name for your philosophy? If you’re not a socialist, are you a liberal? Are you progressive? One word?” Obama’s answer: ”No, I’m not going to engage in that.”

Real Clear Politics posted the full transcript here.

President Obama is breaking campaign promises and his White House pledges faster than I can keep track of them. Of course his office is now revising the White House webpages. I am glad I printed them out on January 20th.

1. Candidate Obama promised to go through the budget line item by line item and cut waste. He obviously has not done that. The press needs to hold him accountable for breaking this pledge.

2. A common sense way to bring the federal budget under control is to make sure each budget item meets one of the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 if the U.S. Constitution. If it doesn’t meet that criteria it shouldn’t be funded. PAYGO (it is also on his website) http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/fiscal/ Yet he ignored that in the $787 billion stimulus legislation.

3.The President when he speaks supports PAYGO (it is also on his website) http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/fiscal/ Yet he ignored that in the $787 billion stimulus legislation.

4. The President when he speaks supports not “burdening our children and grandchildren with excessive debt. (that also is on his website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/fiscal/. He ignored that pledge in his stimulus legislation.

5. The President when he speaks supports “spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified” (that also is on his website http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/fiscal/. He ignored that in his stimulus legislation.

6. The President when he speaks supports slashing “earmarks to no greater than the 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public. (that also is on his website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/fiscal/. Another broken promise.

7. The President when he speaks says he “will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense.” (that also is on his website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/fiscal/. Another broken promise.

8. Candidate Obama promised more “sunlight” on legislation before he signed the legislation, i.e. the legislation would be posted online for five days before he signed it. Now that White House page has been revised. Emergency legislation is excluded from this policy and the policy isn’t in effect for non-emergency legislation because “we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/update_on_sunlight_before_signing/

9. On January 21 President Obama announced tough new ethics rules. His ethics policy was removed shortly thereafter and “is currently being revised to reflect his Executive Order”. http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/ethics/

Barack Obama and the Price of Change

What Obama said in his press conference was revealing. I don’t know if it was this obvious to the average American, but I think it was his first step as President into making America officially a socialist nation - perhaps modeled on some of the socialist nations of Europe. I would encourage you all to read the full transcript from his press conference.

They include statements such as these from President Obama:

“Some of the criticisms [of the spending bill] really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who’ve suggested that FDR [President Roosevelt] was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They’re fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.”

President Obama, if you really looked around, there is certainly not a concensus that FDR’s New Deal stimulated the economy. In fact, 10 years after the stock market crash of 1929, unemployment still stood at a whopping 17 percent. The only disagreements among economists and historians today is whether the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. There is no question that it didn’t solve this. However, that myth still exists. But I thought Obama was an educated man. The only thing that actually got us out of the Great Depression was the mobilization of the nation for World War II, which we officially entered in 1941.

Still, in another statement, Obama talked about what he believes the role of government should be to solve this economic crisis:

“…The question I think the American people are asking is, do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation. But doing nothing, that’s not an option from my perspective.”

This second statement is remarkable because it demonstrates why some people still think that FDR’s New Deal was successful - simply because he “did something.” Liberals like action, and voters like action too. Even if that action is a failure, a strong politician that appears to be “doing something” is found favorable by the masses. FDR’s actions were disastrous and did nothing to stimulate the economy - and there is debate on whether it actually made the situation worse. Sometimes doing nothing actually helps the economy do something. Sometimes having the government do something makes the economy do nothing - or even worsens the situation.

This is socialism disguised with a smile. At least Lenin was honest.

For today, President Obama used fear to urge the passing of a spending bill that is being touted as a “economic stimulus” package.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, President Obama argued that each day without his stimulus package, Americans lose more jobs, savings and homes. The message: if legislators don’t act quick, our future is bleak. “This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse. That’s why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress.”

Talk about using the politics of fear to promote your policies! It doesn’t get much more fearful than this.

As a candidate for President, Barack Obama promised us that he would “change Washington” and do away with “the politics as usual.” His pick of 36-year Senator, “Mr. Inside the Beltway” himself, Joe Biden, as Vice President, should have given us all a forewarning that Obama wasn’t seeking change, only political gain.

First, Obama appointed New Mexico Governor and former Presidential candidate Bill Richardson to be his Commerce Secretary (folks, that’s a Cabinet-level position). But Richardson was forced to step down from his appointment before he could even be considered for confirmation. Why? Apparently he had engaged in some “pay-to-play” dealings, as he was involved with a company that has done business with the state government of New Mexico.

Then came Timothy Geithner. Some viewed Geithner as a great pick, being that he was President of the Federal Reserve. We can debate whether being President of the Federal Reserve is credible on one’s resume these days, but he was cited as one who was intelligent, someone who could help get this country back on track. President Obama nominated Geithner to be his Secretary of Treasury (a cabinet position first held by Alexander Hamilton). The Treasury Department also oversees the IRS. But, there’s just one problem. Geithner made a “mistake.” For several years, he forgot to pay his taxes.

At his Senate confirmation hearings, Geithner admitted that he had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years. Now on the one hand, that’s either tax evasion (which is a crime) or as Geithner claimed it was simply an honest “mistake.” Well, either you’re breaking the law or you’re making mistakes with your own finances. How on earth can our nation decide to put THIS GUY in charge of the nation’s finances during a time where we face such economic challenges? Well, neither our new President Obama nor the Democrat-controlled Congress thought this was as big of a deal as most Americans did. They confirmed him and he is now our Secretary of Treasury.

Third on Obama’s naughty list for cabinet picks is our old friend, former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, who Obama nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. But, wait. Another tax problem. You’ve got to be kidding me, right? Nope. Daschle recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest, according to a Senate document obtained by The Associated Press. Daschle’s confirmation hearings are set to begin as questions circle both him and our new President. All of these people have one thing in common: Barack Obama.

Obama’s Vice President, Joe Biden, told us many months ago on the campaign trail that it is “patriotic” to pay higher taxes. So long as those taxpayers aren’t in the Presidential cabinet, one supposes. It is amazing that those who call for higher taxes (liberals) think it’s ok when one of their own gets caught cheating on their own. If these were Wall Street capitalists caught cheating on their taxes, they’d be locked up. But, inside the beltway of the Obama Administration, not only are you free from jail time, you get a new job in the President’s cabinet. The only hope for those who believe in low taxes and less government is that maybe these hypocrites will realize how burdensome it actually is to pay one’s taxes and have a self-conversion which would bring some real change to Washington by reducing the burden the American taxpayer has to carry while these hypocritical politicians usurp more power.

Is this change you can believe in? Is this the change Obama promised?

That’s right. On January 22, millions of pro-life activists came to Washington, D.C. for the annual “March for Life” which continues to peacefully protest the Roe v. Wade decision made 36 years ago. Since that court decision, more than 45 million American lives have been aborted. But for pro-abortionists like President Obama, allowing women the “right to choose” just isn’t enough.

On just his fourth day in office, and just one day after millions of his fellow Americans came to Washington, D.C. to urge Obama and other elected officials to consider the rights of the unborn, the President signed an Executive Order lifting the ban on the U.S. taxpayer funding of abortions done overseas.

Many are already criticizing the action. Some of the harshest criticism has come from the Vatican. According to the Associated Press, “Vatican officials said Saturday they were disappointed by President Barack Obama’s decision to end a ban on federal funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on them.”

Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who heads the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, said in an interview published Saturday in Corriere della Sera that “if this is one of President Obama’s first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we’re heading quickly toward disappointment.”

“This deals a harsh blow not only to us Catholics but to all the people across the world who fight against the slaughter of innocents that is carried out with the abortion,” another top official with the Academy for Life, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, told the ANSA news agency. “Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst,” he was quoted as saying.

As we pointed out in our book, Who is the Real Barack Obama?, Obama tried to position himself publicly as having a “nuanced” position on abortion. But his record is anything but nuanced. Obama was the most pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of the Presidency. His first week in office has already demonstrated he is willing to take extreme and immediate action to further the pro-abortion cause, by his funding of abortions overseas with this Executive Order. In a nation facing economic challenges and over $1 trillion in debt, Obama thinks its ok for taxpayers to fund abortions of non-Americans abroad.

He has also said in the past that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act if it comes to his desk. The Freedom of Choice Act would overturn ANY federal, state, or local restriction on any abortion - including (but not limited to) partial birth abortion and parental notification for abortions on minors. To raise your voice against any further pro-abortion activity by President Obama, you can learn more information here.

While President Obama is fulfilling a campaign promise and is trying to freshen up the United States’ image to the rest of the world, his actions on his third day in office are putting the lives of all Americans at risk. It is now clear that no terrorists captured on the battlefield will enter the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay and within a year, the 245 plus terrorists currently there will have to depart. But questions remain: where will they go? how will they be prosecuted? If they come to the United States, will they get a team of ACLU lawyers and have full Constitutional rights given to American citizens? What happens if we catch Osama Bin Laden? Where will he go?

There may be much to question about the Presidency of George W. Bush, but the fact remains that since September 11, 2001 there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Did Bush’s policies succeed in preventing further attacks? If a terrorist attack happens on Obama’s watch, his reversal of Bush’s policy on the detention and interrogation of captured terrorists may come to haunt him. More than 60 of the terrorists that were previously captured, detained at Guantamo, and subsequently released (during the Bush Administration), were captured again - on the battlefield.

According to a Zogby poll:

Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could “see Russia from their house,” 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of “none” or “Palin” was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.

Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden — 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.

Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.

In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election — 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.

Are you one of the millions of Americans that were shocked that a man of Barack Obama’s limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States?  As we have documented in our book and on this blog for the past several months, the mainstream media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.

Zeigler interviewed twelve Obama voters on Election Day, right after they voted, to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking documentary provides some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.