Aug 242014

By MacPundit

This article addresses liberal dishonesty. It is my response to the author of an email that circulated throughout the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It has never been posted here before. In light of what has happened since then, and considering the alarming state of our nation and the world at large, I think you will find it to be somewhat prophetic and, hopefully, instructive.

Please keep in mind that the original email did not have my comments in it. So as you read this, it will make more sense if you see it two ways: 1) With only the “Author” comments, and 2) with both “Author” and my (the “Me”) comments. For example, the first two paragraphs of the original email looked like this:

I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight…..

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”

Author: I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight…..

Note: When you get to the end of this you will see that the author was never confused. It is clear that the author knew exactly what he or she wanted to say, and said it.

Author: If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”

Me: Who described Obama as “exotic, different?” Not McCain, not Palin, so who? You didn’t say who because you wanted to imply or insinuate that McCain or Palin or some other Republican leader said these things, which of course they did not.

Author: Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.

Me: You did exactly what you accused others of doing to Obama. You made it sound like growing up in Alaska and eating moose burgers was weird or “out there” but to many Alaskans it is quite normal. Anyway, what is the difference between eating beef burgers or moose burgers? Meat eaters are meat eaters and most Americans are meat eaters.

Author: If your name is Barack you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

Me: Again, who described Obama as “a radical, unpatriotic Muslim”? Not McCain, not Palin, so who? You did what Obama himself did when he said his opponents would say he was different, that he didn’t look like the pictures on our paper money and that he was black. But once again, I don’t know of a single Republican leader or anyone in the McCain camp that ever said any of those things. It’s another old dirty trick: Accuse your opponents of saying things they never said or predict that they will, thus planting the idea in people’s minds.

Author: Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you’re a maverick.

Me: You’re still doing what you accuse others of doing. Here, you are sarcastically denigrating Sarah Palin for how she named her children. And, by the way, that is not why she has the reputation of being a maverick. She is a maverick because she cleaned up Alaskan politics by getting rid of corrupt politicians in both parties.

Author: Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Me: That’s the first time I’ve heard that one! Apparently you just make this stuff up as you write. Again, you don’t name names. So who said this?

Author: Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.

Me: Sarah Palin attended different colleges until she found what she wanted. As to being well grounded, I don’t think anyone who knows anything about her would question that.

Author: If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.

Me:  You and your idol have a lot in common. You both say whatever you think is favorable whether or not it is true. I’ll tackle these one at a time.

  1. Let’s start with your description of Obama as a “brilliant community organizer.” By any objective appraisal his record as a community organizer was not “brilliant.” In fact, after three years of less-than-satisfying results, he left his community organizer job to go to law school. During his three years in South Chicago, one project after another either faltered or failed. First, he got community members to demand a job center that would provide job referrals, but there were few jobs to distribute and so it did not work out. Then, he tried to create what he called a “second-level consumer economy.” This went nowhere. Finally, an associate advised him to move elsewhere and said that if he stayed there, he was bound to fail. So Obama took the advice and went to law school. Brilliant? Not even close. Was he sincere? Only Obama himself knows that because it is well known that virtually everything he did was calculated to advance his political ambitions.It should also be mentioned that Obama’s relationships during this time were and remain very troubling. I will list only a few here but it is a simple matter for anyone who cares enough (and you should) to do some research if you want to know more. You can start by reading a June 8, 2008 article in the Washington Times. Here’s the link: You will learn about his associations with Antoin Rezko, William Ayers, Emil Jones Jr., Rashid Khalidi, Rev. Michael Pfleger, and Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. You can find more Obama associations here.
  2. That Barack Obama was the first black president of The Harvard Law Review is certainly to his credit. However, in no way is it a qualification for the presidency of the United States. Do you not know that?
  3. He ran a voter registration drive that registered 150,000 new voters. You’re correct on this one but those voters were registered in order to increase the power of Chicago’s Democratic political machine—not for the benefit of our country as a whole. Further, the country is full of people who register new voters but that has never qualified a single one of them to be president of the United States!
  4. You said that Obama spent 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor. Untrue. He was never a Constitutional Law professor. In fact, he was never a professor, ever, even though he and his supporters continue to refer to him as such. His official title was Senior Lecturer. But I’ll let Hillary Clinton deal with this one. Here is what her campaign released on March 27, 2008:

    ”Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as ‘a constitutional law professor’ out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

  5. Obama’s 8 years as a state senator: Yes, but since when is that a qualification for president? Also, I urge you to check his attendance record and his voting record; they are both pathetic. He was notorious for simply not showing up and when he did, for voting “present” rather than committing himself to a yea or nay vote. Moreover, when he did vote, he took some very radical positions. For example, he voted against requiring medical care for fetuses (babies) who survived abortion procedures. Basically, he said “Let them die.” And he did that three times! The fact is that Barack Obama was and still is extreme-left politically. He has never represented mainstream Americans.
  6. He spent 4 years in the United States Senate. Again, you are incorrect. He has not yet finished his first 4 years. He is a freshman senator and he has missed 314 votes! Why? Well, one reason is that he has spent most of that time running for president instead of proving himself in the senate before running for president.
  7. You said that Obama sponsored 131 bills. Actually, he sponsored 5 more than that—136. Of course, 122 never made it out of committee and only 2 were successfully enacted. And, again, let’s not forget that he has missed 314 votes!

    From Jan 2005 to Oct 2008, Obama missed 314 of 1,300 roll call votes, which is 24.2%. This is far worse than the median of 2.2% among the lifetime records of senators serving in Oct 2008.It should also be noted that in this short period of time Senator Obama has managed to establish himself as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. (According to the non-partisan National Journal)On the other hand, John McCain has sponsored 537 bills of which 31 were successfully enacted. McCain has also co-sponsored 1,232 bills. In addition, McCain has authored many bills and has reached across the aisle to work with Democrats many times. You can view the official records here: Also, there is a big difference between sponsoring a bill, which means to simply sign-on to it, and authoring a bill, which means to actually be the author of it. Anyone can sponsor (sign-on) to a bill.
  8. Finally, you keep comparing Obama to Palin. I realize that you want people to think that Obama is running against Sarah Palin. Sorry, he really is running against John McCain.

Author: If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.

Me: Tsk, tsk. So she was just a little old weather girl. I’m sure you endeared yourself to a lot of American women with that remark. So, one might ask, why is she the most popular governor in the U.S.A.? (Her approval rating hovers between 80 – 90%) Just ask the people of Alaska. They will be happy to tell you why. In fact, they love to talk about her. But I have a feeling you won’t bother to do that, so I’ll tell you.

First, Sarah Palin is all about integrity and reform. Her adherence to principle—especially to transparency and accountability in government is what has made her so politically successful. In one month alone, as governor, she vetoed 13 percent of the state’s proposed budget for capital projects. The Anchorage Daily News said these, “may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history.”

In January 2004 she resigned as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Somehow, you failed to mention that she even had that job.) after complaining to the office of Governor Frank Murkowski and to state Attorney General Gregg Renkes about ethical violations by another commissioner, Randy Ruedrich, who was also Republican state chairman.

But there is a lot more. Beginning with her tenure as mayor of Wasilla, then as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and then as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has done what no one else before her was able to do: Break up the “good old boys” political machines and clean up Alaskan politics. For anyone who is interested in a real-life story of a truly remarkable women then do some honest research into Sarah Palin’s life and accomplishments. Unlike Barack Obama, she has actually done what she promised to do. Barack Obama has no such history. He is all about making good speeches; even Hillary said so many times. But again, why do you constantly compare Palin to Obama? Palin is running for vice-president and Obama is running for president!

You say that Sarah Palin is governor of a state with only 650,000 citizens. Yes, that’s true. But the problem is that Obama has never governed anyone—not a town or a village or even the neighborhood he failed to organize. He hasn’t governed a single person, let alone 650,000 in the geographically largest and most complex state in the union. He has never had to make any of the decisions that mayors and governors make countless times every day. Obama is a blank slate. We don’t know if he can govern anything because he has no record of ever having done so. So why would you even mention that there are “only” 650,000 citizens of Alaska? All you proved is that Sarah Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama and she is running for vice-president!

Author: If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian.

Me: Who said he’s not a real Christian? Not John McCain. Not Sarah Palin. So why did you say it? Maybe to make people think they said it? No, you wouldn’t do such a thing.

Author: If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.

Me: That is just plain small, and nasty, and mean, and it tells more about you than John McCain. You should be ashamed of yourself. Listen, after 5½ years of unimaginable torture in a Vietnamese prison of war camp, John McCain came home a different man than when he left and to a different world and, frankly, people like you don’t have the credentials or the character to judge the likes of John McCain. Your remarks are deplorable.

Author: If you teach responsible, age-appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

Me: Once again, you are thoroughly misleading the reader. The objection to Obama’s support of “age-appropriate sex education” was that it included what many consider to be “age-inappropriate” sex education for kindergarten children. Well, at least you are consistently dishonest.

Author: If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you’re very responsible.

Me: It is clear that you are either astonishingly ignorant or pathologically dishonest. I’m not sure which. First, while Governor Palin advocates abstinence, she did not (as you imply) mandate that it be the only option taught in Alaskan schools. As to “… while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you’re very responsible” remark, you once again reveal your meanness and your ignorance. Sarah Palin is no different than any other parent in the world. Nor is her family any different. All good parents try their best to instill good values in their children but there are never any guarantees. And while you come across as a highly judgmental person, Sarah Palin is about as non-judgmental as one can get. In fact, that is one of many reasons why the people of Alaska feel so much affection for her.

Author: If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America’s.

Me: There you go again. Who said their values don’t represent America’s? Not John McCain. Not Sarah Palin.

Author: If you’re husband is nicknamed “First Dude,” has at least one DWI conviction and no college education, didn’t register to vote until age 25, and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

Me: So once more, it is you who are guilty of doing and saying what you accuse others of doing and saying. While I can’t think of a single Republican leader that has said any of the things you imply they said, not a day goes by that either the media or bloggers or people like you say all kinds of nasty things about Sarah Palin or completely distort the truth about her. Yes, Todd Palin had a DWI but you failed to mention that it was 22 years ago! So what? Barack Obama in his own words said that he used to do “a little blow” now and then. As to why Alaskans love their “First Family” and think they are so “admirable”, it is because they are caring and honest and loving people. What about that disturbs you so much? Why is that so threatening to you? Why do you have a compulsion to denigrate good people? Exactly what values do you hold over such values as theirs?

Author: OK, much clearer now.

Me: It was never unclear to you. You set out to write a sarcastic, nasty, dishonest trash-piece in order to turn people against Sarah Palin and John McCain. In short, you are as phony as the words in your email. On the other hand, what I wrote is as accurate as my research could possibly make it. But truth is not your thing. It means nothing to you, which tells me that this wonderful country of ours means nothing to you. If it did, you would never put your politics above the truth.

This, by the way, is what makes both John McCain and Sarah Palin so special: They have a long record of putting the welfare of the people above politics. Barack Obama’s record is one of narcissistic self-aggrandizement. He is the quintessential political ideologue—a Saul Alinsky far-left radical.

But why, throughout your whole piece, do you compare Barack Obama to Sarah Palin? Barack Obama is running against John McCain! Of course, I know why and so do you. John McCain is far more qualified to be president than is Barack Obama. But even worse, when there is an honest comparison of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, it becomes clear that even Sarah Palin, a vice-presidential nominee, is more qualified than Barack Obama, a presidential nominee!

As even many prominent Democrats have said, if Barack Obama were white, Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. Why? It is quite simple: A white man or woman as un-qualified as Obama is could not have won the nomination. It would never have happened—with or without the troubling associations attached to Obama. Even if a white candidate were as good a speaker as Obama, a lack of qualifications would have prevented his or her success. This is not a racist opinion. In fact, a truly non-racist society would not consider race at all when selecting political candidates. The point of course is that we should completely disregard race and judge the candidates on their track records and their proven ability to deliver over time. When viewed honestly and objectively, it is starkly clear that not only does Barack Obama have a very troubling political history but he has literally nothing in his record that demonstrates an ability to deliver on what he promises in his glowing speeches.

Listen, words are cheap, and it is beyond foolish to even vaguely consider electing a person to the presidency of the United States of America because he is an African American or because he delivers a good speech! This is not a Democrat or Republican matter. It is about the welfare and survival of our nation. It’s time to forget about race and who delivers the better speech and to act like responsible citizens. This is a very complex and dangerous world and if we are not careful, we will destroy all the special things that make America the greatest nation in the history of the world—those things for which generations of men and woman before us have fought and died to defend and protect.

Finally, to the younger generation: This is not an American Idol contest. This is the real thing and it is a very serious matter. Find an honest, unbiased American history book somewhere (if you can) and educate yourselves. Your future depends on it.


Again, this was written in 2008 and is posted here now for instructive reasons, which should be obvious. It was typical of hundreds or more likely thousands of untruthful, ignorant, nasty emails, books, and other written material that prevailed during the 2008 campaign. And the 2012 campaign was no better.

Nov 012012

By MacPundit

Electing Barack Obama Was A Serious MistakeFour more years of Obama could destroy America beyond repair.

The fact that Election 2008 was a serious mistake is clear to all honestly informed observers. What is important is that we do not repeat it.

By now the same honestly informed observers at least suspect that President Obama is the most dishonest president in U.S. history. This website alone has documented more than 160 untruthful statements made by Mr. Obama. You can also find 80 solidly documented broken promises here, which may be a record. Add incompetence and radicalism to his dishonesty and we can easily see why his presidency has been such a disaster. But we elected the most unqualified candidate in U.S. history. So what did we expect?

The election of Barack Obama was a fluke.

I believe that honest historians will view the election of Barack Obama as an aberration, a fluke. They will describe a time in which many Americans—especially the youth and the ideologues—had become so politically ignorant, so socially shallow, or so politically rigid that they were unable to grasp the seriousness of a presidential election. Instead they were enticed by the notion of electing our first Black president and by the seductive rhetorical skills of Barack Obama. It was a popularity contest, an exercise in superficiality—a perfect environment for an accomplished demagogue.

Of course what is done is done and it will take many years to reverse the damage that has been inflicted upon us by Mr. Obama’s radicalism and mismanagement. As a result of the unprecedented amount of debt he has placed on us, we are now facing economic Armageddon. Our standing in the world has suffered as well. Simply put: We are no longer viewed as Great America. In fact, more than one world leader has referred to President Obama as being an amateur or naïve, among other unflattering descriptors.

No more mistakes please!

We simply cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama. If anyone reading this does not fully understand the seriousness of our current situation then please spend some time on this website. The facts are here. This is not a Republican or Democratic problem. It is a national problem and in five short days we absolutely must get it right. It is not an exaggeration to say that our nation is in deep trouble and we are running out of time.

A Time For Wisdom

Regardless of what Barack Obama tells us, the truth is that all things considered, we are far worse off than we were four years ago. And as someone correctly said, “To re-elect Barack Obama would be like the Titanic intentionally backing up to hit another iceburg.”

Aug 142012

Barack Obama, All That Glitters …

Barack Obama - Fool's GoldIron pyrite is often mistaken for gold. History is speckled with stories of prospectors whose initial feverish excitement over having discovered gold was soon dispelled by the realization that their “gold” was instead iron pyrite, a convincing lookalike. So this “less special” mineral was ignominiously tagged with the name “Fools’ Gold.”

“I felt this thrill going up my leg.”

Adoring believers were ecstatic when he spoke—breathlessly hanging on to his every word. They cheered and swooned, their faces masked with the unnerving look of idolization—of blind fanaticism that our elders had seen in Europe and the Far East seventy years before. Media commentators fawned over him. Chris Mathews, a top MSNBC news anchor said, “I felt this thrill going up my leg” when he spoke. The most successful woman in the history of American television announced to the world that “He is the One.” – thereby classifying him as a being unlike the rest of us—more than a mere mortal. He was the Messiah or at the very least, Neo from the movie The Matrix.

Bestselling author, Bernard Goldberg, wrote a book entitled, A Slobbering Love Affair about this unprecedented, American phenomenon. He said,

From the day [he] announced his candidacy to the moment he took the oath of office, the mainstream media fawned over him like love-struck school girls. Even worse, this time they went beyond media bias to media activism.”

Journalism in America had died, but not of natural causes. For all practical purposes, its left-wing, so-called mainstream journalists committed ethical suicide when they hid their bags of professional ethics away in inaccessible dark corners of their politically corrupt newsrooms. Objective observers who knew better imagined hearing the earth shake and shudder from the groans of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and other founders whose worst fears were manifesting in the person of Barack Obama.

Ideologues, starstruck youth, apologists, and ignorance

His starstruck supporters were:

  • an eclectic mix of rabid Liberal Democrats (many left over from the loud dissemblers of the Sixties)
  • politically and historically ignorant youth who had been shaped by a superficial culture that elevates and esteems the cult of celebrity, and others whose singular accomplishment was to become famous
  • white apologists for past national wrongs who thought the election of a Black president would somehow publicly affirm America’s penance and mitigate their personal, nagging, misappropriated sense of guilt
  • almost the entire bloc of African American voters
  • plus other uninformed and misinformed ignorant Americans who were easily swayed by a disarming smile and populist, demagogic rhetoric slickly delivered by a silver-tongued politician.

Post election surveys revealed the full measure of the naivete and ignorance of Obama voters. Liberal to moderate Democrats who at least had an inkling of Mr. Obama’s extreme radical background and his woefully inadequate resume, simply deflected all rational considerations and joined the fervor to elect America’s first Black president. Others acted like college freshmen who had just ingested one more serving of stale Marxist pablum served up by their favorite anti-capitalist professor.

When asked why they voted for Barack Obama their answers were often childish, remarkably inane—dumb: “It would be nice to have a black president.” “He is a great speaker.” Without hesitation, when asked a series of rational, fair, important questions such as “Does his inexperience concern you?” – “Do his long-standing radical associations trouble you?” – “Is the fact that he has not even completed his first term in the U.S. Senate a problem for you?” or “Can you name one significant legislative accomplishment of his?” the answer was “No” every time. Even many informed voters simply ignored their normal tendencies to rational thought, went into denial mode and voted for Barack Obama.

The mask comes off

It was unprecedented. It was astonishing. Now, three years and seven months later, it is clear to all objective, knowledgeable Americans, that it was also rankly irresponsible. By now, it is demonstrably clear that President Obama is at the very least a statist, an advocate of statism—the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. Many political observers will take issue with that analysis and argue that Mr. Obama is a closet Socialist or even a more ambitious Marxist. They base this on his lifelong associations, which have yet to be aggressively vetted or made public by the “mainstream media.” Thus, a large portion of the American public remain unaware of our president’s history—his political beliefs and purposes.

Yet even as these corrupt journalists continue to shield and protect Mr. Obama, we are beginning to see credible signs of disenchantment among some. Occasionally, their questions to Mr. Obama are more pointed, more aggressive than before, which may explain why the President has not held a formal news conference in months. Most of the fawning has subsided. Two honest, well-documented, bestselling books about Barack Obama— Radical In Chief, by Stanley Kurtz and The Amateur, by Edward Klein—finally portray a true picture of our 44th president. Still, the media continue to be egregiously biased and to give us unbalanced news and commentary. Therefore, it looks like we are in for another presidential campaign in which Mr. Obama will have an unfair and undeserved advantage over his opponent.

All that glitters is not gold

So after almost four years of failed Obama policies marked by the worst economic recovery in seventy years—massive, unsustainable debt, unemployment over 8 percent for over three years, continuing deficits over a $trillion with no end in sight—the Obama believers cannot seem to accept that what they “discovered” four years ago was the political equivalent of Fools’ Gold!

Oct 032011

Ignorance, Ideology, Cult Of Celebrity

When this was first published immediately after Election 2008, I wrote the following:

It’s over! To the astonishment of millions of informed Americans, Barack Obama—arguably the least qualified presidential candidate in U.S. history—is now the 44th President of The United States of America. He is also Commander-In-Chief of the most powerful military force on Earth. Therefore, he is the most powerful man in the world. But how did he do it and what does it say about the current state of American politics, our media, and the health of the American electorate?

Well, it said a lot about who we were back then. But we cannot afford to make the same mistakes again. So I think it is instructive to revisit how Obama got elected in 2008 so we can do our best to prevent it from happening in 2012.

First, let’s look at a video for some background information. It is a sampling of voters who were interviewed after they cast their votes for Obama in 2008. It is a small part of a much larger, more extensive survey conducted by the highly regarded, non-partisan pollster, John Zogby. If you react like I did, you will shake your head and think, “Is this really what we’ve come to?”

Now, on the assumption that you watched the video, let’s add some perspective.

“Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” – George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

and …

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson

and …

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” – John F. Kennedy, 1963

So you can clearly see what happened. Many Obama voters were hardcore Democrats who always vote the party line. Others voted strictly on race. Some were white Americans who voted for Obama simply because he is an African American and they just wanted to elect the first black president. Then, of course, about 97% of African Americans voted for Obama. But far too many—especially young voters—had little to no knowledge of who or what they were voting for or against, nor did they have even a rudimentary knowledge of who our current leaders were or what the presidential candidates said or what they stood for. For them, Election 2008 seemed to be just one more “American Idol” contest and they simply chose Barack Obama for his charisma and his populist (demagogic) message of “change.” Sadly, it was the young voters who made the difference and were ultimately responsible for the election of Barack Obama.

I said “responsible for” because in America we the voters are ultimately responsible for our own destinies. Our power is in the vote and, therefore, the health and welfare of our nation is dependent on the choices we make about who will lead and govern us. This is precisely why George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Kennedy, and many others, instructed us on the importance of being well informed before we cast a vote for any candidate who seeks power over us. Ignorance is our enemy and, unless corrected, it will, ultimately destroy us.

But how is it that so many Americans are still so politically ignorant? How did this happen? Once again, the answer is neither obscure nor complex. There is an unequivocal reason and many culprits: We call them “The Media.” For years, they have uninformed and misinformed the American public about virtually everything political. Think back to the video for a moment and remember how many people assigned so many remarks to Sarah Palin when in fact they had been made by Barack Obama or Joe Biden.

Ignorance is an enemy of democracy and ignorance helped elect Barack Obama. Washington, Jefferson, and Kennedy along with countless others knew all too well how serious is the matter of educating our citizens. Ignorant people can be manipulated, educated people cannot.

We must do all we can to make certain that Barack Obama is not re-elected.

See “The Presidential Election of 2008” for a more detailed analysis of how Barack Obama got elected.