Change Means Never Having To Face Facts

Change Means Never Having To Face Facts

By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.

It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don’t want to be confused by the facts, but also resent being told the facts.

An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short. “You don’t like him and I do!” she said. End of discussion.

When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.

Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Obama.

Some of Sen. Obama’s most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.

The magic word “change” makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check “change.” But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where “change” turned problems into catastrophes.

In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for “change.”

That “change” brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars’ despotism look like child’s play. The communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.

Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised “change” that turned out to be even worse than what went before.

Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, “change” will make them better. Specifics don’t interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.

These ranged from Jim Jones, who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown, to Hitler and Mao, who led millions to their deaths.

What specifics do we know about Obama’s track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of “changes” to expect if he is elected?

We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.

We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.

Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of “the mess in Washington” that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of “change.”

The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don’t know. Or it ought to.

For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him.


Tragedy Averted

Tragedy Averted

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Health Care: Seven months. That’s all it took before Hawaii concluded that the only state universal child medical coverage program in the country is unsustainable. Give officials credit for heading off a disaster.

Read More: Health Care


On March 1, the Hawaii Medical Service Association began enrolling children in the state Keiki (child) Care program. The grand plan was to provide medicine for every child between birth and 18 years old who didn’t otherwise have coverage.

But then parents who could afford coverage began dropping their private plans and placing their children in the program. Gov. Linda Lingle’s office, seeing a sure disaster ahead, pulled the plug on the patient last week, citing “budget shortfalls.” There simply isn’t enough money in the state treasury to fund it.

This was no cold-hearted decision. No, it was a rational, fiscally responsible policy judgment that both restores some degree of lost liberty and provides a much-needed lesson on the economics and wisdom of building a health care program that socializes costs.

Supporters are predictably outraged. But the only people who could be justifiably upset are those who would have been forced to pay their tax dollars for a service that should be an individual and family responsibility.

As socialist health care programs go, Keiki Care was small scale. Officials designed it to accommodate about 3,500 children. It never got that big. By the time just 2,000 children had enrolled, it had become obvious that it was not going to work.

Imagine if the plan included all children in Hawaii. Or all 1.3 million Hawaiians. It would have been a fiscal disaster.

Yet allegedly credible politicians and empty-headed dreamers want to forcibly socialize health care for the entire U.S. and provide coverage for 300 million Americans.

They tell us repeatedly that such a system will actually lower medical costs. Of course it will — but only if health care is rationed, less high-tech care and advanced drugs are used, and people lose the right to choose their own doctor.

Every government that has experimented with such universal health care plans has experienced similar ailments. Britain? Long wait times and shabby care. Canada? The same. Sweden? Its problems are, not so remarkably, similar to those in Britain and Canada.

All three have cost-containment problems, as well, and all have to address the sometimes deadly nature of their lengthy wait times to see a doctor or to have vital surgeries, a hallmark of universal care.

Severe problems begin when large numbers in universal-care nations begin to help themselves to the “free” health care provided by the government. Since they believe someone else is paying, they run to the doctor for conditions they would not otherwise spend their own money on. That leads to system overuse, the symptoms of which are long wait times, overworked doctors, substandard care and soaring costs that must be borne by taxpayers.

Lingle was right to shut down Keiki Care and wise to do it before it became a deeply entrenched problem, one that might well have bankrupted the Aloha State. It’s much easier for shoddy universal care to kill a patient than it is for an elected official to kill a government giveaway program that has put down even shallow roots.


Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism

Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Trade: As Obama makes political hay off protectionism and promises a new Smoot-Hawley era, it’s no surprise our trading partners are beginning to look to other markets — such as Europe. It’s a warning.


Our No. 1 trading partner, Canada, isn’t stupid. When Obama threatened last February to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own terms, our northern ally started looking abroad to other markets.

They found a big one in Europe, which seems to have few hang-ups about increasing exports and signing free-trade treaties. Last Friday, Canada and the European Union held the first talks toward an eventual free trade agreement between the two.

When this goes through, $27 billion in new trade is expected by 2014, according to a joint EU-Canada study. Canada will add an extra 0.8% to its GDP and see income gains of $11.1 billion from the new jobs and higher salaries coming in from Europe.

After all, if free trade with the U.S. bolstered Canada’s economy and standard of living by a factor of four since 1994, it makes sense to do more of what brought in that wealth.

Europe’s $14 trillion market is an attractive alternative to the U.S. for the Canadians, if it comes to that, and the Europeans are happy to add Canadian investment to the $500 billion investment its three largest economies drew in 2007.

Canada isn’t the only one responding to these chill trade winds blowing in from the Washington elites in election season.

Colombia is also preparing to sign a free-trade deal with Europe, as its own free-trade accord with the U.S. languishes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked it in Congress last April.

U.S. allies are wise to seek other partners no matter what the U.S. climate — the U.S. downturn no doubt plays a role too. But it started with noises out of the U.S. about pulling up the drawbridge.

With a global downturn, free trade makes more sense than ever. That ought to be an election issue for the U.S., which needs to stay globally competitive. Sadly, it’s not.

Canada and Colombia are effectively defending themselves from the anti-trade vortex in the U.S. by turning to other markets. The Europeans have no intention of imitating the mistake made by the U.S.

“It’s never a good sign when the U.S. becomes protectionist,” Philippe Favre, special ambassador for international investment and chairman of Invest in France Agency, the country’s foreign investment arm, said in recent comments to IBD.

Like many European officials, Favre thinks the sentiment has been brewing for a while. “If you look at the last two or three years, there was the U.S. preventing foreigners from buying ports,” he said. “The Chinese wanted to buy an oil company and they were stopped. Then you have the contract for (air refueling) tankers refused to a European company (EADS).”

Another failure was the World Trade Organization talks. “We have seen since 9/11 a U.S. trend to be more wary of the rest of the world,” Favre said. “We probably underestimated the impact (of the attack) on the people and the country in the EU.”

Agree or disagree, there’s no doubt that protectionism will make America poorer and less influential, protecting nothing. Outsourcing is particularly full of misperceptions.

“Look at the auto industry — Japan started by exporting to Canada and the U.S., and now produces cars in the U.S. They did it because the market itself is in the U.S. We see exactly the same thing in Europe. More car plants are going up in Germany and France than Bulgaria and Romania, even though the labor costs are lower there.”

Michael Pfeiffer, managing director of Invest in Germany, told IBD that exports are no threat: “We (Germans) are the largest exporters in the world — it’s something we do. We have to do it.”

Why? Germany doesn’t have the diversified economy America does. “One-quarter of German people are employed for export industries,” said Pfeiffer.

With the possibility of a protectionist Democratic president (Barack Obama) working with a protectionist Democratic Congress, the U.S. may be the odd man out when it comes to free trade.

Pity. Because free trade, as any economist will tell you, inevitably boosts the economies of those who engage in it. So others, like Canada, Colombia and Europe, will continue down the free-trade path — toward greater wealth for their citizens — while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.

The world will decide it isn’t going to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come around on free trade — it’s going to leave the U.S. in the dust

Do you think history repeats itself.

“The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
— Cicero , 55 BC

ACORN’s sweatshop

ACORN’s sweatshop

Clarice Feldman
Not only is ACORN (closely linked in its formation and support with SEIU — Service Employees Union International) exploiting us by its outrageous practices abetting vote fraud and mortgage  manipulation, but it appears it exploits its very own workers. The New York Post writes:

Pushed to meet daily quotas and bullied by bosses if they didn’t, Ohio ACORN workers faked voter registrations, signed up people more than once, and even paid off registrants to keep from being fired, its canvassers told The Post.
“Every day, there was pressure on us. Every single day,” said Teshika Elder, a Cleveland single mom of three who worked for ACORN this summer.
“We had meetings every morning where they’d go over your quota; they’d yell at you if you were low,” said Elder, 21. “They’d sit us down and say if you didn’t do better, they’d suspend you. They’d say, ‘Try harder next time,’ [and] if you didn’t get it, you’d be fired.”
Desperate canvassers sometimes resorted to trading cigarettes, cash and food in exchange for registrations, according to Elder and two other former ACORN workers, Jaymes Sanford, 18, and Selvin Cunningham, 23.

Some voters were signed up more than once, and said that worried – or lazy – canvassers sometimes filled out bogus cards.

John McCain and an Army of Joes

John McCain and an Army of Joes
The real anger at McCain’s rallies.

By Byron York

Woodbridge, Va. — Tito Munoz was ready to rock when John McCain showed here up at the Connaughton Community Plaza in Woodbridge, Virginia Saturday afternoon. Dressed in a yellow hard hat covered with McCain-Palin stickers, wearing an orange high-visibility vest, Munoz carried a hand-lettered sign that said CONSTRUCTION WORKER FOR McCAIN. He got a coveted spot in the bleachers directly behind McCain, where he could be seen in the camera shot along with the guy holding the sign that said PHIL THE BRICK LAYER and the woman with the ROSE THE TEACHER banner. He cheered a lot.

Munoz and the others cheering.


Everybody was playing on the Joe-the-Plumber theme. McCain spent a lot of time on it in his stump speech, using the now-famous Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio, as a stand-in for “small businessmen and women all over America [who] want to keep their earnings and not give it to the government.” McCain added that Obama’s response to Wurzelbacher — the assertion that it would be best to “spread the wealth around” — made Joe the Plumber “the only person to get a real answer out of Sen. Obama.”

The crowd laughed and cheered. But for them, Joe the Plumber is much more than a zinger in McCain’s stump speech. In recent days, the Joe the Plumber phenomenon has taken on a deeper meaning for McCain’s audiences, for two reasons. First, he is a symbol of their belief that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes, regardless of what Obama says about hitting up only those taxpayers who make more than $250,000 a year. They know Wurzelbacher doesn’t make that much, and they know they don’t make that much. And they’re not suspicious because they believe that someday they will make $250,000, and thus face higher taxes. No, they just don’t believe Obama right now. If he’s elected, they say, he’ll eventually come looking for taxpayers who make well below a quarter-million dollars, and that will include them.

The second reason Joe the Plumber resonates with the crowds is what his experience says about the media. Everybody here seems acutely aware of the once-over Wurzelbacher received from the press after his chance encounter with Obama was reported, first on Fox News, and then mentioned by McCain at last week’s presidential debate. Wurzelbacher found himself splashed across newspapers and cable shows, many of which reported that he didn’t have a plumber’s license, that he wasn’t a member of the plumbers’ union, that he had a lien against him for $1,182 in state taxes, and that he failed to comprehend what many commentators apparently felt was the indisputable fact that Barack Obama would lower his taxes, not raise them. As the people here in Woodbridge saw it, Joe was a guy who asked Barack Obama an inconvenient question — and for his troubles suddenly found himself under investigation by the media.

In the audience Saturday, there were plenty of people who were mad about it. There was real anger at this rally, but it wasn’t, as some erroneous press reports from other McCain rallies have suggested, aimed at Obama. It was aimed at the press. And that’s where Tito Munoz came in.

After McCain left, as the crowd filed out, Munoz made his way to an area near some loudspeakers. He attracted a few reporters when he started talking loudly, in heavily-accented English, about media mistreatment of Wurzelbacher. (It was clear that Spanish was Munoz’s native language, and he later told me he was born in Colombia.) When I first made my way over to him, Munoz thought I was there to give him the third degree.

“Are you going to check my license, too?” he asked me. “Are you going to check my immigration status? I’m ready, I have everything here. Whatever you want, I have it. I have my green card, I have my passport — “

I was a little surprised. Did Munoz really bring his papers with him to a McCain rally? I asked.

“Yeah, I have my papers right here,” he said. “I’m an American citizen. Right here, right here.” With that, he produced a U.S. passport, turned it to the page with his picture on it, and thrust it about an inch from my nose. “Right here,” he said. “In your face.”


Photo by Damien LeVeck

Munoz said he owned a small construction business. “I have a license, if you guys want to check,” he said.

Someone asked why Munoz had come to the rally. “I support McCain, but I’ve come to face you guys because I’m disgusted with you guys,” he said. “Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. . . . I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A.”

The scene turned into a mini-fracas when David Corn, of Mother Jones, defended press coverage. Munoz was having none of it. Why, he asked, would the press whack Joe the Plumber when it didn’t want to report on Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber? “How come that’s not in the news all the time?” Munoz said. “How come Joe the Plumber is every second? I’m talking about NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN.”

The Corn confrontation.
Photo by Andrew Coyne

A black woman with a strong Caribbean accent jumped in the fray. “Tell me,” she said to Corn, “why is it you can go and find out about Joe the Plumber’s tax lien and when he divorced his wife and you can’t tell me when Barack Obama met with William Ayers? Why? Why could you not tell us that? Joe the Plumber is me!”

I am Joe the Plumber!” Munoz chimed in. “You’re attacking me.”

“Wait a second,” Corn said. “Do you pay your taxes?”

“Yes, I pay my taxes,” the woman said.

“Then you’re better than Joe the Plumber,” Corn said.

That set off a general free-for-all. “I’m going to tell you something,” Munoz yelled at Corn. “I’m better than Obama. Why? Because I’m not associated with terrorists!”

And so it went. I walked away for a few minutes to strike up a conversation with the woman who had jumped into the debate. Her name was Connie, and she said she had been born and raised in Antigua, in the West Indies. “I immigrated to the United States over 20 years ago,” she told me. “It’s my home. America has become my home. I came here freely of my own free will because I loved it, and I loved what it had to offer, and I don’t want to see it ruined.”

I asked her whether it was difficult, as a black person, to support McCain at a time when probably 90 to 95 percent of black voters support Obama. “I have always been a conservative,” she told me. “I’m mad. I was extremely upset to see the way the media went after Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. . . . To see the drive-by media and the Obama campaign attack two ordinary Americans simply because one of them managed to get Barack Obama to tell the truth, it was shameful and disgraceful.”

Meanwhile, the great debate was continuing, with Tito the Construction Worker and David the Journalist trading points. Much of it wasn’t terribly informative, but there was one lovely moment when a shouting match turned into a lesson on the fundamental meaning of American constitutional rights — and the immigrant was the teacher.

“Let me talk,” Munoz said to Corn. “I know the Constitution, and I know my First Amendment — ”

“I’m not the state,” Corn said. “I can’t take that right away from you.”

“No, no,” Munoz shot back. “Even the state, the state cannot take that right away.”

“Right, right,” Corn quickly agreed.

“Nobody can take that away,” Munoz said.

And indeed they can’t. 

Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS




I know that many of you are sick and tired of all this political BS but if you read just one more thing between now and next month’s election, I urge you to read the following editorial. I don’t know who “Michael Masters” is or what he does; but he does write cogently and well. A Google search turns up a Michael Masters who is a lawyer in Philadelphia but I don’t believe that he is the author of this open letter. There is a “Michael C. Masters” who lives in McLean, VA – I presume, but do not know for sure, that he is the author. However, he didn’t show up in any Google searches that I conducted, so I guess he isn’t “notorious” enough to be found. I look at that as a good thing, however. On the surface, that suggests he is just another citizen like the rest of us and has no particular ax to grind. However, he HAS done his homework before writing this editorial.


To Barack Hussein Obama,


The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted.   While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it. 


The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted.   In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year.   The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly  While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.


Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about “race” contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America.   While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14. 


In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without “preparations” at lower levels … Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin … while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered “I would” to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without “any” preconditions.  While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.


On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work.   While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately … not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim.  While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.


You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar … and it failed.  The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate.  You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13%  were only after agreement from the Democrat party.  While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth. 

In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a “Captain” of a platoon in Afghanistan “the other day” when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan.  You lied in that debate.


In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a “professor of Constitutional law” when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law.  In this last debate, you were careful to say that you “taught a law class” and never mentioned being a “professor of Constitutional law.”  You lied last spring.

You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.


You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn … and he was right ….  corn is too expensive at producing ethanol,  and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn  from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food.   You distorted the truth. 


You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden.   You lied to America. 


You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural.  You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected.   While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts. 


You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan.  You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn … who all helped cause the financial problems of today … and they all made major contributions to your campaign.   While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuch Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful. 


You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn.  Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator … and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions.  Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns.  You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you.  While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America. 


During your campaign, you said: “typical white person.”  “they cling to their guns and religion.”  “they will say that I am black.”  You played the race card.  You tried to label any criticism about you as racist.  You divide America. 

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions.   You have requested close to $1 Billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn.   Your social programs will cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it.   While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America. 


The drain to America’s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than 1% of GDP).  You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities.  Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear.   You are lying to America. 

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you “changed” your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004.   The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008  spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and    You are lying to America.   


Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA.  They eliminated religion from our history.  They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade.  They bring their personal politics into the classrooms.  They disparage conservatives.  They brainwash our children.  They are in it for themselves ….. not America.    Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because

teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans?  You are deceiving America. 


Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.  Your character looks horrible.  While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric.  You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.    


1.  You lied to America.  You lied many times.  You distorted facts.  You parsed your answers like a lawyer. 


2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.  


3.  You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations. 


4.  You divide America about race and about class.  


Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and associations to John McCain:  

War hero.  Annapolis graduate with “Country first.”

Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22 years.  26 years in the Senate.  Straight talk.  Maverick.  54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats.  Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago. 


Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means.  You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated.  Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming.  Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton.  Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed. 


Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character.   It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty. 


Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character.  Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches?   Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain?   Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview?  …. of course not.  So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty?   because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security …. and you are praying on their fears with empty promises  … and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for “change” like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932.  The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was.   They loved his style.  Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you … your style has camouflaged your dishonesty …. but many of us see you for who you really are   … and we will not stop exposing who you are every day,  forever if it is necessary.   


Mr. Obama, you are dishonest.  Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.   


Mr.  Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future   


Mr. Obama, you are not the “change” that America deserves.  We cannot trust you. 


Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief. 


Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements.  And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating, lack of operational leadership experience, and general dishonest character.  The media is diverting our attention to your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships.   The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves …. just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon … Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the events …  false witness … perjury …  your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own …. but your lies are even worse. 


Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late.  We need to do the job that the media will not do.  We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day. 


Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve.  And God help America if we deserve you. 


Michael Master

McLean, Virginia


If you forward just one more thing to those in your address book between now and then, I ask that you forward this.