Obama lies about the 68 million acres

The Democratic talking points about how drilling for oil won't give us more oil (oddly, they don't suggest that shutting down wells will give us more oil either) include an absurd claim that there are 68 million acres of leases that aren't being used.

It is true that there are 68 million acres of leases. The size is because there are vast areas which have little or no oil, so the lease tracts are huge to give the potential for some oil to be found SOMEWHERE.

The leases are not production leases, they are exploration leases. But a lease being explored is not in production -- and that is what the Democrats mean when they say "not being used".

We expect generic Democratic messages to be lies. But it takes on special significance when the candidate for President, Barack Obama, is willing to include the lie in his speech. It is unfortunate that the NEWS ORGANIZATIONS of this country see no reason to actually provide FACTS to their readers.

From Obama's web site:

Meanwhile, the oil companies already own drilling rights to 68 million acres of federal lands, onshore and offshore, that they haven't touched. 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America's total oil production, and John McCain wants to give them more.

Here are the facts:

Wall Street Journal: “Companies don’t know how much oil is under the lands they lease, so they buy up large swaths in hope that a fraction will work out. Much of the area that isn’t producing, they say, doesn’t have oil or gas in commercially viable quantities. Moreover, bringing a new field into production can require years of mapping, testing, drilling and construction – during which time the land would show up in statistics as being ‘not in production,’ even as companies spend millions or even billions of dollars to bring it on line.” (6/16/08)

Get it? They aren't untouched. Most of the acres are useless. But on each lease, there is somewhere the companies are exploring, looking for a place where they can drill. It's hard, because just having a lease isn't enough, you need permits and regulatory approval for everything. The idea that oil companies spent money for leases just to watch them sit is stupid. However, there are some leases that they can't renew, and because they are going to lose them, there's little reason to continue exploring, since even if they DO find something, they'll lose the lease.

Further, these leases only allow exploration. If they find oil, they need to sign new leases for the production.

Geological Experts: “’There’s the misconception that every lease has oil,’ added David Curtiss, director of the [American Association of Petroleum Geologists’] Washington office. ‘A lease is a line on a map. It has nothing to do with the geology of where oil is.’” (CQ, 6/16/08)

The Democrats complaint is a twist on the old joke about the guy looking for his ring. He's crawling around at night under a light, and someone says "where did you drop it", and he says "over there", and you say "Why aren't you looking over there", and he says "I can't see over there, it's too dark".

IN this case, we know where there are billions of barrels of oil. So the Democrats make those off-limits, and then pick 68 million other acres of useless land, and say "Here, you can look for oil HERE if you want". Then they pretend those 68 million acres are just like 20+ million acres that were PRIME oil lands where we have wells, and say that we could double our production -- which is an absurd, and most likely false claim. We COULD double our production with the offshore sites, ANWR, and the shale oil.

Further, the Democrats are threatening to "take back the leases", but the law already requires the oil companies to produce on these leases within a period of time, or lose them:

“Oil companies with federal leases already have very defined time limits to produce oil or natural gas on existing leases. If the companies do not produce on those leases within the time limit, they will lose their lease.”

But if you search on "68 million acres oil lease", it's hard to find the truth. Instead, every news organization and blog has simply repeated the false claims of the democratic leadership. It's time the American people demanded better of our elected leaders. They should not be able to lie with impunity.





BTW, the speech had another part that was hilarious:

What we are seeing here – from the solar panels that power this facility to the Bombard workers who built it – is that a green, renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future, it is now. It is creating jobs, now. It is providing cheap alternatives to $140-a-barrel oil, now. And it can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act now.

FIrst of all, solar panels are not cheap. They are getting a bit cheaper, but they are by no means the cheap alternative, even for electric use. But the real mistake here is that solar panels don't provide an alternative, cheap or otherwise, to oil. Solar panels generate electricity. And in this country, we essentially have NO oil-burning electric plants anymore. We burn coal and natural gas, but not oil.

Until we have electric cars, solar panels will not be an "alternative" for oil use -- once we have electric cars, solar panels can be used to charge them, and the cars themselves will be an alternative to cars that burn oil.

Obama voted against priority for flood control

This past Saturday, Barack Obama, who supposedly is all "positive", and all "bringing us together", tried to blame John McCain for the midwest flooding. He claimed that McCain opposed spending for the levies.

But the facts tell a different story. From an unlikely source, the Hillary Clinton forums:

6/21/08 Obama Blames McCain for Iowa Floods, Yet Obama Voted Against the Levees (Politico)

In a Florida speech today, Obama links McCain's conservatism to the Iowa floods:

"Just the other day, Senator McCain traveled to Iowa to express his sympathies for the victims of the recent flooding. I’m sure they appreciated the sentiment, but they probably would have appreciated it more if he hadn’t opposed legislation to fund levees and flood control programs, which he seems to consider pork. Well, we do have to reform budget earmarks, cut genuine pork, and dispense with unnecessary spending, as we confront a budget crisis left by the most fiscally irresponsible administration in modern times."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responds: “Barack Obama opposed and voted against the bipartisan effort by John McCain, Russ Feingold and Claire McCaskill to assure that lifesaving levees like those that so tragically failed in Iowa and Missouri are given the highest priority and fixed first. It is beyond the pale that Barack Obama would attack John McCain for actually trying to fix the problem and change the way Washington works. Barack Obama’s willingness to continue the status quo pork-barrel politics in Washington, and then engage in political attacks that entirely disregard the facts, once again fundamentally shows that he’s nothing more than a typical politician.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...g_on_Iowa.html

And, it turns out, the bill passed. Further, Obama did not vote for the bill, he was absent (so was John McCain). However, Claire McCaskill (an Obama supporter) actually DID vote against the bill.

So, pretty much everything Obama said was false or misleading.

BTW, if I had written that quote from Obama in my local column, it would have been pulled by the editor because I couldn't have backed it up with evidence.

It's looking more like Obama thinks he can only win if he lies about John McCain, and if his claims of racism protect him from being called on his lies.

Why Some don't want Greg in the party

If any one wonders why Greg Letiecq isn't all that welcome in the Republican party, one needs look no further than this comment about the party's presidential candidate. Remember, this is a man who has been a life-long Republican, who served his country honorably in the military, who was a prisoner of war, and who on a good number of issues has carried the fiscal conservative banner.

Of course, he has some moderate and even liberal positions, but he has generally held them honorably, if stupidly. He's hardly the choice of conservatives, but he is the choice of the Republican party. And an unfortunate part of being part of a party is that if you can't get YOUR candidate nominated, you support the guy that is nominated.

Some people don't get that, and as such don't belong IN a party. That's fine -- party politics are not for everybody. Some people should be independents, so they can support who they want.

My guess is that some of Greg's erstwhile county Republican supporters won't be so quick to jump to his defense after this. For example, O.P Ditch:

To O.P. Ditch, a retired Air Force colonel, the choice for president is as clear as the headline on his Web site touting Republican John McCain, a fellow veteran: "Our troops deserve a qualified Commander in Chief."

That website: Vets for McCain.Com

Here is what Greg Letiecq has to say about this Veteran:

"Conservatives need to fully understand what a lying, traitorous piece of trash John McCain really is, and never again allow such a reprobate to secure a Republican nomination."

Now maybe some will understand why (too few) republicans stood up to stop Greg from voting for McCain's delegates to the National Convention. Greg is his own man, and he should stick to his own party.

Allen West to Obama "Be a Man".

Allen West is the Republican nominee for Florida's 22nd district. He had this to say about Obama's whining about people noticing that Obama is black:

My advice to Senator Obama is to run as a Man and Leader, and the American people will evaluate you as such, not as a victim. This is a Presidential race, based solely on a capacity to lead the United States of America. It is not about skin tone...however, perhaps we should come to expect these immature statements.

It also seems rather humorous that the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a "uniter" and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism. I congratulate Senator Obama for taking race relations in America back some 30 years.

Col. Allen West is an Iraq war veteran, and you can support him at his website, Go West! U.S. Congress.

Obama, The "Change" Candidate

From the Boston Globe:

SENATOR Barack Obama has presented himself as the candidate of change, but the change he announced yesterday is a throwback to the no-holds-barred rules of campaign finance that prevailed before Watergate. Obama will be the first major party candidate since Watergate to reject public financing in the general election, instead relying on his base of more than 1.5 million donors for a war chest that could easily double or triple the $84.1 he would get in public financing. His decision deals a body blow both to the system of campaign finance and to his own reputation as a reform candidate.

Obama - Change you can believe in? Or just a Change for the Worse?

Last year, Obama promised to use the public financing if his republican counterpart agreed. He promised to work together with the other campaign to do so. McCain of course agreed to the proposal last year, long before he was expected to be the nominee.

Now, without so much as a meeting with McCain, Obama has come up with a list of excuses why he shouldn't have to keep his promises.

Now, the world is full of people who will promise you anything, but when they get what they want, find excuses why they can't keep their promises.

But we don't usually elect them to be our President -- instead, we usually stop inviting them to our parties.

Obama Admits he is inexperienced

From Yahoo News, Obama says of himself:

He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

Really? Obama is Black? I hadn't noticed.

Although that does explain why it seems 95% of black voters voted for him. Obama is lucky though, because 95% of the white voters won't vote against him -- after all, whites are generally not as racist as it appears blacks are.

If whites were as racist as Obama says we are, he wouldn't have won the Democratic primary. I'm not sure though how calling us all racists, bigots, and every thing else he called people he doesn't like is supposed to be some new "change" or is supposed to bring us together.

I don't think calling people names is a good way to build up goodwill.

Let's face it -- Obama isn't a change, unless you consider that he is a change from the normal, somewhat qualified candidates that the Democrats choose for President. I guess having lost elections that way, the Democrats have decided to try running a, how did Obama put it, "young and inexperienced" candidate, who "has a funny name".

Rep. Hinchey is a joke.

Well, at least he says he can't be taken seriously -- which pretty much is true for most of the elected democrats in Washington.

Yesterday, the Democrats called for nationalizing the oil refineries. I explained in a previous post how stupid that was.

Hinchey said yesterday: "Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that's a good idea." He said government could better "control the amount of refined product much more capably" than the oil companies.

Apparently, the Democrats are so sure they are going to win in November that they sometimes think they can say what they really want to do now. But in this case, there must have been some polling which indicated that the Democrats were being seen for the Socialists that they are.

Which led to this story, "Rep Hinchey steps off idea of Oil Nationalization":

Asked if he advocated the government taking over the oil business, he said: "Let's be serious. The government is not going to be taking over these refineries. ... But I do think we need to be putting national pressure on these oil companies ... to let them know that we're prepared to do whatever is in the national interest of the people of this country. That's our job — do what is in the public interest."

Apparently, the Democrats were not being serious yesterday when they admitted they want to nationalize the oil industry, like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.

In fact, one of Obama's advisors said yesterday that this was exactly what we SHOULD do, because it worked very well for Chavez.

Maybe today Obama will denounce her and throw her under his bus.

The Democrats are now certifiably Insane

I hate using words like that. But there is no other way to describe the stupidity being shown by the modern democratic party leadership.

Today they held a press conference where the first thing they suggested we should do to alleviate high gas prices was to NATIONALIZE THE OIL REFINERIES:

House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling: "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

Ignoring that this is America, where the government does NOT take over businesses, running refineries would do NOTHING to control the flow of oil, or to lower gas prices.

Refineries are already running near capacity. Of course, we don't have a gasoline shortage anyway, but if we did, government couldn't get more gas into the market. If they tried, they would need to buy more oil, and oil reserves are dropping faster. And the fix for dropping oil reserves is to drill for more oil.

Or, to let the prices rise so that demand falls:

With demand for gasoline falling steadily since January, retailers have had a hard time hiking gas prices fast enough to keep up with rising crude prices. While oil prices have risen 94 percent over the past year, and set a new record of $139.89 a barrel early this week, gas prices are up only 36 percent. That discrepancy has put pressure on the profit margins of companies all along the gasoline supply chain, including refiners, distributors and retailers.

Note that refineries are having a hard time turning a profit, because the oil they buy is increasingly more expensive (because of a shortage of oil), while the gasoline they sell has a decreasing demand, so they can't raise the prices enough.

It's scary that $4 gasoline is actually "cheap" relative to oil, but nationalizing the refineries won't help. Refineries are not gouging, they are not cutting off supply. The American Consumer is cutting demand.

What we need is for the Democrats to allow us to lower the regulation on refineries. There is a lot of waste because of the dozens of different blending operations needed to meet artificial supply rules imposed by the states, and refineries cost too much to build because of excessive regulation.

Of course, we don't really NEED a new refinery right now. U.S. demand for gasoline has been relatively flat since 2004. The refineries we have are enough to keep up with the demand.

The real problem is that there is not enough oil to go around. If we open up drilling, it will send a message to the market that 5-10 years from now, there will be additional supplies. This will take the edge off the futures market, and lower the price of oil. That means less money to our enemies, cheaper gasoline, and a better economy.

The democrats want to save our way out. But the simple fact is that in 10 years, worldwide demand just from 3rd world countries will increase more than our entire country uses today -- so if we stopped using altogether, there would STILL be a shortage of oil.

And the technology needed to eliminate our most wasteful uses of oil are decades away, and unlike drilling, are not a sure thing so the futures market won't really be effected by politicians SAYING we will develop them.

We NEED to develop these new technologies. But we also need to drill more of our own oil. And we need to replace the Democrats who continue the failed policies of the past, and add in their own socialistic future where government runs things.

Last point: While the house democrats stupidly think that government-run refineries will work better than privately owned ones, the senate democrats have found that the government can't even run a CAFETERIA -- they've turned their cafeteria back to private practice.

Surge works so well Obama tries to claim credit

In January of 2007, the Democrats had just taken control of the House and Senate, putting them firmly in control of the nation for the next two years (in future posts we'll talk about just how disastrous THAT has been for us -- as if $4.00 gasoline isn't enough to wake people up to the disastrous "new direction" the Democrats have taken us).

Bush, having mysteriously decided to wait until just AFTER the election to dump Rumsfeld (in some mistaken belief that doing so before the election would look too political, when in fact it may well have saved one or two Senate seats), now had a new men for his top military posts. And they had new ideas -- the most important of which was General Petraeus' "Surge".

The chief Senate proponent? John McCain, who had pushed for additional troops for years, and had been sharply critical of the previous strategy.

Most every Democrat was strongly against it. Including, of course, Barack Obama, who likes to claim some special credit for opposing the war from the beginning -- along with half the Democratic party and a fair number of us Republicans, none of which think we are qualified to be President.

That January, Obama and McCain appeared on CBS's Face The Nation, and here is what Obama said about the Troop Surge:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believe that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

In response to the state of the union, he said it would make things worse:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now he admits the surge has reduced the violence. In a recent debate he said:

“I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place.”

And now he claims he ALWAYS said the surge would reduce violence:

"[W]ell, there's no doubt that the security situation has improved, much as everybody admitted it would if we put more troops on the ground."

Obama certainly is change you can expect -- a change in position, or a change in nuance, or whatever you want to call it -- it would be nice if Obama would ever say something substantive enough that you could actually TELL if he was changing his mind later or not.

Here's a guy who was able to convince an entire audience at AIPAC that he was on their side, and the next day make a plausible argument that they had completely misunderstood his REAL position.

Anyway, this was the topic of my latest column "Obama gets it wrong".

Obama Campaign hosts anti-semitic attacks

Barack Obama has a web site (http://www.barackobama.com/). At that web site, they include "action" sites (put your cursor on the "action" term at the top, and a dropdown menu appears.

First on that list is my.barackobama.com, an official campaign blog site where they host their most trusted campaign contributers. At that site is the page which contains an "educational" piece on "how the Jewish Lobby Works". IN addition to a picture which prominently mentions "Jew Senator Lieberman", along with other disturbing photos in a ontage, the page contains the following "inciteful" comments:

All Jewish lobbies and organizations are interconnected and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them. The leaders of the numerous Jewish Lobby Groups go to the same synagogues, country clubs, and share the same Jewish investment bankers. And this inter-connectedness extends to the Jews who run the Federal Reserve Bank, US Homeland Security, and the US State Department.

Oh, and they blame American Jew for mistreating Germany, and forcing the German's hand against European Jews:

American Jewish Congress (AJC): Its antecedents began in 1918 when Woodrow Wilson’s “influential friends,” Rabbi Stephen Wise, (founder of AJC in 1930), and Judge Louis Brandeis, (co-founder), participated in the drafting of the infamous Versailles Treaty of 1919 which made unreasonable demands on Germany.

In the 1930’s, the AJC led a major boycott of German goods in America, which, among other provocations of the Jews, prompted a backlash against the Jews in Germany.

They suggest the answer to the "jewish problem":

+ Pray To The Lord Jesus Christ To Either Convert The Jews Or Conquer Them Through The Power Of His Cross!

My guess is that, when someone finally makes this a big enough issue, Obama will do what he always does, and flip-flop by removing this information from his community postings.

After all, even though reports this week called out Obama physically manhandling Senator Lieberman on the Senate floor, I doubt he would countenance attacks on Lieberman as a "Jew Senator".

And it wouldn't work well for his recent attempts to trick Jewish voters into believing he cares about them if they found out he was hosting anti-Jewish posts which hold them responsible for the 2nd world war, and proposed eliminating the Jewish population as a fit "solution".

Speak foolishly while carrying a big stick?

Obama gives a different take on the phrase "Speak Softly, and carry a big stick"




"If members of Congress don't pass my health care bill - I'll whoop 'em, I'll whoop 'em. That's right, you better not mess with me, and I'll have that stick."

If Obama was a typical white person, like his Grandmother, and Congress was a largely black body, this would be a very racist statement.

As it is, given that the Democrats are in the majority in both the House and Senate, and have governed the country for over a year now, and are likely to continue to do so unless people wise up, I wonder how Pelosi and Reid feel about Obama threatening to come down and beat them up if they don't give him what he wants?

I imagine they aren't too scared -- I don't see Obama getting his way in the Senate now (where he actually pretends to work and could introduce and pass his legislation).

Obama Insists Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel.

Obama is often criticized for being too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and too weak a friend of Israel. One way candidates overcome their "Jewish Problem" is to go to AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ), and say things about how much they support Israel.

Obama may be the "candidate of change", but he's no dummy, so like so many before him, he showed up Wednesday to pander to the Israeli Lobby.

And boy did he ever pander. In fact, so committed was he to winning the Jewish vote, that he pledged himself to a new, radical United States position on an item of critical importance in the Israeli-Palestinian negotions -- the disposition of Jerusalem.

The audience seemed quite pleased at the prospect of the United States taking sides in the negotiations by declaring that Jerusalem remain undivided:

He staked out some hawkish positions, declaring that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," and termed Israel's attack in September on Syria's alleged incipient nuclear facility "entirely justified to end that threat."

But, as with most pandering, once he was out of the room, he had other people to pander too. After all, Barack is the candidate with audacity, in this case the audacity to be all things to all people. See, the Palestinians were none too pleased:

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian leaders reacted with anger and dismay on Wednesday to Barack Obama's pledge that Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital.
President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the U.S. presidential candidate's pledge to American Jewish leaders and he repeated his demand for a Palestinian state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.

See, Jerusalem is part of the never-ending negotiations, and as a broker in those talks, the U.S. has not taken a position, either under Bush or Clinton before him:

Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said Palestinian negotiators engaged in U.S.-sponsored peace talks would continue to insist on securing East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, as their capital. He said of Obama: "He has closed all doors to peace."

I guess Obama found something he could set a precondition for. Worse, it turns out that the United States has never formally accepted Jerusalem as the Israeli capital:

The United States and other international powers do not regard Jerusalem as Israel's capital -- the U.S. and other embassies are in Tel Aviv -- and do not recognize Israel's annexation of Arab East Jerusalem following the 1967 war.

OK, so you are running for President, you have no foreign policy experience, and you've just declared a seismic shift in the position of the country, should you become President, in order to win an important liberal voting block. What do you do when you realise your position will lose another important voting block? Retract them:

But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."
...
He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

Oops. Of course, now he's lost the votes he won yesterday:

The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.

"In the current context, everyone understands that saying 'Jerusalem... must remain undivided' means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967," Diament explained.

Well, everybody who understand the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Which apparently doesn't include Barack Obama.

"It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe," Klein charged.

Well, you can't please all the people all the time, at least not on the same day.

And if you are a bit confused now as to what Barack's position is, and what he meant by "undivided", his spokesperson explained:

"Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."
...
The Obama campaign adviser said that whatever the international reaction, it was important for the Illinois senator to "make his positions clear."

"Our main audience is American voters at the moment. Other people want to know where he stands and it's important that they do know where he stands," he said.

And by "at the moment", he apparently means whoever he is standing in front of when he makes a statement. Which is why Barack is the candidate for everyone -- because he pretty much will say anything to anyone that they want to hear.

Does Senator Chuck Schumer miss the old Soviet Union?

This past week, Senator Charles Schumer (Dem-New York) wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal titled Russia Can Be Part of the Answer on Iran.

There is no doubt that it would be very helpful to have Russia on board in the struggle to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear state. Russia should see it is in it's own self-interest to do so.

But that's not the point of this post. Buried in the heart of Schumer's editorial is this statement:

Two years ago, under NATO auspices, Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania agreed to build an antimissile defense site to thwart the threat of a nuclear missile attack by Iran. The threat is hypothetical and remote, and the Bush administration's emphasis on pursuing the antimissile system, without Russia's cooperation, still baffles many national security experts.
It also drives Mr. Putin to apoplexy. The antimissile system strengthens the relationship between Eastern Europe and NATO, with real troops and equipment on the ground. It mocks Mr. Putin's dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe.

OK, so Senator Schumer is opposed to missle defense. And apparently he is opposed to strengthening our relationship with Eastern Europe -- which seems very backwards to me.

But why does Senator Schumer give such deference to Putins dream of "restoring Russian hegomony" over Eastern Europe? With all the blood, and money, and effort expended to free the European continent from the oppression of the old Soviet Union, why does Schumer want to encourage Putin in his desire to re-conquer free nations?

Does Schumer miss communists that much? Or is he simply so driven to oppose anything the Republicans ever did that he would even reverse the tide of freedom which swept our European brothers and sisters under President Reagan's watchful and firm leadership?

Former President Carter Endorses Barack Obama

Carter, on Obama:

"I just don't think yet he has the proven substance, or experience, to be the President"

(But I'll endorse him anyway, because what do I care?)