The summations of reality:

Barack Obama: During the presidential campaign, and immediately after winning the election, Barack Obama was declared urbane… super cool… IQ off the charts… probably the smartest guy ever to become president… the cerebral president… too intelligent for the job, and boundless tantamount protestations of the like.

One year later, the evidence and aftermath have painted a different picture of a man whose intelligence and general competence were prejudicially manufactured by the media and the demagogues of the Left. The only existing evidence supporting Obama’s formidable intelligence and heightened IQ were, and are still, sequestered from public perusal, as his actual accomplishments present a garden variety philistine intellect. His academic record, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Not one of the myopic windbags who championed his intelligence has ever been afforded the luxury of admiring his Punahou School records, his SAT scores, his Occidental College records, his Columbia College records, his Harvard College records, and his nonexistent Harvard Law Review articles as the editor.

Obama’s record of a man possessing such an impressive IQ and academic foundation seems to run counter to his manufactured super-human perspicacity. Obama has demonstrated this past year an astonishing ignorance of constitutional law, American history, world history, basic fundamental economics, and a primary school grasp of the structure of the federal government, including each branch’s role.

Obama’s brief tenure has been plagued by a battle between his alleged super-intelligence and his doubtless super-arrogance, with the latter generally prevailing at the end of each round.

This past year, we have learned that Obama’s penchant for lying is not wielded for political expediency, as are plenty of political prevarications, but rather appears founded in a pathological affliction. Only 65% of Americans did not believe the substance of Obama’s State of the Union Address, which is low considering that almost the entirety of the speech, when weighed against substantiated facts, was one misrepresentation of the truth after another. Only 6% of Americans believe his $800 billion debacle of a stimulus package has created any jobs. To put this number in bleak perspective, 8% of Americans believe Elvis is still alive, and 83% believe Tupac Shakur is still alive.

Obama told a group of Republicans that he was not an ideologue. But this past year, the evidence has convicted Obama as the embodiment of Leftist ideology. A cursory perusal of his appointments and cabinet members’ pasts and recent affiliations with Leftist organizations, Communist organizations, and Fascist organizations, would substantiate his ideology beyond any reasonable doubt, regardless of his disputes.

Currently, only 22% of voters strongly approve of Barack Obama’s performance as president, while 41% strongly disapprove. This gives Obama a presidential approval index of -19.

So what have we learned this past year about Barack Obama? When Barack Obama ran for president, he possessed no leadership experience. When a man in his late 40′s is void of leadership roles, he is not a leader. A natural leader leads. Whatever the situation or circumstances, a leader always emerges as a leader. And to lead, you need followers, and Obama has divided this nation asunder. Continuing to divide and lead a minority of Left-Wing ideologues down a path of destruction does not a leader make. Obama was not qualified when he was a candidate, and has proven that he is not qualified one year later.

If Obama could be summarized in one act, it would be his speech earlier at the National Prayer Breakfast. He stood erect, jaw jutted out in arrogance, shrouded by teleprompters, reading words someone else wrote, and pronouncing the word “corpsman” by accentuating the “p.” This speech was embarrassing, pathetic, pregnant with fabrications, ignorant, and disrespectful, and summed up the first year of Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin: I like Sarah Palin. She, out of Obama, McCain, and Biden, was the most qualified to be president. Yet, she is not qualified to be president at this juncture, and being a celebrity is not advancing her qualifications for the job, but it is advancing conservatism. Palin does possess one trait that eludes the other three, and this trait is essential as a leader: common sense. She has values, and those values resonate with the majority of Americans. She possesses and projects a morality that eludes the majority of politicians in this country, and frustrates the Left into spasms of exasperation. Palin seems to possess the fundamental knowledge of the principles upon which this country was founded, which would make her a far better leader than our current president. I believe Sarah Palin is a very smart woman, but when pressed for specifics about the Constitution, she uses talking points that rarely penetrate into a deeper understanding. Her lack of previous intellectual curiosity regarding U.S. history and the Constitution has cost her a foundational knowledge. That can be corrected. A reading of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, studying legitimate American history from 1766-1790, reading the Federalist Papers, and reading the debates and personal writings of the Founders regarding the Constitution, would give Sarah Palin a much better understanding of the Constitution than most Ivy League Constitution Law graduates. But, with that said, she still has a better understanding of the meaning and intentions of the Constitution in the aggregate than the majority of the congress, Barack Obama, and four unnamed Supreme Court Justices whose initials start with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer.

What have we learned this year about Sarah Palin? Sarah Palin is currently in her most suitable and accommodating role to advance the values of true conservatism. She continues to cause the loathsome and reprehensible essence of contemporary liberals to expose itself through their reactions to her. As Palin has gained her footing on the national stage, increased her knowledge base of national issues, and mastered a compelling authority to communicate her message, with each incremental step she has advanced, the Left has incrementally increased their thrashing about in the throes of their confounded agony. It would be a great loss to the conservative movement if Palin were to run for office in the near future, and abandon the power she wields in her current endeavor. Sarah Palin has settled into a position of much greater power and influence than if she held public office. Sarah Palin is good for conservatives, and good for this country.

Joe Biden: What can be said about Joe Biden one year later? Joe Biden possesses the same picayune spirit and values that were responsible for his getting caught plagiarizing a paper in law school, and graduating at the bottom of his class. His intellectual and moral evolution since becoming a senator and subsequently vice-president has been somewhat of a disappointment, as he is still the same little dimwit he was in law school.

What have we learned this year about Joe Biden? The same thing Joe has learned: nothing.

John McCain: John McCain, politics aside, is a true American hero, a man who possesses a type of courage that only a handful of Americans can claim, and as much as a lifetime of politics will corrode and decay a person’s honor and integrity, McCain has been able to keep most of his intact. John McCain, on his best day, is a run of the mill progressive, which conflicts with some of his conservative values. Most of what ails this country today can be directly tied to policies that John McCain supports. McCain, throughout his political career, and especially in the past ten years or so, has been an erratically moving contradiction, which does not characterize a maverick as much as it characterizes an indefinable entity, and what this country does not need as president is an indefinable entity.

John McCain and Joe Biden do share one thing in common: they both were sponsors of bills that had portions ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Biden’s Violence Against Women Act and McCain’s McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act.

What have we learned this year about John McCain? Nothing. McCain is what he was ten years ago: an inconsistent and indefinable entity.

In conclusion, one year later, the only person of the four to advance to a level of genuine and functional relevance is Sarah Palin. McCain and Biden are still McCain and Biden. Barack Obama has proven that when a president is elected whose only demonstrable skill is reading from a teleprompter, then after one year, his only discernible skill is still only reading from a teleprompter.

John McCain is not a traditional conservative, nor should he be taken seriously as one, he is what we, the conservative voters, were presented with. But he will be the only one of the two candidates that will preserve the principles this country was founded upon. Sadly, this is a vote for preservation rather than a vote for direction.

Sarah Palin is an unknown. She is more conservative than John McCain, and seems, according to her record, less likely to stray from conservative principles than McCain. Of the four candidates on the ticket, she is the only one with a proven, albeit short, track record of actually implementing change, rather than just using it as a political talking point. The voters who fear her ascending to the presidency cannot articulate one reasonable example of what she is capable of doing that would frighten them–unless the voter is on the left, and fears morality and principles in a Commander in Chief –then they should shake with fear.

As with Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, below you will be presented with the Ghost of Obama Past, the Ghost of Obama Present, and the Ghost of Obama Yet to Come.

ACORN and all the voter fraud and Mafioso tactics they have used to undermine our elections processes, and their part in the collapse of the financial markets.

William Ayers a domestic terrorist and Obama’s friend.

Timothy McVeigh a domestic terrorist with the only difference between him and Ayers being he was more successful at terrorism.

Jeremiah Wright the anti-American, hate mongering pastor who stated, among other things, “God Damn America”, that is/was Obama and his wife’s pastor for 15 years.

Tony Rezko the recently convicted felon who used millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money, given to him by Obama, to build sub-standard housing for the poor that had to be condemned after just a few years. And who also just so happened to be involved in finding Obama’s mansion at a very reduced price across the street from him, and helping Obama procure part of the lot next door that his wife just so happened to own.

Karl Marx author of the Communist Manifesto, and an like Obama was, against capitalism.

Michelle Obama and her heavily documented anti-American, not being proud of this country, deportment–and a separatist ideology in the stead of the droning mantra of “a uniter” by Obama.

Morality will be supplanted by immorality at the executive level, reinforced at the Congressional level, and quite possible a majority at the Supreme Court.

Honor will be replaced with dishonor.

Socialism and all the harm it can do to a capitalist society.

Defeatism would be the United States disposition in regard to foreign policy.

Defenseless against a nuclear missile attack from foreign powers with Obama’s cutting off of funding and dismantling of the Missile Defense Shield.

Weak Military during an ever evolving nuclear world by cutting spending to the military.

Hate being the fuel of the left in their opposition to the other side.

Far Left Radicals of any group or organization.

Exodus of Businesses leaving the U.S. due to an increasingly hostile environment.

Wall Street Financial Crisis perpetuated by the very Democrats that caused it.

Guaranteed Recession

Louis Farrakhan

Nancy Pelosi

Harry Reid

Racism

Infanticide

Divisiveness

Higher Taxes

Higher unemployment

Incessant Lying becoming the new dialog for America.

Constitution no longer relevant.

Bill of Rights no longer relevant.

Congress and its continued spiral into the abyss if the Democrats maintain their majority coupled with an unmitigated Socialist in the White House.

This is the package you are voting for when you vote for Obama. You can’t vote for him for one reason and not vote for the entire list. You would be choosing to support it all, and possibly other unnamed aberrations that come as the Obama package.

Obama has had a free ride with the press.  Since they created him, they have been huffing, puffing, and blowing wind into his sail.  But having a relationship with the press is a double edged sword, and as with most double edged swords, the opposing edge can be much sharper.

To make matters worse, Obama made a comment during a recent speech stating, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink.”

Obama, when unscripted, and Biden, at anytime, seem to be predisposed to jam their feet into their mouths at the most inappropriate time. But this past week, with all the Palin hoopla in the press, and the backlash against the media for their unwarranted and uncivilized attacks on Palin, the pig and lipstick remark was especially inopportune.

Before addressing the Obama pig remark, let’s examine a remark made by Biden this week concerning Palin. When asked by a local Milwaukee reporter if Palin being elected as Vice President would be a step forward for women, Biden responded that if Sarah Palin becomes Vice President, it will be a “backward step for women.” Biden and Obama seemed to be in sync with their self inflicted alienation of voters.

Did Obama actually mean that Sarah Palin was a pig? Did he mean that she stinks? In fairness to Obama, probably not, but there is more–Obama’s statement coupled with Biden’s statement about a “backward step for women,” runs deeper than Sarah Palin—he essentially called all successful women with conservative principles, pigs.

This is Obama, unscripted, displaying his unparalleled display of diplomatic prowess.  The diplomatic skills that will neutralized an aggressive Iran, Russia, North Korea, etc., or not. It demonstrates their view of strong and successful women–especially if the women do not subscribe to the empty values of the Democrat Party which have de-evolved into a socialist aggregation void of values, morals, and principles. Obama’s allegorical use of a pig and fish was foolish, and enlightening. The pig, the fish, and the smell was directed at all successful women who have achieved something of greatness, while at the same time raising a family and sticking to a code of morals and principles. The same holds true with the Biden remark. It is a step backwards for women because Sarah Palin is not a left-wing liberal. She has achieved, even if not elected, what feminists have been trying to achieve for over a century–yet they attack her. The reason for their venom is that she is guided by morals.

To reciprocate and call Obama a pig would be inaccurate, as pigs do not have sweat glands–and Obama is sweating.

Susan Reimer, the politically prescient, and generally incoherent garden columnist for the Baltimore Sun, an established member of the Yellow Press fraternity, decided to join the journalistic dog pile on Sarah Palin. And by doing so became, and justifiably so, associated with the most depraved excuse for media, and has enjoyed the very aggressive backlash that the main stream media and left media are starting to endure as a result of their blatant bias towards Democrats, and the viciousness of their rhetoric in doing so. Susan Reimer wrote a follow-up article with her concerns and fears of the magnitude of the attacks directed towards her because of her article. As in the poem For Whom the Bell Tolls, by John Donne, and his Meditation XVII, by associating herself with the media of the left, she should truly understand the meaning of, …caused it to toll for me.

Yet does she? Within two days of the publication of her article, “A Woman–But Why This Woman?”, she had the following assessment of her situation in her follow-up article:

More than 8,200 comments were posted to the column on The Baltimore Sun‘s Web site. I received more than 700 personal e-mails and about 50 phone calls.

And more than 316,000 people viewed the column on The Baltimore Sun Web site. That number – more than 100 times the attention I normally receive – actually frightened me.

Susan Reimer is scared. She is scared because while mixing her melding pot of fluff stew, with articles titled : Average Age of Gardeners, Your Vision of Retirement, Word War: Marital Becomes Martial, then after adding a dash of political nitroglycerin to the pot, she still remains dumbfounded by the explosion.

In liberal fashion, she claims that she was merely misunderstood. Her statement about the conservatives’ method of trying to reach the evangelicals with Sarah Palin, as stated in her article, “You want to look good to the evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child.” This has a pretty straightforward meaning and intention. But Susan Reimer had an explanation for this one particular statement. It must be a vast right wing conspiracy, possibly dating back to when Sarah Palin first learned that the child she carried had Downs Syndrome. Or at least that is who her deity, Hillary Clinton, would have blamed it on.

Many criticized me for writing that by choosing Palin, who gave birth this spring to a child she knew to have Down syndrome, the Republican Party was exploiting her decision to keep her child – that the party was trading on her story.

It is the motives of Republican strategists of which I was, and am, suspicious. It was as if they were saying, “Sarah Palin is not only pro-life. She is living that message,” making the personal political.

What does this mean? Is this the ramblings of someone on the brink of insanity? Is there something at work here other than stupidity? “Sarah Palin is not only pro-life. She is living that message, making the person political.” Please, someone, relate this to Reimer’s “You want to look good to the evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child.” I can’t. It is not as if they were saying it, they were. Sarah Palin does not just talk the talk, she walks it also. That is precisely why she was chosen. Is Reimer that blinded by hate to see this?

In her follow-up article, and out of the blue, Reimer related that, “And if you want to count rich and complex life stories when considering a candidate, Obama and Palin are just about equals.” This confirms the quintessence of Reimer’s first article about Sarah Palin: It is replete with lies and unsubstantiated conjecture. Even the most ardent leftist, when speaking in an unguarded moment of truth, will admit there is absolutely no correlation between the life of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin–personal, professional, or political. That is the foundation for their hate.

Reimer closed out with:

Generally, the comments were not made behind the veil of anonymity the Internet can provide. The writers signed their names. And they revealed what I think has become the bare-knuckles nature of our national conversation.

So much pent-up anger, so much barely concealed hate was released in those e-mails and those postings. I wonder where next they will find a vent.

Does Reimer realize that she has described the media of the left almost exclusively? Can she be that intellectually unsound and myopic?

Reimer never once defended her remarks in her article. If you are going to write political opinion pieces, or discuss your negative view of a candidate, you had better have the capacity to defend your position. Reimer, in her first article, and the follow-up article, never defended her position. She could only default to the you just misunderstood me ploy. Reimer seems to be stunned that if you write an article congested with lies, hate, and a comically absurd display of ignorance as a tool to malign the character of someone, that she would receive this type of response. If the old adage of to know someone you need to walk a mile in their shoes is true, then Susan Reimer just walked a mile in conservatives’ shoes in regard to the media, yet she continues to be oblivious of her journey.

The reaction from the left was immense, broad, and their perfunctory barbaric rhetoric was quintessential Democrat. To achieve insight into the mindset of the contemporary liberal, one must labor through several publications daily to stay up to date–as when dealing with any entity whose foundation is not based on principles, the rules change daily. I toil through the dailykos.com, huffingtonpost.com, and various other Marxist newspapers that parade around as legitimate journalistic publications. My meandering brought me to an article in the Baltimore Sun, concerning pandering. The Baltimore Sun is one of the more scurrilous publications, especially to anyone harboring a granule of common sense. I actually found the link to the Baltimore Sun on the hotair.com website rather than from my own expiscatory searching. The author, Susan Reimer, feels she is being pandered to by John McCain because he chose Sarah Palin as his VP.

Reimer is under the obtuse impression that John McCain picked Palin, in her words, “to woo women like me.”

Let us discover what type of women Susan Reimer is to warrant all this wooing.

Before continuing with Reimer’s political diatribe, which includes a combination of presumption, supposititious reality, and psychic insight into McCain’s reasons for choosing Palin–an insight that the rest of the world is not privy to–the reader will be made aware of her peculiar qualifications. As with most liberal publications, a scribe’s ideology will trump their qualifications. As in the case of the clairvoyant Susan Reimer, whose credentials include a sports writer, and writing a column on gardening, her political acumen was honed through the contemplative discourse of petunias and okra.

Reimer is one of those voters consumed with hate and illiteracy because Hillary has been relegated to the peanut gallery. She ineptly compares Hillary vs. Palin in regard to John McCain’s decision: “He seems to think that my girlfriends and I are so disappointed that an utterly qualified woman is not going to be president that we will jump at the chance to vote for an utterly unqualified woman for vice president.” A subtle, yet a problematic theme has emerged and continues to repeat itself with liberals since the announcement of Palin. Reimer is comparing Hillary the President to Palin the Vice President. The Democrats and Obama, continue to compare his credentials to Palin–a potential President vs. potential Vice President. Most of the populace is acutely aware that John McCain is running for President, not Sarah Palin. To compare and contrast Obama and Hillary to John McCain’s VP pick, is a strong presumptive indicator of fear.

Reimer also, being a sports writer in the past, cannot seem to, in her overnight progression towards a political pundit, upgrade her sportscaster vernacular circa 1970′s, to a more professional articulation. Her insight into McCain’s psyche, “Does McCain think we will be so grateful for a skirt on the ticket that we won’t notice that she’s anti-abortion, a member of the NRA and thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution?” Reimer may be sorely disappointed to learn that McCain probably did not have in mind soley the members of the female gender when picking his VP, especially of Reimer’s ilk, who may or may not wear skirts, who promote infanticide, are anti-Constitution (Second Amendment), and who believe that God did not create this world. Reimer, in her witlessly induced myopic haze, refuses to believe that Palin’s accomplishments and conservative principles, may have been the deciding factor in McCain’s choosing her.

It would behoove the Democrats to focus on the actual candidates in this election. Once again, for clarification’s sake, McCain is running against Obama. Obama is not running against Palin. Hillary is out of the loop. And Joe Biden has become, as is customary in presidential elections, irrelevant.

She also states that to garner the Evangelical vote, a term I seriously doubt she could describe with the remotest accuracy, that McCain had to “Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child.” Reimer’s train of thought may have completely derailed at this point. It should be apparent to the most plebians of society, that in order to appeal to the Evangelicals, (assuming she meant fundamental Christians), that it would be most effective to appeal to their Christian beliefs and values, rather than their perceived handicap of the Palin’s child.

Reimer continued to debase Sarah Palin with her captious prose, while concurrently and mysteriously excluding that the fact that Sarah Palin is the Governor of Alaska, is the Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard, chaired the Alaskan Oil and Conservation Commission, and served as Ethics Supervisor of the Commission, and her, so far, victorious fight against corruption. Reimer fails to mention the fact that Hillary Clinton has never operated in an executive capacity, only stating that she is qualified to be President. She also failed to mention that the only executive experience that Barack Obama has was running an organization with William Ayers, the terrorist, that distributed 49 million dollars, but Obama won’t comment on where the money went.

She capped it off with this nugget of soothsayer prowess: “But it is more likely that she will be in over her head, and all the women McCain thinks he is courting will be cringing for our sister instead. And then we will be furious at him for setting one of us up to fail. It isn’t just that Palin might look bad campaigning against the likes of Biden or Obama. It’s that she already looks bad compared to the likes of Hillary Clinton.” This was one of the more derogatory statements about Palin by stating that she is one of us. It could be assumed that a female of morals would cringe at the comparison.

Andrea Mitchell of ABC news said that the only voters that Palin will bring to the McCain campaign are uneducated women. I find this hard to believe, because if there was a modicum of truth to the statement, then the likes of Susan Reimer and the majority of the Democrat female voters would be standing in line to vote McCain-Palin, including the degreed, but poorly educated Mitchell.

It has been overtly unambiguous this election cycle of the raw hatred of the Democrats. But in the first 48 hours after McCain announced Palin as his VP, the left has taken their level of hatred to another level. Their hatred of any candidate associated with morality has been so manifested that the putrid stench of it will not dissipate regardless of who wins the presidential election. Liberal politicians like to use the term “two Americas.” They are right in this regard, there are two Americas, one of morals and one without.