The Joe Sestak Incident and More
Discussed by Mark R. Levin
Beginning on May 28, 2010
(with material from
Larry Kane)


Victor Edward Swanson,

The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan  49721
The United States of America

copyright c. 2010

June 2, 2010
(Version 2)
(Draft version)

    I begin this document by talking about a possible political tactic.  A primary election in a state to choose the person who will represent a particular political party in the next regular election is coming up, and a position that has to be filled is a U.S. Senate seat (either by the incumbent or another person).  The U.S. President wants to keep the current person who holds the U.S. Senate seat in the seat, and that is for several reasons--for, one the person is very likely to vote for everything that the U.S. President wants (which may not happen if a more independent person of the same party gets the seat).  The U.S. President knows that his political party is going to suffer many loses in the next regular election, because the public is angry with what the U.S. President and his associates have been doing for nearly two years, working to change the country into what it was not founded as--maybe a communist nation with the U.S. President set to rule for a long time.  The U.S. President is desperate to hold on to as many seats in the U.S. Senate so that he can push his agenda forward--he does not want to lose control of the U.S. Senate (which, if it happens, the rest of his agenda will never be enacted).  Then, a person--a challenger--enters the race to take on the incumbent of the U.S. Senate seat, and the U.S. President does not want that person to get the seat, since it looks as if the person will not always vote for--blindly vote for--what the President wants, which the U.S. President must have happen to take over the country.  So, the President indirectly makes an job offer--through a thirty party (not a political party)--hoping to get the challenger to give up on going through with the political campaign and take the job (the U.S. President, even though a member of the same political party as the challenger to the U.S. Senate seat is, does not believe the challenger is radical enough for the U.S. President's plans, so the challlenger has to be manipulated out of the way if possible).  What the U.S. President is doing is using his political power and influence and his office of the Presidency to manipulate an election in an illegal way.

    What I have described in the opening paragraph is what seems to be happening in what I will call here the "2010 Joe Sestak/White House Scandal," which may in the future be shown to be the "2010 Joe Sestak/White House Cover-up" or the "2010 Joe Sestak/White House Corruption Case."  That there was a possible illegal attempt to get a U.S. Senate candidate to quit a race in Pennsylvania came to light on February 18, 2010, when a television reporter named Larry Kane interviewed Joe Sestak--a U.S. Senate candidate in the Democratic Party nomination race--and Larry Kane asked if someone in the White House had offer Joe Sestak a job if he would quit the race, and the answer was "yes.".  The interview was a recorded interview that would get aired on February 21, 2010, but the story about the "yes" answer would get reported on radio on the same day.  To help you understand this event, I present in text form some of the main parts of what Mark R. Levin (the host of The Mark Levin Show, a nationally syndicated radio show) said about the event during his radio show of May 28, 2010, and I present this material since he has more expertise on law matters than I have and you should learn what Mark Levin said and fully understand what Mark Levin said.

    The Mark Levin Show is broadcast on radio stations and satellite radio on weekdays for three hours (in the Eastern Time Zone, it is usually aired on radio stations from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.).  However, some stations only play two hours of the program.  On May 28, 2010, here is, for the most part, how the first hour of the program began (with Mark Levin speaking):
    "...Now, the President told us today and he told us yesterday that he is in charge, he is in charge.  He knows what's going on in his administration, and that he's giving the orders.  And now I look at this Joe Sestak case, and I wonder, well, where is the President?  Why doesn't he want to talk about this.  Now, for those reporters out there who are saying, 'This is done all the time and the statist Democrat commentators who say, "This is done all the time.'--No, it's not.  As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any previous case, where a former President of the United States served as an intermediary for a sitting President, where the former President was asked by the sitting President's Chief of Staff to offer a candidate for the United States Senate a position in exchange for him dropping out of a race.  I don't know of any other case.  Do you?  I keep hearing it happens all the time.  It doesn't.   And, yet, if it happened a hundred-and-one previous times, that's not a defense. If you speed fifty times and you're caught one time, you can't say, 'I, I was speeding forty-nine times, and they never stopped me."  Who cares?  It's just that you weren't caught.  Now further more, as we analyze this, Sestak said back in February--and we're going to play this audio for you--that he was offer a job, a job.  The White House says today that options for Executive Branch service were raised with Sestak not by the White House but by their hand-picked intermediary, Bill Clinton, and, in particular, he was offered--well, not offered--but they discussed possible uncompenstated advisory board positions.  Now, as a matter of law, ladies and gentlemen, this is a slam dunk for prosecution.  There are admissions in the White House statement today, which I will read in a moment.  It is enough under federal law, it is enough that an appointment was offered to Sestak, compenstated or not.  Compensation is not determinative.  It's also enough under the law that communication with Sestak was indirect, that is, through an intermediary, Bill Clinton, as the law specifically encompasses, both 'direct and indirect contact,' and I quote, that's the law.  So this is an easy prosecution, no long investigation, three or four witnesses, Rahm Emanuel, Joe Sestak, Bill Clinton, maybe Obama with an interview.  The trial would last about two days.  But let us be clear about something.  The cover-up is on!  And it's been on for several months.  Eric Holder, the Attorney General, is part of the cover-up, because he refuses to initiate an investigation period.  And I'm no fans of "Special Prosecutors," but we have a very unique situation here, given that Congress won't act because the Democrats control both chambers, the Attorney General won't act given that he has surrendered his obligation to uphold the law to political expediency, and given that the liberal media have already announced that it's highly unlikely anyone would be charged with anything in this matter.  Really?  So, I can think of no other option but the appointment of a 'Special Prosecutor.'  Now, who appoints a 'Special Prosecutor'?  And that's the problem--Eric Holder.  So, that's where the pressure needs to be--on Eric Holder.  Now, let's start with the law.  Now, I've done a lot of research on this--not just the section of the U.S. Code itself, but a number of cases that I've gone into and I've look at--this is an extremely broad statute and it is intended to be extremely broad.  It's 18 U.S.C. Section 600, Promise of Employment or Other Benefit for Political Activity.  And the relevant part reads: '...Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment, position'--any position--'compenstation, contract, any appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any act of Congress or any special consideration obtaining any such benefit to any person as consideration, favor, reward, for any political activity or for the support of or any opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office or in any connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both....'  The conduct that occurred falls under the four corners of this, this criminal statute.  It happens everyday, they tells us.  Really?  Where?  Who?  When?  As if that matters, which it doesn't.  The fact that it would happen every day, if in fact....  Well, let's stipulate it up front, even though I don't believe it for a second.  It happens everyday, so what?  Murder happens every day.  Rape happens every day.  Other crimes happen everyday.  So what?  Doesn't mean you give it a pass.  But it doesn't happen every day.  This is a heavy handed White House that uses the Al Capone tactics, and there he is right in the middle of it, a.k.a. Rahm Emanuel, a.k.a. Al Capone.  And I promise you, he's not doing his own bidding.  And if they did it once, they did it more than once.  This is a heavy handed authoritarian government!  And at the top of it are the biggest hands and the most authoritarian boys of the bunch!  Axelrod!  Emanuel!  Obama and all the rest of them!..."

    On February 18, 2010, a man named Larry Kane, who was based in Philadelphia and associated with Comcast there, interviewed U.S. House of Representative Joe Sestak, who was running to become a U.S. Senate candidate for the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, going against current Senator Arlen Specter, who had somewhat recently switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Senator.  The interview was taped and would be presented to viewers on February 21, 2010.  The interview really is what brought to light the idea that the White House seemed to have done something illegal, and it would lead to people working to uncover what happened.  Consider a portion of the interview that is really telling:
    Larry Kane: "Were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?"
    Joe Sestak: "Yes."
    Larry Kane: "Was it the Navy Secretary?"
    Joe Sestak: "...No comment.  Though I would never get out for a deal.  I'm in this for the Democrat...."
    Larry Kane: "Was a job offered you by the White House?"
    Joe Sestak: "Yes.  Um, someone offered...."
    Larry Kane: "He's big, right?"
    Joe Sestak: "...Let me not comment...."
    That covers what pertains to "2010 Joe Sestak/White House Scandal," and you can see that Joe Sestak admitted that he was offered a job, and when I heard this text in audio form on such programs as The Rush Limbaugh Program (a nationally syndicated radio show) and The Sean Hannity Show (a nationally syndicated radio show) on May 28, 2010, besides The Mark Levin Show, I was struck by how freely Joe Sestak admitted he was offered a job, as if he was not thinking--he was caught up in the moment of simply answering questions to answer questions and sound good and was not realizing or paying attention to the consequences of his answers.

    It was on May 28, 2010, that the White House issued a statement or memo pertaining to what I call the "2010 Joe Sestak/White House Scandal," and the writer was Bob Bauer (attorney for White House).   The statement or memo was read by Mark R. Levin on the air on May 28, 2010, and while he read it, he analyzed it for what is was and analyzed it in relation to other knowledge he had gained over his lifetime.  This section presents how Mark Levin read the letter, and this section contains material from the letter and comments made by Mark Levin, who, by the way, is a constitution lawyer, runs the Landmark Legal Foundation, and was on staff in the U.S. Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980s.  Here is the presentation (and the punctuation is as I feel it should be, and because, at times, Mark Levin misread the letter and quickly corrected himself, you will see some extra words that do not exist in the actual statement or memo, but I keep those errors in my presentation, and I left out at least one "ah" that Mark Levin spoke, because such a thing would confuse the issue):
    "...:Now, let's listen to what the lawyer, Bob Bauer, long-time Democrat lawyer, now White House counsel, let's listen to what he said today.  You ready?  'Recent press reports have reflected questions and speculation about discussions between the White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak in relation to his plans to run for the United States Senate.  Our office has reviewed those discussions and claims made about them, focusing in particular on the suggestion that government positions may have been improperly offered to the Congressman to dissuade him from pursuing a Senate candidacy.  We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law.'  Let's stop right there!  I just read you the law.  Why do we care what they have concluded about the law?  They're lawyers who are advocates for the President.  They're not an judicative body of any kind.  They go on.  'Secretary of the Navy.  It's been suggested that the administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hope that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy.'  Let me stop right there. There's been speculation about it, but it doesn't matter if they offered him Secretary of the Navy or Secretary to the Secretary of Navy.  They threw this out as a 'straw man' right up front to kind of create mush.  'This is false.  The President announced his intent to nominate Ray Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy on March 26, '09, over a month before Senator Specter announced that he was becoming a member of the Democratic Party in late April.'  Now, let me parse that.  Over a month before Specter announced, but my guess is Specter had a lot of discussions before he announced in March, so that is another head fake, another diversion.  And we you see a memo like this by advocates for the President and you have these head fakes and these diversions, your antenna should go right up.  'Mabus was confirmed in May.  At no time was Congressman Sestak offered nor did he seek the position of Secretary of the Navy.'  Great!  So what?  Uncompensated advisory board options.  Remember: Compensated or uncompensated is utterly irrelevant under the federal statue.  'We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated options for Executive Branch service were raised with him, efforts were made in June and July of '09 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other senior Executive Branch advisory board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was qualified.'  Okay.  So, now we have an admission.  They offered him options to uncompensated positions.  If even we take the third, their statement at face value--to avoid a Senate primary--that's a confession.  That's a confession!  'The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak while important to the work of the administration would have been uncompensated.'  You know what I think they did?  I think they looked at the wrong bribery statue, because the compensation issue is not relevant, and yet they've stressed it two or three times in this one paragraph.  Let me go on with the White House statement issued this evening.  'White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak.  The White House Chief of Staff [Rahm Emanuel] enlisted the support of former President Clinton, who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other senior Executive Branch advisory board.'  Again the statue says 'whoever directly or indirectly.'  Right now, this is looking really bad for Rahm Emanuel.  And, by the way, I happen to think it goes to the top, but that's just my opinion.  But it's looking really bad for Rahm Emanuel.  Somewhat for Clinton, too.  But Clinton is not in a position to offer something...something that he can do something about.  I've heard it said, by the way, 'Well, the White House can't actually put somebody on one of these commissions, you know, without Congressional support or so forth.  There are in fact advisory positions that the White House can put people on without Congressional approval.  But that said, that's irrelevant.  Offering positions, it's no different if somebody's offering the full support of the White House if they have to be nominated to Congress for a position if exchange for.  Where the hell did I put the statue?  [He goes for the statue and begins to read.]  'Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, deployment, or any other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an act of Congress.'  You say, 'I promise to get, to try and get you that position.'  That's good enough.  [Mark Levin returned to the memo.]   'Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to a Senate candidacy.'  Now, none of us really believes, do we, that Bill Clinton came in their with a list of uncompensated advisory board options that weren't handed to him by the White House?  At this point, he [Bill Clinton] doesn't even know what the uncompensated advisory board options are, unless he's told what they are.  And if they think everything they did is legal--and this is crucial--if they think everything they did is legal or they didn't give it a second thought as to whether it was legal or not, why wouldn't Obama have been involved in this.  You see my point?  Why would Obama have been involved in this?  Hey, you in the media, wake the hell up!   Let's, ah, let's see if you can do your job for once.  Now, let me finish with the statement from the White House Lawyer Bob Bauer, well-known long-time Democrat activist.  'Relationship to Senate campaign.  It has been suggested that discussions of alternatives to the Senate campaign were improperly raised with the Congressman.  There was no such impropriety.  The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in diverting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House.'  This is a political argument.  This has nothing to do with the law whatsoever, except it just further underscores the confession.  And it goes on.  "There have been numerous reported instances in the past when prior administrations--both Democratic and Republican--motivated by the same goals discuss alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office.'  Really?  I don't know of any like this, where jobs were being dangled in front of a candidate for the United States Senate, encouraging him to drop out in exchange for an effort that would be made to get him that job.  If anybody knows of another example, I'm all ears, much like Obama...."

    Also, on May 28, 2010, Mark Levin read a piece of material that Larry Kane had issued on May 28, 2010, and the piece of material gave information about that interview of February 18, 2010, and here is how Mark Levin read the piece, and again I show comments that Mark Levin offered:
    "...Larry Kane has written about this written about this today.  He said, 'When the taping stopped Joe Sestak looked surprised.  "You're the first person who ever asked me that question," he said."  And Kane says, 'And that was true, but why was I the first?  There was buzz about this story since last summer.  A few days before the February 18, tapping, a voice of reason for the Comcast network, I was advised by two reliable sources that someone in or close to the White House had dangled a high-level job offer to Sestak to give a clear path to Senator Specter for the nomination.'  Okay, so this gives the lie to the statement that was put out by White House lawyer Bauer, the long-time Democrat hack.  [Mark Levin did as aside.]  Saying, '...Well, what was the problem.  Specter didn't publicly announce he was running until March.'   [Mark Levin returned to regular presentation.]   What does publicly announce have to do with anything?  Kane goes on.  'I thought it would be a good thing to pose the question to Sestak in the upcoming interview.  The Sestak interview was the second in this contest.  I interviewed Specter a week before.  I prepared for the program with an outline of questions, but on that Thursday, I was having a very hectic day.  I was a little overwhelmed with work.  I forgot to put the question in my outline.  Suddenly, with ninety seconds left, I remembered.  The news business can have moments that are so unpredictable.  I knew the question was a good one, based on some really good sources, but I was flabbergasted when Sestak said "Yes."  And there was no hesitation, no delay.  He just said, "Yes."  As the Congress, Congressman left the building, there was an obvious dilemma.  The show wouldn't air un, until the twenty-first of February.  The story could be big.  I called Comcast executive, and with their blessing, I broke the story with an audio interview on KYW news radio, but first there was work to do.'  [Mark Levin coughed about  here.]  I need a White House response.  I called the White House press office.  I played the interview for the individual who answered the phone.'  Listen to this!  'She said, "Someone would call me back."  A few minutes later, another individual called. She said, "The White House would call back with a reaction shortly."  That was thirty-forty-five in the afternoon.  The report aired all night without a White House response.  And at sixty-forty-five the next morning--fifteen-hours later--a deputy press secretary called.  She said, "You can say, 'The White House says, "It's not true.'"'  And so the cover-up began, ladies and gentlemen.  They said, 'It's not true.'  And even today's silly statement that they put contradicts that deputy press secretary.  Larry Kane goes on.   'A similar call was placed to the Inquirer's Tom Fitzgerald.  Tom was in the studio during the show taping.  He was following Sestak around, working on a feature story.  Took the story to page one of the Friday Inquirer [Philadelphia Inquirer].  A few days ago, both of use were wondering why it took the White House fifteen hours to issue a simple denial?'  Cover-up, Larry!  Yellow, yellow!  'The rest is history, particularly, peculiar history'--he writes--'The job offer story never became an issue in the campaign, although some would suggest the story played well to Sestak's argument that he was a real Democratic independent.  But on May 19, the day after his upset victory over Specter, the February interview became an Internet hit.  Republicans arguing it may have been a crime to offer a job in return for withdraw from a political contest, Democrats only recently called for the truth on this story, the President saying, 'Nothing was impromer, improper, promised a White House statement shortly.  There are several things, I want to know' he says.  'I'm surprised that Washington reporters never asked the question in the first place.'  Don't be, Larry!  They've sold out!  They're gone!  'Washington' and 'reporter' are not two words you can pu, you can put together anymore...."

    Let me add this material that Mark Levin also spoke on May 28, 2010, sort of wrapping up his time with the story, though not completely:
    "...Well, I'll tell you where it's taken us--to a cover-up, coming right out of the White House, because the statement does not add up!  And even though--I want to show you how incompetent these boobs are over at the White House--they put out a statement that is not only off in terms of jiving with what Sestak has said before and what the Deputy Press Secretary reportedly told Larry Kane, it's a confession.  They indirectly through Bill Clinton offered Joe Sestak positions.  You can choose from this one or this one or this one or this one!  Doesn't matter if you're compenstated or not.  And while it can be argued that they can't simply assign him to these advisory boards and so forth--although we have some that where you can, because I was in Presidential personal under Reagan.  You know, they're not all Congressional, ah, approval, for Senate approval.  But that doesn't matter.  If you're promising a thing of value--that is, the full force and effort and resources of the White House to get behind your appointment, that's enough.  You don't have to be compenstated.  And, by the way, these folks who serve on these boards and don't receive a salary, they do receive compensation in other forms--travel, reimbursements, hotel reimbursements.  That's good enough, too.  That's good enough, too.  This is a very weak statement!  That's why I'm convinced there's a cover-up going on now.  And when I read the statute as I read it to you, I think Rahm Emanuel in particular, has a huge problem.  Now, let us be blunt!  The full force of the federal government against Libby--Scooter Libby--for a hell of lot less than this.  And among others, Rahm Emanuel was banging the drums all for it.  So was Barack Obama.  Now if a 'Special Prosecutor'  can be appointed under those circumstances--the flimsiest of circumstances--then a "Special Prosecutor' needs to be appointed right now to deal with this!...."   [Note: "Scooter Libby" is fully known as "Lewis 'Scooter' Libby."]

    That concludes the discussion presented on May 28, 2010, most of which was Mark Levin's logic piece, and you should see it is a good overview of "2010 Joe Sestak/White House Scandal," on to which you can add more information that comes to you or attach information that you have already acquired, but what was discussed by Mark R. Levin on May 28, 2010, is only the part of the real story that shows the Barack Obama administration is working to influence elections--even before the elections take place..

    On Wednesday, June 2, 2010, Mark R. Levin presented, during the first hour of his nationally syndicated radio show, more evidence that the Barack Obama administration is truly a corrupt administration and is willing to do anything to hurt the United States of America.  The talk was about, for one, a news story published on the Internet by The Associated Press (Elliott, Philip, and Kristen Wyatt.  "Obama Administration Talked Jobs with Romanoff."  The Associated Press, 2 June 2010.) on June 2, 2010, in which the subject was about a man named Andrew Romanoff (a man whose credentials included being Speaker of the House in Colorado) being offered a job by the Barack Obama administration in 2009.  Mark R. Levin would also pass along information from the Denver Post story that added information to what I call the "2010 Andrew Romanoff/White House Scandal."  During the radio show, Mark R. Levin, taking up the topic of buying politicians as the Chicago way, said, "...Now, I've heard it said this is the Chicago way.  From time to time, I've fallen into the trap.  It's not the Chicago way.  It's the Soviet-Stalinist way.  This is a Politburo like operation.  To call it the Chicago way is to smear Chicago.  This is bigger than that!  This is massive in scale!  This President and his cronies use the power of government to reward and to punish--to try and affect the outcome of elections before one vote is cast...."  Also in the segment focusing on Andrew Romanoff, Mark R. Levin noted: "...Now, let me say very clearly--I don't care if it's an unpaid job or not.  The federal code is clear.  Section 600 is clear.  And it is enough to be promising or offering a job or support for a job.  I want to know why--other than the fact that he's a partisan hack--the Attorney General, the United States is off the hook on this?..."  And Mark R. Levin spoke seriously and said: "...Now, until we change the makeup of this government--we bring some checks and balances--shake it up in the November election, this will not be investigated the way it must be investigated.  There won't be any oversight hearings with the Democrat Party in full cover-up mode...."

    P.S.: In the future, I may additional material to this piece, so from time to time, you should see whether or not it has been updated.



Editorial staff.  "Clear the air on Romanoff deal."  The Denver Post, 2 June 2010, 01:00:00 a.m. MDT.

(Elliott, Philip, and Kristen Wyatt.  "Obama Administration Talked Jobs with Romanoff."  The Associated Press, 2 June 2010.)


    Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on May 29, 2010.

    Note: This document is known on the Internet as

For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Conservatism for
    Children and What Conservatism Means,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Madness in a President
    and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see my
    document entitled Nonsense Statements
    and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
    can  be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Never Forget These
    Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
    Individual in the United States of
    America, which can be reached by
    using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled A Little History of
    Barack Obama Events: A Show of
    Deconstruction, which can be reached by
    using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Lessons for Children
    about Politics and Dangerous People,
    which can be reached by using this
    link: Children.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled The Next Elections:
    What Has to be Done to Protect the
    United States of America, which can
    be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled World Tyranny:
    Warnings about  the Insane Who are
    Trying to Create a Communist World
    Country, which can be reached by
    using this link: World.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Command and
    Control: Barack Obama's Environmental
    Protection Agency, which can be reached
    by using this link: Command.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled THE CRUD AROUND
    BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like
    Minds Get Together", which can be
    reached by using this link: Crud.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Sharia Law,
    Shariah-Compliant Finance, Radical
    Islam, and Barack Obama, which can
    be reached by using this link: Sharia.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled "La Raza": Yet
    Another Enemy in the United States
    of America, which can be reached
    by using this link: La Raza.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled National Health
    Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons
    it is a Dead Issue, which can be reached
    by using this link: Health.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Justice for All?: The
    Rules Could Change Under Barack
    Obama, which can be reached by
    using this link: Justice.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled The Economic Crash
    of Countries is Because of Liberalism--
    It is not because of Capitalism or
    Conservatism, which can be reached
    by using this link: Crash.

Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.

To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
    Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may click on this link now: