For instance, his full name is Barack Hussein Obama. There is no disputing this fact. However back in February, when a few conservatives started to use his middle name when referring to him, Michelle Obama called it the “ultimate fear bomb” used to scare voters.

"They threw in the obvious, ultimate fear bomb that we're even hearing now: they said his name," Mrs. Obama exclaimed. "They said, 'Look out for his name, when all else fails. Be afraid of his name and what they could stand for, because it's different.'"

Another indisputable fact is Barack Obama had a 20-year relationship with the racist, anti-American preacher, Jeremiah Wright. He attended his church since 1992 (according to Obama himself), was married by Wright, and his children were baptized by Wright. As anyone who follows the news knows, Obama at first defended the man while condemning his comments and then, after repeating a lot of the same racist, anti-American sentiments in front of the National Press Club, Obama finally condemned the man stating “the man you saw yesterday is not the man I have known for 20 years”.

To anyone who is not on Team Obama, this raises the obvious issue of his judgment. How can you know a man for 20 years and not see his obvious hatred and contempt for white people and America?

Back in April, ABC moderated a debate in Pennsylvania between Obama and Clinton. By all liberal, Obama apologist accounts, spending the first 52 minutes of that debate asking Obama to explain his relationship with Rev. Wright was at the least a “shoddy, despicable performance” and at best a targeted hit piece.

Tom Shales of The Washington Post wrote:

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

As you can clearly see, whenever anyone dares to question Barack Obama on a legitimate issue—his judgment and character—it is widely disputed and defended by the liberals as a “slanted” attack on him.

Without question, the latest evidence is the defensive nature with which Obama addressed the “appeasement” statement made by President Bush while in Israel this week. Though it should be noted that the president didn’t call Obama by name, the liberal media networks and democrat leaders have all assumed Obama was the target.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball offered the typical Obama apologist argument. 

"You don’t understand there’s a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Chamberlain did wrong, most people would say, is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong. Not talking to somebody. Appeasement is giving away things to the enemy."

On one point, Matthews is right. According to The American Heritage Dictionary, appeasement is defined “the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace”. 

His defense is simply that Barack Obama has offered to have direct negotiations with Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Matthews stated, “You don’t understand there’s a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing.” This defense, used not just by Matthews, is exactly where Obama supporters intentionally lie to the American people.

Iran has applied for membership to the World Trade Organization on 20 different occasions. The previous 19 times they have been denied because of the United States and Israel. Clearly, joining the WTO is something Iran dearly wants and clearly, it is the U.S. that has not allowed that to happen.

If you surf over to barackobama.com, you find the truth.

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations.

“If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization”. Let’s not get petty over semantics. What Team Obama calls “incentives” any other rational human being might call “concessions”. Which means Barack Obama’s policy is to meet directly with the Iranian president and offer “concessions to” him “to maintain peace”. 

Barack Obama has pledged himself to the idea of full-fledged appeasement.

How did Barack Obama respond to the President’s statement?

Barack Obama has called President Bush's comments on appeasement "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world."

Yesterday, Obama accused President Bush of "a false political attack" after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists—early salvos in a general election campaign that's already blazing even as the Democratic front-runner tries to sew up his party's nomination.

Once again, stating facts about Obama is deflected as an attack. 

It is truly foolish to think that those who want to see Barack Obama elected at any and all costs (the elitist democrats, the liberal news networks, and the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil diehard Obama supporters) will address the issues factually. That is why it is crucial that those of us who are not blinded by party affiliations maintain a vigilant watch on this election cycle and do what others are afraid or unwilling to do—report the truth.