Mr. and Mrs. Leader of the Free World are on the last leg of a nine day Diplomatic Journey to Asia.  As always, they have freely expressed their true feelings about the citizens that they are supposed to represent, while the world’s cameras were trained upon them.  The only difference was, this time, they picked on the most innocent of us all.

Keith Koffler at whitehousedossier.com reports:

Speaking at a high school in Australia, President Obama told a group of Aussie students that their counterparts in his country had “fallen behind” when it comes to math and science, saying he wants to reform the public school system.

Obama also asserted that poor children don’t get “support they need when they’re very young’’ and are “already behind’’’ when they enter grammar school, according to a press pool report.

Obama might have thought twice before casting America’s public school kids in a negative light to foreign students. Especially since he can exclude his own children from the system by paying for them to attend private school.

Not only did the man who is supposed to function as America’s biggest advocate demean America’s schoolchildren in order to suck up to another country, he was also continuing a theme he began back on September 24th, somehow linking his $447 million so-called “Jobs Bill” to the education of our children:

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been making the case that we need to act now on the American Jobs Act, so we can put folks back to work and start building an economy that lasts into the future.

Education is an essential part of this economic agenda. It is an undeniable fact that countries who out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. Businesses will hire wherever the highly-skilled, highly-trained workers are located.

But today, our students are sliding against their peers around the globe. Today, our kids trail too many other countries in math, science, and reading. As many as a quarter of our students aren’t even finishing high school. And we’ve fallen to 16th in the proportion of our young people with a college degree, even though we know that sixty percent of new jobs in the coming decade will require more than a high school diploma.

What this means is that if we’re serious about building an economy that lasts – an economy in which hard work pays off with the opportunity for solid middle class jobs – we had better be serious about education. We have to pick up our game and raise our standards.

As a nation, we have an obligation to make sure that all children have the resources they need to learn – quality schools, good teachers, the latest textbooks and the right technology. That’s why the jobs bill I sent to Congress would put tens of thousands of teachers back to work across the country, and modernize at least 35,000 schools. And Congress should pass that bill right now.

Scooter’s not the only one using America’s schoolchildren to promote a Progressive agenda.  His beloved bride wants to raise our children for us ignorant masses, also:

Per cnsnews.com:

Visiting an organic farm in Hawaii on Saturday, First Lady Michelle Obama said that “arugula and steak” was her “favorite” meal and expressed her view that American children need to “get their palates adjusted” so they will begin eating properly.

Mrs. Obama also said that children in “underserved communities” become obese because they “aren’t growing up with vegetables because there are no grocery stores.”

The first lady was participating in a roundtable discussion at the Ma’o Organic Farms in Waianae, Hawaii. During the discussion, according to the White House transcript of the event, she said that she had started a vegetable garden at the White House to teach young people how to eat.

“But one of the primary reasons we planted the garden was as a form of education,” said Mrs. Obama.

“Childhood obesity is one of my signature issues,” she said. “Our goal is to eliminate childhood obesity in a generation. And our view is that if we teach young people early about how to eat, and we give them a connection to the food that they eat, that they’re more excited and interesting, and interested, in what’s going on, and that in turn opens up a broader conversation about nutrition and health and movement–but also deeper issues of access and affordability, which are some of the primary causes of obesity. Because many of our communities–in underserved communities, kids aren’t growing up with vegetables because there are no grocery stores.

“People don’t have that connection,” Mrs. Obama said to her fellow panelists, who included a group of workers and student interns at the organic farm. “And we’re finding, through our contact with kids, that it is in fact working–like you guys: You now eat vegetables. You actually know what arugula is. And you eat it.”

One of the farm’s workers then told Mrs. Obama that arugula was a “favorite” of his.

“That’s right,” said Mrs. Obama. “My favorite, too. Arugula and steak. I like it a lot. That’s good stuff.”

Mrs. Obama then segued back to the importance of properly adjusting the palates of children.

“But we find the same thing is true with young kids, and if they get their palates adjusted to those very interesting flavors, they stay connected,” she said.

Later, in the discussion, Mrs. Obama said that her “Let’s Move” program focused on children for a reason.

“That’s how we’re approaching this obesity initiative,” said Mrs. Obama. “That’s why we set a generational goal. It would have been ridiculous for me to say, in 10 years we’re going to–or in 5 years we’re going to–change the way people have thought about eating and living. It doesn’t happen that way. We start with kids. We start with introducing them. We start with their habits, and it’s, the impact is really going to be on their kids, and how they pass that on.”

Just as with the erroneous notion of “collective salvation”, espoused by the Social Justice crowd, the Progressive molding of young skulls full of mush through nationalized, agenda-driven education “reform” and government control of school children’s diet and activities seems literally Orwellian in nature…a sublimation of American individualism and exceptionalism for the glory of the State.

What next?  Book burning a la “Fahrenheit 451”?…all except “Dreams of My Father”, of course.

The year is 1903, The Russian Social Democratic Party is meeting in London. All the intellectuals in their party have been arguing since the end of the 1800′s as to the direction the party should take. One year earlier, in 1902, a man named Lenin, living in exile, wrote a paper entitled, “What Is To Be Done”.

The work was smuggled into Russia and spelled out his views regarding what the Social Democrats should be doing as a party. Lenin attacked party members who “were content to wait while history took its predetermined course.” Rather than wait, Lenin wanted to kick-start the issue he believed in to get things done rather than wait on intellectuals sitting around refuting each other’s ideas. The meeting resulted in a Party split creating the Mentsheviks and the Bolsheviks. The two factions reunited under Lenin in April 1905. Lenin went on to organize the November 1917 Russian Revolution on the Promise of “peace. bread, and land”.

On the night of Nov. 6 (Oct. 24, O.S.), the Bolsheviks staged an coup, engineered by Trotsky; aided by the workers’ Red Guard and the sailors of Kronstadt, they captured the government buildings and the Winter Palace in Petrograd. A second all-Russian congress of soviets met and approved the coup after the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries walked out of the meeting. A cabinet, known as the Council of People’s Commissars, was set up with Lenin as chairman, Trotsky as foreign commissar, Rykov as interior commissar, and Stalin as commissar of nationalities. The second congress immediately called for cessation of hostilities, gave private and church lands to village soviets, and abolished private property.

By now, you’re saying, “So?  What does Lenin’s push to power have to do with the Occupy Movement?”

Simply put, in keeping with the Marxist ideology of “Share the Wealth”, and their pithy slogan of “We are the 99 per cent”, the Occupy Movement “foot soldiers” are blindly following the lead of a new “Politburo”.

On 11/26/2011, foxnews.com reported that:

The former New York office for ACORN, the disbanded community activist group, is playing a key role in the self-proclaimed “leaderless” Occupy Wall Street movement, organizing “guerrilla” protest events and hiring door-to-door canvassers to collect money under the banner of various causes while spending it on protest-related activities, sources tell FoxNews.com.

The former director of New York ACORN, Jon Kest, and his top aides are now busy working at protest events for New York Communities for Change (NYCC). That organization was created in late 2009 when some ACORN offices disbanded and reorganized under new names after undercover video exposes prompted Congress to cut off federal funds.

Former New York office for ACORN, the disbanded community activist group, is playing a key role in ‘leaderless’ Occupy Wall Street movement, organizing ‘guerrilla’ protest events and hiring canvassers to collect money for various causes while spending it on protest-related activities, sources tell FoxNews.com.

NYCC’s connection to ACORN isn’t a tenuous one: It works from the former ACORN offices in Brooklyn, uses old ACORN office stationery, employs much of the old ACORN staff and, according to several sources, engages in some of the old organization’s controversial techniques to raise money, interest and awareness for the protests.

Sources said NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day – to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour, the sources said.

At least some of those hired are being used as door-to-door canvassers to collect money that’s used to support the protests.

Sources said cash donations collected by NYCC on behalf of some unions and various causes are being pooled and spent on Occupy Wall Street. The money is used to buy supplies, pay staff and cover travel expenses for the ex-ACORN members brought to New York for the protests.

Over the last few days, finally listening to their tax-paying citizens, and , suspiciously waiting until President Barack Hussein Obama left the country on his tour of Asia, the mayors of the major cities where the Occupiers were squatting, gave them the ol’ heave-ho, citing sanitary and safety issues as the reason.

Unfortunately for the citizens who work on Wall Street in The Big Apple, these Union-sponsored Communists aren’t going away that easily.

According to nypost.com:

The occupation at Zuccotti Park may be over, but wary city officials are bracing for trouble tomorrow when a mob of that could number in the “tens of thousands” is expected to answer Occupy Wall Street’s call to shut down the Financial District.

“Everything that we have seen and heard suggests that we may have tens of thousands of people tomorrow protesting.

The protesters are calling for a massive event aimed at disrupting major parts of the city,” Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson told reporters this afternoon.

Wolfson and Deputy Mayor Cas Holloway said all city agencies are on notice and extra cops will be on hand for the massive demonstrations – which could disrupt the morning commute and be among the largest in city history.

Holloway conceded commutes may take longer than usual.

Organizers said they were energized by Mayor Bloomberg’s decision early to end the two-month-long camp-out at Zuccotti Park.

“We will shut down Wall Street,” a post on the movement’s Facebook page said. “We will ring the People’s Bell, and initiate a street carnival in which we rebuild and celebrate the neighborhoods that the Wall Street economy has destroyed.”

The march on Wall Street is slated to start at 7 a.m.

Other events scheduled for the day include “Occupy the Subways” in all five boroughs at 3 p.m., a takeover of Foley Square at 5 p.m. and another march across the Brooklyn Bridge.

“I think we’re certainly going into this with our eyes wide open, but (the march is) to provoke ideas and discussion, not to provoke any violent reactions,” Occupy Wall Street spokesman Ed Needham told Reuters. “I think it is very difficult to do a day of action and not expect some sort of reaction from the [authorities].”

The group promises a “a block party the 1 percent will never forget.”

Referring back to my earlier history lesson…sound familiar?

Do you remember when then-Presidential Hopeful Barack Hussein Obama was running for the Democratic Nomination in 2008?

As reported on 4/12/2008 at  nydailynews.com:

Barack Obama described small-town Pennsylvanians as “bitter,” distrustful have-nots who “cling to guns or religion” – prompting his foes to accuse him of being a condescending snob.

During a private fund-raiser last weekend in San Francisco, Obama said “the jobs have been gone now for 25 years” in a lot of small towns.

“They fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate. And they have not,” Obama continued in the riff first reported by the Huffington Post Web site.

“And,” he concluded, “it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This should have given all Americans a little insight in to the character of the man.  But, nooo…

On 11/15/2008, Michael Myers (no, not that one) had a suggestion for the brand new president in an article for the New York Daily News, titled, “How Barack Obama can Become our First Post Racial President”.

President-elect Barack Obama, who has already shocked the world by shattering an apparently insurmountable racial barrier, can now go one better. He can ensure that, like Humpty Dumpty, the shattered pieces of racial politics as we know them won’t ever be put back together again – by leading us forever out of the old ethnic and racial divisions and affirmative-action lunacies.

Obama is ideally suited to the task. He has personally felt the stupidities of the labels assigned to him – “half black,” “hybrid,” “not black enough.” He even wrote a book about it. The word he chose to describe himself at his first postelection press conference, “mutt,” was not just funny. It was also subversive.

Over the course of this long campaign, the man has repeatedly defeated the race demagogues, who never thought white and Hispanic Americans would vote for him in large numbers.

Now, Obama can finish the job – by taking us into a 21st century world where race won’t matter. That would be a legacy every bit as lasting as energy independence or universal health care. And for the man with the mother from Kansas and the father from Kenya, it could be much more easily achieved than those other heavy lifts.

On 7/28/2009, the great Dr. Thomas Sowell, as he always does, got to the heart of the matter, in the article, “A Post-Racial President?”, published on nationalreview.com:

Many people hoped that the election of a black President of the United States would mark our entering a “post-racial” era, when we could finally put some ugly aspects of our history behind us.

That was quite understandable. But it takes two to tango. Those of us who want to see racism on its way out need to realize that others benefit greatly from crying racism. They benefit politically, financially, and socially.

Barack Obama has been allied with such people for decades. He found it expedient to appeal to a wider electorate as a post-racial candidate, just as he has found it expedient to say a lot of other popular things — about campaign finance, about transparency in government, about not rushing legislation through Congress without having it first posted on the Internet long enough to be studied — all of which turned to be the direct opposite of what he has actually done after getting elected.

Those who were shocked at President Obama’s cheap shot at the Cambridge police for being “stupid” in arresting Henry Louis Gates must have been among those who let their wishes prevail over the obvious implications of Obama’s 20 years of association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who can believe that Obama did not understand what the racist rants of Jeremiah Wright meant can believe anything.

…For “community organizers” as well, racial resentments are a stock in trade. President Obama’s background as a community organizer has received far too little attention, though it should have been a high-alert warning that this was no post-racial figure.

What does a community organizer do? What he does not do is organize a community. What he organizes are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.

To think that someone who has spent years promoting grievance and polarization was going to bring us all together as president is a triumph of wishful thinking over reality.

Fast forward, past America’s three long years of suffering…

In a CNN poll conducted by ORC International from November 11-13,  1,036 adult Americans were questioned by telephone.

White Americans give Obama a thumbs down by a 61%-36% margin, with non-white Americans give the president a thumbs up by a more than 2-1 margin.

Why are the numbers so different?

Is it a Racial thing, a historic pride thing, or a “Surely he can do better than he’s shown us so far” thing?

Whatever it is, there is no need for it, as heritage.org reported on 6/21/2011:

It’s bad enough that nationwide unemployment has risen back to 9.1 percent, but for some Americans that rate is significantly higher. Low-skilled workers, many of whom are African-American, are experiencing the worst of the down economy. The African-American unemployment rate stands at an outrageous 16.2 percent—not a number the Obama White House wants under the mantle of the nation’s first black president.

While CBS News reports that the national black unemployment rate is usually higher than the overall unemployment rate, these figures stand at Depression-era levels. Worse? Black teenagers have a devastating unemployment level of 41 percent.

Can you say “Misguided Loyalty”?

Since the 1960s, America’s newsrooms have been overwhelmingly staffed by Liberals.

However, nowadays, a Conservative watchdog organization keeps an intense watch on the antics of the Main Stream Media:

The Media Research Center, headquartered in Alexandria, VA, began modestly with a handful of employees, a black and white TV, and a rented computer. The first order of business was to organize a research operation second to none. For years, conservatives could only present the anecdotal evidence of liberal journalists’ bias — a question in this interview, a statement in that report. However, anecdotal examples of bias do not prove a liberal agenda. Only through thorough, comprehensive, and ongoing analysis based on quantitative and qualitative research can one document liberal bias in the media.

From a $339,000 initial annual budget, the MRC has grown to be the nation’s largest and most sophisticated television and monitoring operation, now employing 60 professional staff with a $10 million annual budget.

The result of the MRC’s work is a mountain of evidence to use in combating the undeniable bias. The key to the MRC’s effectiveness is the ability to prove bias by using scientific studies and word-for-word quotes from the media.

For example, the MRC reports that:

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists) surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to ones conducted by the same group (previously known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995 and 1999. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates.

KEY FINDINGS:

Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.

The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.

Liberals also outnumber conservatives in local newsrooms. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.

Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are “not critical enough” of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been “too critical.” In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given “too much” coverage to then-President Clinton’s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of “too little” coverage of Clinton’s achievements.

Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, “The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.” Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.

Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: “The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance — either liberal or conservative — is Fox News Channel,” Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).

The way the Main Stream Media views themselves is quite different from the way Americans view them.

On July 25th of this year, thehill.com published a poll focusing on voters’ perceptions of Media Bias:

A full 68 percent of voters consider the news media biased, the poll found. Most, 46 percent, believe the media generally favor Democrats, while 22 percent said they believe Republicans are favored, with 28 percent saying the media is reasonably balanced.

The share of voters who believe the media are too friendly with politicians is almost twice as large as those who find their coverage of politicians appropriate. Forty-four percent of voters assert the former; only 24 percent believe the latter.

The picture is not much brighter on the general question of ethics. Fifty-seven percent of voters think of the news media as either somewhat or very unethical, while only 39 percent see them as somewhat or very ethical.

Evidently, the Main Stream Media’s “broadcast journalists” don’t feel that they have to feign objectivity anymore.

CNN’s White House correspondent Dan Lothian asked President Barack Hussein Obama in Hawaii:

Last night at the Republican debate, some of the hopefuls, they hope to get your job, they defended the practice of waterboarding which is a practice you banned in 2009. Herman Cain said, quote, ‘I don’t see that as torture.’ Michele Bachmann said that it’s, quote, ‘very effective.’ So I’m wondering if you think that they’re uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?

…”And by the way, Mr President, you sure do have a wonderful crease in your pants” (I added that.)

When I was a Collegiate Radio News Director from 1978-1980, I made sure that my on-air staff, including myself, maintained our objectivity in our reporting.

In 2011 newsrooms,  ideology has replaced objectivity.

We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — ‘Well, people would want to come here’ — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.

President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, 11/12/11, APEC CEO Business Summit

Why does the President of our country insist on denigrating our country’s heritage and its people in front of other nations?

Why is the man who is supposed to be our biggest cheerleader for American Exceptionalism, America’s biggest Apologist instead?

Heritage .org compiled a list of Obama’s “Top Ten Apologies for America”, which they published on June 2, 2009:

1. Apology to France and Europe (“America Has Shown Arrogance”)

Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[1]

So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we’ve allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

2. Apology to the Muslim World (“We Have Not Been Perfect”)

President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.[2]

My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas (“At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms”)

President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.[3]

All of us must now renew the common stake that we have in one another. I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms.

The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.

4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders (“Some Restoration of America’s Standing in the World”)

News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.[4]

I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we’ve made, that you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world.

5. Apology for the War on Terror (“We Went off Course”)

President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[5]

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us–Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens–fell silent.

In other words, we went off course.

6. Apology for Guantanamo in France (“Sacrificing Your Values”)

Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[6]

Our two republics were founded in service of these ideals. In America, it is written into our founding documents as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In France: “Liberté”–absolutely–“egalité, fraternité.” Our moral authority is derived from the fact that generations of our citizens have fought and bled to uphold these values in our nations and others. And that’s why we can never sacrifice them for expedience’s sake. That’s why I’ve ordered the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. That’s why I can stand here today and say without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture.

7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament (“Our Own Darker Periods in Our History”)

Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.[7]

Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That’s why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That’s why we prohibited–without exception or equivocation–the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas (“The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors”)

Opinion editorial by President Obama: “Choosing a Better Future in the Americas,” April 16, 2009.[8]

Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.

9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA (“Potentially We’ve Made Some Mistakes”)

Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009.[9] The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.

So don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks. Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.

10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington (“A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies”)

President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[10]

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law–a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

Why should businessmen from other countries invest in ours?

Our own president, who is supposed to be our biggest advocate, remains our biggest detractor.

Last night, in a debate aired on CBS, focusing on the arena of Foreign Affairs, Major Garrett, formerly of Fox News and, now, working for National Journal, and Scott Pelley, anchor of the CBS Evening News, quizzed a panel of Republican Presidential Hopefuls.

The dabate soon turned to the subject of the United States Government’s execution by drone strike of Anwar al-Awlaki.

For those of you unfamiliar with this former waste of oxygen, here is a brief biography from nytimes.com.  Please be aware of their Liberal spin while you read it:

Mr. Awlaki, born in New Mexico in 1971, served as an imam in California and Virginia. He became the focus of intense scrutiny after he was linked through e-mails with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009 and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner in December 2010. He also had ties to two of the 9/11 hijackers although the nature of association remains unclear.

Unclear?  I’m sure they were just corresponding about the virtues of home canning.  What in the world do you think that radical Muslims filled with hatred for the infidels communicate about, you idiots?

In May 2010, Mr. Awlaki was mentioned by Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American man accused of trying to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. Mr. Shahzad said he was inspired by the violent rhetoric of Mr. Awlaki.

The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism. The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, made some legal authorities deeply uneasy.

Scott Pelley was, evidently, uneasy about it as well.

Pelley, a flaming Liberal, in a display of overcompensating arrogance, decided that he was going to make the leap from Moderation to Advocacy, and attempt to embarrass Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at the same time.

Pelley should have stuck with practicing his ambush journalism at 60 Minutes.

Scott Pelley: And– and that’s time, Governor. Lady– ladies and gentlemen, — ladies and gentlemen, the applause are lovely. But we will not have doing. Thank you very much. We’ll have– we’ll have courtesy for all of the candidates on the stage. Speaker Gingrich, if I could just ask you the same question, as President of the United States, would you sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?

Newt Gingrich: Well, he’s not a terrorist suspect. He’s a person who was found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans.

Scott Pelley: Not– not found guilty by a court, sir.

Newt Gingrich: He was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and reported to the president.

Scott Pelley: Well, that’s ex-judicial. That’s– it’s not–

Newt Gingrich: Let me– let me– let me tell you a story– let me just tell you this.

Scott Pelley: –the rule of law.

Newt Gingrich: It is the rule of law. That is explicitly false. It is the rule of law.

Scott Pelley: No.

Newt Gingrich: If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court. Let me be– let me be very clear about this. There are two levels. There’s a huge gap here that– that frankly far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense, is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war. And the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.

Male Voice: Well said. Well said.

About Scott Pelley:

Pelley has been with CBS News for more than 20 years and has worked his way up through the reporter ranks. While his name may not be readily known by everyone, he’s made his mark by breaking several significant national news stories over the years.

Pelley began his career as a 15-year-old copyboy at the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal in Texas. He says he lied about his age because you had to be 16 to be hired. He says he had his mother drop him off two blocks away so that no one would catch on that he wasn’t old enough to drive.

After that, he held several positions in local television. Those jobs started with KSEL in Lubbock (now KAMC), where Pelley worked from 1975 until 1978. Then it was off to Dallas/Fort Worth, where he worked at KXAS from 1978-1981 and WFAA from 1982-89.

Pelley joined CBS News in 1989. He began his network career as a New York-based reporter.

The correspondents on 60 Minutes are used to winning a plethora of awards and Pelley has racked up plenty on his own. Since joining the broadcast in 2004, half of the program’s awards have belonged to him.

About Newt Gingrich:

Born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Newt’s experiences as the son of a career soldier convinced him at an early age to dedicate his life to his country and to the protection of freedom. Realizing the importance of understanding the past in order to protect the future, he immersed himself in the study of history, receiving his Bachelor’s degree from Emory University and Master’s and Doctorate in Modern European History from Tulane University. Before his election to Congress in 1978, Newt taught History and Environmental Studies at West Georgia College for eight years. He represented Georgia in Congress for twenty years, including four years as Speaker of the House.

Newt Gingrich is the architect of the “Contract with America” that led the Republican Party to victory in 1994 by capturing the majority in the U.S. House for the first time in forty years.

Newt and his wife, Callista, host and produce award-winning documentary films, including A City Upon a Hill, Nine Days that Changed the World, Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny, and Rediscovering God in America. Together, Newt and Callista also author photo books and record audio books.

Newt is the author of twenty-three books, including thirteen New York Times bestsellers.

I have two questions for you, gentle reader, in summary:

1.  Why are Liberals and Libertarians coming to the defense of an enemy of America, who, if still alive, would still be plotting to annihilate them?

2.  Was it just me, or did the schooling of Scott Pelley by Newt bring a smile to your face, too?

Recently,  President Barack Hussein Obama let his diplomatic mask slip off during an embarrasing open mic incident, involving French President Nicholas Sarkozy.

US President Barack Obama accidentally let it be known that he thinks Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu stinks on ice.

The gripe session between Sarkozy and Obama was picked up by a live mic at the Group of 20 summit in southern France.  Reporters heard it via headsets that were to be used for simultaneous translation of an upcoming news conference.

Obama’s opinion was heard through a French translation. Via the interpreter, Obama was heard asking Sarkozy to help persuade the Palestinians to stop their efforts to gain U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state.

Originally, the French-speaking journalists, including one from The Associated Press, did not report the comments because Sarkozy’s office had asked them not to turn on the headsets until the press conference began. Therefore, the conversation was classified as private under French media traditions.

Howver, A French website, Arret sur images, reported the the gripe session Tuesday:

SARKOZY:

Netanyahu, I can’t stand him. He’s a liar.

OBAMA:

You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day.

Since becoming president in 2007, Sarkozy has tried to strengthen French ties with Israel while also seeking to use France’s leverage with Arab allies to encourage peace talks.

Why does Obama feel the way he does about the leader of Israel?  And, seemingly, the country he represents?

Some insight into Obama’s opinion may be provided by this  excerpt from a piece of journalistic servitude titled “Obama: Man of the World”, published in the New York Times on March 5, 2007, and written by Nicholas D. Kristof:

In foreign policy as well, Mr. Obama would bring to the White House an important experience that most other candidates lack: he has actually lived abroad. He spent four years as a child in Indonesia and attended schools in the Indonesian language, which he still speaks.

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn’t sure if his grandfather’s two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite. (O.K., maybe Mr. Obama should just give up on Alabama.)

We all remember that one of the first things that he did as president, was to deliver a conciliatory speech to the Muslim World at the University of Cairo.  While delivering his remarks there, Obama said:

…I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

Therefore, I don’t believe I’m stretching credulity when I say that President Obama has empathy for the Muslim World…and antipathy for Israel.  Especially after Netanyahu schooled him in front of the television cameras five months ago when the Israeli Prime Minister responded to the calls by the Muslim World to divide Israel and move the borders back to where they stood before 1967:

Remember that, before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide.  It was half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive.

It’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen.  And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.

The clear, unwavering, forthright leadership style of Bibi Netanyahu, explains the Obama/Sarkozy open mic gripe session.  It also explains the following:

According to Israel Today:

A poll conducted by the group Greenber Quinlan Rosner found that 52.3 percent of Americans rate Netanyahu positively, compared to 51.5 percent for Obama. Other polls have Obama’s approval ratings even lower, while Netanyahu has been consistently winning praise.

The American people are craving strong leadership.  Hopefully, on November 6, 2012, we will do something about it.

A couple of items caught my eye last night as I was surfing the web.

During the Republican Debate, moderated by two Liberal Hacks and professional spastic Jim Cramer, last night on CNBC, Herman Cain responded to a question asked by Moderator Maria Bartiromo about the sexual harassment accusations levied against him this week, over incidents that supposedly happened 14 years ago:

The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations.

They don’t care about character assassination, they care about leadership and getting the country going.

The audience applauded, much to the chagrin of the moderators, who were booed and jeered when they asked the question.

Meanwhile, over at the Country Music Association’s Awards Show, the legendary Hank Williams, Jr scored a touchdown of his own.

In the show’s opening skit, Williams appeared with co-hosts Carrie Underwood and Brad Paisley, after they mocked his controversy with ESPN and his “Monday Night Football” theme song.

In their skit, Paisley and Underwood sang, “You can get drunk and carry on but you can’t compare the president to Hitler.”

Williams’ tune – “All My Rowdy Friends are Coming Over Tonight” – had opened “Monday Night Football” for more than two decades until early October when an uproar arose over remarks the songwriter had made about President Obama.

In an interview with Fox News, the 62-year-old musician used an analogy to Adolf Hitler in discussing the president. He later apologized and said his comments were taken out of context, but by then his song was no longer on ESPN. The broadcast said it had dropped Williams’ song, but Williams said he had pulled it from the broadcast.

Paisley began his own version of “All My Rowdy Friends Are Coming Over Tonight,” but Underwood interrupted, saying he might make Williams mad.

The crowd roared as Williams walked on stage. Asked if he wanted to say something, Williams said, “No,” and the audience went wild.

What do these two events have in common?

It’s simple.  Both these men are examples of self-made Americans who, when faced with adversity, stood up on their hind legs and faced it.

Furthermore, the reaction to both Cain and Bocephus by their respective audiences speaks volumes.

It’s an expression of the Conservative re-awakening that began with the Conservative Landslide during the 2010 Midterm Elections.

Pollster and communications adviser Frank Luntz wrote the following in the article, “Republicans Won the Midterm Elections.  Now Can They Survive?”, published in the Washington Post on November 7, 2010:

The United States has just witnessed its third straight rubber band election. Once again, Americans had their patience stretched, fired a Washington run amok and now want their new leaders to snap back to attention. The government Americans seek is simpler, more efficient and more accountable; one that takes on less but does better; one that executes the essential and eschews the excessive.

For two election cycles, the winners overpromised and underdelivered. So, will a newly divided Washington finally learn how to govern effectively in dire times?

First, a warning to both sides. Republicans, for their part, must realize that the voters have given them a reprieve, not an endorsement. In my polling last week, GOP voters agreed with this statement by more than two to one: “I am willing to give the Republicans another chance, but if they mess up again, I’ll vote them out again, too.” That’s hardly a cause for GOP celebration.

Similarly, Democrats must grasp that their defeats were not about deficient personalities or insufficient communication, but about their philosophy and substance. Roughly two out of three voters agreed with the statements that President Obama “has failed to deliver hope and change” and that in the midst of an economic crisis, Democrats “had their priorities wrong.”

The post-midterm realities are simple: If the Republicans don’t deliver on their promises, they’re finished. If the Democrats continue doing what they’re doing, they’re finished.

Both sides are promising to fulfill the will of the people, but people aren’t asking for promises. They’re asking for new priorities – their priorities.

The proprietors of the Status Quo, on both sides of the aisle, have a problem:  The sheeple are not listening to them anymore.

The MSM, the propaganda arm of the Status Quo, is growing more and more ineffective.

Witness their attempts at discrediting Herman Cain during this anonymously-driven Sexual Harassment put-up job.

The curtain is slowly being pulled back, to reveal “the man” behind it.

Americans aren’t blindly swallowing the fish hook being dangled in front of them by the Beltway Insiders and the MSM anymore.

In the case of Hank Williams, Jr., the audience gave him an ovation last night because he’s a straight shooter.

Americans appreciate that.

They have witnessed the sorry spectacle of the country that they know and love, beginning to vanish before their eyes, as family members and friends are let go from jobs that they have had for years, while the man who is supposed to be their leader, has nothing but empty promises of fictional “green” jobs to offer in consolation, while Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle, seem to have forgotten who gave them their cushy government jobs in the first place.

As Frank Luntz said:  It’s time for priorities.  Not promises.

Yesterday, Presidential Hopeful Herman Cain held a press conference to address the barrage of accusations of sexual harassment against him going back to his tenure as President of the National Restaurant Association.

Cain denied all of the charges against him.  In fact, per abc.go.com:

Cain said that the first time he had seen accuser Sharon Bialek was during her press conference with attorney Gloria Allred yesterday, and that he didn’t remember either her or her name.

“As they got to the microphone, my first thought was, ‘I don’t even know who this woman is,’ ” said Cain. He said he could not remember Bialek from the National Restaurant Association, where he was president and CEO from 1996 to 1999, and “where she said she worked.” The NRA has confirmed that Bialek worked for the trade group from 1996 to 1997.

Asked about Karen Kraushaar, an accuser whose name was made public Tuesday, Cain called her allegations baseless. “To the best of my recollection that is the one that I recall that filed a complaint, but it was found to be baseless.” He said he doesn’t remember any of her accusations, except for making a gesture that she was the same height as his wife.

Cain said there was a “machine” trying to keep a businessman out of the White House, and said Sharon Bialek was a “troubled woman” put forward by “the Democrat machine.”

Cain said that the American people want a businessman to be president, and “a businessman by the name of Herman Cain has stepped forward. Here I am.

“As far as these accusations causing me to back off and maybe withdraw from this primary race, ain’t gonna happen, because I am doing this for the American people and for the children and the grandchildren.”

Two women filed sexual harassment complaints against Cain while he was president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association between 1996 and 1999 and received financial settlements. One of them was identified Tuesday as Karen Kraushaar, who know works as a spokesperson for the Treasury Department. Kraushaar told ABC News that she wants to do a press conference with the other accusers, though this is “not the way I wanted to get my 15 minutes of fame.”

A third woman told the Associated Press that she had considered filing a sexual harassment claim against Cain, but decided not to because a coworker had already done so.

There may just be something to Cain’s theory that the Dems are out to get him.

Karen Kraushaar, a 55-year-old former journalist who currently works for the Obama administration, was outed today [Tuesday] as one of the three women who had filed sexual harassment complaints against Cain.

Kraushaar now serves as a communications director at the Inspector General’s Office of the Treasury Department, a position she has held since 2010.

And dailymail.co.uk reports the following about the latest accuser, Gloria Allred’s client, Sharon Bielek:

A Fox News reporter confronted Ms Bialek during an interview today about living in the same building as Obama top aid David Axelrod.

She was asked: ‘One of the things is that you lived at a 505 North Lake Shore Drive apartment, right? This is the same building, it happens to be the same building David Axelrod lives in. Do you know David Axelrod? Ever have any interaction with him at all?’

David Axlerod? You mean Obama’s former Senior Adviser, who’s running his re-election campaign?

You betcha.

But, certainly Mr. Axlerod would not be involved in anything shady, would he?

Allow me to relate a little story to you (courtesy of information found at americanthinker.org):

In 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama decided to run for The United States Senate.

As the campaigns entered their closing rounds, the news ”happened to be” leaked to media outlets that both Hull and Ryan [his opponents] had “personal scandals” in their past. The timely release of this news wiped out both of their campaigns, leading to an easy victory for Obama in the primary and then in the general election.

The New York Times Magazine revealed that David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political and media adviser, may well have been behind the leak of the story that doomed the Hull candidacy as the primary reached its home stretch.

As he has shown over the years, Axelrod was right at home operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. One can not bring up Axelrod’s name in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. Approaching the 2004 Senate primary, it was clear that it was a two-man race: the millionaire liberal, Hull, leading in the polls, and Obama, who was the figurehead of an impressive grass-roots campaign. One month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune “just happened” to reveal, at the end of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. This revelation proceeded to erupt into a full-fledged scandal. This scandal destroyed Hull’s campaign and handed Obama an easy primary victory.

The Tribune reporter who wrote the story later admitted in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. However, a lot of folks in Chicago believe that Axelrod leaked the initial story. They will tell you that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign just happened to start at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was in the works for a long time.

Axlerod’s explanation?

An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you.

Is anybody else getting a strange feeling of Deja Vu?  Or is it just me?