You’re a candidate for your party’s Presidential Nomination.  You were once the leader of the entire pack of hopefuls, despite maintaining only 25% of the vote in your own party.

Now, from seemingly out of nowhere, a Former Speaker of the House, a historian no less, is leading you by almost double your percentage of the votes.

This  is positively blowing your mind.  You are a Second Generation Governor, fergoshsakes.  You’re a financial genius (just ask you).

By golly, this nomination is owed you by your party’s Elite.  It’s your legacy!

What are you going to do?

Well, evidently, if you’re Willard Mitt Romney, you and your minions are going to take a page out of President Barack Hussein Obama’s Playbook of Chicago Politics and resort to a blistering, low-road, ad hominem attack.

ABC reports:

Mitt Romney today [Saturday] said he believes that Newt Gingrich, with “no question in my mind,” would be the easier candidate for President Obama to beat in the general election, hinting that he and the former House speaker would bump heads at Saturday night’s debate to define their differences.

In an exclusive sit-down interview with ABC News anchor David Muir this afternoon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Romney shied away from attacking Gingrich outright but suggested that a more pointed exchange between him and Gingrich will happen as soon as the next debate.

“Well, we’ll be talking about issues, of course, and we have differing views on some issues and we’ll be talking about those differences,” he said. “That’s, after all, the nature of a debate.”

Pressed on whether he’d be willing to mix it up with Gingrich on stage, Romney didn’t explicitly rule it out.

“I’d expect Newt Gingrich and I will have some differences and we’ll be able to discuss those as well,” Romney said.

After 24 hours of scathing attacks directed at Gingrich from Romney surrogates, with several people associated with the campaign using words such as “untrustworthy” and “unreliable” to describe Gingrich, Romney was asked whether he, too, believes Gingrich is untrustworthy.

“Well [there are] a lot of people that worked with Speaker Gingrich in the past and they’re going to say whatever they will,” Romney said. “Heaven knows I can’t write a script for all the people that support me.”

Questioned specifically about the television ad, “Leader,” which touts Romney’s family values, the candidate told ABC News that the ad was not intended to be a veiled swipe at Gingrich.

“Actually, in each of my campaigns, I’ve begun advertising season with an ad about me and my family and my values,” he said.

“There was no attempt to in any way to implicate anybody else in that,” he said. “I’m just trying to let people know who I am.”

As for whether Gingrich’s personal life – specifically his three marriages – should be considered a liability, Romney said he would “not give advice to the American people as to what they should look when they decide who should be their nominee or their president.”

“I’m not going to tell them which things they’re allowed to consider,” Romney said, ”and which things they’re not.”

Meanwhile, the object of this onslaught, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich took the high road:

Newt Gingrich vowed this afternoon [Saturday] to stay “relentlessly positive” as Fight Night looms in Iowa, as he talked to the roughly 200 people crammed into his recently-opened Urbandale headquarters for a kick-off event.

But Gingrich also drew a distinction between “attack ads” that are distortive of records, and contrasts about differences, which he said are different, and acceptable.

“We should focus on solutions,” Gingrich said, adding that the discussion has to be “positive” or the nominee will never be strong enough to take on President Obama.

“We have a very, very good chance to do very well on Jan. 3. we will only do well if each of you helps us,” he said, drifting into a bit of process saying: “Historically over a third of the people who go to caucus are not quite sure when they walk in the door.”

“My campaign will be relentlessly positive,” he said. “There’s not a problem (when people) compare records…there’s a big difference…between negative attack ads that are destructive, and legitimate comparisons.”

“We’re not going to be tearing people down,” Gingrich said, adding he would “attack” any super PAC supporting him that runs ads slamming another candidate, a day after the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC started airing attack ads agains the former House Speaker.

Remember the “Highlights” magazines that we all used to read in the doctor’s office as children?  There was a cartoon in the magazine titled “Goofus and Gallant”.  Goofus was a youngster who always made poor decisions.  Gallant was a young man who always tried to do the right thing.

At this moment, December 11, 2011, guess which candidate is Goofus and which candidate is Gallant?

Awww…you guessed.

Note From KJ:  I’ve read where Mitt Romney challenged Gov. Perry to accept a $10,000 bet last night.  Considering the economic plight of average Americans, that was a wee bit gauche, don’t you think?

President Barack Hussein Obama and First Lady Michelle hosted a traditional ceremony at the White House yesterday, and, as we say down in Dixie:

Y’all ain’t gonna believe this mess.

The less-than-objective Associated Press reported that

Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden convened a Hanukkah celebration at the White House Thursday in an early celebration of the Jewish Festival of Lights.

Obama said the Hanukkah story was about “right over might, faith over doubt.” In the Hanukkah story, a small band of Jews rededicating a Jerusalem temple found that a one-day supply of oil kindled a flame instead for eight.

The president noted “our unshakeable support and commitment to the security of the nation of Israel.”

Hanukkah begins at sunset on Dec. 20. Obama joked that everyone needs to be “careful that your kids don’t start thinking Hanukkah lasts 20 nights instead of eight.”

This is just wrong on sooo many levels.

First, Scooter, you don’t light all the candles at the same time.

On the first night of Hanukkah and on all other nights during the holiday, the middle candle (called a shamash) is lit first. The shamash does not count as one of the Hanukkah candles, but is used to light all the other candles.

Families usually light their Hanukkah menorah directly or soon after nightfall. If Hanukkah begins on Shabbat, the Hanukkiyah should be lit just before sundown.

Secondly, and most importantly, since when has this Administration been a friend of Israel and the Jewish people, except when it’s time to cozy up to the Democratic Jewish Elite for campaign contributions?

Yesterday, Neil Snyder, writing for americanthinker.com, posted an article, “You Can’t be Pro-Obama and Pro-Israel”.  Here are some excerpts:

Barack Obama is no Friend of Israel.

Since the day he took office, President Obama has been anti-Israel. He has taken advantage of every opportunity to snub Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu; he has created false hope among so-called “Palestinians”; and he has fomented problems in the Middle East that Israel is being forced to suffer through.

“Dithering” is an apt word for describing the president’s policies regarding Israel. In a nutshell, it means that the president doesn’t have an Israel policy.  He makes it up as he goes along, and nothing is certain except that he has created a colossal mess in the entire Middle East for us and for Israel.

For example, what were the president’s policies regarding freedom-seeking Arabs who wanted changes in their political systems during the Arab Spring? Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s president, had to go and so did Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s president. But what about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? President Obama wasn’t sure about him. As of December 1, 2011, the death toll in Syria was more than 4000 and rising, but the Obama administration has done precious little to quell the senseless violence.

…This is the bottom line. Israel has no friends in the Middle East, and her enemies are growing stronger by the day. One of the most incendiary political questions today is whether Israel is preparing to strike Iran, but the fact is that with help from Iran, Israel’s enemies are preparing to deliver what they think will be a death blow to Israel. Repeatedly over the years, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has boldly asserted that Iran intends to “wipe Israel off the map.” The day has finally arrived when the Iranians think they are ready to launch a coordinated attack, and political instability in Syria may have prevented an attack in September.

Now more than ever before Israel needs a friend in the White House, and Barack Obama is not that person. After examining the facts, I am forced to conclude that you can’t be pro-Obama and pro-Israel.

 No kiddin’.

Do you remember what happened back in May, when Obama got “schooled” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu?

The day after Obama spoke to the American people from the State Department, with an audience of 12 sycophants, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, commanding the nation of Israel to give up half of their nation to the Palestinions, including a number of Christian holy places, he had a scheduled face-to-face meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu.

To say that it did not go well for Obama, is like saying that General Custer had a minor disagreement with the Indians.

In a magnificent display of leadership, Prime Minister Netanyahu told Obama what he could do with his command that Israel return to its 1967 boundaries.

Their meeting ran over by two hours, cancelling their luncheon plans.

While the two leaders agreed that there must be ironclad Israeli security alongside a Palestinian nation, no progress whatsoever was made on the issue of where the borders should be.

In response to Thursday’s speech by Obama, Netanyahu said:

While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines. These lines are indefensible.

As they sat together on a couch in front of the cameras after their private meeting, an uncomfortable looking Obama tried his best to spin their meeting into a positive thing. The president said:

Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulatons and language. That’s going to happen between friends.

Looking toward Netanyahu, he added:

What we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluation of any prospective deal.

And that’s when the President of the United States was taken to school.

While Obama acted like he was listening intently, he squirmed around on the couch as if his bloomers were riding up.  He knew that he was being humbled.

The animated, passionate Prime Minister of Israel gave Obama a lesson in leadership, saying:

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.

If that was “unshakeable support and commitment to the security of the nation of Israel”, Mr. President, I’m a blonde Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader named Buffy.

Next year, Mr. President, skip the Menorah lighting, and let Joe do it.  At least he might be more believable.  You will be a Lame Duck, anyway.  There will be no need for any Hanukkah hypocrisy then.

What in blazes is wrong with the Obama Administration?

A loaded question I know, whose answer could use up the bandwidth of the whole cotton-pickin’ internet.

However, my question is the result of this report from Fox News:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

Workplace violence?

70 years ago yesterday, was it “workplace violence” that launched America into World War II?

On the morning of December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a surprise air attack on the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. After just two hours of bombing, more than 2,400 Americans were dead, 21 ships^* had either been sunk or damaged, and more than 188 U.S. aircraft destroyed.

Was this “workforce violence” in 1984?

On October 23, a suicide truck containing 12,000 pounds of explosives was driven into the American Marine compound at the Beirut Airport, killing 241 Marines. Most reports claimed that the Syrians were behind the bombing, driven by their desire to force the Americans out of Beirut. Thar goal was achieved and, on February 26, 1984, the last American Marines left Beirut.

“Workplace violence”, my hindquarters.

MSNBC reported the story on 11/5/2009, being very careful not to identify the mass murderer as a Radical Muslim:

An Army psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others, was shot but captured alive, military officials said late Thursday.

The gunman, identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was wounded at the scene but was captured alive and was in stable condition, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, commanding general of the Army’s III Corps, said at a press conference late Thursday.

Eleven of the victims died at the scene, military officials said. A 12th died later at a hospital, NBC station KCEN-TV of Waco reported. Cone said that most of those who were shot were military but two were civilians.

Cone also said that a female officer who was thought to be the first responder shot Hasan and was herself wounded and had undergone surgery at a hospital. It was not clear if the officer was a military policewoman or a civilian officer.

Col. Ben Danner said the suspect was shot at least four times. “I would say his death is not imminent,” Cone said, adding that Hasan was in custody at a hospital.

It initially was reported that Hasan had been killed at the scene. But Cone said at the press conference that Hasan had been in custody since the incident occurred, and there was no explanation of the earlier report.

U.S. officials said Hasan was an Army psychiatrist, NBC News reported. Defense officials said Hasan, 39, arrived at Fort Hood in July after practicing for six years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, which included a fellowship in disaster and preventive psychiatry.

At Walter Reed, Hasan received a poor performance evaluation, according to an official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

There was no official word on motive. But Hasan was scheduled to be deployed overseas on Nov. 28, officials said. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said military officials had told her that Hasan was “pretty upset” about his deployment, which she said was to be to Iraq.

The Executive Summary of the Senate Report on the Ft. Hood Shootings  breaks the massacre down for those who are too politically correct to speak the truth and shame the Devil:

Although neither DoD nor the FBI had specific information concerning the time, place, or nature of the attack, they collectively had sufficient information to have detected Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it.

Our investigation found specific and systemic failures in the government’s handling of the Hasan case and raises additional concerns about what may be broader systemic issues.

Both the FB I and DoD possessed information indicating Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism. And, to the FB I’s credit, it flagged Hasan from among the chaff of 7 intelligence collection for additional scrutiny. However, the FBI and DoD together failed to recognize and to link the information that they possessed about Hasan:

1. Hasan was a military officer who lived under a regimented system with strict officership and security standards, standards which his behavior during his military medical training violated;

2. The government had [REDACTED] communications from Hasan to a suspected terrorist, [REDACTED], who was involved in anti-American activities and the subject of an unrelated FBI terrorism investigation. This individual will be referred to as the “Suspected Terrorist” in this report. Although both the public and the private signs of Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism while on active duty were known to government official s, a string of failures prevented these officials from intervening against him prior to the attack.

Evidence of Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism was on full display to his superiors and colleagues during his military medical training.

An instructor and a colleague each referred to Hasan as a “ticking time bomb.” Not only was no action taken to discipline or discharge him, but also his Officer Evaluation Reports sanitized his obsession with violent Islamist extremism into praiseworthy research on counterterrorism.

I believe that the politically-correct, stupid insensitivity of the Defense Department’s description of the Ft. Hood Massacre can be traced all the way back to President Barack Hussein Obama’s remarks that fateful day, in front of a crowd at the Tribal Nations Conference, hosted by the Department of the Interior:

“I planned to make some broader remarks,” he told the crowd. “But as some of you might have heard there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas.”

The president’s words on the deadly rampage came two minutes after he gave a “shout out” to an audience member and stressed the need to pass health care reform.

“I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It’s good to see you,” he said.

On Friday, Obama opened his remarks at a brief press conference in the White House Rose Garden in which he warned the American public against “jumping to conclusions” over the motives of the shooter.

“This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow servicemen and women,” he said. “We don’t know all of the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts.”

The pussy-footing attitude by this White House concerning calling Muslim Terrorists, Muslim Terrorists comes straight from the president himself.

The buck stops there.

And, by the way, the actions of that cowardly Muslim Terrorist who murdered members of our Best and Brightest at Ft. Hood wasn’t a “man-caused disaster”, either.

Yesterday, the 44th president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, spoke to a pre-approved crowd in the Osawatomie, Kansas High School Gym, promoting a New Nationalism, paying homage to President Teddy Roosevelt’s famous speech which he made during his re-election bid in 1910, while running as a Progressive.

During his 500th (or, at least, it seems that way) speech based upon class warfare, Obama said:

Today, we are still home to the world’s most productive workers and innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t – and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

For many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over the harsh realities of this new economy. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or sometimes even understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets – and huge bonuses – made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs, homes, and the basic security of millions – innocent, hard-working Americans who had met their responsibilities, but were still left holding the bag.

Ever since, there has been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity; balance and fairness. Throughout the country, it has sparked protests and political movements – from the Tea Party to the people who have been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. And it’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women who are running for president.

But this isn’t just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for too many years. Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Well, I’m here to say they are wrong. I’m here to reaffirm my deep conviction that we are greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.

Actually, Mr. President, those are Marxist values.

As you said to Joe the Plumber, over 3 long years ago:

…I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

During President Roosevelt’s speech in 1910, he said:

If our political institutions were perfect, they would absolutely prevent the political domination of money in any part of our affairs. We need to make our political representatives more quickly and sensitively responsive to the people whose servants they are. More direct action by the people in their own affairs under proper safeguards is vitally necessary. The direct primary is a step in this direction, if it is associated with a corrupt-services act effective to prevent the advantage of the man willing recklessly and unscrupulously to spend money over his more honest competitor. It is particularly important that all moneys received or expended for campaign purposes should be publicly accounted for, not only after election, but before election as well. Political action must be made simpler, easier, and freer from confusion for every citizen. I believe that the prompt removal of unfaithful or incompetent public servants should be made easy and sure in whatever way experience shall show to be most expedient in any given class of cases.

One of the themes of Roosevelt’s New Nationalism was responsible government.

I wonder what the Rough Rider would think of this speech by the current president, whose campaign was partially funded by anonymous donors from the Middle East?

I don’t believe that he would think that it was “bully!”…although the first 4 letters of that word would probably be appropriate.

Remember the old adage,  “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”?

Evidently, Former (I loved writing that) Speaker of the House Nancy “San Fran Nan” Pelosi evidently doesn’t.

Yesterday, she proudly announced that

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House, worked with Pelosi in Congress from 1987 to 1999. Pelosi also served on the ethics committee that investigated Gingrich for tax cheating and campaign finance violations in the late ’90s.

Gingrich reacted to Pelosi’s comments by thanking her for an “early Christmas gift.”

He also said Pelosi would be violating House rules and abusing the ethics process if she disclosed anything from the ethics investigation.

“That is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House,” Gingrich said in New York following a meeting with Donald Trump. “She’s now prepared to totally abuse the ethics process.”

Releasing the material would show the “tainted ethics process the House was engaged in,” Gingrich said.

The ethics investigation of Gingrich took place when Republicans controlled the House. Gringrich resigned from the House in 1998.

Responding to Gingrich’s comments, a spokesman for Pelosi said the former Speaker was “clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.”

A spokesman for the House Ethics Committee declined to comment on “current rules in the context of allegations concerning past conduct, or hypothetical future conduct governed by past rules.”

About that glass house which San Fran Nan lives in :

Back on 5/21/09, the Wall Street Journal ran the following article:

In an effort to keep political pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Republicans offered a resolution today calling for an investigation in to Pelosi’s recent comments about when and how she was informed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the use of certain interrogation methods.

“It is imperative that we try and find the truth of that matter,” said Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop, who introduced the resolution calling for the creation of an investigative subcommittee under the Intelligence Committee to “verify the accuracy of the speaker’s aforementioned public statements” and report to the House within 60 calendar days.

Democrats blocked a vote on the resolution on procedural grounds on a near party line 252-172 vote. Just two Republicans—Ron Paul of Texas and Walter B. Jones of North Carolina—voted with Democrats to table the resolution.

Republicans have kept up a steady stream of attacks on the speaker since she accused the CIA of misleading Congress over interrogation methods. Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio has called on Pelosi to offer proof of the allegation or apologize for the comment, while former Speaker Newt Gingrich has gone so far as to suggest she resign as speaker.

“We will continue to press for an appropriate bipartisan response to this serious situation,” Boehner said in a statement.

The Democrats controlled the House at the time, so nothing ever became of the charges.

However, last month, ol’ San Fran Nan’s glass house got rocked again, this time, from a very unexpected source, someone she thought was an ally:

Steve Kroft, who interviewed her for 60 minutes.   Investors.com reports

Why, he asked, had she and her husband participated in “a very large” initial public offering “from Visa at a time when there was major legislation affecting credit-card companies making its way through the House?”

The legislation in question, a bill introduced by then-Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers in March 2008, would have let merchants negotiate lower swipe fees with credit card companies.

The bill made it out of committee on Oct. 3, 2008, but never to the floor for a vote. A version of the swipe-fee bill made it into an amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to the Dodd-Frank bill in 2010.

As the bill was proceeding, Pelosi’s husband, Paul, a wealthy San Francisco investor of the type the Occupy Wall Street mobs have targeted, bought $1 million to $5million of Visa stock in three separate transactions in a part of the IPO that “60 Minutes” said was offered to a select group of investors.

Interestingly, the wealthy Pelosi has voiced support for the OWS mobs, calling them a genuine and spontaneous movement protesting the very financial wheeling and dealing that the great unwashed feel has victimized them. She gained the speaker’s gavel in 2006 while railing against an alleged GOP “culture of corruption.”

Pelosi is also a big fan of green energy. So is her brother-in-law, Ronald Pelosi, a senior executive with a company called Pacific Corporate Group.

Among PCG’s investments is SolarReserve, based in Santa Monica, Calif., which received a $737 million loan guarantee to build a 110-megawatt solar-thermal plant in Tonopah, Nev.

The loan was granted on the last day of the stimulus loan program, which also gave over half a billion to a failing but politically connected Solyndra.

While speaker, Pelosi was famous for her use of government aircraft to ferry back and forth from her San Francisco district.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, Air Pelosi, as critics called the fleet, cost the taxpayers $28,210.51 per flight.

Her fondness for Boeing aircraft does not extend to supporting Boeing’s plan to create badly needed jobs in the right-to-work state of South Carolina.

As we have noted, she says if the plant is nonunion, the National Labor Relations Board should shut the project down.

Pelosi doesn’t live in a glass house.  She lives in a glass mansion.

Gingrich has already tried desperately (and I don’t blame him) to distance himself from the ad he made with then-House Speaker Pelosi in 2008 to urge action on climate change. Last month, Gingrich called the ad “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years” last month.

Live and learn, Newt.  These people are not, and have never been, your friends.  And, by ex-Madame Speaker’s actions yesterday, she has shown the country exactly who the Dems’ next target is.  And it’s not Mitt Romney.

Gosh.  I wonder why.

Illegal Aliens seemingly have it made, entering the last year of “President Lightbringer’s” Administration, as the number of arrests made for breaking into this country is at its lowest since the 1970s.

The Border Patrol apprehended 327,577 illegal crossers along the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2011, which ended Sept. 30, numbers not seen since Richard Nixon was president, and a precipitous drop from the peak in 2000, when 1.6 million unauthorized migrants were caught. More than 90 percent of the migrants apprehended on the southwest border are Mexican.

The number of illegal migrants arrested at the border has been dropping over the past few years but appears to be down by more than 25 percent this year.

Experts say that Border Patrol apprehensions are a useful marker for estimating the total flow of illegal migrants, though imprecise because the U.S. government has no idea how many are not caught. But coupled with census and labor data from both countries that show far fewer Mexicans coming to the United States and many returning home, it appears that the historic flood of Mexican migration north has slowed dramatically.

“We have reached the point where the balance between Mexicans moving to the United States and those returning to Mexico is essentially zero,” said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, whose conclusion was shared by many migration experts.

Such a steep drop in illegal crossings gives supporters of immigration reform ammunition to argue that now is a good time to tackle the issue.

In Congress, comprehensive immigration reform has been sidelined, stuck between those who would not allow illegal migrants to remain and others who are pushing, like President Obama, to create a “pathway” to legal status, but not necessarily citizenship.

The lower number of apprehensions supports the Obama administration’s contention that the border is more secure than ever — that the doubling of Border Patrol agents since 2004, along with hundreds of miles of new fence, cameras, lights, sensors and Predator drones, has helped slow the illegal flow northward.

But those who say the border remains out of control can point to the fact that hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants still try to make the crossing every year.

The views of the top two Republican candidates for their party’s Presidential Candidate Nomination are typical.  Newt Gingrich believes it is inhumane to deport any of the 11 million illegals who have been working here illegally for  years.

Realclearpolitics.com reports that Romney attacked Gingrich over the issue, during the GOP Debate on 11/22/11:

“Look, amnesty is a magnet. If people who come here illegally are going to get to stay” that will encourage more people to come illegally,” Romney said about Gingrich’s view on how to deal with illegal immigrants.

However, in a 2007 interview with “Meet the Press,” Mitt Romney said the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. should be able to obtain citizenship at some point.

“Well, whether they go home–they should go home eventually. There’s a set per–in my view they should be–they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there’s a set period where upon they should return home. And if they’ve been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they’ll be going home,” Romney said in the interview with Tim Russert.

Legalization, which is not amnesty, is not as generous as the outright citizenship Romney advocated in 2007.

So, was that a flip…or a flop?

To wrap up today’s blog, I refer you back to a rant from my post Illegality, Not Civil Rights.  This was an answer to a comment by a young man named Benito, who claimed to be a member of a pro-illegal immigration group, perhaps here illegally himself:

What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world?

By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens. They are like someone who breaks into someone’s home, does their dishes, cuts their yard, cleans their house, and then helps themselves to their food and drives their car without asking.  This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given. And with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, expect for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

A wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now.  Mr. President, quit playing political games.  The safety of America is at stake .

SECURE THE BORDER NOW.

Yesterday, I turned 53.  I had a nice afternoon and evening with my bride (the Queen of Christmas) as we sifted through our 6 plastic tubs of accumulated Christmas decorations.

As we sorted through our mess, trying to make something beautiful out of it, Herman Cain was attempting to do the same:

Per the Los Angeles Times:

Herman Cain, the insurgent populist whose candidacy has been ensnared by allegations of sexual impropriety, said Saturday that he is leaving the race for the Republican presidential nomination, saying that the allegations have cast a “cloud of doubt over me and this campaign.”

“As of today, with a lot of prayer and soul searching, I am suspending my presidential campaign,” he said at an event in Atlanta. “I am suspending my presidential campaign because of the continued distraction, the continued hurt . . . on me, on my family, not because we are not fighters, not because I am not a fighter.”

Cain’s campaign had sent mixed signals as to his future since Ginger White, an Atlanta woman who claims to have had an affair with Cain for more than a decade, went public with her story earlier this week. While Cain has said he has been “reassessing” his candidacy, he also, at times, has been fiercely defiant, suggesting that unnamed enemies have been trying to do him in and vowing to press forward.

“The pundits would like for me to shut up, drop out and go away,” he said. “I am not going to be silenced, and I am not going away.”

White’s claims came after Cain faced weeks of allegations of sexual misconduct by at least three women stemming from his tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Assn. in the late 1990s.

Even as Cain continued to decry the claims as “false” and “baseless,” the sheer weight of the scandal has taken a brutal toll on the campaign, diverting Cain from advocating the “9-9-9” tax plan that helped turn him into a household name almost overnight, costing him financial support, and damaging him in the polls.

Whether or not Cain is guilty of infidelity seems to pale in comparison, as Americans take stock of the political hatchet job perpetrated on the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza.

For instance, consider the following blog, published on alternet.org, on 2/15/11.  The web master describes the writer as the

Editor and founder of the blog We Are Respectable Negroes which has been featured by the NY Times, the Utne Reader, and The Atlantic Monthly. Writing under a pseudonym, Chauncey DeVega’s essays on race, popular culture, and politics have appeared in various books, as well as on such sites as the Washington Post’s The Root and Popmatters.

Check out this “respectable” hit piece:

…When race minstrelsy was America’s most popular form of mass entertainment, black actors would often have to pretend to be white men, who then in turn would put on the cork to play the role of the “black” coon, Sambo, or Jumping Jim Crow. Adding insult to injury, in a truly perverse and twisted example of the power of American white supremacy black vaudevillians would often pretend to be white in order to denigrate black people for the pleasures of the white gaze.

Herman Cain–an ironic name if ever, and one more suited to a tragic figure in a Harlem Renaissance era novella–is not “blackening twice” as some race minstrels chose to do.

[Unfortunately, the attendees at CPAC are not the butt of some type of joke where the white man wearing the cork is really a black man in secret.]

Instead, Herman Cain’s shtick is a version of race minstrelsy where he performs “authentic negritude” as wish fulfillment for White Conservative fantasies. Like the fountain at Lourdes, Cain in his designated role as black Conservative mascot, absolves the White racial reactionaries at CPAC of their sins. This is a refined performance that Black Conservatives have perfected over many decades and centuries of practice.

Let’s consider the routine. First, Cain enters the stage to Motown music. Then Cain feigns swimming after rolling up his sleeves to show them his black skin and how he is a hardworking negro (not like those other ones). Cain bellows in a preacher affected voice and channels the folksy negro down home accent of his late grandpappy. In the money shot, Cain gives the obligatory “black folks who are not Republicans are on the plantation” speech to the joyous applause of his White benefactors. And he doubles down by legitimating any opposition to President Barack Obama as virtuous and patriotic regardless of the bigoted well-springs from which it may flow.

In total, CPAC is a carnival and a roadshow for reactionary Conservatives. It is only fitting that in the great tradition of the freak show, the human zoo, the boardwalk, and the great midway world’s fairs of the 19th and 20th centuries, that there is a Borneo man, a Venus Hottentot or a tribe of cannibals from deepest darkest Africa or Papua New Guinea on display. For CPAC and the White Conservative imagination, Herman Cain and his black and brown kin are that featured attraction.

We always need a monkey in the window, for he/she reminds us of our humanity while simultaneously reinforcing a sense of our own superiority. Sadly, there are always folks who are willing to play that role because it pays so well.

Classy, huh?

If Cain actually did everything he is accused of, then, he certainly did not deserve to be president.

If though, he is innocent of the “charges” leveled against him, then Americans need to step back and consider the double standard practiced by a Liberal ideology and its Media minions that revere a former president who disgraced the Oval Office with an intern, and yet jump upon alleged, unproven infidelities concerning a man who was not even his party’s nominee, yet.

John Edwards was unavailable for comment on this story (mainly, because I didn’t ask him to.)

Under the cover of a Friday Night Document Dump, as has been the wont of this Administration when they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, President Barack Hussein Obama and his minions…

...provided Congress with documents detailing how department officials gave inaccurate information to a U.S. senator in the controversy surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the flawed law enforcement initiative aimed at dismantling major arms trafficking networks on the Southwest border.

In a letter last February to Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had not sanctioned the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser and that the agency makes every effort to intercept weapons that have been purchased illegally. In Operation Fast and Furious, both statements turned out to be incorrect.

The Justice Department letter was responding to Grassley’s statements that the Senate Judiciary Committee had received allegations the ATF had sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers. Grassley also said there were allegations that two of the assault weapons had been used in a shootout that killed customs agent Brian Terry.

In an email four days later to Justice Department colleagues, then-U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke in Phoenix said that “Grassley’s assertions regarding the Arizona investigation and the weapons recovered” at the “murder scene are based on categorical falsehoods. I worry that ATF will take 8 months to answer this when they should be refuting its underlying accusations right now.” That email marked the start of an internal debate in the Justice Department over what and how much to say in response to Grassley’s allegations. The fact that there was an ongoing criminal investigation into Terry’s murder prompted some at the Justice Department to argue for less disclosure.

Some of what turned out to be incorrect information was emailed to Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s criminal division. Breuer sent an email saying “let’s help as much as we can” in responding to Grassley.

The emails sent to Capitol Hill on Friday showed that Burke supplied additional incorrect information to the Justice Department’s criminal division that ended up being forwarded to Breuer. For example, Burke said that the guns found at the Terry murder scene were purchased at a Phoenix gun shop before Operation Fast and Furious began. In fact, the operation was under way at the time and the guns found at the Terry murder scene were part of the probe. Breuer was one of the recipients of that information. In written comments this week to Grassley, Breuer said that he was on a three-day official trip to Mexico at the time of the Justice Department response and that he was aware of, but not involved in, drafting the Justice Department statements to Grassley. Breuer says he cannot say for sure whether he saw a draft of the letter before it was sent to Grassley.

Where Burke got the inaccurate information is now part of an inquiry conducted by the inspector general’s office at the Justice Department.

So, someone who reports to Attorney General Eric Holder is investigating Eric Holder?

Heck, I feel better already, don’t you?

Rep. Darrell Issa has also been investigating this tragic fiasco for over a year now.  He was interviewed during a breakfast, hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, by The Washington Times:

“It is not about one person,” said Mr. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

“It is about a failure that seems to be pervasive within Justice that investigations play fast and loose with the expectations of what is right or wrong when it comes to what I am going to call collateral damage,” he said.

Mr. Issa said Fast and Furious was not the first federal investigation in which “bad people are allowed to continue to do bad things in the name of going after bad people.” He said he was not joining dozens of Republican congressmen in calling for Mr. Holder’s resignation in part because his committee had not “reached all the conclusions that are appropriate in this investigation.”

“(Mr. Holder) did not order this operation,” Mr. Issa said. “He didn’t demand they do something this stupid.” He said Mr. Holder should fix the problem and it was up to the White House to decide whether the attorney general should go.

Mr. Issa said congressional investigators had established that Fast and Furious was a “dumb program” and were now looking into a suspected “coverup” and also trying make sure a similar operation never happens again.

But, Rep. Issa…isn’t Eric Holder in charge of the Justice Department?  Therefore, he is responsible for everything that happened under his leadership.

Furthermore, isn’t President Barack Hussein Obama, the boss of Eric Holder?

Therefore, isn’t he responsible for Eric Holder’s performance as Attorney General?

Where does the buck stop, Rep. Issa?

Is it April Fool’s Day already?

President Barack Hussein Obama must think so.

The AP reports that President Obama tried to assuage Jewish supporters during a fundraising stop in New York hosted by a prominent Jewish donor, who had been billed among prospective fundraisers ahead of time as a chance for a “substantive and candid” discussion about concerns in the Jewish community.

Chief among them has been Israel and lingering questions among some Jewish voters about the administration’s commitment to Israel.

When the fundraiser’s host, American Jewish Congress chairman Jack Rosen, mentioned “concerns” about the ties between Israel and the U.S., Obama declared, “We don’t compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.”

According to the AP report, Obama said no ally surpasses Israel in importance to the U.S.

Yeah, right.  That used to be the case, prior to January 2009.

Tell us another story, Uncle Barry.

Allow me to direct your attention to the president’s Foreign Policy Speech last May 19th, when he said:

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

…Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”

That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, “peaceful, peaceful.” In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist.

Prying loose? Nope, Scooter. That grip in Egypt just got a whole lot tighter:

According to israelnationalnews.com:

Judges overseeing the vote count in Egypt’s parliamentary elections say Islamist parties have won a majority of the contested seats in the first round. The judges spoke on condition of anonymity because official results are expected to be released later Thursday.

They say the Muslim Brotherhood could take 45 percent of the seats up for grabs. The liberal Egyptian bloc coalition and the ultra-fundamentalist Nour party are competing for second place.

Together, Islamist parties are expected to control a majority of parliamentary seats by March. This week’s vote was the first of six stages of parliamentary elections that will last until then.

Continued success by Islamists will allow them to give Cairo’s government and constitution a decidedly Islamist character. It could also lead Cairo to shift away from the West towards the Iranian axis.

It will also diminish the influence of Cairo’s caretaker junta, which has sought to maintain the Mubarak-era status quo and keep US foreign aid dollars – running into the billions per annum – flowing.

Analysts say Islamists may also seek to annul the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which could prompt Israel to seize the Sinai Peninsula for the fourth time in its history to create a strategic buffer zone.

After reaching the Suez Canal in 1967 and controlling the Sinai for twelve years,, Israel ceded Sinai to Egypt under the 1979 treaty on condition it remains demilitarized.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which birthed the virulently anti-Israel Hamas terror militia, might also seek to effectively annex Gaza. Should Hamas be triumphant in future PA elections, they would also gain a foothold in Judea and Samaria.

…a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future…?

It appears that the volatile Middle East is in the process of making their choice, Mr. President, choosing hate and the shackles of barbarism.

Smart Power?  Hardly.

May God continue to protect Israel...and us, too.