Wherever I go, whoever I talk to, I’m getting asked the same question over and over again:

How did we end up with having to choose between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as the Republican Nominee for President?

Well, the ever-so-exciting Tim Pawlenty dropped out.  So did the toast (according to his Democrat buddies) of last year’s annual Gridiron Dinner, Mitch Daniels.

Then, Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin headed for more sane and lucrative pastures as she withdrew to simply be a pundit for the next 5 years.

That left us with a cranky old isolationist (Ron Paul), a Conservative woman labelled Crazy Eyes by the Main Street Media (Michele Bachmann), a Pennsylvania Conservative (Rick Santorum), who is about as exciting as dry white toast, and a wealthy Mormon heir who worked for, and still speaks highly of, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

Now, what do Romney and Gingrich have to look forward to, in their quest to secure their party’s nomination?

Well, after they get through eviscerating each other down to their skivvies, the pack of piranhas known as the Main Street Media are going to give them both a thorough and quite public examination that their proctologists will be envious of.

We have no clue as to a lot of the details of the life of the present Leader of the Free World, but you can be darn sure that the American public will know how many zits Newt popped as a teenager and when the first time was that Mitt used Brylcreem on that luxurious hair of his.

And that’s just the above-board research.

Obama’s Hatchet Man, David Axlerod, is sure to get the nod to finish the job.  I would bet you (not $10,000, because I’m as broke as the rest of hard-working Americans in the Heartland, thanks to Obamanomics) that he’s been a busy little henchman already.

Sherman, start up the Wayback Machine:

In 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) decided to run for The United States Senate.

In order to have a successful Senatorial campaign, Scooter had to secure tremendous financial backing and be the recipient of astute political mentoring. No problem.

It is now very well-known that George Soros, evil genius, major Democratic Party donor and anti-Israel crusader, has been a generous contributor to Barack Obama. However, not too many people know that a loophole in McCain-Feingold allowed Soros and his family members to be extremely generous in their support of Obama’s 2004 Senatorial campaign.

Obama had to run against Blair Hull in the primary and then Jack Ryan in the general (both multi-millionaires). Obama received huge donations from individuals, to so-called “millionaires exception.” Usually, individuals are limited to giving $2300 to candidates in federal elections, but if the candidates are running against millionaires, these limits do not apply and candidates are allowed to receive up to $12,000 from a single individual. Soros and his family gave Barack Obama $60,000. This does not count the money that Soros was funneled to so-called 527 groups (Moveon.org, for example) that have also been politically active; nor does it include money that Soros raised from tapping a network of friends, business associates, and employees.

Besides garnering unlimited campaign funds, as the campaigns entered their closing rounds, the news ”happened to be” leaked to media outlets that both Hull and Ryan 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.

I’m shocked.

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.

Translation:  Maybe I did it, maybe I didn’t.  [Wink, wink.  Nod, nod.  Knowing glance.]

Keep you eyes peeled, Americans.  We may be living a sequel.

Mercurial Conservative Talk Radio Host Michael Savage has made an offer to Republican Presidential  Nominee Candidate, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who happens to be the current front runner for his party’s nomination:

Newt Gingrich is unelectable. Mitt Romney is the only candidate with a chance of defeating Barack Obama, and there is nothing more important than that for the future heath, safety, and security of the United States of America. Therefore, I am offering Newt Gingrich one million dollars to drop out of the presidential race for the sake of the nation.

If Newt Gingrich really loves this country as much as he says he does, if he really wants what is best for America, he will set his ego aside, call me, and accept my offer. His continued candidacy spells nothing but ruin for conservatives, Republicans, and all true American patriots, One million dollars in exchange for preserving the nation, Newt. I say take the money … and don’t run.

Also jumping on the “Get Rid of Newt” Bandwagon is Conservative/Libertarian Talk Show Host Glenn Beck, who laid this unexpected little “turncoat moment” on us:

Over the weekend Beck followed up last week’s headline-making interview with Newt Gingrich with an appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Fox Business show.

Beck, who is no fan of what he terms Gingrich’s “progressive” politics, declared that Gingrich is the “only candidate I cannot vote for” before taking a rather brutal (if totally true to form)swipe at Tea Party supporters.

If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.

The plot sickens…errr….thickens:

On a podcast this weekend hosted by Steve Bannon (who Dave Weigel notes is the director of the Sarah Palin documentary “The Undefeated” and lives in a D.C. house rented by Andrew Breitbart) Breitbart pushed back.

“Beck is a coward and won’t defend himself when he makes a mistakes…the self-appointed historian of the conservative movement, an autodidact who’s read a lot of books over the last few years….This guy is a huckster. He’s always been a huckster. It was only a few years ago that he was a shock jock, that he was a morning zoo guy. And he’s been taking people’s content for years and not crediting it.”

It’s worth noting the first time Breitbart and Beck tangled — though “tangled” is somewhat misleading since normally what happens is that in an attempt to generate some attention for himself Breitbart complains loudly about Beck and Beck ignores him — was over the Shirley Sherrod video.

In 2010 Breitbart, heady with the success of the James O’Keefe’s ACORN takedown, posted an edited video of USDA official Shirley Sherrod‘s speech at a March 27 speech at an NAACP banquet telling the audience she had denied a white farmer funding and claimed it was ““video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient.” Sherrod was promptly denounced and fired before anyone thought to check the full address which decided un-racist.

The next night Beck railed against the video on his Fox News show (though notably not against Breitbart), something the White House, among others, was not anticipating.

Cut to a year and a half later and Beck is sweepingly accusing the Tea Party of racist inclinations and Andrew Breitbart is angry about it.

In addition to all this, Beck said Monday morning on his radio show that if Newt Gingrich is the nominee and Ron Paul runs third party, he’d consider voting for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich, even though he hates Ron Paul’s policies on the Middle East.

(I don my Peter Falk as Lt. Columbo rumpled raincoat and interrupt.)

Uhhh….excuse me…excuse me… Mr. Beck, sir.  May I ask you a question, please, sir?

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR EVER-LOVING COTTON-PICKING MIND?

I realize that Newt has had his less-than-Conservative moments.  However, so have you, sir.  You tend to lean more toward the Libertarian side on a bunch of issues.

So, are you jumping ship, now that the candidates you have been pushing Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, both good Conservatives, have faded into the sunset?

I have another question, sir.  Please forgive me if this is politically incorrect, but it needs to be asked:  What are your feelings toward your fellow Mormons, Huntsman and Romney?  I know that Huntsman’s Father, a great humanitarian, is a close confidant of yours.  You’ve spoken of his several times over the years.

Does loyalty to the LDS hold any sway with your thought process?

No offense meant, sir.  Just asking.

(Hangs Columbo raincoat up)

I’ve listened to Glenn Beck for years. His words and actions of the last few days have me shaking my head.  Does he or doesn’t he want to evict Obama from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Has his zeal in labeling Progressives of both political parties just alienated him from the very people who have supported him all of these years and made him as rich as Midas?

Dr. Savage, I’ve listened to you over the years, also.  Try decaf.  Romney’s going to be lucky to win New Hampshire.

No.  Newt is not an ideal candidate.  But, he is the best of what’s left.

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.