Pop Quiz, Hot Shots:

Yesterday, President Barack Hussein Obama told a group:

You are the reason that I ran for office.

Whom was he speaking to?

A.  The Veterans of Foreign Wars

B.Those anonymous campaign donors from the Middle East

C.  The NBA

D.  Reggie Love

The answer is None of the Above:

President Obama was heckled on Tuesday during an appearance at a New Hampshire high school.

Obama had traveled north to the Granite State, which holds the nation’s first presidential primary, to discuss the economy and his proposal to extend a current payroll tax cut.

Just as the president started his speech, protesters, apparently from the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, used the “human mic” technique to amplify their voices. It was unclear what the protesters were saying, or what point they were attempting to make.

The president smiled through the disruption, saying: “No, it’s OK,” as other parts of the crowd sought to hush the protesters by chanting his name and old campaign slogan, “Yes We Can.”

“OK, guys,” Obama said after supporters drowned out the hecklers.

Obama to hecklers: ‘I’ll listen to you, you listen to me’

“I appreciate you guys making your point; let me go ahead and make mine,” Obama said before continuing his speech. “I’ll listen to you, you listen to me, OK?”

A few minutes later, Obama acknowledged the Occupy protest movement again, saying: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

So, the man who occupies the most important position in the world was trying to suck up to a bunch of depraved, publically-defecating, mom’s basement-dwelling, hygienically-challenged losers?

I’m not surprised.

Things just are not going very well for “the Lightbringer” these days.

When Obama arrived in the Granite State, he discovered that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had left him a greeting in the form of full page newspaper ads and a television commercial attacking the president.

“Your policies have failed,” Mr. Romney writes in an “open letter” to the president that is running in the state’s three biggest newspapers — the Union Leader, Concord Monitor, and The Telegraph — less than two months out from New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary.

The full-page ads are part of a broader offensive that coincides with Mr. Obama’s visit Tuesday to the Granite State and includes Mr. Romney’s first television spot of the campaign season, which blasts Mr. Obama and features snippets of Mr. Romney’s campaign speeches.

“I am confident that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis,” the ad shows Mr. Obama saying in the old footage, before “He failed” spills across the screen. “We need a rescue plan for the middle class. We need to provide relief for homeowners.”

The ad then moves to Mr. Obama saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

The Democratic National Committee has already suggested the ad is deceitful because the footage used is of Mr. Obama quoting an aide from Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008.

On Tuesday, the DNC said that Mr. Romney’s career has been built on deceiving people.

Pot…meet kettle.

“When he was running for governor he looked pro-choice activists in the eye and said he’d protect a woman’s right to choose and would even take that position to Washington if he pursued national office — now he wants to overturn Roe V. Wade and supports so called “personhood” policies,” the DNC said in a press release. “No candidate in modern times has had more trouble with the truth than Mitt Romney.”

If anyone should be able to recognize a prevaricator when they see one, it’s the Democratic National Committee.

I’ll bet you thought that since they ran them out of city parks from coast to coast and then sanitized the parks, we had heard the last of the OWS movement?

Nope.  They’ve got big plans.  These immature idiots plan on boycotting Black Friday.

Per their website:

Keep in mind that we are not occupying small businesses or hardworking people—we must make a distinction between the businesses that are in the pockets of Wall Street and the businesses that serve our local communities.

We are NOT anti-capitalist. Just anti-crapitalist.

Below is a shortlist for publicly traded large businesses to Occupy or to boycott on Black Friday. Luckily, most of them don’t have good presents anyway. If you want to see the top 100 retail businesses for 2010 to boycott, click here.

On Black Friday, Occupy or boycott:

– Abercrombie & Fitch [ANF 45.85 -0.62 (-1.33%) ]

– Amazon.com (yes, we have to stay away from Amazon, too!) [AMZN 192.34 3.09 (+1.63%) ]

– AT&T Wireless [ATT 27.04 0.15 (+0.56%) ]

– Burlington Coat Factory

– Dick’s Sporting Goods (I was surprised, too!) [DSG-FF 28.935 0.055 (+0.19%) ]

– Dollar Tree [DLTR 77.09 1.40 (+1.85%) ]

– The Home Depot [HD 37.10 0.04 (+0.11%) ]

– Neiman Marcus

– OfficeMax [OMX 4.49 0.09 (+2.05%) ]

– Toys R’Us [JPM 29.41 -0.50 (-1.67%) ]

– Verizon Wireless [VZN 94.30 -0.40 (-0.42%) ]

– Wal-Mart [WMT 56.85 0.19 (+0.34%) ]

Solidarity!”

They probably sent the message out from their iPhones.

I tell you what, boys and girls.  C’mon down to DeSoto County, Mississippi and try to stand in front of that Michigander I married, my daughter-in-law, or any of the other little flowers of womanhood out before dawn’s early light in quest of bargains this Friday morning and see what happens.

You’ll wish you would have stayed in your Moms’ basements.

The bipartisan congressional Supercommittee, who were given the assignment of trying to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction announced yesterday that they have been as effective as Casey at the Bat:

They’ve struck out.

According to this august body, they are at loggerheads and the chance of success at this point equals the chance of the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series.

Supercommittee co-chairs, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., announced:

After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline.

The declaration came late Monday afternoon in a written statement from the 12-member Joint Select Committee.

The committee come up a loser because the Republicans refused to raise taxes and cut defense spending and the Democrats said no to any entitlement reforms, because, after all, the elections are less than a year away.

The Supercommitte was created this summer under a law agreed to by Republicans and Democrats in the throes of political panic during the debt ceiling crisis.

Unfortunately, that very law allows the committee’s failure to trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts over 10 years, starting in 2013.  Known as a sequestration, it will include cuts to spending on our National Defense.

Republican lawmakers are promising to immediately sponsor legislation to block those automatic cuts to the defense budget.

Our country’s deficit stands now at about $15 trillion. And things are not going to get any better, anytime soon. In fact, yesterday’s Stock Market freefall was in anticipation of the failure announcement by the Supercommittee.

President Barack Hussein Obama came on national television in a press conference after the Supercommittee’s announcement threatening to veto any attempts to get around the automatic cuts.

He basically told Congress that they had 1 more year to do it his way…or else.

That’s an awful nice system of checks and balances you got there…it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it…

Meanwhile, GOP Elite/Main Stream Media Favorite Mitt Romney tried to make a little political hay concerning the situation:

Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney criticized President Barack Obama on Sunday for refusing to intervene in congressional talks to cut the deficit.

With the so-called supercommittee at an impasse ahead of Wednesday’s deadline, Mr. Romney blamed the president for the apparent failure of the bipartisan panel, which was tasked with finding savings in excess of $1.2 trillion. He also called on Mr. Obama to introduce legislation to restore $600 billion in defense spending that will be cut automatically if the panel fails to offer alternatives.

“He hasn’t had any role,” Mr. Romney told roughly 200 supporters outside the city hall building in Nashua, where he appeared for a campaign event with Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. “He’s done nothing. It’s another example of failed leadership.”

The problem Obama is beginning to face, as his re-election bid rolls along, it’s not just the opposition party who’s out gunning for him.  Some of his own political party are beginning to pile on, also.

ABC News’ Mary Bruce and Richard Esposito reported yesterday about one of the president’s staunchest minions…er…supporters who seems to be distancing himself just a little bit:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg today said the failure of the supercommittee is a “damning indictment of Washington’s inability to govern” and blamed President Obama in part for the breakdown of the debt talks.

“It’s the chief executive’s job to bring people together and to provide leadership in difficult situations. I don’t see that happening,” Bloomberg said at a news conference. “The failure of the committee will mean that thousands of jobs that would have been created will just go without being created. And thousands of men and women who would have gotten back to work will remain unemployed.”

Bloomberg, who has been rumored as a potential third-party candidate in the upcoming presidential elections, criticized both parties for their lack of action.

“I think it’s a failure, you know people say, who do you blame? The blame is both sides of the aisle and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue,” he said.

The White House has defended the president’s engagement with the super-committee.

“This committee was established by an act of Congress. It was comprised of members of Congress. Instead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game, Congress should act, fulfill its responsibility,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Monday.

Obama and the Democrats pulled for the formation of this Supercommittee in order to lay a trap for Republicans, by showing them as unwilling to compromise.

The problem for Obama and his political party is that it is exposing his failure of leadership, even more.

And Republicans holding fast on National Defense Spending is not exactly a negative message.

The First Lady of the United States of America, Michelle Obama, and the wife of the Vice-President, Dr. Jill Biden, attended the NASCAR Sprint Cup Finale yesterday.

When FLOTUS was introduced as Grand Marshall for the race, judging from the reaction of the NASCAR fans in attendance, one might have thought they were ringside at Monday Night Raw when “heel” wrestler “The Miz” was being introduced.

The first and “second” lady were co-Grand Marshalls, attending the event supposedly for the purpose of honor America’s veterans and military heroes.

Earlier that day, they attended a Private Barbeque given in honor of the heroes and their families.  Sgt. Andrew Barry was actually sent out on stage with the ladies, possibly to act as a boo-deflector.

The Obamas have an image problem. They are seen by Mr. and Mrs. Average American as not only the figureheads atop a failed Administration, but also as jet-settin, limousine-ridin’, tax-dollar spendin’, anti-American snobs.

With good reason.

On January 23rd, 2008, during a speech given in Columbia, South Carolina, Michelle Obama said:

We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables, y’all living in different dorms. I was there. Y’all not talking to each another, taking advantage of the fact that you’re in this diverse community because sometimes it’s easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions, it makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is, are we ready for change?

The, in February of 2008, while campaigning for her husband in Wisconsin, Mrs. Obama said:

Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.

And let me tell you something. I need to believe that we live in that kind of nation, where hope and possibility and unity is still what drives us.

She made the “proud” comment twice in 2 different speeches.  David Axlerod, Obama’s Chief Strategist, tried to explain it away at the time, saying:

She gives this talk all the time, and I don’t think she formulates the words quite that way generally. But if you look at the whole quote and read beyond it, she was plainly talking about this burst of participation, this sense of hope, the sense of possibility and so on. And she was talking about the politics of our country.

In an article titled “The Other Obama”, published on March 10, 2008, in The New Yorker Magazine, writer Lauren Collins gives us the following insights into the Future First Lady’s true feelings about America:

The four times I heard her give the speech—in a ballroom at the University of South Carolina, from the pulpit of Pee Dee Union, at an art gallery in Charleston, and in the auditorium of St. Norbert College, in De Pere, Wisconsin—its content was admirably consistent, with few of the politician’s customary tweaks and nods to the demographic predilections, or prejudices, of a particular audience.

Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

From these bleak generalities, Obama moves into specific complaints. Used to be, she will say, that you could count on a decent education in the neighborhood. But now there are all these charter schools and magnet schools that you have to “finagle” to get into. (Obama herself attended a magnet school, but never mind.) Health care is out of reach (“Let me tell you, don’t get sick in America”), pensions are disappearing, college is too expensive, and even if you can figure out a way to go to college you won’t be able to recoup the cost of the degree in many of the professions for which you needed it in the first place. “You’re looking at a young couple that’s just a few years out of debt,” Obama said. “See, because, we went to those good schools, and we didn’t have trust funds. I’m still waiting for Barack’s trust fund. Especially after I heard that Dick Cheney was s’posed to be a relative or something. Give us something here!”

During a private fund-raiser in San Francisco in April of 2008, Candidate Barack Hussein Obama said:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.

And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

And today, the pundits in the Main Stream Media are probably scratching their heads, wondering why Michelle Obama got booed yesterday.

In the next few months, look for the Obamas’ handlers to try to make them appear as normal, everyday Americans, as they did with Michelle’s staged shopping trip to Target, and her appearance last summer at a professional baseball game.

After all, November 6, 2012 is less than a year away.

On January 25th, 2011, during his annual State of the Union Address, the 44th President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, read aloud, before a Joint Session of Congress, a packed gallery, and a national television audience, the following:

We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.

But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children.

That’s the project the American people want us to work on. Together.

We did that in December. Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans’ paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of new investments that they make this year. And these steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year.

But we have to do more. These steps we’ve taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession, but to win the future, we’ll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making.

Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown. You didn’t always need a degree, and your competition was pretty much limited to your neighbors. If you worked hard, chances are you’d have a job for life, with a decent paycheck and good benefits and the occasional promotion. Maybe you’d even have the pride of seeing your kids work at the same company.

That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful. I’ve seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories, and the vacant storefronts on once busy Main Streets. I’ve heard it in the frustrations of Americans who’ve seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear -– proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the United States Census Bureau, earlier this month, released a study that showed one of the most profound effects of  “The Lightbringer’s” Economic Policies.

There are a lot of Americans financially holding on for dear life. The Bureau’s report showed that 51 million people are struggling, with incomes less than 50 percent above the poverty line. That number is actually 76 percent higher than the previous official account, published in September. This means that 100 million people, one in three Americans, are living either in poverty or just above it.

The Census Bureau is shocked.  Shocked, I tell you.

“These numbers are higher than we anticipated,” said Trudi J. Renwick, the bureau’s chief poverty statistician. “There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.”

Outside the bureau, skeptics of the new measure warned that the phrase “near poor” — a common term, but not one the government officially uses — may suggest more hardship than most families in this income level experience. A family of four can fall into this range, adjusted for regional living costs, with an income of up to $25,500 in rural North Dakota or $51,000 in Silicon Valley.

But most economists called the new measure better than the old, and many said the findings, while disturbing, comported with what was previously known about stagnant wages.

“It’s very consistent with everything we’ve been hearing in the last few years about families’ struggle, earnings not keeping up for the bottom half,” said Sheila Zedlewski, a researcher at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan economic and social research group.

Patched together a half-century ago, the official poverty measure has long been seen as flawed. It ignores hundreds of billions the needy receive in food stamps, tax credits and other programs, and the similarly large sums paid in taxes, medical care and work expenses. The new method, called the Supplemental Poverty Measure, counts all those factors and adjusts for differences in the cost of living, which the official measure ignores.

The results scrambled the picture of poverty in many surprising ways. The measure shows less severe destitution, but a bit more overall poverty; fewer poor children, but more poor people over 65.

Of the 51 million who appear near poor under the fuller measure, nearly 20 percent were lifted up from poverty by benefits the official count overlooks. But more than half were pushed down from higher income levels: more than eight million by taxes, six million by medical expenses, and four million by work expenses like transportation and child care.

Demographically, they look more like “The Brady Bunch” than “The Wire.” Half live in households headed by a married couple; 49 percent live in the suburbs. Nearly half are non-Hispanic white, 18 percent are black and 26 percent are Latino.

Perhaps the most surprising finding is that 28 percent work full-time, year round. “These estimates defy the stereotypes of low-income families,” Ms. Renwick said.

As of Sunday, November 20, 2011, the American people polled by gallup.com, held the following opinions:

Obama Job Approval  43%

Economic Conditions  Excellent/Good  9% 

                                                       Poor  50%

Economic Outlook  Getting Better  22%

                                               Getting Worse 73%

Economic Confidence  -46%

On January 21, 2009 President Barack Hussein Obama spoke the following words during his Inauguration:

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We’ll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

We’re still waiting, Mr. President...for one more year.

As the fight for the Republican nomination drags on, those vying for it seem determined to make the Main Stream Media’s self-appointed job of choosing a less-than-Conservative Republican candidate for us, easy.

In fact, at times, the nomination choices appear to have just exited the clown car at the circus.

What are our choices?

We have a wacky old isolationist (Ron Paul), who is now talking about the possibly of running as a third party candidate…again.

There’s a former employee of Obama’s  (Whatever-his-first-name-is Huntsman) whose ideological stances are better suited for the Democratic Primary.

There’s a female candidate (Michele Bachmann), who, while excellent as a speaker at Tea Party Rallies, has been labelled as having “crazy eyes” by the MSM.

There’s Rick Santorum…?

There’s Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose pro-amnesty stance and tongue-tied debate performances have put the brakes on a promising campaign.

There’s Herman Cain, who, while seemingly in the process of overcoming a bimbo eruption, has been hurt by it and by less than stellar responses to foreign affairs questions, not to mention suspicions about the aptitude of his campaign staff.

Realistically, that leaves two Washington Insiders, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Gingrich, has both surprised and shocked the MSM and Conservatives alike with his performance on the stump.  His answers have been forthright, logical, and easy for the average American to understand. Plus, his boldness in standing up to the Main stream Media has been being well-received by the American public.

His biggest obstacle is the public’s reservations about his personal life, with the perception that he cheated on a woman riddled with cancer, and delivered divorce papers to her on her death bed.

Gingrich’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote the following in an article titled “Setting the Record Straight”:

As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me.

It was the spring of 1980.

I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign.

As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.

As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on.

We are not a perfect family, but we are knit together through common bonds, commitment and love.

My mother and father are alive and well, and my sister and I are blessed to have a close relationship with them both.

My sister and I feel that it is time to move on, close the book on this event and focus on building a great future. We will not answer additional questions or make additional comments regarding this meaningless incident, which occurred more than three decades ago.

As I said, my mother is a private person. She will not give media interviews. She deserves respect and should be allowed to live in peace.

But, knowing the MSM, she won’t be allowed to.

As far as the Main Stream Media’s candidate of choice, Mitt Romney is concerned, his biggest baggage is Romneycare, and his refusal to distance himself from it.

Jeffrey Anderson, reporting for weeklystandard.com, reports that:

On Labor Day, during the GOP presidential forum in South Carolina, Mitt Romney had the following exchange with the host, Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.). DeMint asked, “As you know, if you’re the nominee, the president is going to say that you implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts. How would you describe what Massachusetts did, the mandate to buy health insurance at the state or federal level?”

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Romney replied, “That will be one of my best assets if I’m able to debate President Obama, as I hope to be able to do, by saying, Mr. President, you give me credit for what you’ve tried to copy in some ways.”

Romney immediately continued: “Our bill dealt with 8 percent of the population, the people who aren’t insured and said to them, if you can pay, don’t count on the government. Take personal responsibility. We didn’t raise taxes, Mr. President. You raise them $500 billion. We didn’t cut Medicare. One president in modern history cut Medicare, this president, and I’ll say to him, why don’t you give me a call and I’ll [tell] you what to do right and what not to do. And the critical thing is this: He dealt with — we dealt with 8 percent; he dealt with 100 percent of the American people.”

Romney curiously concluded, “It [ObamaCare] has got to be stopped, and I know it better than most.”

It’s true that Romney didn’t cut Medicare. (Nor, as a governor, could he.) Romney’s health-care law, however, applies to all Massachusetts residents, not just 8 percent of them — even if only 8 percent were originally out of compliance with it. Like ObamaCare, Romney’s health-care law requires 100 percent of residents, with perhaps very few exceptions, to buy (often heavily taxpayer-subsidized) government-approved health insurance. True, the vast majority of Massachusetts residents already had insurance when the law was passed, but that’s the case nationally as well.

And Romney did raise taxes on those who violated this newly imposed insurance mandate.

…During the South Carolina forum, Romney also reiterated his oft-repeated pledge that, on day-1 of his administration, he would issue a “waiver from ObamaCare to all 50 states” (a proposal that is also highlighted in his newly released economic plan). But Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, has already been issuing more than enough ObamaCare waivers — including waivers to two entire states that also happen to be swing-states in the upcoming election: New Hampshire and Nevada.

So, where does that leave us?  Is the G.O.P going to screw up what should be a fait d’accompli by nominating a flip-flopping Moderate in the tradition of Bob Dole and John McCain?

Is nominating a Conservative too much to ask for?

 

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

Keith Koffler at whitehousedossier.com reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per cnsnews.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to nypost.com:

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

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

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

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

Holloway conceded commutes may take longer than usual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Referring back to my earlier history lesson…sound familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are the numbers so different?

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

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

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

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

Can you say “Misguided Loyalty”?

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

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

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

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

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

For example, the MRC reports that:

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

KEY FINDINGS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2011 newsrooms,  ideology has replaced objectivity.