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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, we went off course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should businessmen from other countries invest in ours?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Pelley: –the rule of law.

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

Scott Pelley: No.

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

Male Voice: Well said. Well said.

About Scott Pelley:

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

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

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

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

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

About Newt Gingrich:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SARKOZY:

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

OBAMA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Israel Today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do these two events have in common?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Americans appreciate that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You betcha.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Axlerod’s explanation?

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

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

Herman Cain must truly have a lot of people worried.

Yesterday, high-profile camera-hogging attorney Gloria Allred introduced a 4th contestant in the brand new game show, “Herman Cain Sexually Harassed Me”.

According to Contestant #4, Sharon Bialek, who appeared in a joint Press Conference with Attorney Allred, Herman Cain reached under her skirt and pushed her head toward his lap in 1997, when she went to him, seeking his help in landing a job.

The alleged incident is supposed to have happened in a car as they were on their way to what she thought was an office building.  Cain was still president of the National Restaurant Association at the time.

According to Bialek, when she asked Cain what he was doing, he said:

You want a job, right?

Bailek says that she did not file a workplace complaint at the time because she was unemployed.

Bialek also said:

I want you, Mr Cain, to come clean… just admit what you did, admit you were inappropriate to people.

The Cain Camp replied that he never sexually harassed anyone.

Who is this woman?  Well, besides the fact that she looks like Stifler’s Mom in the American Pie Movies, per ABC’s Chicago affiliate, WLS-TV, Channel 7:

The Chicago-area woman has an extensive corporate and personal history in the area going back to the early 1990s.

It was her hope for a new job that Bialek says brought her to Herman Cain that day in 1997. Bialek’s resume and a trail of public records indicates that changing jobs has been a regular occurrence for the Chicagoan. She has worked for at least nine different employers over the past 17 years and appears to have struggled financially.

The public record on Bialek begins in 1991 when she filed personal bankruptcy for the first time while living in Des Plaines.

Between 1993 and 1996 Bialek worked for four different companies in promotion and marketing positions.

In 1996, and part of 1997, Bialek was at the National Restaurant Association. After being let go from that job in mid-1997, she says that she went to Washington, D.C., to meet with Cain, president of the association, because she needed a job.

In 1999, Bialek’s son Nicholas was born and a paternity lawsuit was filed by the father, a media executive.

In 2001 came Bialek’s second personal bankruptcy, filed after sizable legal bills. That year she was hired by WGN radio where she worked until 2004 when she took a marketing job and then a job at WCKG radio.

Along the way, according to her attorney, Bialek also held positions with Revlon and Easter Seals.

Bialek currently lives in Mundelein with fiance Mark Harwood.

“She’s of the same political persuasion as Herman Cain,” Harwood said. “There was no money on the table to go and have an interview. This is truly about an American girl who’s got a big heart and wants to do the right thing.”

Yeah.  14 years later…

Well…how about Gloria Allred?  I’m sure that this respected member of the legal profession has nothing but the warm glow of altruism guiding her…Yeah, right.

Per answers.com:

She has achieved notoriety and name recognition through staged press conferences and demonstrations publicizing and dramatizing the cause she is championing at the time. She also accepts controversial cases that naturally attract media attention. During her years in practice, she has successfully sued Los Angeles County to stop the practice of shackling and chaining pregnant inmates during labor and delivery; put a halt on the city of El Segundo’s quizzing job applicants about their sexual histories (Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 802 F.2d 1131 [9th Cir. 1986]); represented a client who was turned down for a job as a police officer after a six-hour lie detector exam that included questions about her sex life; and sued a dry cleaning establishment for discrimination because it charged more to launder women’s shirts than men’s. She also successfully sued on behalf of two lesbians who had been denied entrance to the “romance booth” at a Los Angeles restaurant (Rolon v. Kulwitsky, 153 Cal. App. 3d 289, 200 Cal. Rptr. 217 [Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1984]). The owner of the restaurant vowed to close the booth if Allred’s clients won. They did, and he made good on his promise.

Allred relishes confrontation, and her showy tactics have earned her both praise and criticism. Defending what many have called self-promoting publicity stunts, Allred says she is aware of the impression she makes, and contends that it is exactly the effect she wants.

…Asked whether she is an activist or a lawyer, Allred replied that she is an “activist lawyer.”

And she never met a camera she didn’t like.

The remarkable thing about this obviously staged “Bimbo Eruption” against Herman Cain, is that it’s not having the effect that whoever is pulling the strings wanted it to.  Gallup.com announced yesterday that:

Herman Cain now ties Mitt Romney as the leader for the GOP presidential nomination in USA Today/Gallup polling on Republican preferences conducted Nov. 2-6. Each receives 21% support from Republicans nationwide. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry follow, with 12% and 11% support, respectively.

Additionally…

Fifty-three percent of Republicans are inclined to believe that the charges are not true, with most of these hedging their bets by saying the charges are “probably not true” rather than “definitely not true.” A little more than a third (35%) say the charges are probably or definitely true — again, with most of these in the probable rather than the definite category.

Republicans with an opinion are inclined to say Cain has done a good job (45%) rather than a bad job (36%) of handing the charges, although almost one in five don’t have an opinion.

About half of Republicans are following the news stories about the sexual harassment allegations against Cain very or somewhat closely. This level of attention is lower than the average attention all Americans have paid to news stories Gallup has tracked over the last several decades. The group following the news very or somewhat closely is about as likely to believe the charges against Cain are true as are all Republicans more broadly. At the same time, this group is slightly more likely to be critical of Cain’s response, with 47% saying Cain is doing a good job and 48% a bad job of responding.

Perhaps Americans are smarter than whoever’s behind this thought that we were.

On January 21, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States of America.  He spoke these words concerning the state of the nation’s economy:

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.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Today, one year away from the next Presidential Election,  after 3 years under the stewardship of President Obama, where does America’s economy stand?

The London Daily Mail reported on November 3rd, 2001 that:

Shocking figures revealed today that one in 15 people in America is now living in poverty.

The number – a record high – is spread widely across metropolitan areas as the country’s economic troubles continue to bite.

And almost 15 per cent of the population are also now on food stamps, it emerged yesterday.

The ranks of the poor applying for food stamps increased by a worrying 8.1 per cent over the past year to make a total of 45.8 million.

The increase in poverty is believed to have been caused due to the housing bust pushing many inner-city poor into suburbs and other outlying places and shriveled jobs and income.

‘There now really is no unaffected group, except maybe the very top income earners,’ said Robert Moffitt, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University.

‘Recessions are supposed to be temporary, and when it’s over, everything returns to where it was before. But the worry now is that the downturn — which will end eventually — will have long-lasting effects on families who lose jobs, become worse off and can’t recover.’

Well, Dr. Moffitt, until it ends, it’s average Americans who are suffering.  Unemployment is still high, despite the following “gains” which the Labor Department is bragging about:

The nation added 80,000 jobs. That was fewer than the 100,000 that economists expected, but it was the 13th consecutive month of job gains. Fears of a new recession that loomed over the economy this summer have all but receded.

The unemployment rate nudged down, to 9 percent from 9.1 in September.

“Those are pretty good signs,” said Michael Hanson, senior economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “We’re hanging in there.”

No one looking at Friday’s report from the Labor Department saw an end anytime soon to the high unemployment that has plagued the nation for three years. The jobless rate has been 9 percent or higher for all but two months since June 2009.

The problem is that newly-unemployed will continue to join the ranks of those who have been on the dole so long that they have run out of benefits.

Per foxnews.com:

The jobs crisis has left so many people out of work for so long that most of America’s unemployed are no longer receiving unemployment benefits.

Early last year, 75 percent were receiving checks. The figure is now 48 percent — a shift that points to a growing crisis of long-term unemployment. Nearly one-third of America’s 14 million unemployed have had no job for a year or more.

Congress is expected to decide by year’s end whether to continue providing emergency unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks in the hardest-hit states.

If the emergency benefits expire, the proportion of the unemployed receiving aid would fall further.

The ranks of the poor would also rise. The Census Bureau says unemployment benefits kept 3.2 million people from slipping into poverty last year. It defines poverty as annual income below $22,314 for a family of four.

Yet for a growing share of the unemployed, a vote in Congress to extend the benefits to 99 weeks is irrelevant. They’ve had no job for more than 99 weeks.

They’re no longer eligible for benefits.

Mr. President…you’re the CEO.  You’re being held to account.

The “books will be audited” on November 6, 2012.

As the made-for-the-internet National Soap Opera starring Republican Presidential Hopeful Herman Cain drags on, the latest development involves Cain’s former employers, the National Restaurant Association.

The Los Angeles Times reports that:

The National Restaurant Assn., the trade group at the center of the Herman Cain sexual harassment furor, said it has received a request to allow one of Cain’s accusers to release a public statement detailing her version of events and will respond Friday.

The group was contacted by Joel Bennett, a Washington lawyer who helped negotiate a settlement with the association on behalf of one of two women who complained about Cain’s conduct while he was its president and chief executive. Bennett has been seeking to lift a restriction in the deal that bars his client from talking.

“Our outside counsel was contacted by Mr. Bennett today and was asked to provide a response to a proposed statement by tomorrow afternoon. We are currently reviewing the document, and we plan to respond tomorrow,” said Sue Hensley, a spokeswoman for the association.

Bennett said his client is reluctant to speak publicly about events that occurred while she worked for Cain in the late 1990s, so he has asked the association to instead approve a statement by her for public release.

Cain is not a party to the agreement, Bennett said, meaning that he would only need the consent of the association in order for the statement to be released.

If the Association lifts the agreement, two things will happen.

a.) The woman will sell the rights to her story.

b.) She will be paraded around to every left-leaning television “news” program in existence.

You’ve heard the old saying, “politics makes strange bedfellows”, haven’t you?  Myway.com reports that:

Republican candidate Newt Gingrich is decrying media coverage of the sexual harassment claims against rival Herman Cain and says that Cain’s tax plans deserve more attention.

Gingrich has told WSB radio in Atlanta on Wednesday that he thinks it’s “disgusting” that the news media has started what Gingrich described as a “witch hunt” against Cain. It was revealed this week that Cain’s former employer, the National Restaurant Association, settled in the 1990s with two women who claimed that Cain had sexually harassed them.

A third woman has told The Associated Press that she considered filing a sexual harassment complaint but never did.

Gingrich says Cain is trying to help a country that’s in trouble and has gotten more coverage for what Gingrich termed gossip than for Cain’s tax policies.

Considering Newt’s romantic past, I would say that the man knows what he’s talking about, when he refers to the damage gossip can do.

Let’s assess the Cain boondoggle, shall we?

So far, the only thing we know, is that some women received some money from the National Restaurant Association, and years later, somebody snitched to Politico about it, who are now in the process of using the knowledge in an attempt to bring down the candidacy of a Black Conservative.

This whole,  ludicrous situation inspired me to write some new lyrics to a popular song.  I hope you enjoy it.

Ode to Herman Cain (with apologies to REO Speedwagon)

Politico heard it from a snitch who, heard it from a snitch who

Heard it from another that Cain was messin’ around.

They said there was a settlement,

A confidential agreement.

And the women walked away with some cash.

But I know Politico

And toward the Left is where their viewpoint goes,

And innuendo is definitely their stock and trade.

But I’m warning you, friend, that it may not be true, friend,

And even if it is, keep this in mind:

You take it with some salt, buddy

And if you want to believe it, buddy

You’re either a Lib or a Moderate.

I don’t believe it, not for a minute

Cain is the man and the Libs have a plan.

They’re coming up with more girls

The rumors are beginning to swirl

They say girls have been hurt, but they won’t say who.

But the stories keep on coming and the headlines keep on running

And they’re trying to put Cain down for the count.

You take it with some salt, buddy

And if you want to believe it, buddy

You’re either a Lib or a Moderate.

I don’t believe it, not for a minute

Cain is the man and the Libs have a plan.

You take it with some salt, buddy

And if you want to believe it, buddy

You’re either a Lib or a Moderate.

I don’t believe it, not for a minute

Cain is the man and the Libs have a plan.

Politico heard it from a snitch who, heard it from a snitch who

Heard it from another that Cain was messin’ around.

They said there was a settlement,

A confidential agreement.

And the women walked away with some cash.

The Herman Cain Sexual Harassment Boondoggle is beginning to resemble the chase scene at the end of the Benny Hill Show.

What’s got me puzzled is:

1.  If Politico did let the Cain Team know 10 days ahead of time, why didn’t they get out in front of this?

2.  Is this a case of “friendly fire” or a Democrat derailment scheme?

3.  Or is it, as a friend has suggested to me, a plan by Cain and his team to keep him in the headlines , and suck all the oxygen out of the room? After all, until yesterday, when Cain’s team accused them, have you read any stories in the MSM about Romney and Perry this week?

Regarding the question of who is really behind the Politico story, the suspect list is growing.

As of last night, washingtontimes.com reported that:

Herman Cain’s campaign is revealing suspicions about who is behind the story regarding the former unidentified employees who accused Mr. Cain of sexual harassment in the late 1990’s.

According to a source who is friends with the Cain campaign, not only is the Rick Perry campaign involved but also the Mayor of Chicago and former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is likely involved with the sexual harassment accuser attacks. A friend of the Cain campaign believes a National Restaurant Association (NRA) employee out of the Chicago office leaked the story to the Perry campaign via information and influence from Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office.

According to Politico’s Jonathan Martin, Curt Anderson, the Perry advisor who the Cain campaign is accusing of leaking the damaging information, is denying the charges:

“I’ve known Herman Cain for about 7 years. I was one of several consultants on his Senate race in 2004 and was proud to help him. I’d never heard any of these allegations until I read them in Politico, nor does anything I read in the press change my opinion that Herman is an upstanding man and a gentleman. I have great respect for Herman and his character and I would never speak ill of him, on the record or off the record. That’s true today and it’s not going to change.”

The way these anonymous accusers have been coming out of the woodwork, one would think that Herman Cain is the second coming of Bubba Clinton.

Yesterday, abcnews.com wrote that:

A third woman considered filing a workplace complaint against Herman Cain at the National Restaurant Association over what was termed aggressive and unwanted behavior, with invitations to his corporate apartment, according to a report in the Associated Press. Meanwhile, a radio host in Iowa said that the candidate had made “awkward” and “inappropriate” comments to staffers at the station during a visit earlier this year.

Cain has already denounced the two previous allegations of sexual harassment against him as false, and suggested at least one of the women was a poor worker. But an ABC News investigation found that both women are highly respected professionals who have gone on to successful careers in and around government.

One woman in Maryland has worked for years as a public spokesperson for various agencies of the federal government.

Her case appears to be the one Cain has described in his round of interviews, saying she was a writer working in the trade group’s communications department.

Cain has said that all he could recall was making an innocuous gesture to this woman while she was in his office with the door open and his secretary just outside. “I referenced this lady’s height and I was standing near her, and I did this saying, you’re the same height of my wife, because my wife is five feet tall and she comes up to my chin,” Cain explained. “This lady’s five feet tall and she came up to my chin. So obviously she thought that that was too close for comfort. It showed up in the actual allegation.”

A lawyer for the woman, Joel Bennett, later called CNN to dispute Cain’s version of events. “To the extent he’s made statements that he never sexually harassed anyone,” said Bennett, “and there was no validity to these complaints, that’s certainly not true with respect to my client’s complaints.”

Bennett said his client was upset at how she was being characterized in Cain’s comments and might want to speak out. He contacted the National Restaurant Association on Wednesday morning to see if his client could be released from her confidentiality agreement. According to a statement from the NRA, the group referred Bennett to call its outside counsel. “Mr. Bennett indicated that he would do so tomorrow, after he met with his client,” said Sue Hensley, a senior vice president of public affairs for the NRA.

So the accusers are not just anonymous, they’re well-respected and anonymous.

Yeah, right.  And I’m a 22 year old  blonde Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader named Buffy.

If  Cain’s Team is staging all of this, it’s a brilliant scheme.  Not only are they keeping his name in the headlines, they managed to plant fish hooks in the mouths of the gullible Main Stream Media and damage their competitors campaigns and the opposition party all of the same time.

If the Cain Team is not responsible for all this, then Cain is being Thomasized…or as he said:  We are witnessing a high-tech lynching.

Either way…politics is a dirty business.