TeaPartyWire.com – Tea Party News by and for Tea Party Members

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

Recently, Romney’s Democratic opponents in politics and the press attacked the GOP candidate for saying there “are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Romney’s critics describe his remarks as heartless attacks by a wealthy Republican on the poor.

Meanwhile, a 1998  audio recording surfaced of then Sen. Barack Obama discussing his views on government and its role in wealth redistribution.

“I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign – against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved: the Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither, necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate – that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind – we do have to be innovative in thinking, ‘What are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?’ And my suggestion, I guess, would be … the trick … is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pull resources and hence facilitate some redistribution. Because I actually believe in redistribution – at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

Let’s excavate Obama’s words as though we are archeologists:

First, notice that Obama makes no pretense that his world-view is backed by the weight of experience or history. He merely calls his redistributive theology a “notion.”

Second, Obama undercuts his own “notion” by sighting the real-world failure of the Chicago Housing Authority. Starting in the 1920s, Chicago sociologists saw “slums as an urban ecological problem with decaying structures and unplanned landscapes acting as a cancerous ‘blight,’” writes D. Bradford Hunt in Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing. All that “blight” was supposed to end with the passage of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 Housing Act. Progressive leadership and redistributed funds from the public would create a paradise for the less fortunate, giving them affordable housing and a brighter future. That New Deal triumph became a drug and violence-ridden, world-renowned failure. Today, Chicago’s city fathers are bulldozing these high-rise deathtraps for developers to gentrify.

Third, seventy-nine percent of Chicago’s schoolchildren are not grade-level proficient in reading, 80 percent are not grade-level proficient in math, and their city’s school day is shorter than the national average. Chicago teachers make an average salary of $74,839. The recently concluded Chicago teacher’s strike was not over money but an upcoming initiative to tie teacher evaluations to the success or failure of their student’s scores on standardized tests, which would also determine which schools remained open and which to close. The union agreed to have test scores account for 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. Just in passing, for their private-sector counterparts, student test scores account for 70 percent of a teacher’s assessment. According to the Washington Post, Chicago schools cost underserved taxpayers $4.8 billion in 2012 … and that’s with a $665 million deficit.

Fourth, Obama “can only confiscate the wealth that exists,” wrote economist and conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, “You cannot confiscate future wealth – and the future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated.” The Soviet Union ran headfirst into that little conundrum. As one of the 20^th century’s’ great military giants, history’s first communist power exited the world stage, not with a bang, but a whimper. After seventy years, there simply was no more wealth to redistribute, and Vladimir Lenin’s great “notion” fizzled.

The Obama audio recording shows that resuscitating “the notion that government action can be effective” has been a driving force since his days as a Chicago community organizer. Can anybody honestly say he left Chicago better than he found it? Can anybody honestly say he’s done the same for the nation?

All that being said, the onus is not on Romney to explain his remarks regarding the 47% of the electorate that is in the bag for Obama and his brand of failed Chicago values. The onus is on Obama and the 47% to explain the failed Chicago blueprint of wealth-destroying  redistribution that gives everybody “a shot” at economic and social misery.

Nearly four years after Obama assumed the presidency, Joe The Plumber and the 53% of Americans that pay redistributive taxes are waiting for an answer to that question.

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

President Obama has certainly stepped in it where Libya is concerned. He and our NATO allies inserted themselves in the middle of Libya’s civil war, between the Gaddafi regime – which suspended its nuclear program fearing what the administration of George W. Bush might do – and Islamic rebels with known ties to al Qaeda.

Obama sided with the rebels.

Condemn the terrorist though he may, Obama owns them. The Arab Spring will forever be associated with him and the feckless “international community” on whose behalf he surrendered American interests – and lives.

A Libyan jihadist splinter group is responsible for attacking America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi and with killing U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, dragging his battered and lifeless body through the city’s filthy streets.

The pretext for the killing was a 13-minute video posted on Youtube that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad.

The president’s supporters were quick to issue a condemnation – not of the killers of Ambassador Stevens but GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s support for the First Amendment right of Americans’ to criticize radical Islam.

One media tactic was to quibble over the timeline of Romney’s statement. According to the website Talking Points Memo, “The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people … That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement.”

Hardly. If anything, it can be construed that the embassy’s quickness to condemn American free-speech in favor of political correctness encouraged the attacks that followed.

Gail Collins at the New York Times was incensed that Romney refused to stand by and allow the president’s colossal foreign policy blunder to pass unnoticed. “It isn’t clear how the [anti-Islamic] movie, the protests in Egypt and the murders of four American diplomats in Libya fit together. That’s the job of intelligence experts. We’re stuck with the task of evaluating Mitt Romney, who went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity.”

The last real show of “national unity” was in the days following the attacks on 9/11. Thanks to Obama, the United States is allied with two Arab Spring governments with ties to organizations like the one that attacked us 11 years ago. As if to emphasize that point, two American embassy buildings were assaulted on the anniversary of 9/11 in Egypt and Libya this week. This would hardly put Americans in a “rally ‘round the president” mood.

Collins and the rest of her colleagues at the Times, however, couldn’t be happier with the outcome – they were big promoters of Spring Time for Jihad. And like their president, they own them.

Meanwhile, a blogger at the left-wing website the Daily Kos got to the nub of what irks the left about Romney, “I mean seriously. Americans are DEAD. And in response to the Cairo Embassy correctly pointing out that it is not the policy of America, or the American Government, to go around insulting people’s religions – Romney basically shot back and said ‘Yes, it IS!’”

Even Fox News host Bill O’Reilly picked up on this point, “If I’m trying to defuse a situation,” said O’Reilly, “if I’m trying to prevent violence that could take American lives … So, I say to the militants, “Hey, look, this [anti-Islamic video] is wrong,’ I concentrate on that. That’s where I’m coming from.”

“No,” said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, Fox New strategic analyst, “The embassy’s job is to represent the United States of America. The embassy’s job would have been to say, ‘Look, under the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, we have something called free speech,” and that’s it. The embassy … our State Department and the White House, elevated political correctness and appeasement above our Constitution, and I think that’s a fundamental problem.”

Leave it to a military man to survey the battlefield and claim the strategic high ground. Obama, his supporters, which includes the press, have a “fundamental problem.” Given a choice between standing for freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or political correctness, they choose the latter, and by default, sharia law.

Romney, on the other hand, chooses the United States Constitution and the right of every American to speak freely and unafraid. He reminded the world that Americans don’t need the permission of their government to say what is on their minds, and that protecting American rights is the first duty of our government.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes American free speech threatens the Arab Spring. And the president urges Americans to censor themselves so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of his new jihadist allies.

The Colonel is right. That is a “fundamental problem.”