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

Written by: Nathan W. Tucker

Two-hundred and twenty-five years ago Monday, the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia signed the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification.  It went into effect on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve it.  Though it is the world’s oldest national constitution, it can only claim that distinction in form rather than substance.

The government born of that Constitution was one of limited, enumerated powers, almost none of which concerned domestic policies.  Having just fought a revolutionary war, the Founding Generation understood that centralized power posed the greatest threat to freedom and individual rights.  They knew from personal experience that politicians were addicts to power, incapable of self-control.

As Thomas Jefferson warned, when “all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

The Constitution was only passed because its supporters assured the public that the new federal government lacked the power to threaten their rights.  Alexander Hamilton, for instance, argued against the need for a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84 because:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

The federal government was never designed for 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators to wield authority over every area of life for 320 million people.  It is no wonder, then, that Americans feel they have no voice in government.

The increase of unconstitutional power in Washington has led to laws thousands of pages long; an enormous, unelected bureaucracy to write and enforce it; and a national debt of $16 trillion and growing.  Washington has unconstitutionally mandated one-size-fits-all policies on local issues that should be left to more responsive local representatives.  And if we don’t like our local policies, at least we can always move.

To preserve our freedoms and democratic government, the Founding Generation created a federal government with only the following 14 powers:

1. Borrow money.
2. Regulate foreign trade and create an interstate free trade zone.
3. Regulate naturalization.
4. Create national bankruptcy laws.
5. Regulate currency and punish counterfeiting.
6. Established the post office and post roads.
7. Create copyright and patent laws.
8. Provide for the federal judiciary.
9. Prosecute piracies.
10. Declare war and provide for a military.
11. Govern federal lands and admit new states.
12. Regulate the time, place, and manner of casting federal ballots.
13. Regulate interstate comity laws.
14. Collect and spend taxes for the above.

That’s it; only 14 specific grants of power.  None of which involve health care, education, student loans, Medicare, drought relief, social security, or growing the economy.  Those areas, and all others not enumerated above, are only to be regulated, if at all, by state legislators.  That’s why they exist—they know us, and are accountable to us, far better than a Congressman who represents over 600,000 people ever will.

When candidates for federal office promise to create a land flowing with milk and honey, we should remind them of the Constitution and tell them, “No, you can’t.”  A litmus test for any federal candidate should be whether he can name the 14 enumerated powers given to Congress and justify how they authorize his legislative agenda.  If he can’t, he should neither be running for office nor playing lip service to the Constitution.

For many years now, Republican politicians have clamored for constitutionalist judges to be appointed to the federal bench.  As laudable as such a goal is, we should first elect constitutionalists to serve in Congress who acknowledge that the Constitution is a denial of power that emphatically proclaims “No, you can’t” rather than “Yes, we can.”

Written by: Nathan W. Tucker

Two-hundred and twenty-five years ago Monday, the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia signed the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification.  It went into effect on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve it.  Though it is the world’s oldest national constitution, it can only claim that distinction in form rather than substance.

The government born of that Constitution was one of limited, enumerated powers, almost none of which concerned domestic policies.  Having just fought a revolutionary war, the Founding Generation understood that centralized power posed the greatest threat to freedom and individual rights.  They knew from personal experience that politicians were addicts to power, incapable of self-control.

As Thomas Jefferson warned, when “all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

The Constitution was only passed because its supporters assured the public that the new federal government lacked the power to threaten their rights.  Alexander Hamilton, for instance, argued against the need for a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84 because:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

The federal government was never designed for 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators to wield authority over every area of life for 320 million people.  It is no wonder, then, that Americans feel they have no voice in government.

The increase of unconstitutional power in Washington has led to laws thousands of pages long; an enormous, unelected bureaucracy to write and enforce it; and a national debt of $16 trillion and growing.  Washington has unconstitutionally mandated one-size-fits-all policies on local issues that should be left to more responsive local representatives.  And if we don’t like our local policies, at least we can always move.

To preserve our freedoms and democratic government, the Founding Generation created a federal government with only the following 14 powers:

1. Borrow money.
2. Regulate foreign trade and create an interstate free trade zone.
3. Regulate naturalization.
4. Create national bankruptcy laws.
5. Regulate currency and punish counterfeiting.
6. Established the post office and post roads.
7. Create copyright and patent laws.
8. Provide for the federal judiciary.
9. Prosecute piracies.
10. Declare war and provide for a military.
11. Govern federal lands and admit new states.
12. Regulate the time, place, and manner of casting federal ballots.
13. Regulate interstate comity laws.
14. Collect and spend taxes for the above.

That’s it; only 14 specific grants of power.  None of which involve health care, education, student loans, Medicare, drought relief, social security, or growing the economy.  Those areas, and all others not enumerated above, are only to be regulated, if at all, by state legislators.  That’s why they exist—they know us, and are accountable to us, far better than a Congressman who represents over 600,000 people ever will.

When candidates for federal office promise to create a land flowing with milk and honey, we should remind them of the Constitution and tell them, “No, you can’t.”  A litmus test for any federal candidate should be whether he can name the 14 enumerated powers given to Congress and justify how they authorize his legislative agenda.  If he can’t, he should neither be running for office nor playing lip service to the Constitution.

For many years now, Republican politicians have clamored for constitutionalist judges to be appointed to the federal bench.  As laudable as such a goal is, we should first elect constitutionalists to serve in Congress who acknowledge that the Constitution is a denial of power that emphatically proclaims “No, you can’t” rather than “Yes, we can.”

Written by: Nathan W. Tucker

Two-hundred and twenty-five years ago Monday, the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia signed the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification.  It went into effect on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve it.  Though it is the world’s oldest national constitution, it can only claim that distinction in form rather than substance.

The government born of that Constitution was one of limited, enumerated powers, almost none of which concerned domestic policies.  Having just fought a revolutionary war, the Founding Generation understood that centralized power posed the greatest threat to freedom and individual rights.  They knew from personal experience that politicians were addicts to power, incapable of self-control.

As Thomas Jefferson warned, when “all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

The Constitution was only passed because its supporters assured the public that the new federal government lacked the power to threaten their rights.  Alexander Hamilton, for instance, argued against the need for a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84 because:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

The federal government was never designed for 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators to wield authority over every area of life for 320 million people.  It is no wonder, then, that Americans feel they have no voice in government.

The increase of unconstitutional power in Washington has led to laws thousands of pages long; an enormous, unelected bureaucracy to write and enforce it; and a national debt of $16 trillion and growing.  Washington has unconstitutionally mandated one-size-fits-all policies on local issues that should be left to more responsive local representatives.  And if we don’t like our local policies, at least we can always move.

To preserve our freedoms and democratic government, the Founding Generation created a federal government with only the following 14 powers:

1. Borrow money.
2. Regulate foreign trade and create an interstate free trade zone.
3. Regulate naturalization.
4. Create national bankruptcy laws.
5. Regulate currency and punish counterfeiting.
6. Established the post office and post roads.
7. Create copyright and patent laws.
8. Provide for the federal judiciary.
9. Prosecute piracies.
10. Declare war and provide for a military.
11. Govern federal lands and admit new states.
12. Regulate the time, place, and manner of casting federal ballots.
13. Regulate interstate comity laws.
14. Collect and spend taxes for the above.

That’s it; only 14 specific grants of power.  None of which involve health care, education, student loans, Medicare, drought relief, social security, or growing the economy.  Those areas, and all others not enumerated above, are only to be regulated, if at all, by state legislators.  That’s why they exist—they know us, and are accountable to us, far better than a Congressman who represents over 600,000 people ever will.

When candidates for federal office promise to create a land flowing with milk and honey, we should remind them of the Constitution and tell them, “No, you can’t.”  A litmus test for any federal candidate should be whether he can name the 14 enumerated powers given to Congress and justify how they authorize his legislative agenda.  If he can’t, he should neither be running for office nor playing lip service to the Constitution.

For many years now, Republican politicians have clamored for constitutionalist judges to be appointed to the federal bench.  As laudable as such a goal is, we should first elect constitutionalists to serve in Congress who acknowledge that the Constitution is a denial of power that emphatically proclaims “No, you can’t” rather than “Yes, we can.”

Written by: Nathan W. Tucker

Two-hundred and twenty-five years ago Monday, the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia signed the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification.  It went into effect on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve it.  Though it is the world’s oldest national constitution, it can only claim that distinction in form rather than substance.

The government born of that Constitution was one of limited, enumerated powers, almost none of which concerned domestic policies.  Having just fought a revolutionary war, the Founding Generation understood that centralized power posed the greatest threat to freedom and individual rights.  They knew from personal experience that politicians were addicts to power, incapable of self-control.

As Thomas Jefferson warned, when “all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

The Constitution was only passed because its supporters assured the public that the new federal government lacked the power to threaten their rights.  Alexander Hamilton, for instance, argued against the need for a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84 because:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

The federal government was never designed for 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators to wield authority over every area of life for 320 million people.  It is no wonder, then, that Americans feel they have no voice in government.

The increase of unconstitutional power in Washington has led to laws thousands of pages long; an enormous, unelected bureaucracy to write and enforce it; and a national debt of $16 trillion and growing.  Washington has unconstitutionally mandated one-size-fits-all policies on local issues that should be left to more responsive local representatives.  And if we don’t like our local policies, at least we can always move.

To preserve our freedoms and democratic government, the Founding Generation created a federal government with only the following 14 powers:

1. Borrow money.
2. Regulate foreign trade and create an interstate free trade zone.
3. Regulate naturalization.
4. Create national bankruptcy laws.
5. Regulate currency and punish counterfeiting.
6. Established the post office and post roads.
7. Create copyright and patent laws.
8. Provide for the federal judiciary.
9. Prosecute piracies.
10. Declare war and provide for a military.
11. Govern federal lands and admit new states.
12. Regulate the time, place, and manner of casting federal ballots.
13. Regulate interstate comity laws.
14. Collect and spend taxes for the above.

That’s it; only 14 specific grants of power.  None of which involve health care, education, student loans, Medicare, drought relief, social security, or growing the economy.  Those areas, and all others not enumerated above, are only to be regulated, if at all, by state legislators.  That’s why they exist—they know us, and are accountable to us, far better than a Congressman who represents over 600,000 people ever will.

When candidates for federal office promise to create a land flowing with milk and honey, we should remind them of the Constitution and tell them, “No, you can’t.”  A litmus test for any federal candidate should be whether he can name the 14 enumerated powers given to Congress and justify how they authorize his legislative agenda.  If he can’t, he should neither be running for office nor playing lip service to the Constitution.

For many years now, Republican politicians have clamored for constitutionalist judges to be appointed to the federal bench.  As laudable as such a goal is, we should first elect constitutionalists to serve in Congress who acknowledge that the Constitution is a denial of power that emphatically proclaims “No, you can’t” rather than “Yes, we can.”

Written by: Nathan W. Tucker

Two-hundred and twenty-five years ago Monday, the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia signed the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification.  It went into effect on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve it.  Though it is the world’s oldest national constitution, it can only claim that distinction in form rather than substance.

The government born of that Constitution was one of limited, enumerated powers, almost none of which concerned domestic policies.  Having just fought a revolutionary war, the Founding Generation understood that centralized power posed the greatest threat to freedom and individual rights.  They knew from personal experience that politicians were addicts to power, incapable of self-control.

As Thomas Jefferson warned, when “all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

The Constitution was only passed because its supporters assured the public that the new federal government lacked the power to threaten their rights.  Alexander Hamilton, for instance, argued against the need for a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84 because:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

The federal government was never designed for 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators to wield authority over every area of life for 320 million people.  It is no wonder, then, that Americans feel they have no voice in government.

The increase of unconstitutional power in Washington has led to laws thousands of pages long; an enormous, unelected bureaucracy to write and enforce it; and a national debt of $16 trillion and growing.  Washington has unconstitutionally mandated one-size-fits-all policies on local issues that should be left to more responsive local representatives.  And if we don’t like our local policies, at least we can always move.

To preserve our freedoms and democratic government, the Founding Generation created a federal government with only the following 14 powers:

1. Borrow money.
2. Regulate foreign trade and create an interstate free trade zone.
3. Regulate naturalization.
4. Create national bankruptcy laws.
5. Regulate currency and punish counterfeiting.
6. Established the post office and post roads.
7. Create copyright and patent laws.
8. Provide for the federal judiciary.
9. Prosecute piracies.
10. Declare war and provide for a military.
11. Govern federal lands and admit new states.
12. Regulate the time, place, and manner of casting federal ballots.
13. Regulate interstate comity laws.
14. Collect and spend taxes for the above.

That’s it; only 14 specific grants of power.  None of which involve health care, education, student loans, Medicare, drought relief, social security, or growing the economy.  Those areas, and all others not enumerated above, are only to be regulated, if at all, by state legislators.  That’s why they exist—they know us, and are accountable to us, far better than a Congressman who represents over 600,000 people ever will.

When candidates for federal office promise to create a land flowing with milk and honey, we should remind them of the Constitution and tell them, “No, you can’t.”  A litmus test for any federal candidate should be whether he can name the 14 enumerated powers given to Congress and justify how they authorize his legislative agenda.  If he can’t, he should neither be running for office nor playing lip service to the Constitution.

For many years now, Republican politicians have clamored for constitutionalist judges to be appointed to the federal bench.  As laudable as such a goal is, we should first elect constitutionalists to serve in Congress who acknowledge that the Constitution is a denial of power that emphatically proclaims “No, you can’t” rather than “Yes, we can.”

Written by: Nathan W. Tucker

Two-hundred and twenty-five years ago Monday, the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia signed the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification.  It went into effect on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve it.  Though it is the world’s oldest national constitution, it can only claim that distinction in form rather than substance.

The government born of that Constitution was one of limited, enumerated powers, almost none of which concerned domestic policies.  Having just fought a revolutionary war, the Founding Generation understood that centralized power posed the greatest threat to freedom and individual rights.  They knew from personal experience that politicians were addicts to power, incapable of self-control.

As Thomas Jefferson warned, when “all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

The Constitution was only passed because its supporters assured the public that the new federal government lacked the power to threaten their rights.  Alexander Hamilton, for instance, argued against the need for a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84 because:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

The federal government was never designed for 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators to wield authority over every area of life for 320 million people.  It is no wonder, then, that Americans feel they have no voice in government.

The increase of unconstitutional power in Washington has led to laws thousands of pages long; an enormous, unelected bureaucracy to write and enforce it; and a national debt of $16 trillion and growing.  Washington has unconstitutionally mandated one-size-fits-all policies on local issues that should be left to more responsive local representatives.  And if we don’t like our local policies, at least we can always move.

To preserve our freedoms and democratic government, the Founding Generation created a federal government with only the following 14 powers:

1. Borrow money.
2. Regulate foreign trade and create an interstate free trade zone.
3. Regulate naturalization.
4. Create national bankruptcy laws.
5. Regulate currency and punish counterfeiting.
6. Established the post office and post roads.
7. Create copyright and patent laws.
8. Provide for the federal judiciary.
9. Prosecute piracies.
10. Declare war and provide for a military.
11. Govern federal lands and admit new states.
12. Regulate the time, place, and manner of casting federal ballots.
13. Regulate interstate comity laws.
14. Collect and spend taxes for the above.

That’s it; only 14 specific grants of power.  None of which involve health care, education, student loans, Medicare, drought relief, social security, or growing the economy.  Those areas, and all others not enumerated above, are only to be regulated, if at all, by state legislators.  That’s why they exist—they know us, and are accountable to us, far better than a Congressman who represents over 600,000 people ever will.

When candidates for federal office promise to create a land flowing with milk and honey, we should remind them of the Constitution and tell them, “No, you can’t.”  A litmus test for any federal candidate should be whether he can name the 14 enumerated powers given to Congress and justify how they authorize his legislative agenda.  If he can’t, he should neither be running for office nor playing lip service to the Constitution.

For many years now, Republican politicians have clamored for constitutionalist judges to be appointed to the federal bench.  As laudable as such a goal is, we should first elect constitutionalists to serve in Congress who acknowledge that the Constitution is a denial of power that emphatically proclaims “No, you can’t” rather than “Yes, we can.”

Duly Noted. by George Handlery

The World Order and its Enemies.

Diplomacy is a pillar of global security and peace. The Islamists act to topple it.

The Third World is a beneficiary of the system of diplomacy that has evolved through the centuries. It is a fundament of an orderly world and fanatics are now undermining it.

International relations are as problem-laden as are personal relationships. All associations produce conflict. To promise the key to a “perfect” marriage in total harmony exploits the gullible. Promises to unite mankind in a conflict-free order of love are soothing intellectual exercises. Their practical value, however, equals a biology that claims to convert kissed frogs into princes.

Enshrined “peace studies” solve conflicts by calling them the avoidable results of misunderstandings. A warm hug uniting all of us will create a free of discord state. With that commences a peaceful, because conflict-free, world order.

The competing view has emotional blemishes that come from its realism. Doubting the “should be” of conjectures regarding the achievable ideal world is one of them. The awareness of an imperfect reality and its presentation contrast and challenges desire-driven daydreams. Therefore, the conflict theory reminds us of foul reality.

A degree of discord is a natural part of interpersonal relations, and so it is a component of interstate contacts. If so, not the total prevention of differences should be our sound goal: a system that facilitates the rational resolution of disputes is to be pursued. Here “diplomacy” serves as a tool. The term is not limited to elegant folks sipping champagne in palaces. Diplomacy is a system that enables the agents of national interests to gather and, regulated by rules, to negotiate.

Centuries ago, Europeans have made a discovery. In the antecedent era, in the style of today’s Somalia (feudalism), they were incapable to govern themselves. As the region emerged from that calamity, the solidifying state-like formations realized that could not achieve what used to be regarded as essential. That was, to create homogeneity by liquidating the populations governed by disapproved creeds. (Wars of Religion.) The mutual failure to benefit of anarchy created a reluctantly achieved consensus to settle realistically for less than the whole loot. Since problems could not be solved slaughter, a system to bring the benefit of stability through tolerance and a modicum of cooperation emerged. A tool of that process is “diplomacy”.

Diplomacy, that is an etiquette-controlled procedure that regulated interstate contact through international law, did not guarantee eternal peace. However, what it achieved benefited all. It regulated state relations, banned, even during wars, by mutual accord certain actions, and substituted force by negotiated settlements. This evolved incrementally and not by a sudden agreement. The system brought advantages that emerging states utilized. For that reason, weak non-Western entities, such as 19^th century Japan, have accepted and applied it. (To its detriment, Imperial China has failed to use diplomacy to protect herself.) This made a “Western” invention into a global norm.

A central element of this procedural quasi order within a disorderly world, involved the protection of envoys. Since it became the perceived interest of all, the safety of diplomats became absolute. Accordingly, their person and their residences became inviolable. Even in wartime, all regimes, including the Communists and the Nazis, have respected that. (The American reader might appreciate this tidbit. The writer is also a beneficiary of extraterritoriality. When the war ended, the Imperial Japanese Embassy had been a guest of his family’s estate. The conquering Red Army sent a General and officers to protect the place from its notoriously looting stragglers.)

Islamists demonstrate contempt for the global order that regulates diplomacy and which is, in turn, upheld by it. Governed by their fanatical ignorance they chop away at a supporting beam of world order. Lacking a modern and realistic world-view, they disregard that its conventions separate us from the Hobbes’ anarchy of the war of all against all. If their comportment brings the fruits of the plant they nurture, then violence will cease to be a “last resort” of interstate relations. The inciters of mobs fail to grasp that they are ill equipped for the provoked free-for-all if their still passive victims retaliate.

Due to the rip-down of the structure of international order, “war” is made to return as the only means of the protection of interests. The channels to moderate conflicts are clogging up. Force re-emerges as the only effective instrument for states to assert themselves. Tehran and its proxies stand behind numerous violations of diplomatic immunity. Iran had success by avoiding retaliation for breached contracts and for developing a lethal threat to entire categories of societies. This should convince rational leaders of the advantages of “diplomacy”, that is of orderly interstate relations. The Mullahs, however, persist to prepare the “Ausradieren” of their named targets while shielded by “diplomacy”. In their current condition, they should take to heart their stake in the current order that protects them. Instead, while beneficiaries of diplomacy, the Mullahs use the dark of its shadow to prepare the demolition of the global order.

Formally and regularly, the fundamentalists call upon Muslims to kill diplomats. An embassy is the sovereign territory of a state. Strictly speaking, attacking such a compound is an act of war. In the future, radical Muslims might again become successful in exploiting diplomats as hostages. This success implies that the limited -and admittedly imperfect – rule of law in international relations is in a phase of decline. If that is the case, diplomatically structured affairs are replaced by mob rule exercised under the influence of a delusion.

Part of that illusion is that the punching bag does not hit back because it lacks the moral and physical capability. Ultimately, the misinterpreted experience might prove to be a bad predictor of future responses. Perennial and growing atrocities could change minds. Systematic violations practiced as a policy, could become an argument to respond to the challenge in the terms that are set by its source. The system that is being undermined still produces restraint because there is an inhibition at work, namely that a reaction could be rated as “racism”. Furthermore, since especially Islamist states are beneficiaries, it seems hard to believe that “they really mean it”. Finally, it is difficult to admit that a proven system suddenly fails to “work”. It is even more difficult to go from that admission to the conclusion that what does not work needs to be replaced.

Duly Noted. by George Handlery

The World Order and its Enemies.

Diplomacy is a pillar of global security and peace. The Islamists act to topple it.

The Third World is a beneficiary of the system of diplomacy that has evolved through the centuries. It is a fundament of an orderly world and fanatics are now undermining it.

International relations are as problem-laden as are personal relationships. All associations produce conflict. To promise the key to a “perfect” marriage in total harmony exploits the gullible. Promises to unite mankind in a conflict-free order of love are soothing intellectual exercises. Their practical value, however, equals a biology that claims to convert kissed frogs into princes.

Enshrined “peace studies” solve conflicts by calling them the avoidable results of misunderstandings. A warm hug uniting all of us will create a free of discord state. With that commences a peaceful, because conflict-free, world order.

The competing view has emotional blemishes that come from its realism. Doubting the “should be” of conjectures regarding the achievable ideal world is one of them. The awareness of an imperfect reality and its presentation contrast and challenges desire-driven daydreams. Therefore, the conflict theory reminds us of foul reality.

A degree of discord is a natural part of interpersonal relations, and so it is a component of interstate contacts. If so, not the total prevention of differences should be our sound goal: a system that facilitates the rational resolution of disputes is to be pursued. Here “diplomacy” serves as a tool. The term is not limited to elegant folks sipping champagne in palaces. Diplomacy is a system that enables the agents of national interests to gather and, regulated by rules, to negotiate.

Centuries ago, Europeans have made a discovery. In the antecedent era, in the style of today’s Somalia (feudalism), they were incapable to govern themselves. As the region emerged from that calamity, the solidifying state-like formations realized that could not achieve what used to be regarded as essential. That was, to create homogeneity by liquidating the populations governed by disapproved creeds. (Wars of Religion.) The mutual failure to benefit of anarchy created a reluctantly achieved consensus to settle realistically for less than the whole loot. Since problems could not be solved slaughter, a system to bring the benefit of stability through tolerance and a modicum of cooperation emerged. A tool of that process is “diplomacy”.

Diplomacy, that is an etiquette-controlled procedure that regulated interstate contact through international law, did not guarantee eternal peace. However, what it achieved benefited all. It regulated state relations, banned, even during wars, by mutual accord certain actions, and substituted force by negotiated settlements. This evolved incrementally and not by a sudden agreement. The system brought advantages that emerging states utilized. For that reason, weak non-Western entities, such as 19^th century Japan, have accepted and applied it. (To its detriment, Imperial China has failed to use diplomacy to protect herself.) This made a “Western” invention into a global norm.

A central element of this procedural quasi order within a disorderly world, involved the protection of envoys. Since it became the perceived interest of all, the safety of diplomats became absolute. Accordingly, their person and their residences became inviolable. Even in wartime, all regimes, including the Communists and the Nazis, have respected that. (The American reader might appreciate this tidbit. The writer is also a beneficiary of extraterritoriality. When the war ended, the Imperial Japanese Embassy had been a guest of his family’s estate. The conquering Red Army sent a General and officers to protect the place from its notoriously looting stragglers.)

Islamists demonstrate contempt for the global order that regulates diplomacy and which is, in turn, upheld by it. Governed by their fanatical ignorance they chop away at a supporting beam of world order. Lacking a modern and realistic world-view, they disregard that its conventions separate us from the Hobbes’ anarchy of the war of all against all. If their comportment brings the fruits of the plant they nurture, then violence will cease to be a “last resort” of interstate relations. The inciters of mobs fail to grasp that they are ill equipped for the provoked free-for-all if their still passive victims retaliate.

Due to the rip-down of the structure of international order, “war” is made to return as the only means of the protection of interests. The channels to moderate conflicts are clogging up. Force re-emerges as the only effective instrument for states to assert themselves. Tehran and its proxies stand behind numerous violations of diplomatic immunity. Iran had success by avoiding retaliation for breached contracts and for developing a lethal threat to entire categories of societies. This should convince rational leaders of the advantages of “diplomacy”, that is of orderly interstate relations. The Mullahs, however, persist to prepare the “Ausradieren” of their named targets while shielded by “diplomacy”. In their current condition, they should take to heart their stake in the current order that protects them. Instead, while beneficiaries of diplomacy, the Mullahs use the dark of its shadow to prepare the demolition of the global order.

Formally and regularly, the fundamentalists call upon Muslims to kill diplomats. An embassy is the sovereign territory of a state. Strictly speaking, attacking such a compound is an act of war. In the future, radical Muslims might again become successful in exploiting diplomats as hostages. This success implies that the limited -and admittedly imperfect – rule of law in international relations is in a phase of decline. If that is the case, diplomatically structured affairs are replaced by mob rule exercised under the influence of a delusion.

Part of that illusion is that the punching bag does not hit back because it lacks the moral and physical capability. Ultimately, the misinterpreted experience might prove to be a bad predictor of future responses. Perennial and growing atrocities could change minds. Systematic violations practiced as a policy, could become an argument to respond to the challenge in the terms that are set by its source. The system that is being undermined still produces restraint because there is an inhibition at work, namely that a reaction could be rated as “racism”. Furthermore, since especially Islamist states are beneficiaries, it seems hard to believe that “they really mean it”. Finally, it is difficult to admit that a proven system suddenly fails to “work”. It is even more difficult to go from that admission to the conclusion that what does not work needs to be replaced.

Duly Noted. by George Handlery

The World Order and its Enemies.

Diplomacy is a pillar of global security and peace. The Islamists act to topple it.

The Third World is a beneficiary of the system of diplomacy that has evolved through the centuries. It is a fundament of an orderly world and fanatics are now undermining it.

International relations are as problem-laden as are personal relationships. All associations produce conflict. To promise the key to a “perfect” marriage in total harmony exploits the gullible. Promises to unite mankind in a conflict-free order of love are soothing intellectual exercises. Their practical value, however, equals a biology that claims to convert kissed frogs into princes.

Enshrined “peace studies” solve conflicts by calling them the avoidable results of misunderstandings. A warm hug uniting all of us will create a free of discord state. With that commences a peaceful, because conflict-free, world order.

The competing view has emotional blemishes that come from its realism. Doubting the “should be” of conjectures regarding the achievable ideal world is one of them. The awareness of an imperfect reality and its presentation contrast and challenges desire-driven daydreams. Therefore, the conflict theory reminds us of foul reality.

A degree of discord is a natural part of interpersonal relations, and so it is a component of interstate contacts. If so, not the total prevention of differences should be our sound goal: a system that facilitates the rational resolution of disputes is to be pursued. Here “diplomacy” serves as a tool. The term is not limited to elegant folks sipping champagne in palaces. Diplomacy is a system that enables the agents of national interests to gather and, regulated by rules, to negotiate.

Centuries ago, Europeans have made a discovery. In the antecedent era, in the style of today’s Somalia (feudalism), they were incapable to govern themselves. As the region emerged from that calamity, the solidifying state-like formations realized that could not achieve what used to be regarded as essential. That was, to create homogeneity by liquidating the populations governed by disapproved creeds. (Wars of Religion.) The mutual failure to benefit of anarchy created a reluctantly achieved consensus to settle realistically for less than the whole loot. Since problems could not be solved slaughter, a system to bring the benefit of stability through tolerance and a modicum of cooperation emerged. A tool of that process is “diplomacy”.

Diplomacy, that is an etiquette-controlled procedure that regulated interstate contact through international law, did not guarantee eternal peace. However, what it achieved benefited all. It regulated state relations, banned, even during wars, by mutual accord certain actions, and substituted force by negotiated settlements. This evolved incrementally and not by a sudden agreement. The system brought advantages that emerging states utilized. For that reason, weak non-Western entities, such as 19^th century Japan, have accepted and applied it. (To its detriment, Imperial China has failed to use diplomacy to protect herself.) This made a “Western” invention into a global norm.

A central element of this procedural quasi order within a disorderly world, involved the protection of envoys. Since it became the perceived interest of all, the safety of diplomats became absolute. Accordingly, their person and their residences became inviolable. Even in wartime, all regimes, including the Communists and the Nazis, have respected that. (The American reader might appreciate this tidbit. The writer is also a beneficiary of extraterritoriality. When the war ended, the Imperial Japanese Embassy had been a guest of his family’s estate. The conquering Red Army sent a General and officers to protect the place from its notoriously looting stragglers.)

Islamists demonstrate contempt for the global order that regulates diplomacy and which is, in turn, upheld by it. Governed by their fanatical ignorance they chop away at a supporting beam of world order. Lacking a modern and realistic world-view, they disregard that its conventions separate us from the Hobbes’ anarchy of the war of all against all. If their comportment brings the fruits of the plant they nurture, then violence will cease to be a “last resort” of interstate relations. The inciters of mobs fail to grasp that they are ill equipped for the provoked free-for-all if their still passive victims retaliate.

Due to the rip-down of the structure of international order, “war” is made to return as the only means of the protection of interests. The channels to moderate conflicts are clogging up. Force re-emerges as the only effective instrument for states to assert themselves. Tehran and its proxies stand behind numerous violations of diplomatic immunity. Iran had success by avoiding retaliation for breached contracts and for developing a lethal threat to entire categories of societies. This should convince rational leaders of the advantages of “diplomacy”, that is of orderly interstate relations. The Mullahs, however, persist to prepare the “Ausradieren” of their named targets while shielded by “diplomacy”. In their current condition, they should take to heart their stake in the current order that protects them. Instead, while beneficiaries of diplomacy, the Mullahs use the dark of its shadow to prepare the demolition of the global order.

Formally and regularly, the fundamentalists call upon Muslims to kill diplomats. An embassy is the sovereign territory of a state. Strictly speaking, attacking such a compound is an act of war. In the future, radical Muslims might again become successful in exploiting diplomats as hostages. This success implies that the limited -and admittedly imperfect – rule of law in international relations is in a phase of decline. If that is the case, diplomatically structured affairs are replaced by mob rule exercised under the influence of a delusion.

Part of that illusion is that the punching bag does not hit back because it lacks the moral and physical capability. Ultimately, the misinterpreted experience might prove to be a bad predictor of future responses. Perennial and growing atrocities could change minds. Systematic violations practiced as a policy, could become an argument to respond to the challenge in the terms that are set by its source. The system that is being undermined still produces restraint because there is an inhibition at work, namely that a reaction could be rated as “racism”. Furthermore, since especially Islamist states are beneficiaries, it seems hard to believe that “they really mean it”. Finally, it is difficult to admit that a proven system suddenly fails to “work”. It is even more difficult to go from that admission to the conclusion that what does not work needs to be replaced.

Duly Noted. by George Handlery

The World Order and its Enemies.

Diplomacy is a pillar of global security and peace. The Islamists act to topple it.

The Third World is a beneficiary of the system of diplomacy that has evolved through the centuries. It is a fundament of an orderly world and fanatics are now undermining it.

International relations are as problem-laden as are personal relationships. All associations produce conflict. To promise the key to a “perfect” marriage in total harmony exploits the gullible. Promises to unite mankind in a conflict-free order of love are soothing intellectual exercises. Their practical value, however, equals a biology that claims to convert kissed frogs into princes.

Enshrined “peace studies” solve conflicts by calling them the avoidable results of misunderstandings. A warm hug uniting all of us will create a free of discord state. With that commences a peaceful, because conflict-free, world order.

The competing view has emotional blemishes that come from its realism. Doubting the “should be” of conjectures regarding the achievable ideal world is one of them. The awareness of an imperfect reality and its presentation contrast and challenges desire-driven daydreams. Therefore, the conflict theory reminds us of foul reality.

A degree of discord is a natural part of interpersonal relations, and so it is a component of interstate contacts. If so, not the total prevention of differences should be our sound goal: a system that facilitates the rational resolution of disputes is to be pursued. Here “diplomacy” serves as a tool. The term is not limited to elegant folks sipping champagne in palaces. Diplomacy is a system that enables the agents of national interests to gather and, regulated by rules, to negotiate.

Centuries ago, Europeans have made a discovery. In the antecedent era, in the style of today’s Somalia (feudalism), they were incapable to govern themselves. As the region emerged from that calamity, the solidifying state-like formations realized that could not achieve what used to be regarded as essential. That was, to create homogeneity by liquidating the populations governed by disapproved creeds. (Wars of Religion.) The mutual failure to benefit of anarchy created a reluctantly achieved consensus to settle realistically for less than the whole loot. Since problems could not be solved slaughter, a system to bring the benefit of stability through tolerance and a modicum of cooperation emerged. A tool of that process is “diplomacy”.

Diplomacy, that is an etiquette-controlled procedure that regulated interstate contact through international law, did not guarantee eternal peace. However, what it achieved benefited all. It regulated state relations, banned, even during wars, by mutual accord certain actions, and substituted force by negotiated settlements. This evolved incrementally and not by a sudden agreement. The system brought advantages that emerging states utilized. For that reason, weak non-Western entities, such as 19^th century Japan, have accepted and applied it. (To its detriment, Imperial China has failed to use diplomacy to protect herself.) This made a “Western” invention into a global norm.

A central element of this procedural quasi order within a disorderly world, involved the protection of envoys. Since it became the perceived interest of all, the safety of diplomats became absolute. Accordingly, their person and their residences became inviolable. Even in wartime, all regimes, including the Communists and the Nazis, have respected that. (The American reader might appreciate this tidbit. The writer is also a beneficiary of extraterritoriality. When the war ended, the Imperial Japanese Embassy had been a guest of his family’s estate. The conquering Red Army sent a General and officers to protect the place from its notoriously looting stragglers.)

Islamists demonstrate contempt for the global order that regulates diplomacy and which is, in turn, upheld by it. Governed by their fanatical ignorance they chop away at a supporting beam of world order. Lacking a modern and realistic world-view, they disregard that its conventions separate us from the Hobbes’ anarchy of the war of all against all. If their comportment brings the fruits of the plant they nurture, then violence will cease to be a “last resort” of interstate relations. The inciters of mobs fail to grasp that they are ill equipped for the provoked free-for-all if their still passive victims retaliate.

Due to the rip-down of the structure of international order, “war” is made to return as the only means of the protection of interests. The channels to moderate conflicts are clogging up. Force re-emerges as the only effective instrument for states to assert themselves. Tehran and its proxies stand behind numerous violations of diplomatic immunity. Iran had success by avoiding retaliation for breached contracts and for developing a lethal threat to entire categories of societies. This should convince rational leaders of the advantages of “diplomacy”, that is of orderly interstate relations. The Mullahs, however, persist to prepare the “Ausradieren” of their named targets while shielded by “diplomacy”. In their current condition, they should take to heart their stake in the current order that protects them. Instead, while beneficiaries of diplomacy, the Mullahs use the dark of its shadow to prepare the demolition of the global order.

Formally and regularly, the fundamentalists call upon Muslims to kill diplomats. An embassy is the sovereign territory of a state. Strictly speaking, attacking such a compound is an act of war. In the future, radical Muslims might again become successful in exploiting diplomats as hostages. This success implies that the limited -and admittedly imperfect – rule of law in international relations is in a phase of decline. If that is the case, diplomatically structured affairs are replaced by mob rule exercised under the influence of a delusion.

Part of that illusion is that the punching bag does not hit back because it lacks the moral and physical capability. Ultimately, the misinterpreted experience might prove to be a bad predictor of future responses. Perennial and growing atrocities could change minds. Systematic violations practiced as a policy, could become an argument to respond to the challenge in the terms that are set by its source. The system that is being undermined still produces restraint because there is an inhibition at work, namely that a reaction could be rated as “racism”. Furthermore, since especially Islamist states are beneficiaries, it seems hard to believe that “they really mean it”. Finally, it is difficult to admit that a proven system suddenly fails to “work”. It is even more difficult to go from that admission to the conclusion that what does not work needs to be replaced.

Duly Noted. by George Handlery

The World Order and its Enemies.

Diplomacy is a pillar of global security and peace. The Islamists act to topple it.

The Third World is a beneficiary of the system of diplomacy that has evolved through the centuries. It is a fundament of an orderly world and fanatics are now undermining it.

International relations are as problem-laden as are personal relationships. All associations produce conflict. To promise the key to a “perfect” marriage in total harmony exploits the gullible. Promises to unite mankind in a conflict-free order of love are soothing intellectual exercises. Their practical value, however, equals a biology that claims to convert kissed frogs into princes.

Enshrined “peace studies” solve conflicts by calling them the avoidable results of misunderstandings. A warm hug uniting all of us will create a free of discord state. With that commences a peaceful, because conflict-free, world order.

The competing view has emotional blemishes that come from its realism. Doubting the “should be” of conjectures regarding the achievable ideal world is one of them. The awareness of an imperfect reality and its presentation contrast and challenges desire-driven daydreams. Therefore, the conflict theory reminds us of foul reality.

A degree of discord is a natural part of interpersonal relations, and so it is a component of interstate contacts. If so, not the total prevention of differences should be our sound goal: a system that facilitates the rational resolution of disputes is to be pursued. Here “diplomacy” serves as a tool. The term is not limited to elegant folks sipping champagne in palaces. Diplomacy is a system that enables the agents of national interests to gather and, regulated by rules, to negotiate.

Centuries ago, Europeans have made a discovery. In the antecedent era, in the style of today’s Somalia (feudalism), they were incapable to govern themselves. As the region emerged from that calamity, the solidifying state-like formations realized that could not achieve what used to be regarded as essential. That was, to create homogeneity by liquidating the populations governed by disapproved creeds. (Wars of Religion.) The mutual failure to benefit of anarchy created a reluctantly achieved consensus to settle realistically for less than the whole loot. Since problems could not be solved slaughter, a system to bring the benefit of stability through tolerance and a modicum of cooperation emerged. A tool of that process is “diplomacy”.

Diplomacy, that is an etiquette-controlled procedure that regulated interstate contact through international law, did not guarantee eternal peace. However, what it achieved benefited all. It regulated state relations, banned, even during wars, by mutual accord certain actions, and substituted force by negotiated settlements. This evolved incrementally and not by a sudden agreement. The system brought advantages that emerging states utilized. For that reason, weak non-Western entities, such as 19^th century Japan, have accepted and applied it. (To its detriment, Imperial China has failed to use diplomacy to protect herself.) This made a “Western” invention into a global norm.

A central element of this procedural quasi order within a disorderly world, involved the protection of envoys. Since it became the perceived interest of all, the safety of diplomats became absolute. Accordingly, their person and their residences became inviolable. Even in wartime, all regimes, including the Communists and the Nazis, have respected that. (The American reader might appreciate this tidbit. The writer is also a beneficiary of extraterritoriality. When the war ended, the Imperial Japanese Embassy had been a guest of his family’s estate. The conquering Red Army sent a General and officers to protect the place from its notoriously looting stragglers.)

Islamists demonstrate contempt for the global order that regulates diplomacy and which is, in turn, upheld by it. Governed by their fanatical ignorance they chop away at a supporting beam of world order. Lacking a modern and realistic world-view, they disregard that its conventions separate us from the Hobbes’ anarchy of the war of all against all. If their comportment brings the fruits of the plant they nurture, then violence will cease to be a “last resort” of interstate relations. The inciters of mobs fail to grasp that they are ill equipped for the provoked free-for-all if their still passive victims retaliate.

Due to the rip-down of the structure of international order, “war” is made to return as the only means of the protection of interests. The channels to moderate conflicts are clogging up. Force re-emerges as the only effective instrument for states to assert themselves. Tehran and its proxies stand behind numerous violations of diplomatic immunity. Iran had success by avoiding retaliation for breached contracts and for developing a lethal threat to entire categories of societies. This should convince rational leaders of the advantages of “diplomacy”, that is of orderly interstate relations. The Mullahs, however, persist to prepare the “Ausradieren” of their named targets while shielded by “diplomacy”. In their current condition, they should take to heart their stake in the current order that protects them. Instead, while beneficiaries of diplomacy, the Mullahs use the dark of its shadow to prepare the demolition of the global order.

Formally and regularly, the fundamentalists call upon Muslims to kill diplomats. An embassy is the sovereign territory of a state. Strictly speaking, attacking such a compound is an act of war. In the future, radical Muslims might again become successful in exploiting diplomats as hostages. This success implies that the limited -and admittedly imperfect – rule of law in international relations is in a phase of decline. If that is the case, diplomatically structured affairs are replaced by mob rule exercised under the influence of a delusion.

Part of that illusion is that the punching bag does not hit back because it lacks the moral and physical capability. Ultimately, the misinterpreted experience might prove to be a bad predictor of future responses. Perennial and growing atrocities could change minds. Systematic violations practiced as a policy, could become an argument to respond to the challenge in the terms that are set by its source. The system that is being undermined still produces restraint because there is an inhibition at work, namely that a reaction could be rated as “racism”. Furthermore, since especially Islamist states are beneficiaries, it seems hard to believe that “they really mean it”. Finally, it is difficult to admit that a proven system suddenly fails to “work”. It is even more difficult to go from that admission to the conclusion that what does not work needs to be replaced.

Duly Noted. by George Handlery

The World Order and its Enemies.

Diplomacy is a pillar of global security and peace. The Islamists act to topple it.

The Third World is a beneficiary of the system of diplomacy that has evolved through the centuries. It is a fundament of an orderly world and fanatics are now undermining it.

International relations are as problem-laden as are personal relationships. All associations produce conflict. To promise the key to a “perfect” marriage in total harmony exploits the gullible. Promises to unite mankind in a conflict-free order of love are soothing intellectual exercises. Their practical value, however, equals a biology that claims to convert kissed frogs into princes.

Enshrined “peace studies” solve conflicts by calling them the avoidable results of misunderstandings. A warm hug uniting all of us will create a free of discord state. With that commences a peaceful, because conflict-free, world order.

The competing view has emotional blemishes that come from its realism. Doubting the “should be” of conjectures regarding the achievable ideal world is one of them. The awareness of an imperfect reality and its presentation contrast and challenges desire-driven daydreams. Therefore, the conflict theory reminds us of foul reality.

A degree of discord is a natural part of interpersonal relations, and so it is a component of interstate contacts. If so, not the total prevention of differences should be our sound goal: a system that facilitates the rational resolution of disputes is to be pursued. Here “diplomacy” serves as a tool. The term is not limited to elegant folks sipping champagne in palaces. Diplomacy is a system that enables the agents of national interests to gather and, regulated by rules, to negotiate.

Centuries ago, Europeans have made a discovery. In the antecedent era, in the style of today’s Somalia (feudalism), they were incapable to govern themselves. As the region emerged from that calamity, the solidifying state-like formations realized that could not achieve what used to be regarded as essential. That was, to create homogeneity by liquidating the populations governed by disapproved creeds. (Wars of Religion.) The mutual failure to benefit of anarchy created a reluctantly achieved consensus to settle realistically for less than the whole loot. Since problems could not be solved slaughter, a system to bring the benefit of stability through tolerance and a modicum of cooperation emerged. A tool of that process is “diplomacy”.

Diplomacy, that is an etiquette-controlled procedure that regulated interstate contact through international law, did not guarantee eternal peace. However, what it achieved benefited all. It regulated state relations, banned, even during wars, by mutual accord certain actions, and substituted force by negotiated settlements. This evolved incrementally and not by a sudden agreement. The system brought advantages that emerging states utilized. For that reason, weak non-Western entities, such as 19^th century Japan, have accepted and applied it. (To its detriment, Imperial China has failed to use diplomacy to protect herself.) This made a “Western” invention into a global norm.

A central element of this procedural quasi order within a disorderly world, involved the protection of envoys. Since it became the perceived interest of all, the safety of diplomats became absolute. Accordingly, their person and their residences became inviolable. Even in wartime, all regimes, including the Communists and the Nazis, have respected that. (The American reader might appreciate this tidbit. The writer is also a beneficiary of extraterritoriality. When the war ended, the Imperial Japanese Embassy had been a guest of his family’s estate. The conquering Red Army sent a General and officers to protect the place from its notoriously looting stragglers.)

Islamists demonstrate contempt for the global order that regulates diplomacy and which is, in turn, upheld by it. Governed by their fanatical ignorance they chop away at a supporting beam of world order. Lacking a modern and realistic world-view, they disregard that its conventions separate us from the Hobbes’ anarchy of the war of all against all. If their comportment brings the fruits of the plant they nurture, then violence will cease to be a “last resort” of interstate relations. The inciters of mobs fail to grasp that they are ill equipped for the provoked free-for-all if their still passive victims retaliate.

Due to the rip-down of the structure of international order, “war” is made to return as the only means of the protection of interests. The channels to moderate conflicts are clogging up. Force re-emerges as the only effective instrument for states to assert themselves. Tehran and its proxies stand behind numerous violations of diplomatic immunity. Iran had success by avoiding retaliation for breached contracts and for developing a lethal threat to entire categories of societies. This should convince rational leaders of the advantages of “diplomacy”, that is of orderly interstate relations. The Mullahs, however, persist to prepare the “Ausradieren” of their named targets while shielded by “diplomacy”. In their current condition, they should take to heart their stake in the current order that protects them. Instead, while beneficiaries of diplomacy, the Mullahs use the dark of its shadow to prepare the demolition of the global order.

Formally and regularly, the fundamentalists call upon Muslims to kill diplomats. An embassy is the sovereign territory of a state. Strictly speaking, attacking such a compound is an act of war. In the future, radical Muslims might again become successful in exploiting diplomats as hostages. This success implies that the limited -and admittedly imperfect – rule of law in international relations is in a phase of decline. If that is the case, diplomatically structured affairs are replaced by mob rule exercised under the influence of a delusion.

Part of that illusion is that the punching bag does not hit back because it lacks the moral and physical capability. Ultimately, the misinterpreted experience might prove to be a bad predictor of future responses. Perennial and growing atrocities could change minds. Systematic violations practiced as a policy, could become an argument to respond to the challenge in the terms that are set by its source. The system that is being undermined still produces restraint because there is an inhibition at work, namely that a reaction could be rated as “racism”. Furthermore, since especially Islamist states are beneficiaries, it seems hard to believe that “they really mean it”. Finally, it is difficult to admit that a proven system suddenly fails to “work”. It is even more difficult to go from that admission to the conclusion that what does not work needs to be replaced.

by Sharon Sebastian

That Jihadists demonstrate dwindling fear of Barack Obama portends a crisis of international proportions that threatens global stability. As Obama’s domestic economic policies wreak havoc on families and our nation, his kid-gloves foreign policy has now proven to be deadly with the loss of American lives. Still, Obama rejects that the uprising in the Middle East is anti-American even as his image is burned in effigy by Islamist extremists along with the American flag.

Jihadists have bided their time and gaged the current American president. Notable is Obama’s peculiar reticence to admit to the American people who the enemy is — Islamist extremists — even when that enemy openly and repeatedly threatens destruction of the United States. Former United Nation’s Ambassador John Bolton says evidence of that is Obama treating the violent deaths of four Americans in Libya as a “criminal law” matter rather than an organized terrorist attack by mobs armed with RPGs, mortar rounds and foreign agitators as reported by Libyan authorities.

For four years, Obama has weakened America economically, militarily, and globally. Obama has made America increasingly vulnerable. So swiftly it has occurred that many assign premeditation and not naiveté. Despite Obama’s grandiose assurances that his personal charm would bring peace to the Middle East, average Americans held no disillusions as Barack Obama stirred up the Arab Spring that toppled regimes — leaving a gaping leadership void – that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to quickly step-in and fill. No one needed an intelligence briefing to see it coming. Yet, Obama disclaims the obvious. He defended his actions, claimed the Brotherhood sought only democracy, then went golfing, campaigning and hanging with celebs while ignoring intelligence reports regarding ominous threats to American interests worldwide.

Citing additional threats to security at home, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) questions this President’s inexplicable behavior. Bachmann demands to know why the Department of Homeland Security, under Obama and Janet Napolitano, categorize “Christians, American Constitutionalists, and Patriots as potential threats” — while labeling the so-called “precursor activities” of terrorists and jihadists as “cultural behaviors.” Bachmann reports that Homeland Security may currently employ eight Muslim Brotherhood members in key, sensitive positions.  She further wants clarity regarding why Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, whose family members reportedly have a long and deep history of high-ranking leadership within the Muslim Brotherhood, now serves as Clinton’s closest advisor.

In regard to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama cannot plead ignorance to its threat. NewsBusters’ Brad Wilmouth wrote a widely read article eighteen months ago titled, “The New Leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in His Own Words,” which reads in part:

“CAMERA’s Steven Stotsky picked up on a translation of Mohammed Badie’s first public address after being chosen as Muslim Brotherhood leader in January 2010:

“[The Arab and Muslim regimes] are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme and the infidels’ word will be inferior…  They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.”

As pointed out in my previous article, “Obama & Islam,” Obama unleashed uprisings in the Middle East while implementing a radical, Socialist agenda back home. His overall intent is not as bifurcated as it may appear. The Islamists are waging a war of religion while the radical left is waging a war of ideas. The mutual goal is the toppling of a republic based, Judeo-Christian founded and Constitutionally-grounded America. Jihadists want America to become an Islamic state like Iran, whereas the left wants a “transformation of America” to a Socialist/Marxist nation. Both systems devour individual rights and freedoms. Key to both movements is total elimination of all belief systems counter to their own. Were they to succeed, as natural enemies, Islamists and Socialists will eventually target one another. Radical Islam condemns to death all that reject a belief in Allah. Socialists/Marxists constitute much of America’s Progressive-Left and have consistently legislated God out of American society, seeking to become god to the masses.

President Obama is the titular head of the Progressive-Left.  President Obama understands Islam having studied the Koran in Indonesia. Part of the curriculum was that The Twelfth Imam or 12^th Mahdi is the Islamic savior — its Islamic messiah. Islam requires that in order for the 12^th Imam to reveal himself, the world must be in global war. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly believes that he has the divine mission to “hasten the return” of the 12^th Mahdi. Destroying Israel, then America — erupts the world into the chaos needed for the Mahdi’s return.

Christianity came into existence some 600 years before Islam. The Christian Messiah is the Savior Jesus Christ. Islam reveres Jesus as a lesser prophet and not God, which puts Islam at inextricable odds with Christianity. Iranian President Ahmadinejad believes the “Mahdi” or “Twelfth Imam” will appear publicly during a time of great disaster, with Jesus at his side, to bring peace to a war-torn world. It is said that the 12^th Madhi will take Jesus to Mecca to replace the Bible with the Koran so that Christians worldwide will convert to Islam. A “Muslim anti-Christ” is also to surface in the world and falsely convince Jews that he is their “Jesus the Messiah” that they have long awaited.

An “Islamic Jesus,” it is said, will kill all Jews and behead anyone worldwide who does not accept Islam as the only true religion. The Islamic Mahdi will set-up his kingdom in Jerusalem, establish a worldwide Caliphate, along with Shariah Law, and rule the world. Homosexuals will be killed and women will remain as property and oppressed. Such belief is a driving force of today’s war on non-Islamic nations; an ancient war based on fundamental Islam that has entrenched the globe in a war on terror. Moderate Muslims declare that only extremists hold such beliefs.

The funding by Iran of the upheaval in the Middle East, the positioning of radical Muslim groups in governments across the region from Lebanon to Egypt cannot simply be dismissed as a war of ideologies between the West and the Muslim world. By Ahmadinejad’s admission, Iran’s role in the turmoil in the Middle East is to set the stage for the return of the 12^th Imam. Obama’s years studying Islam should have taught him that he cannot schmooze leaders like Ahmadinejad, gain their favor, and unmoor them from what they believe is the only reason they exist on the planet. Islamic radicals seek world chaos targeting first Israel and then the United States.

The radical-left within Obama’s own party seeks a “transformation” into Socialism with a dependent citizenry existing in a damaged economy with limited freedoms. Though he tries to understate them, Obama clearly understands the ultimate motives of both threats to America. His inability or unwillingness to address both presents a profound danger to the American people.

Sharon Sebastian is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide.
Sharon Sebastian on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

by Sharon Sebastian

That Jihadists demonstrate dwindling fear of Barack Obama portends a crisis of international proportions that threatens global stability. As Obama’s domestic economic policies wreak havoc on families and our nation, his kid-gloves foreign policy has now proven to be deadly with the loss of American lives. Still, Obama rejects that the uprising in the Middle East is anti-American even as his image is burned in effigy by Islamist extremists along with the American flag.

Jihadists have bided their time and gaged the current American president. Notable is Obama’s peculiar reticence to admit to the American people who the enemy is — Islamist extremists — even when that enemy openly and repeatedly threatens destruction of the United States. Former United Nation’s Ambassador John Bolton says evidence of that is Obama treating the violent deaths of four Americans in Libya as a “criminal law” matter rather than an organized terrorist attack by mobs armed with RPGs, mortar rounds and foreign agitators as reported by Libyan authorities.

For four years, Obama has weakened America economically, militarily, and globally. Obama has made America increasingly vulnerable. So swiftly it has occurred that many assign premeditation and not naiveté. Despite Obama’s grandiose assurances that his personal charm would bring peace to the Middle East, average Americans held no disillusions as Barack Obama stirred up the Arab Spring that toppled regimes — leaving a gaping leadership void – that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to quickly step-in and fill. No one needed an intelligence briefing to see it coming. Yet, Obama disclaims the obvious. He defended his actions, claimed the Brotherhood sought only democracy, then went golfing, campaigning and hanging with celebs while ignoring intelligence reports regarding ominous threats to American interests worldwide.

Citing additional threats to security at home, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) questions this President’s inexplicable behavior. Bachmann demands to know why the Department of Homeland Security, under Obama and Janet Napolitano, categorize “Christians, American Constitutionalists, and Patriots as potential threats” — while labeling the so-called “precursor activities” of terrorists and jihadists as “cultural behaviors.” Bachmann reports that Homeland Security may currently employ eight Muslim Brotherhood members in key, sensitive positions.  She further wants clarity regarding why Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, whose family members reportedly have a long and deep history of high-ranking leadership within the Muslim Brotherhood, now serves as Clinton’s closest advisor.

In regard to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama cannot plead ignorance to its threat. NewsBusters’ Brad Wilmouth wrote a widely read article eighteen months ago titled, “The New Leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in His Own Words,” which reads in part:

“CAMERA’s Steven Stotsky picked up on a translation of Mohammed Badie’s first public address after being chosen as Muslim Brotherhood leader in January 2010:

“[The Arab and Muslim regimes] are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme and the infidels’ word will be inferior…  They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.”

As pointed out in my previous article, “Obama & Islam,” Obama unleashed uprisings in the Middle East while implementing a radical, Socialist agenda back home. His overall intent is not as bifurcated as it may appear. The Islamists are waging a war of religion while the radical left is waging a war of ideas. The mutual goal is the toppling of a republic based, Judeo-Christian founded and Constitutionally-grounded America. Jihadists want America to become an Islamic state like Iran, whereas the left wants a “transformation of America” to a Socialist/Marxist nation. Both systems devour individual rights and freedoms. Key to both movements is total elimination of all belief systems counter to their own. Were they to succeed, as natural enemies, Islamists and Socialists will eventually target one another. Radical Islam condemns to death all that reject a belief in Allah. Socialists/Marxists constitute much of America’s Progressive-Left and have consistently legislated God out of American society, seeking to become god to the masses.

President Obama is the titular head of the Progressive-Left.  President Obama understands Islam having studied the Koran in Indonesia. Part of the curriculum was that The Twelfth Imam or 12^th Mahdi is the Islamic savior — its Islamic messiah. Islam requires that in order for the 12^th Imam to reveal himself, the world must be in global war. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly believes that he has the divine mission to “hasten the return” of the 12^th Mahdi. Destroying Israel, then America — erupts the world into the chaos needed for the Mahdi’s return.

Christianity came into existence some 600 years before Islam. The Christian Messiah is the Savior Jesus Christ. Islam reveres Jesus as a lesser prophet and not God, which puts Islam at inextricable odds with Christianity. Iranian President Ahmadinejad believes the “Mahdi” or “Twelfth Imam” will appear publicly during a time of great disaster, with Jesus at his side, to bring peace to a war-torn world. It is said that the 12^th Madhi will take Jesus to Mecca to replace the Bible with the Koran so that Christians worldwide will convert to Islam. A “Muslim anti-Christ” is also to surface in the world and falsely convince Jews that he is their “Jesus the Messiah” that they have long awaited.

An “Islamic Jesus,” it is said, will kill all Jews and behead anyone worldwide who does not accept Islam as the only true religion. The Islamic Mahdi will set-up his kingdom in Jerusalem, establish a worldwide Caliphate, along with Shariah Law, and rule the world. Homosexuals will be killed and women will remain as property and oppressed. Such belief is a driving force of today’s war on non-Islamic nations; an ancient war based on fundamental Islam that has entrenched the globe in a war on terror. Moderate Muslims declare that only extremists hold such beliefs.

The funding by Iran of the upheaval in the Middle East, the positioning of radical Muslim groups in governments across the region from Lebanon to Egypt cannot simply be dismissed as a war of ideologies between the West and the Muslim world. By Ahmadinejad’s admission, Iran’s role in the turmoil in the Middle East is to set the stage for the return of the 12^th Imam. Obama’s years studying Islam should have taught him that he cannot schmooze leaders like Ahmadinejad, gain their favor, and unmoor them from what they believe is the only reason they exist on the planet. Islamic radicals seek world chaos targeting first Israel and then the United States.

The radical-left within Obama’s own party seeks a “transformation” into Socialism with a dependent citizenry existing in a damaged economy with limited freedoms. Though he tries to understate them, Obama clearly understands the ultimate motives of both threats to America. His inability or unwillingness to address both presents a profound danger to the American people.

Sharon Sebastian is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide.
Sharon Sebastian on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

by Sharon Sebastian

That Jihadists demonstrate dwindling fear of Barack Obama portends a crisis of international proportions that threatens global stability. As Obama’s domestic economic policies wreak havoc on families and our nation, his kid-gloves foreign policy has now proven to be deadly with the loss of American lives. Still, Obama rejects that the uprising in the Middle East is anti-American even as his image is burned in effigy by Islamist extremists along with the American flag.

Jihadists have bided their time and gaged the current American president. Notable is Obama’s peculiar reticence to admit to the American people who the enemy is — Islamist extremists — even when that enemy openly and repeatedly threatens destruction of the United States. Former United Nation’s Ambassador John Bolton says evidence of that is Obama treating the violent deaths of four Americans in Libya as a “criminal law” matter rather than an organized terrorist attack by mobs armed with RPGs, mortar rounds and foreign agitators as reported by Libyan authorities.

For four years, Obama has weakened America economically, militarily, and globally. Obama has made America increasingly vulnerable. So swiftly it has occurred that many assign premeditation and not naiveté. Despite Obama’s grandiose assurances that his personal charm would bring peace to the Middle East, average Americans held no disillusions as Barack Obama stirred up the Arab Spring that toppled regimes — leaving a gaping leadership void – that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to quickly step-in and fill. No one needed an intelligence briefing to see it coming. Yet, Obama disclaims the obvious. He defended his actions, claimed the Brotherhood sought only democracy, then went golfing, campaigning and hanging with celebs while ignoring intelligence reports regarding ominous threats to American interests worldwide.

Citing additional threats to security at home, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) questions this President’s inexplicable behavior. Bachmann demands to know why the Department of Homeland Security, under Obama and Janet Napolitano, categorize “Christians, American Constitutionalists, and Patriots as potential threats” — while labeling the so-called “precursor activities” of terrorists and jihadists as “cultural behaviors.” Bachmann reports that Homeland Security may currently employ eight Muslim Brotherhood members in key, sensitive positions.  She further wants clarity regarding why Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, whose family members reportedly have a long and deep history of high-ranking leadership within the Muslim Brotherhood, now serves as Clinton’s closest advisor.

In regard to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama cannot plead ignorance to its threat. NewsBusters’ Brad Wilmouth wrote a widely read article eighteen months ago titled, “The New Leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in His Own Words,” which reads in part:

“CAMERA’s Steven Stotsky picked up on a translation of Mohammed Badie’s first public address after being chosen as Muslim Brotherhood leader in January 2010:

“[The Arab and Muslim regimes] are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme and the infidels’ word will be inferior…  They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.”

As pointed out in my previous article, “Obama & Islam,” Obama unleashed uprisings in the Middle East while implementing a radical, Socialist agenda back home. His overall intent is not as bifurcated as it may appear. The Islamists are waging a war of religion while the radical left is waging a war of ideas. The mutual goal is the toppling of a republic based, Judeo-Christian founded and Constitutionally-grounded America. Jihadists want America to become an Islamic state like Iran, whereas the left wants a “transformation of America” to a Socialist/Marxist nation. Both systems devour individual rights and freedoms. Key to both movements is total elimination of all belief systems counter to their own. Were they to succeed, as natural enemies, Islamists and Socialists will eventually target one another. Radical Islam condemns to death all that reject a belief in Allah. Socialists/Marxists constitute much of America’s Progressive-Left and have consistently legislated God out of American society, seeking to become god to the masses.

President Obama is the titular head of the Progressive-Left.  President Obama understands Islam having studied the Koran in Indonesia. Part of the curriculum was that The Twelfth Imam or 12^th Mahdi is the Islamic savior — its Islamic messiah. Islam requires that in order for the 12^th Imam to reveal himself, the world must be in global war. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly believes that he has the divine mission to “hasten the return” of the 12^th Mahdi. Destroying Israel, then America — erupts the world into the chaos needed for the Mahdi’s return.

Christianity came into existence some 600 years before Islam. The Christian Messiah is the Savior Jesus Christ. Islam reveres Jesus as a lesser prophet and not God, which puts Islam at inextricable odds with Christianity. Iranian President Ahmadinejad believes the “Mahdi” or “Twelfth Imam” will appear publicly during a time of great disaster, with Jesus at his side, to bring peace to a war-torn world. It is said that the 12^th Madhi will take Jesus to Mecca to replace the Bible with the Koran so that Christians worldwide will convert to Islam. A “Muslim anti-Christ” is also to surface in the world and falsely convince Jews that he is their “Jesus the Messiah” that they have long awaited.

An “Islamic Jesus,” it is said, will kill all Jews and behead anyone worldwide who does not accept Islam as the only true religion. The Islamic Mahdi will set-up his kingdom in Jerusalem, establish a worldwide Caliphate, along with Shariah Law, and rule the world. Homosexuals will be killed and women will remain as property and oppressed. Such belief is a driving force of today’s war on non-Islamic nations; an ancient war based on fundamental Islam that has entrenched the globe in a war on terror. Moderate Muslims declare that only extremists hold such beliefs.

The funding by Iran of the upheaval in the Middle East, the positioning of radical Muslim groups in governments across the region from Lebanon to Egypt cannot simply be dismissed as a war of ideologies between the West and the Muslim world. By Ahmadinejad’s admission, Iran’s role in the turmoil in the Middle East is to set the stage for the return of the 12^th Imam. Obama’s years studying Islam should have taught him that he cannot schmooze leaders like Ahmadinejad, gain their favor, and unmoor them from what they believe is the only reason they exist on the planet. Islamic radicals seek world chaos targeting first Israel and then the United States.

The radical-left within Obama’s own party seeks a “transformation” into Socialism with a dependent citizenry existing in a damaged economy with limited freedoms. Though he tries to understate them, Obama clearly understands the ultimate motives of both threats to America. His inability or unwillingness to address both presents a profound danger to the American people.

Sharon Sebastian is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide.
Sharon Sebastian on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

by Sharon Sebastian

That Jihadists demonstrate dwindling fear of Barack Obama portends a crisis of international proportions that threatens global stability. As Obama’s domestic economic policies wreak havoc on families and our nation, his kid-gloves foreign policy has now proven to be deadly with the loss of American lives. Still, Obama rejects that the uprising in the Middle East is anti-American even as his image is burned in effigy by Islamist extremists along with the American flag.

Jihadists have bided their time and gaged the current American president. Notable is Obama’s peculiar reticence to admit to the American people who the enemy is — Islamist extremists — even when that enemy openly and repeatedly threatens destruction of the United States. Former United Nation’s Ambassador John Bolton says evidence of that is Obama treating the violent deaths of four Americans in Libya as a “criminal law” matter rather than an organized terrorist attack by mobs armed with RPGs, mortar rounds and foreign agitators as reported by Libyan authorities.

For four years, Obama has weakened America economically, militarily, and globally. Obama has made America increasingly vulnerable. So swiftly it has occurred that many assign premeditation and not naiveté. Despite Obama’s grandiose assurances that his personal charm would bring peace to the Middle East, average Americans held no disillusions as Barack Obama stirred up the Arab Spring that toppled regimes — leaving a gaping leadership void – that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to quickly step-in and fill. No one needed an intelligence briefing to see it coming. Yet, Obama disclaims the obvious. He defended his actions, claimed the Brotherhood sought only democracy, then went golfing, campaigning and hanging with celebs while ignoring intelligence reports regarding ominous threats to American interests worldwide.

Citing additional threats to security at home, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) questions this President’s inexplicable behavior. Bachmann demands to know why the Department of Homeland Security, under Obama and Janet Napolitano, categorize “Christians, American Constitutionalists, and Patriots as potential threats” — while labeling the so-called “precursor activities” of terrorists and jihadists as “cultural behaviors.” Bachmann reports that Homeland Security may currently employ eight Muslim Brotherhood members in key, sensitive positions.  She further wants clarity regarding why Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, whose family members reportedly have a long and deep history of high-ranking leadership within the Muslim Brotherhood, now serves as Clinton’s closest advisor.

In regard to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama cannot plead ignorance to its threat. NewsBusters’ Brad Wilmouth wrote a widely read article eighteen months ago titled, “The New Leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in His Own Words,” which reads in part:

“CAMERA’s Steven Stotsky picked up on a translation of Mohammed Badie’s first public address after being chosen as Muslim Brotherhood leader in January 2010:

“[The Arab and Muslim regimes] are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme and the infidels’ word will be inferior…  They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.”

As pointed out in my previous article, “Obama & Islam,” Obama unleashed uprisings in the Middle East while implementing a radical, Socialist agenda back home. His overall intent is not as bifurcated as it may appear. The Islamists are waging a war of religion while the radical left is waging a war of ideas. The mutual goal is the toppling of a republic based, Judeo-Christian founded and Constitutionally-grounded America. Jihadists want America to become an Islamic state like Iran, whereas the left wants a “transformation of America” to a Socialist/Marxist nation. Both systems devour individual rights and freedoms. Key to both movements is total elimination of all belief systems counter to their own. Were they to succeed, as natural enemies, Islamists and Socialists will eventually target one another. Radical Islam condemns to death all that reject a belief in Allah. Socialists/Marxists constitute much of America’s Progressive-Left and have consistently legislated God out of American society, seeking to become god to the masses.

President Obama is the titular head of the Progressive-Left.  President Obama understands Islam having studied the Koran in Indonesia. Part of the curriculum was that The Twelfth Imam or 12^th Mahdi is the Islamic savior — its Islamic messiah. Islam requires that in order for the 12^th Imam to reveal himself, the world must be in global war. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly believes that he has the divine mission to “hasten the return” of the 12^th Mahdi. Destroying Israel, then America — erupts the world into the chaos needed for the Mahdi’s return.

Christianity came into existence some 600 years before Islam. The Christian Messiah is the Savior Jesus Christ. Islam reveres Jesus as a lesser prophet and not God, which puts Islam at inextricable odds with Christianity. Iranian President Ahmadinejad believes the “Mahdi” or “Twelfth Imam” will appear publicly during a time of great disaster, with Jesus at his side, to bring peace to a war-torn world. It is said that the 12^th Madhi will take Jesus to Mecca to replace the Bible with the Koran so that Christians worldwide will convert to Islam. A “Muslim anti-Christ” is also to surface in the world and falsely convince Jews that he is their “Jesus the Messiah” that they have long awaited.

An “Islamic Jesus,” it is said, will kill all Jews and behead anyone worldwide who does not accept Islam as the only true religion. The Islamic Mahdi will set-up his kingdom in Jerusalem, establish a worldwide Caliphate, along with Shariah Law, and rule the world. Homosexuals will be killed and women will remain as property and oppressed. Such belief is a driving force of today’s war on non-Islamic nations; an ancient war based on fundamental Islam that has entrenched the globe in a war on terror. Moderate Muslims declare that only extremists hold such beliefs.

The funding by Iran of the upheaval in the Middle East, the positioning of radical Muslim groups in governments across the region from Lebanon to Egypt cannot simply be dismissed as a war of ideologies between the West and the Muslim world. By Ahmadinejad’s admission, Iran’s role in the turmoil in the Middle East is to set the stage for the return of the 12^th Imam. Obama’s years studying Islam should have taught him that he cannot schmooze leaders like Ahmadinejad, gain their favor, and unmoor them from what they believe is the only reason they exist on the planet. Islamic radicals seek world chaos targeting first Israel and then the United States.

The radical-left within Obama’s own party seeks a “transformation” into Socialism with a dependent citizenry existing in a damaged economy with limited freedoms. Though he tries to understate them, Obama clearly understands the ultimate motives of both threats to America. His inability or unwillingness to address both presents a profound danger to the American people.

Sharon Sebastian is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide.
Sharon Sebastian on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

by Sharon Sebastian

That Jihadists demonstrate dwindling fear of Barack Obama portends a crisis of international proportions that threatens global stability. As Obama’s domestic economic policies wreak havoc on families and our nation, his kid-gloves foreign policy has now proven to be deadly with the loss of American lives. Still, Obama rejects that the uprising in the Middle East is anti-American even as his image is burned in effigy by Islamist extremists along with the American flag.

Jihadists have bided their time and gaged the current American president. Notable is Obama’s peculiar reticence to admit to the American people who the enemy is — Islamist extremists — even when that enemy openly and repeatedly threatens destruction of the United States. Former United Nation’s Ambassador John Bolton says evidence of that is Obama treating the violent deaths of four Americans in Libya as a “criminal law” matter rather than an organized terrorist attack by mobs armed with RPGs, mortar rounds and foreign agitators as reported by Libyan authorities.

For four years, Obama has weakened America economically, militarily, and globally. Obama has made America increasingly vulnerable. So swiftly it has occurred that many assign premeditation and not naiveté. Despite Obama’s grandiose assurances that his personal charm would bring peace to the Middle East, average Americans held no disillusions as Barack Obama stirred up the Arab Spring that toppled regimes — leaving a gaping leadership void – that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to quickly step-in and fill. No one needed an intelligence briefing to see it coming. Yet, Obama disclaims the obvious. He defended his actions, claimed the Brotherhood sought only democracy, then went golfing, campaigning and hanging with celebs while ignoring intelligence reports regarding ominous threats to American interests worldwide.

Citing additional threats to security at home, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) questions this President’s inexplicable behavior. Bachmann demands to know why the Department of Homeland Security, under Obama and Janet Napolitano, categorize “Christians, American Constitutionalists, and Patriots as potential threats” — while labeling the so-called “precursor activities” of terrorists and jihadists as “cultural behaviors.” Bachmann reports that Homeland Security may currently employ eight Muslim Brotherhood members in key, sensitive positions.  She further wants clarity regarding why Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, whose family members reportedly have a long and deep history of high-ranking leadership within the Muslim Brotherhood, now serves as Clinton’s closest advisor.

In regard to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama cannot plead ignorance to its threat. NewsBusters’ Brad Wilmouth wrote a widely read article eighteen months ago titled, “The New Leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in His Own Words,” which reads in part:

“CAMERA’s Steven Stotsky picked up on a translation of Mohammed Badie’s first public address after being chosen as Muslim Brotherhood leader in January 2010:

“[The Arab and Muslim regimes] are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme and the infidels’ word will be inferior…  They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.”

As pointed out in my previous article, “Obama & Islam,” Obama unleashed uprisings in the Middle East while implementing a radical, Socialist agenda back home. His overall intent is not as bifurcated as it may appear. The Islamists are waging a war of religion while the radical left is waging a war of ideas. The mutual goal is the toppling of a republic based, Judeo-Christian founded and Constitutionally-grounded America. Jihadists want America to become an Islamic state like Iran, whereas the left wants a “transformation of America” to a Socialist/Marxist nation. Both systems devour individual rights and freedoms. Key to both movements is total elimination of all belief systems counter to their own. Were they to succeed, as natural enemies, Islamists and Socialists will eventually target one another. Radical Islam condemns to death all that reject a belief in Allah. Socialists/Marxists constitute much of America’s Progressive-Left and have consistently legislated God out of American society, seeking to become god to the masses.

President Obama is the titular head of the Progressive-Left.  President Obama understands Islam having studied the Koran in Indonesia. Part of the curriculum was that The Twelfth Imam or 12^th Mahdi is the Islamic savior — its Islamic messiah. Islam requires that in order for the 12^th Imam to reveal himself, the world must be in global war. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly believes that he has the divine mission to “hasten the return” of the 12^th Mahdi. Destroying Israel, then America — erupts the world into the chaos needed for the Mahdi’s return.

Christianity came into existence some 600 years before Islam. The Christian Messiah is the Savior Jesus Christ. Islam reveres Jesus as a lesser prophet and not God, which puts Islam at inextricable odds with Christianity. Iranian President Ahmadinejad believes the “Mahdi” or “Twelfth Imam” will appear publicly during a time of great disaster, with Jesus at his side, to bring peace to a war-torn world. It is said that the 12^th Madhi will take Jesus to Mecca to replace the Bible with the Koran so that Christians worldwide will convert to Islam. A “Muslim anti-Christ” is also to surface in the world and falsely convince Jews that he is their “Jesus the Messiah” that they have long awaited.

An “Islamic Jesus,” it is said, will kill all Jews and behead anyone worldwide who does not accept Islam as the only true religion. The Islamic Mahdi will set-up his kingdom in Jerusalem, establish a worldwide Caliphate, along with Shariah Law, and rule the world. Homosexuals will be killed and women will remain as property and oppressed. Such belief is a driving force of today’s war on non-Islamic nations; an ancient war based on fundamental Islam that has entrenched the globe in a war on terror. Moderate Muslims declare that only extremists hold such beliefs.

The funding by Iran of the upheaval in the Middle East, the positioning of radical Muslim groups in governments across the region from Lebanon to Egypt cannot simply be dismissed as a war of ideologies between the West and the Muslim world. By Ahmadinejad’s admission, Iran’s role in the turmoil in the Middle East is to set the stage for the return of the 12^th Imam. Obama’s years studying Islam should have taught him that he cannot schmooze leaders like Ahmadinejad, gain their favor, and unmoor them from what they believe is the only reason they exist on the planet. Islamic radicals seek world chaos targeting first Israel and then the United States.

The radical-left within Obama’s own party seeks a “transformation” into Socialism with a dependent citizenry existing in a damaged economy with limited freedoms. Though he tries to understate them, Obama clearly understands the ultimate motives of both threats to America. His inability or unwillingness to address both presents a profound danger to the American people.

Sharon Sebastian is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide.
Sharon Sebastian on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

by Sharon Sebastian

That Jihadists demonstrate dwindling fear of Barack Obama portends a crisis of international proportions that threatens global stability. As Obama’s domestic economic policies wreak havoc on families and our nation, his kid-gloves foreign policy has now proven to be deadly with the loss of American lives. Still, Obama rejects that the uprising in the Middle East is anti-American even as his image is burned in effigy by Islamist extremists along with the American flag.

Jihadists have bided their time and gaged the current American president. Notable is Obama’s peculiar reticence to admit to the American people who the enemy is — Islamist extremists — even when that enemy openly and repeatedly threatens destruction of the United States. Former United Nation’s Ambassador John Bolton says evidence of that is Obama treating the violent deaths of four Americans in Libya as a “criminal law” matter rather than an organized terrorist attack by mobs armed with RPGs, mortar rounds and foreign agitators as reported by Libyan authorities.

For four years, Obama has weakened America economically, militarily, and globally. Obama has made America increasingly vulnerable. So swiftly it has occurred that many assign premeditation and not naiveté. Despite Obama’s grandiose assurances that his personal charm would bring peace to the Middle East, average Americans held no disillusions as Barack Obama stirred up the Arab Spring that toppled regimes — leaving a gaping leadership void – that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to quickly step-in and fill. No one needed an intelligence briefing to see it coming. Yet, Obama disclaims the obvious. He defended his actions, claimed the Brotherhood sought only democracy, then went golfing, campaigning and hanging with celebs while ignoring intelligence reports regarding ominous threats to American interests worldwide.

Citing additional threats to security at home, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) questions this President’s inexplicable behavior. Bachmann demands to know why the Department of Homeland Security, under Obama and Janet Napolitano, categorize “Christians, American Constitutionalists, and Patriots as potential threats” — while labeling the so-called “precursor activities” of terrorists and jihadists as “cultural behaviors.” Bachmann reports that Homeland Security may currently employ eight Muslim Brotherhood members in key, sensitive positions.  She further wants clarity regarding why Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, whose family members reportedly have a long and deep history of high-ranking leadership within the Muslim Brotherhood, now serves as Clinton’s closest advisor.

In regard to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama cannot plead ignorance to its threat. NewsBusters’ Brad Wilmouth wrote a widely read article eighteen months ago titled, “The New Leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in His Own Words,” which reads in part:

“CAMERA’s Steven Stotsky picked up on a translation of Mohammed Badie’s first public address after being chosen as Muslim Brotherhood leader in January 2010:

“[The Arab and Muslim regimes] are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme and the infidels’ word will be inferior…  They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.”

As pointed out in my previous article, “Obama & Islam,” Obama unleashed uprisings in the Middle East while implementing a radical, Socialist agenda back home. His overall intent is not as bifurcated as it may appear. The Islamists are waging a war of religion while the radical left is waging a war of ideas. The mutual goal is the toppling of a republic based, Judeo-Christian founded and Constitutionally-grounded America. Jihadists want America to become an Islamic state like Iran, whereas the left wants a “transformation of America” to a Socialist/Marxist nation. Both systems devour individual rights and freedoms. Key to both movements is total elimination of all belief systems counter to their own. Were they to succeed, as natural enemies, Islamists and Socialists will eventually target one another. Radical Islam condemns to death all that reject a belief in Allah. Socialists/Marxists constitute much of America’s Progressive-Left and have consistently legislated God out of American society, seeking to become god to the masses.

President Obama is the titular head of the Progressive-Left.  President Obama understands Islam having studied the Koran in Indonesia. Part of the curriculum was that The Twelfth Imam or 12^th Mahdi is the Islamic savior — its Islamic messiah. Islam requires that in order for the 12^th Imam to reveal himself, the world must be in global war. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly believes that he has the divine mission to “hasten the return” of the 12^th Mahdi. Destroying Israel, then America — erupts the world into the chaos needed for the Mahdi’s return.

Christianity came into existence some 600 years before Islam. The Christian Messiah is the Savior Jesus Christ. Islam reveres Jesus as a lesser prophet and not God, which puts Islam at inextricable odds with Christianity. Iranian President Ahmadinejad believes the “Mahdi” or “Twelfth Imam” will appear publicly during a time of great disaster, with Jesus at his side, to bring peace to a war-torn world. It is said that the 12^th Madhi will take Jesus to Mecca to replace the Bible with the Koran so that Christians worldwide will convert to Islam. A “Muslim anti-Christ” is also to surface in the world and falsely convince Jews that he is their “Jesus the Messiah” that they have long awaited.

An “Islamic Jesus,” it is said, will kill all Jews and behead anyone worldwide who does not accept Islam as the only true religion. The Islamic Mahdi will set-up his kingdom in Jerusalem, establish a worldwide Caliphate, along with Shariah Law, and rule the world. Homosexuals will be killed and women will remain as property and oppressed. Such belief is a driving force of today’s war on non-Islamic nations; an ancient war based on fundamental Islam that has entrenched the globe in a war on terror. Moderate Muslims declare that only extremists hold such beliefs.

The funding by Iran of the upheaval in the Middle East, the positioning of radical Muslim groups in governments across the region from Lebanon to Egypt cannot simply be dismissed as a war of ideologies between the West and the Muslim world. By Ahmadinejad’s admission, Iran’s role in the turmoil in the Middle East is to set the stage for the return of the 12^th Imam. Obama’s years studying Islam should have taught him that he cannot schmooze leaders like Ahmadinejad, gain their favor, and unmoor them from what they believe is the only reason they exist on the planet. Islamic radicals seek world chaos targeting first Israel and then the United States.

The radical-left within Obama’s own party seeks a “transformation” into Socialism with a dependent citizenry existing in a damaged economy with limited freedoms. Though he tries to understate them, Obama clearly understands the ultimate motives of both threats to America. His inability or unwillingness to address both presents a profound danger to the American people.

Sharon Sebastian is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide.
Sharon Sebastian on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

Democrats remove God and Jerusalem from platform

All men are endowed by their creator not their government. The American experience in all its glory is rooted in this basic tenet. Contrary to what liberals think or want us to believe we are and always have been a Judeo-Christian nation. We are a faith based nation that strongly believes in a higher power; and prides itself in being the greatest example of freedom and liberty the world has ever known.

With that being said this article will touch on a few very important points. The first point is an undeniable fact. We are a Judeo-Christian nation with a set of morals and values deeply rooted in those principles. The second point is that the modern day version of today’s Democrat party is very different from the ideals of the past. Finally, the last point will examine why American Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

For purposes of full disclosure I am not a Christian. I am a proud and unapologetic conservative. I also happen to be Jewish. I am what some might call a political anomaly. I am someone who believes passionately in traditional conservatism rather than secular liberalism. I am also pro-Christian and detest Christian bias just as much as I detest anti-Semitism.

.
Video: The DNC removing god and Jerusalem from their platform.

Let’s take a look at the first point.

According to a 2011 Gallup Poll 78% of Americans identified themselves as being part of some sect of Christianity. The remaining 22% of respondents said they were not Christians; identified with a different religion altogether, or had no religious affiliation at all. So when liberals try to convince us that we are a secular nation it is just not true.

According to Wikipedia, the Bible that Jesus referred to was the Hebrew, or Old Testament. The New Testament was written down after the Ascension. For many years afterwards his Jewish followers considered themselves Messianic Jews. There was a slow transition from Judaism to Christianity; in which the Messianic Jews became Christians. The whole logic of Christianity is that it is the heir to Biblical Judaism.

Let’s fast forward to present day.

In 2009, while on his apologizing for America tour Barack Obama said this to an audience in Turkey, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens bound by our ideas and values.” The President is right. We are a country bound by our ideas and values. Those values are Judeo-Christian values. For the President who claims to be a Christian himself to not acknowledge those ideas and values as Judeo-Christian; denigrates those Americans who firmly believe otherwise. Mr. President, with all do respect spending 20 years in Reverend Wright’s church listening to anti-American rhetoric is not what Americans would consider to be Christian values.

Let’s take a look at the second point.

The Democratic National Convention in Charlotte showcased to America just how far to the left the party has moved. The Democrat party has become so secular in their beliefs that they actually removed the word God from their platform! In addition to this, they also refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. The fact that they added both of these provisions back into their platform is irrelevant. What is relevant however, is the fact that they were removed in the first place. Both of these decisions are not only deplorable, but they show the utter contempt they have for our Judeo-Christian value system while simultaneously emboldening Israel’s enemies. For a party who routinely receives over 75% of the Jewish vote this decision was not only provocative but also disrespectful. After witnessing this travesty I decided to find out what other radical positions their platform embraced.

Let’s take a look at a few.

With a war still raging in Afghanistan and our American Embassies in Libya and Egypt under siege the last thing we should be doing is cutting our military budget. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and is hell bent on destroying our closest ally Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken over in Egypt and radical Jihadists have filled the vacuum in Tripoli. If this wasn’t enough the Assad Regime in Syria is slaughtering their own people; and North Korea’s new leader is about as stable as a 3 legged chair in a windstorm. We live in a dangerous world and yet Democrats want to cut the Pentagon’s budget by 15% as well as reduce our nuclear weapon capabilities and size of our military to the lowest levels since the 1950’s?

Another radical element in their platform is a desire for a single payer healthcare system. Time and time again during the healthcare debate Democrats in Congress and the President told the American people if you like your current healthcare plan you will be able to keep it. This was never their intent. They understood if they could just pass the healthcare bill that eventually it would lead to a one payer system. As a result of the healthcare bill some small businesses are already dropping their health insurance benefits. They have discovered from a financial standpoint that it is cheaper to pay the fine than it is to insure their employees.

By contrast, the Republican platform recognizes Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel; and doesn’t take three voice votes to do it. Our rights come from our creator and not our government. The Republican Party believes that government should be as inconsequential in all of our lives as humanly possible. Republicans strongly believe that all healthcare decisions should be made between the patient and their doctor, not the government. They believe in lower taxes for every American and pledge to reduce spending. If our Founding Fathers were alive today which platform do you think they would more closely align with?

This brings us to the final point.

Why do Jewish American voters overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party even though many of their values align with the Republican Party? Many pundits, scholars, and historians have gone through great lengths to try and answer this fundamental question. The answer is simple yet also complex.

The Torah says that our experience of oppression is meant to lead to ethical and political action. The stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one; born among you, and you shall love him as yourself. For you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:34)

The Jewish People have been driven from their homeland, persecuted for their beliefs, and murdered for their convictions. It is for this reason that Jews have a natural tendency to sympathize with the less fortunate in society. The Jewish people are known as The Chosen People and feel a strong obligation towards charity and humanitarianism. These feelings are deeply rooted in the philanthropic philosophy of Talmudic studies.

According to Rabbi Yonason Goldson of the Jewish World Review, Jewish society has promoted traditional values for thousands of years. The sanctity of life, the sanctity of the family, and the blessing of charity and prayer all originated in the teachings of the Torah. Throughout the Biblical and Talmudic eras the structure of the Jewish socio-economic community was essentially capitalistic. The free market determined success and individual responsibility provided the framework for communal obligation.

So what happened?

Norman Podhoretz, author of the best selling book Why Jews Are Liberals lays it out perfectly. He contends that the corruption of modern liberalism is very prevalent in non-practicing, non-religious Jews. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capitol punishment while simultaneously negating the value and rights of the unborn. The dignity of every human life has been distorted with the practice of euthanasia for unwanted infants and the elderly infirm.

Historian Paul Johnson explains it like this. Judaism is an ideology devoted to the betterment of the human condition based largely on values and goals that are fundamentally liberal. That being said traditional conservatism emphasizes the necessity of preserving the past; while liberal idealism focuses upon the responsibility of shaping the future. According to Johnson this is why liberalism trumps conservatism in the minds of most Jews.

Let’s dig even deeper.

Non traditional Jews have rallied to modern liberalism under the banner of Tikkun Olam. According to the Torah, Tikkun Olam means to repair the world. Liberal Jews have adopted the notion that Tikkun Olam calls for healing or fixing of the worlds problems. This is why they have so fully embraced leftist ideology, social justice, and judicial activism. Ironically, by shifting responsibility for social justice from the individual to the state, liberal Jews have abdicated the very injustices they yearn to change.

Will Jewish voters still vote for the President and Democrats in 2012 even with all the hostility the party and the President has shown towards Israel?

The answer sadly is yes. Barack Obama captured over 75% of the Jewish vote in 2008, however with his record on Israel I highly doubt his numbers will reach those heights in 2012. With his failure to persuade Iran from building nuclear weapons, his provocative call for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders, and his disparaging comments directed toward Netanyahu; I believe some American Jews will have some reservations this time around.

In closing, I want my readers to know that I am extremely proud of my heritage. I also believe that most liberal Jews are not hard core ideologues. Ironically, because of their upbringing and good natured ways most liberal Jews are liberal by default. Jewish Americans for the most part are not inherently radical but they vote for and believe in many radical ideas.

Democrats remove God and Jerusalem from platform

All men are endowed by their creator not their government. The American experience in all its glory is rooted in this basic tenet. Contrary to what liberals think or want us to believe we are and always have been a Judeo-Christian nation. We are a faith based nation that strongly believes in a higher power; and prides itself in being the greatest example of freedom and liberty the world has ever known.

With that being said this article will touch on a few very important points. The first point is an undeniable fact. We are a Judeo-Christian nation with a set of morals and values deeply rooted in those principles. The second point is that the modern day version of today’s Democrat party is very different from the ideals of the past. Finally, the last point will examine why American Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

For purposes of full disclosure I am not a Christian. I am a proud and unapologetic conservative. I also happen to be Jewish. I am what some might call a political anomaly. I am someone who believes passionately in traditional conservatism rather than secular liberalism. I am also pro-Christian and detest Christian bias just as much as I detest anti-Semitism.

.
Video: The DNC removing god and Jerusalem from their platform.

Let’s take a look at the first point.

According to a 2011 Gallup Poll 78% of Americans identified themselves as being part of some sect of Christianity. The remaining 22% of respondents said they were not Christians; identified with a different religion altogether, or had no religious affiliation at all. So when liberals try to convince us that we are a secular nation it is just not true.

According to Wikipedia, the Bible that Jesus referred to was the Hebrew, or Old Testament. The New Testament was written down after the Ascension. For many years afterwards his Jewish followers considered themselves Messianic Jews. There was a slow transition from Judaism to Christianity; in which the Messianic Jews became Christians. The whole logic of Christianity is that it is the heir to Biblical Judaism.

Let’s fast forward to present day.

In 2009, while on his apologizing for America tour Barack Obama said this to an audience in Turkey, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens bound by our ideas and values.” The President is right. We are a country bound by our ideas and values. Those values are Judeo-Christian values. For the President who claims to be a Christian himself to not acknowledge those ideas and values as Judeo-Christian; denigrates those Americans who firmly believe otherwise. Mr. President, with all do respect spending 20 years in Reverend Wright’s church listening to anti-American rhetoric is not what Americans would consider to be Christian values.

Let’s take a look at the second point.

The Democratic National Convention in Charlotte showcased to America just how far to the left the party has moved. The Democrat party has become so secular in their beliefs that they actually removed the word God from their platform! In addition to this, they also refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. The fact that they added both of these provisions back into their platform is irrelevant. What is relevant however, is the fact that they were removed in the first place. Both of these decisions are not only deplorable, but they show the utter contempt they have for our Judeo-Christian value system while simultaneously emboldening Israel’s enemies. For a party who routinely receives over 75% of the Jewish vote this decision was not only provocative but also disrespectful. After witnessing this travesty I decided to find out what other radical positions their platform embraced.

Let’s take a look at a few.

With a war still raging in Afghanistan and our American Embassies in Libya and Egypt under siege the last thing we should be doing is cutting our military budget. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and is hell bent on destroying our closest ally Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken over in Egypt and radical Jihadists have filled the vacuum in Tripoli. If this wasn’t enough the Assad Regime in Syria is slaughtering their own people; and North Korea’s new leader is about as stable as a 3 legged chair in a windstorm. We live in a dangerous world and yet Democrats want to cut the Pentagon’s budget by 15% as well as reduce our nuclear weapon capabilities and size of our military to the lowest levels since the 1950’s?

Another radical element in their platform is a desire for a single payer healthcare system. Time and time again during the healthcare debate Democrats in Congress and the President told the American people if you like your current healthcare plan you will be able to keep it. This was never their intent. They understood if they could just pass the healthcare bill that eventually it would lead to a one payer system. As a result of the healthcare bill some small businesses are already dropping their health insurance benefits. They have discovered from a financial standpoint that it is cheaper to pay the fine than it is to insure their employees.

By contrast, the Republican platform recognizes Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel; and doesn’t take three voice votes to do it. Our rights come from our creator and not our government. The Republican Party believes that government should be as inconsequential in all of our lives as humanly possible. Republicans strongly believe that all healthcare decisions should be made between the patient and their doctor, not the government. They believe in lower taxes for every American and pledge to reduce spending. If our Founding Fathers were alive today which platform do you think they would more closely align with?

This brings us to the final point.

Why do Jewish American voters overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party even though many of their values align with the Republican Party? Many pundits, scholars, and historians have gone through great lengths to try and answer this fundamental question. The answer is simple yet also complex.

The Torah says that our experience of oppression is meant to lead to ethical and political action. The stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one; born among you, and you shall love him as yourself. For you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:34)

The Jewish People have been driven from their homeland, persecuted for their beliefs, and murdered for their convictions. It is for this reason that Jews have a natural tendency to sympathize with the less fortunate in society. The Jewish people are known as The Chosen People and feel a strong obligation towards charity and humanitarianism. These feelings are deeply rooted in the philanthropic philosophy of Talmudic studies.

According to Rabbi Yonason Goldson of the Jewish World Review, Jewish society has promoted traditional values for thousands of years. The sanctity of life, the sanctity of the family, and the blessing of charity and prayer all originated in the teachings of the Torah. Throughout the Biblical and Talmudic eras the structure of the Jewish socio-economic community was essentially capitalistic. The free market determined success and individual responsibility provided the framework for communal obligation.

So what happened?

Norman Podhoretz, author of the best selling book Why Jews Are Liberals lays it out perfectly. He contends that the corruption of modern liberalism is very prevalent in non-practicing, non-religious Jews. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capitol punishment while simultaneously negating the value and rights of the unborn. The dignity of every human life has been distorted with the practice of euthanasia for unwanted infants and the elderly infirm.

Historian Paul Johnson explains it like this. Judaism is an ideology devoted to the betterment of the human condition based largely on values and goals that are fundamentally liberal. That being said traditional conservatism emphasizes the necessity of preserving the past; while liberal idealism focuses upon the responsibility of shaping the future. According to Johnson this is why liberalism trumps conservatism in the minds of most Jews.

Let’s dig even deeper.

Non traditional Jews have rallied to modern liberalism under the banner of Tikkun Olam. According to the Torah, Tikkun Olam means to repair the world. Liberal Jews have adopted the notion that Tikkun Olam calls for healing or fixing of the worlds problems. This is why they have so fully embraced leftist ideology, social justice, and judicial activism. Ironically, by shifting responsibility for social justice from the individual to the state, liberal Jews have abdicated the very injustices they yearn to change.

Will Jewish voters still vote for the President and Democrats in 2012 even with all the hostility the party and the President has shown towards Israel?

The answer sadly is yes. Barack Obama captured over 75% of the Jewish vote in 2008, however with his record on Israel I highly doubt his numbers will reach those heights in 2012. With his failure to persuade Iran from building nuclear weapons, his provocative call for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders, and his disparaging comments directed toward Netanyahu; I believe some American Jews will have some reservations this time around.

In closing, I want my readers to know that I am extremely proud of my heritage. I also believe that most liberal Jews are not hard core ideologues. Ironically, because of their upbringing and good natured ways most liberal Jews are liberal by default. Jewish Americans for the most part are not inherently radical but they vote for and believe in many radical ideas.

Democrats remove God and Jerusalem from platform

All men are endowed by their creator not their government. The American experience in all its glory is rooted in this basic tenet. Contrary to what liberals think or want us to believe we are and always have been a Judeo-Christian nation. We are a faith based nation that strongly believes in a higher power; and prides itself in being the greatest example of freedom and liberty the world has ever known.

With that being said this article will touch on a few very important points. The first point is an undeniable fact. We are a Judeo-Christian nation with a set of morals and values deeply rooted in those principles. The second point is that the modern day version of today’s Democrat party is very different from the ideals of the past. Finally, the last point will examine why American Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

For purposes of full disclosure I am not a Christian. I am a proud and unapologetic conservative. I also happen to be Jewish. I am what some might call a political anomaly. I am someone who believes passionately in traditional conservatism rather than secular liberalism. I am also pro-Christian and detest Christian bias just as much as I detest anti-Semitism.

.
Video: The DNC removing god and Jerusalem from their platform.

Let’s take a look at the first point.

According to a 2011 Gallup Poll 78% of Americans identified themselves as being part of some sect of Christianity. The remaining 22% of respondents said they were not Christians; identified with a different religion altogether, or had no religious affiliation at all. So when liberals try to convince us that we are a secular nation it is just not true.

According to Wikipedia, the Bible that Jesus referred to was the Hebrew, or Old Testament. The New Testament was written down after the Ascension. For many years afterwards his Jewish followers considered themselves Messianic Jews. There was a slow transition from Judaism to Christianity; in which the Messianic Jews became Christians. The whole logic of Christianity is that it is the heir to Biblical Judaism.

Let’s fast forward to present day.

In 2009, while on his apologizing for America tour Barack Obama said this to an audience in Turkey, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens bound by our ideas and values.” The President is right. We are a country bound by our ideas and values. Those values are Judeo-Christian values. For the President who claims to be a Christian himself to not acknowledge those ideas and values as Judeo-Christian; denigrates those Americans who firmly believe otherwise. Mr. President, with all do respect spending 20 years in Reverend Wright’s church listening to anti-American rhetoric is not what Americans would consider to be Christian values.

Let’s take a look at the second point.

The Democratic National Convention in Charlotte showcased to America just how far to the left the party has moved. The Democrat party has become so secular in their beliefs that they actually removed the word God from their platform! In addition to this, they also refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. The fact that they added both of these provisions back into their platform is irrelevant. What is relevant however, is the fact that they were removed in the first place. Both of these decisions are not only deplorable, but they show the utter contempt they have for our Judeo-Christian value system while simultaneously emboldening Israel’s enemies. For a party who routinely receives over 75% of the Jewish vote this decision was not only provocative but also disrespectful. After witnessing this travesty I decided to find out what other radical positions their platform embraced.

Let’s take a look at a few.

With a war still raging in Afghanistan and our American Embassies in Libya and Egypt under siege the last thing we should be doing is cutting our military budget. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and is hell bent on destroying our closest ally Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken over in Egypt and radical Jihadists have filled the vacuum in Tripoli. If this wasn’t enough the Assad Regime in Syria is slaughtering their own people; and North Korea’s new leader is about as stable as a 3 legged chair in a windstorm. We live in a dangerous world and yet Democrats want to cut the Pentagon’s budget by 15% as well as reduce our nuclear weapon capabilities and size of our military to the lowest levels since the 1950’s?

Another radical element in their platform is a desire for a single payer healthcare system. Time and time again during the healthcare debate Democrats in Congress and the President told the American people if you like your current healthcare plan you will be able to keep it. This was never their intent. They understood if they could just pass the healthcare bill that eventually it would lead to a one payer system. As a result of the healthcare bill some small businesses are already dropping their health insurance benefits. They have discovered from a financial standpoint that it is cheaper to pay the fine than it is to insure their employees.

By contrast, the Republican platform recognizes Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel; and doesn’t take three voice votes to do it. Our rights come from our creator and not our government. The Republican Party believes that government should be as inconsequential in all of our lives as humanly possible. Republicans strongly believe that all healthcare decisions should be made between the patient and their doctor, not the government. They believe in lower taxes for every American and pledge to reduce spending. If our Founding Fathers were alive today which platform do you think they would more closely align with?

This brings us to the final point.

Why do Jewish American voters overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party even though many of their values align with the Republican Party? Many pundits, scholars, and historians have gone through great lengths to try and answer this fundamental question. The answer is simple yet also complex.

The Torah says that our experience of oppression is meant to lead to ethical and political action. The stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one; born among you, and you shall love him as yourself. For you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:34)

The Jewish People have been driven from their homeland, persecuted for their beliefs, and murdered for their convictions. It is for this reason that Jews have a natural tendency to sympathize with the less fortunate in society. The Jewish people are known as The Chosen People and feel a strong obligation towards charity and humanitarianism. These feelings are deeply rooted in the philanthropic philosophy of Talmudic studies.

According to Rabbi Yonason Goldson of the Jewish World Review, Jewish society has promoted traditional values for thousands of years. The sanctity of life, the sanctity of the family, and the blessing of charity and prayer all originated in the teachings of the Torah. Throughout the Biblical and Talmudic eras the structure of the Jewish socio-economic community was essentially capitalistic. The free market determined success and individual responsibility provided the framework for communal obligation.

So what happened?

Norman Podhoretz, author of the best selling book Why Jews Are Liberals lays it out perfectly. He contends that the corruption of modern liberalism is very prevalent in non-practicing, non-religious Jews. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capitol punishment while simultaneously negating the value and rights of the unborn. The dignity of every human life has been distorted with the practice of euthanasia for unwanted infants and the elderly infirm.

Historian Paul Johnson explains it like this. Judaism is an ideology devoted to the betterment of the human condition based largely on values and goals that are fundamentally liberal. That being said traditional conservatism emphasizes the necessity of preserving the past; while liberal idealism focuses upon the responsibility of shaping the future. According to Johnson this is why liberalism trumps conservatism in the minds of most Jews.

Let’s dig even deeper.

Non traditional Jews have rallied to modern liberalism under the banner of Tikkun Olam. According to the Torah, Tikkun Olam means to repair the world. Liberal Jews have adopted the notion that Tikkun Olam calls for healing or fixing of the worlds problems. This is why they have so fully embraced leftist ideology, social justice, and judicial activism. Ironically, by shifting responsibility for social justice from the individual to the state, liberal Jews have abdicated the very injustices they yearn to change.

Will Jewish voters still vote for the President and Democrats in 2012 even with all the hostility the party and the President has shown towards Israel?

The answer sadly is yes. Barack Obama captured over 75% of the Jewish vote in 2008, however with his record on Israel I highly doubt his numbers will reach those heights in 2012. With his failure to persuade Iran from building nuclear weapons, his provocative call for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders, and his disparaging comments directed toward Netanyahu; I believe some American Jews will have some reservations this time around.

In closing, I want my readers to know that I am extremely proud of my heritage. I also believe that most liberal Jews are not hard core ideologues. Ironically, because of their upbringing and good natured ways most liberal Jews are liberal by default. Jewish Americans for the most part are not inherently radical but they vote for and believe in many radical ideas.

Democrats remove God and Jerusalem from platform

All men are endowed by their creator not their government. The American experience in all its glory is rooted in this basic tenet. Contrary to what liberals think or want us to believe we are and always have been a Judeo-Christian nation. We are a faith based nation that strongly believes in a higher power; and prides itself in being the greatest example of freedom and liberty the world has ever known.

With that being said this article will touch on a few very important points. The first point is an undeniable fact. We are a Judeo-Christian nation with a set of morals and values deeply rooted in those principles. The second point is that the modern day version of today’s Democrat party is very different from the ideals of the past. Finally, the last point will examine why American Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

For purposes of full disclosure I am not a Christian. I am a proud and unapologetic conservative. I also happen to be Jewish. I am what some might call a political anomaly. I am someone who believes passionately in traditional conservatism rather than secular liberalism. I am also pro-Christian and detest Christian bias just as much as I detest anti-Semitism.

.
Video: The DNC removing god and Jerusalem from their platform.

Let’s take a look at the first point.

According to a 2011 Gallup Poll 78% of Americans identified themselves as being part of some sect of Christianity. The remaining 22% of respondents said they were not Christians; identified with a different religion altogether, or had no religious affiliation at all. So when liberals try to convince us that we are a secular nation it is just not true.

According to Wikipedia, the Bible that Jesus referred to was the Hebrew, or Old Testament. The New Testament was written down after the Ascension. For many years afterwards his Jewish followers considered themselves Messianic Jews. There was a slow transition from Judaism to Christianity; in which the Messianic Jews became Christians. The whole logic of Christianity is that it is the heir to Biblical Judaism.

Let’s fast forward to present day.

In 2009, while on his apologizing for America tour Barack Obama said this to an audience in Turkey, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens bound by our ideas and values.” The President is right. We are a country bound by our ideas and values. Those values are Judeo-Christian values. For the President who claims to be a Christian himself to not acknowledge those ideas and values as Judeo-Christian; denigrates those Americans who firmly believe otherwise. Mr. President, with all do respect spending 20 years in Reverend Wright’s church listening to anti-American rhetoric is not what Americans would consider to be Christian values.

Let’s take a look at the second point.

The Democratic National Convention in Charlotte showcased to America just how far to the left the party has moved. The Democrat party has become so secular in their beliefs that they actually removed the word God from their platform! In addition to this, they also refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. The fact that they added both of these provisions back into their platform is irrelevant. What is relevant however, is the fact that they were removed in the first place. Both of these decisions are not only deplorable, but they show the utter contempt they have for our Judeo-Christian value system while simultaneously emboldening Israel’s enemies. For a party who routinely receives over 75% of the Jewish vote this decision was not only provocative but also disrespectful. After witnessing this travesty I decided to find out what other radical positions their platform embraced.

Let’s take a look at a few.

With a war still raging in Afghanistan and our American Embassies in Libya and Egypt under siege the last thing we should be doing is cutting our military budget. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and is hell bent on destroying our closest ally Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken over in Egypt and radical Jihadists have filled the vacuum in Tripoli. If this wasn’t enough the Assad Regime in Syria is slaughtering their own people; and North Korea’s new leader is about as stable as a 3 legged chair in a windstorm. We live in a dangerous world and yet Democrats want to cut the Pentagon’s budget by 15% as well as reduce our nuclear weapon capabilities and size of our military to the lowest levels since the 1950’s?

Another radical element in their platform is a desire for a single payer healthcare system. Time and time again during the healthcare debate Democrats in Congress and the President told the American people if you like your current healthcare plan you will be able to keep it. This was never their intent. They understood if they could just pass the healthcare bill that eventually it would lead to a one payer system. As a result of the healthcare bill some small businesses are already dropping their health insurance benefits. They have discovered from a financial standpoint that it is cheaper to pay the fine than it is to insure their employees.

By contrast, the Republican platform recognizes Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel; and doesn’t take three voice votes to do it. Our rights come from our creator and not our government. The Republican Party believes that government should be as inconsequential in all of our lives as humanly possible. Republicans strongly believe that all healthcare decisions should be made between the patient and their doctor, not the government. They believe in lower taxes for every American and pledge to reduce spending. If our Founding Fathers were alive today which platform do you think they would more closely align with?

This brings us to the final point.

Why do Jewish American voters overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party even though many of their values align with the Republican Party? Many pundits, scholars, and historians have gone through great lengths to try and answer this fundamental question. The answer is simple yet also complex.

The Torah says that our experience of oppression is meant to lead to ethical and political action. The stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one; born among you, and you shall love him as yourself. For you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:34)

The Jewish People have been driven from their homeland, persecuted for their beliefs, and murdered for their convictions. It is for this reason that Jews have a natural tendency to sympathize with the less fortunate in society. The Jewish people are known as The Chosen People and feel a strong obligation towards charity and humanitarianism. These feelings are deeply rooted in the philanthropic philosophy of Talmudic studies.

According to Rabbi Yonason Goldson of the Jewish World Review, Jewish society has promoted traditional values for thousands of years. The sanctity of life, the sanctity of the family, and the blessing of charity and prayer all originated in the teachings of the Torah. Throughout the Biblical and Talmudic eras the structure of the Jewish socio-economic community was essentially capitalistic. The free market determined success and individual responsibility provided the framework for communal obligation.

So what happened?

Norman Podhoretz, author of the best selling book Why Jews Are Liberals lays it out perfectly. He contends that the corruption of modern liberalism is very prevalent in non-practicing, non-religious Jews. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capitol punishment while simultaneously negating the value and rights of the unborn. The dignity of every human life has been distorted with the practice of euthanasia for unwanted infants and the elderly infirm.

Historian Paul Johnson explains it like this. Judaism is an ideology devoted to the betterment of the human condition based largely on values and goals that are fundamentally liberal. That being said traditional conservatism emphasizes the necessity of preserving the past; while liberal idealism focuses upon the responsibility of shaping the future. According to Johnson this is why liberalism trumps conservatism in the minds of most Jews.

Let’s dig even deeper.

Non traditional Jews have rallied to modern liberalism under the banner of Tikkun Olam. According to the Torah, Tikkun Olam means to repair the world. Liberal Jews have adopted the notion that Tikkun Olam calls for healing or fixing of the worlds problems. This is why they have so fully embraced leftist ideology, social justice, and judicial activism. Ironically, by shifting responsibility for social justice from the individual to the state, liberal Jews have abdicated the very injustices they yearn to change.

Will Jewish voters still vote for the President and Democrats in 2012 even with all the hostility the party and the President has shown towards Israel?

The answer sadly is yes. Barack Obama captured over 75% of the Jewish vote in 2008, however with his record on Israel I highly doubt his numbers will reach those heights in 2012. With his failure to persuade Iran from building nuclear weapons, his provocative call for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders, and his disparaging comments directed toward Netanyahu; I believe some American Jews will have some reservations this time around.

In closing, I want my readers to know that I am extremely proud of my heritage. I also believe that most liberal Jews are not hard core ideologues. Ironically, because of their upbringing and good natured ways most liberal Jews are liberal by default. Jewish Americans for the most part are not inherently radical but they vote for and believe in many radical ideas.

Democrats remove God and Jerusalem from platform

All men are endowed by their creator not their government. The American experience in all its glory is rooted in this basic tenet. Contrary to what liberals think or want us to believe we are and always have been a Judeo-Christian nation. We are a faith based nation that strongly believes in a higher power; and prides itself in being the greatest example of freedom and liberty the world has ever known.

With that being said this article will touch on a few very important points. The first point is an undeniable fact. We are a Judeo-Christian nation with a set of morals and values deeply rooted in those principles. The second point is that the modern day version of today’s Democrat party is very different from the ideals of the past. Finally, the last point will examine why American Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

For purposes of full disclosure I am not a Christian. I am a proud and unapologetic conservative. I also happen to be Jewish. I am what some might call a political anomaly. I am someone who believes passionately in traditional conservatism rather than secular liberalism. I am also pro-Christian and detest Christian bias just as much as I detest anti-Semitism.

.
Video: The DNC removing god and Jerusalem from their platform.

Let’s take a look at the first point.

According to a 2011 Gallup Poll 78% of Americans identified themselves as being part of some sect of Christianity. The remaining 22% of respondents said they were not Christians; identified with a different religion altogether, or had no religious affiliation at all. So when liberals try to convince us that we are a secular nation it is just not true.

According to Wikipedia, the Bible that Jesus referred to was the Hebrew, or Old Testament. The New Testament was written down after the Ascension. For many years afterwards his Jewish followers considered themselves Messianic Jews. There was a slow transition from Judaism to Christianity; in which the Messianic Jews became Christians. The whole logic of Christianity is that it is the heir to Biblical Judaism.

Let’s fast forward to present day.

In 2009, while on his apologizing for America tour Barack Obama said this to an audience in Turkey, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens bound by our ideas and values.” The President is right. We are a country bound by our ideas and values. Those values are Judeo-Christian values. For the President who claims to be a Christian himself to not acknowledge those ideas and values as Judeo-Christian; denigrates those Americans who firmly believe otherwise. Mr. President, with all do respect spending 20 years in Reverend Wright’s church listening to anti-American rhetoric is not what Americans would consider to be Christian values.

Let’s take a look at the second point.

The Democratic National Convention in Charlotte showcased to America just how far to the left the party has moved. The Democrat party has become so secular in their beliefs that they actually removed the word God from their platform! In addition to this, they also refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. The fact that they added both of these provisions back into their platform is irrelevant. What is relevant however, is the fact that they were removed in the first place. Both of these decisions are not only deplorable, but they show the utter contempt they have for our Judeo-Christian value system while simultaneously emboldening Israel’s enemies. For a party who routinely receives over 75% of the Jewish vote this decision was not only provocative but also disrespectful. After witnessing this travesty I decided to find out what other radical positions their platform embraced.

Let’s take a look at a few.

With a war still raging in Afghanistan and our American Embassies in Libya and Egypt under siege the last thing we should be doing is cutting our military budget. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and is hell bent on destroying our closest ally Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken over in Egypt and radical Jihadists have filled the vacuum in Tripoli. If this wasn’t enough the Assad Regime in Syria is slaughtering their own people; and North Korea’s new leader is about as stable as a 3 legged chair in a windstorm. We live in a dangerous world and yet Democrats want to cut the Pentagon’s budget by 15% as well as reduce our nuclear weapon capabilities and size of our military to the lowest levels since the 1950’s?

Another radical element in their platform is a desire for a single payer healthcare system. Time and time again during the healthcare debate Democrats in Congress and the President told the American people if you like your current healthcare plan you will be able to keep it. This was never their intent. They understood if they could just pass the healthcare bill that eventually it would lead to a one payer system. As a result of the healthcare bill some small businesses are already dropping their health insurance benefits. They have discovered from a financial standpoint that it is cheaper to pay the fine than it is to insure their employees.

By contrast, the Republican platform recognizes Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel; and doesn’t take three voice votes to do it. Our rights come from our creator and not our government. The Republican Party believes that government should be as inconsequential in all of our lives as humanly possible. Republicans strongly believe that all healthcare decisions should be made between the patient and their doctor, not the government. They believe in lower taxes for every American and pledge to reduce spending. If our Founding Fathers were alive today which platform do you think they would more closely align with?

This brings us to the final point.

Why do Jewish American voters overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party even though many of their values align with the Republican Party? Many pundits, scholars, and historians have gone through great lengths to try and answer this fundamental question. The answer is simple yet also complex.

The Torah says that our experience of oppression is meant to lead to ethical and political action. The stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one; born among you, and you shall love him as yourself. For you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:34)

The Jewish People have been driven from their homeland, persecuted for their beliefs, and murdered for their convictions. It is for this reason that Jews have a natural tendency to sympathize with the less fortunate in society. The Jewish people are known as The Chosen People and feel a strong obligation towards charity and humanitarianism. These feelings are deeply rooted in the philanthropic philosophy of Talmudic studies.

According to Rabbi Yonason Goldson of the Jewish World Review, Jewish society has promoted traditional values for thousands of years. The sanctity of life, the sanctity of the family, and the blessing of charity and prayer all originated in the teachings of the Torah. Throughout the Biblical and Talmudic eras the structure of the Jewish socio-economic community was essentially capitalistic. The free market determined success and individual responsibility provided the framework for communal obligation.

So what happened?

Norman Podhoretz, author of the best selling book Why Jews Are Liberals lays it out perfectly. He contends that the corruption of modern liberalism is very prevalent in non-practicing, non-religious Jews. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capitol punishment while simultaneously negating the value and rights of the unborn. The dignity of every human life has been distorted with the practice of euthanasia for unwanted infants and the elderly infirm.

Historian Paul Johnson explains it like this. Judaism is an ideology devoted to the betterment of the human condition based largely on values and goals that are fundamentally liberal. That being said traditional conservatism emphasizes the necessity of preserving the past; while liberal idealism focuses upon the responsibility of shaping the future. According to Johnson this is why liberalism trumps conservatism in the minds of most Jews.

Let’s dig even deeper.

Non traditional Jews have rallied to modern liberalism under the banner of Tikkun Olam. According to the Torah, Tikkun Olam means to repair the world. Liberal Jews have adopted the notion that Tikkun Olam calls for healing or fixing of the worlds problems. This is why they have so fully embraced leftist ideology, social justice, and judicial activism. Ironically, by shifting responsibility for social justice from the individual to the state, liberal Jews have abdicated the very injustices they yearn to change.

Will Jewish voters still vote for the President and Democrats in 2012 even with all the hostility the party and the President has shown towards Israel?

The answer sadly is yes. Barack Obama captured over 75% of the Jewish vote in 2008, however with his record on Israel I highly doubt his numbers will reach those heights in 2012. With his failure to persuade Iran from building nuclear weapons, his provocative call for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders, and his disparaging comments directed toward Netanyahu; I believe some American Jews will have some reservations this time around.

In closing, I want my readers to know that I am extremely proud of my heritage. I also believe that most liberal Jews are not hard core ideologues. Ironically, because of their upbringing and good natured ways most liberal Jews are liberal by default. Jewish Americans for the most part are not inherently radical but they vote for and believe in many radical ideas.

Democrats remove God and Jerusalem from platform

All men are endowed by their creator not their government. The American experience in all its glory is rooted in this basic tenet. Contrary to what liberals think or want us to believe we are and always have been a Judeo-Christian nation. We are a faith based nation that strongly believes in a higher power; and prides itself in being the greatest example of freedom and liberty the world has ever known.

With that being said this article will touch on a few very important points. The first point is an undeniable fact. We are a Judeo-Christian nation with a set of morals and values deeply rooted in those principles. The second point is that the modern day version of today’s Democrat party is very different from the ideals of the past. Finally, the last point will examine why American Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

For purposes of full disclosure I am not a Christian. I am a proud and unapologetic conservative. I also happen to be Jewish. I am what some might call a political anomaly. I am someone who believes passionately in traditional conservatism rather than secular liberalism. I am also pro-Christian and detest Christian bias just as much as I detest anti-Semitism.

.
Video: The DNC removing god and Jerusalem from their platform.

Let’s take a look at the first point.

According to a 2011 Gallup Poll 78% of Americans identified themselves as being part of some sect of Christianity. The remaining 22% of respondents said they were not Christians; identified with a different religion altogether, or had no religious affiliation at all. So when liberals try to convince us that we are a secular nation it is just not true.

According to Wikipedia, the Bible that Jesus referred to was the Hebrew, or Old Testament. The New Testament was written down after the Ascension. For many years afterwards his Jewish followers considered themselves Messianic Jews. There was a slow transition from Judaism to Christianity; in which the Messianic Jews became Christians. The whole logic of Christianity is that it is the heir to Biblical Judaism.

Let’s fast forward to present day.

In 2009, while on his apologizing for America tour Barack Obama said this to an audience in Turkey, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens bound by our ideas and values.” The President is right. We are a country bound by our ideas and values. Those values are Judeo-Christian values. For the President who claims to be a Christian himself to not acknowledge those ideas and values as Judeo-Christian; denigrates those Americans who firmly believe otherwise. Mr. President, with all do respect spending 20 years in Reverend Wright’s church listening to anti-American rhetoric is not what Americans would consider to be Christian values.

Let’s take a look at the second point.

The Democratic National Convention in Charlotte showcased to America just how far to the left the party has moved. The Democrat party has become so secular in their beliefs that they actually removed the word God from their platform! In addition to this, they also refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. The fact that they added both of these provisions back into their platform is irrelevant. What is relevant however, is the fact that they were removed in the first place. Both of these decisions are not only deplorable, but they show the utter contempt they have for our Judeo-Christian value system while simultaneously emboldening Israel’s enemies. For a party who routinely receives over 75% of the Jewish vote this decision was not only provocative but also disrespectful. After witnessing this travesty I decided to find out what other radical positions their platform embraced.

Let’s take a look at a few.

With a war still raging in Afghanistan and our American Embassies in Libya and Egypt under siege the last thing we should be doing is cutting our military budget. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and is hell bent on destroying our closest ally Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken over in Egypt and radical Jihadists have filled the vacuum in Tripoli. If this wasn’t enough the Assad Regime in Syria is slaughtering their own people; and North Korea’s new leader is about as stable as a 3 legged chair in a windstorm. We live in a dangerous world and yet Democrats want to cut the Pentagon’s budget by 15% as well as reduce our nuclear weapon capabilities and size of our military to the lowest levels since the 1950’s?

Another radical element in their platform is a desire for a single payer healthcare system. Time and time again during the healthcare debate Democrats in Congress and the President told the American people if you like your current healthcare plan you will be able to keep it. This was never their intent. They understood if they could just pass the healthcare bill that eventually it would lead to a one payer system. As a result of the healthcare bill some small businesses are already dropping their health insurance benefits. They have discovered from a financial standpoint that it is cheaper to pay the fine than it is to insure their employees.

By contrast, the Republican platform recognizes Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel; and doesn’t take three voice votes to do it. Our rights come from our creator and not our government. The Republican Party believes that government should be as inconsequential in all of our lives as humanly possible. Republicans strongly believe that all healthcare decisions should be made between the patient and their doctor, not the government. They believe in lower taxes for every American and pledge to reduce spending. If our Founding Fathers were alive today which platform do you think they would more closely align with?

This brings us to the final point.

Why do Jewish American voters overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party even though many of their values align with the Republican Party? Many pundits, scholars, and historians have gone through great lengths to try and answer this fundamental question. The answer is simple yet also complex.

The Torah says that our experience of oppression is meant to lead to ethical and political action. The stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one; born among you, and you shall love him as yourself. For you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:34)

The Jewish People have been driven from their homeland, persecuted for their beliefs, and murdered for their convictions. It is for this reason that Jews have a natural tendency to sympathize with the less fortunate in society. The Jewish people are known as The Chosen People and feel a strong obligation towards charity and humanitarianism. These feelings are deeply rooted in the philanthropic philosophy of Talmudic studies.

According to Rabbi Yonason Goldson of the Jewish World Review, Jewish society has promoted traditional values for thousands of years. The sanctity of life, the sanctity of the family, and the blessing of charity and prayer all originated in the teachings of the Torah. Throughout the Biblical and Talmudic eras the structure of the Jewish socio-economic community was essentially capitalistic. The free market determined success and individual responsibility provided the framework for communal obligation.

So what happened?

Norman Podhoretz, author of the best selling book Why Jews Are Liberals lays it out perfectly. He contends that the corruption of modern liberalism is very prevalent in non-practicing, non-religious Jews. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capitol punishment while simultaneously negating the value and rights of the unborn. The dignity of every human life has been distorted with the practice of euthanasia for unwanted infants and the elderly infirm.

Historian Paul Johnson explains it like this. Judaism is an ideology devoted to the betterment of the human condition based largely on values and goals that are fundamentally liberal. That being said traditional conservatism emphasizes the necessity of preserving the past; while liberal idealism focuses upon the responsibility of shaping the future. According to Johnson this is why liberalism trumps conservatism in the minds of most Jews.

Let’s dig even deeper.

Non traditional Jews have rallied to modern liberalism under the banner of Tikkun Olam. According to the Torah, Tikkun Olam means to repair the world. Liberal Jews have adopted the notion that Tikkun Olam calls for healing or fixing of the worlds problems. This is why they have so fully embraced leftist ideology, social justice, and judicial activism. Ironically, by shifting responsibility for social justice from the individual to the state, liberal Jews have abdicated the very injustices they yearn to change.

Will Jewish voters still vote for the President and Democrats in 2012 even with all the hostility the party and the President has shown towards Israel?

The answer sadly is yes. Barack Obama captured over 75% of the Jewish vote in 2008, however with his record on Israel I highly doubt his numbers will reach those heights in 2012. With his failure to persuade Iran from building nuclear weapons, his provocative call for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders, and his disparaging comments directed toward Netanyahu; I believe some American Jews will have some reservations this time around.

In closing, I want my readers to know that I am extremely proud of my heritage. I also believe that most liberal Jews are not hard core ideologues. Ironically, because of their upbringing and good natured ways most liberal Jews are liberal by default. Jewish Americans for the most part are not inherently radical but they vote for and believe in many radical ideas.

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

Too many people today think they are entitled to be rude to others, including in the workplace. Then when they can’t hold a job, they think are entitled to live off the government dole, taking money from others. We need a revival of civility and manners.

As rudeness is becoming increasingly common in our culture, Americans are finding it more difficult to work with each other. Far too many people now lack morals and manners. The U.S. has become a materialistic culture full of self-interest and lacking in respect for humanity. The outward manifestation of this is an inability to get along with others.

This culture of rudeness has deeply impacted the workplace environment. Too many Americans cannot hold jobs because both employers and employees refuse to behave civilly towards each other. There is less forgiveness and there are fewer efforts being made to solve disagreements by working things out. As a result, the welfare rolls are staggering under the weight of everyone on them. Over 100 million Americans are on welfare, almost one-third of the population. Instead of changing their behavior in order to maintain a job, these Americans would rather demand more from the government. They do not consider that by taking more for themselves, they are taking from others. These rude Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country, but what their country’s welfare system can do for them. They feel that everyone else owes them something.

This self-centered generation has developed an attitude that they are “entitled” to be rude, entitled to cut each other down. Instead of greeting others with a smile, brightening their day, it has become commonplace to be negative and grouchy towards others, including their co-workers. Publications like the Phoenix New Times, an alternative news weekly, reveal how degenerate the culture has become. Its articles and the comments left after them are not only rude but replete with foul language.

Movies and television shows have become so crude it is painful watching most of them. The Disney Channel, which is supposedly the television channel for children, is full of loud, impatient, hyper, crass-behaving children, teenagers and their parents. Yet the actors and actresses portraying these rude individuals are always represented as beautiful and successful. This is a terrible example for our children. They grow up believing that they can behave that way and still be successful. Even worse, they may correlate the bad behavior with success. Children idolize actors and actresses and want to emulate them. They don’t understand that what they are emulating is not reality, it will not work and is just plain wrong.

People are no longer helping their families and relatives as much as they used to. Barack Obama, the president of the United States, would not even help his own half-brother when his son needed medical care. The half-brother, George Obama, called Dinesh D’Souza and asked him for the money. D’Souza, a kindhearted conservative author, immediately wired $1000 to him. George Obama thanked D’Souza, saying, “You are like a brother to me.”

Taking God out of the schools has contributed to the decline in civility. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who is credited with removing prayer from the schools, was herself a rude person. Her son became a Christian and revealed how she had treated others and her own relatives, calling her “evil.” Obviously the concept of respect is not a tenet of atheism. By contrast, the Bible provides excellent moral instruction. 1^st Timothy 5:1 says, “Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father.”

Feminism has also helped destroy civility. It has turned women against men, telling women they can be just as crude as the crudest man, all in the name of equality. Instead of elevating men to a higher level, we have brought women down to a cruder and crueler level.

Children used to be reprimanded in schools for using foul language. Now it is rare to find a teacher who will admonish them. The public schools claim they cannot change children’s behavior, since it is learned at home, but aren’t the schools there to train our children? The public schools were originally founded not only to teach children arithmetic, reading and writing, but also morals and manners.

The internet and social media have exacerbated the problem. People feel less constrained to say something behind the safety of their computer screen than they would speaking to someone in person.

There is a misnomer that it is necessary to claw your way to the top to be successful; however, ruthless businessmen like Donald Trump are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason why Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy twice. The multi-authored book Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization explains how the most successful businesses are the ones where employees treat each other well. The least successful businesses are companies where employees have bad attitudes or try to keep others down in order to promote their own careers.

The increase in rudeness no doubt contributes to why so many Americans today are on antidepressants and suffer from addictions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 400% increase in Americans taking antidepressants since 1988, with more than one in 10 taking them. 14 million are addicted to alcohol or abuse it. The number of baby boomers with drug or alcohol addictions is expected to double by 2020. Dealing with rude people constantly can be mentally and emotionally draining. Those inflicting the pain on others through their cruel remarks also end up on drugs, because ultimately, their obnoxious behavior will cause people to reject them.

William Wilberforce, a leader in the 18^th century effort to abolish slavery, was so appalled by “the torrent of profaneness that every day makes more rapid advances” that he started a movement to introduce civility. Wilberforce had the Archbishop of Canterbury request that King George III issue The Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. It called for the prosecution of those who engage in “excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord’s Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices.” He founded the Society for Suppression of Vice. He was effective, and by the end of his life, morals, manners and a sense of social responsibility had spread throughout Britain.

A modern day Wilberforce is needed to bring civility to our nation. The U.S. is a freer country than England was in the 18th century, so instead of making inappropriate behavior illegal, other methods to curtail it should be utilized, such as peer pressure. A leader must emerge to launch this movement. Most disputes can be fixed without burning bridges. We must retrain Americans to be peacemakers and respect each other.

Ironically, Obama cited Wilberforce’s civility efforts in a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2010. Obama is no Wilberforce. Wilberforce didn’t just talk about civility, he led by example. Obama uses the rhetoric of civility in order to force people to accept his viewpoints. D’Souza notes that one of Obama’s favorite sayings comes from the Bible, “We are our brother’s keeper.” However, Obama doesn’t mean that individuals should help each other, he means the government should play the role of Big Brother, alleviating himself and others of this individual, moral responsibility. 

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg

By Sharon Sebastian

In the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Egypt and the brutal murder of four Americans in Libya, Barack Obama prepared for a fund-raising swing to Las Vegas leaving Governor Mitt Romney to take a strong stand for America. America’s longing for leadership in the White House was heightened by Romney’s statesman-like response to the initial attack in Egypt that was followed by the subsequent violent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. For fifteen long hours after the beginning of the assaults, Obama remained silent while the violence escalated. In a leadership void, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped forward before Americans to give an appropriate and firm response.

Human Events reports, “The UK Independent on Friday published a bombshell report on the deadly attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, in Libya.  The report alleges that “the U.S. State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” Without intercession by the American President or the government and police forces in Libya, Islamist extremist mobs were able to lay siege to torture, kill, and plunder.

In the wake of the spreading violence in the Middle East and the Obama administration’s subsequent apology-first response to the attackers followed by an admonition, Commentator Charles Krauthammer, a seasoned political observer, took to the airwaves and declared Barack Obama, “An arrogant amateur.” News reports abound that Obama is on record as having skipped 50% of his intelligence briefings. Evidence of that are Obama and his surrogate’s recent campaign proclamations that Al-Qaeda has been defeated. Obama’s camp raises its own naïve spectacle of “Mission Accomplished” as Al-Qaeda continues to sponsor and execute violent uprisings throughout the region. As further violence erupted, Obama prioritized his election campaigning over the growing crisis. Void of a resolute foreign policy to protect American interests, he packed his bags and headed to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Notably, Presidential candidate Romney has already met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, our strongest ally in a region of the world that is dissolving into chaos and increased violence on a daily basis.  Obama has yet to visit Israel, but made time to go to Saudi Arabia to bow before the King as well as a trip to Egypt where he stirred up the Arab Spring – all the while turning his back on the freedom fighters in Iran. As a result of Obama’s intervention into the region, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Obama conveyed a confused message on Telemundo in regard to Egypt that: “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Yet, in regard to our friend Israel, Obama is reportedly too busy campaigning and going on late night TV to meet with Netanyahu in New York as Iran threatens both Israel and the United States with a nuclear holocaust as it develops the bomb.

Mitt Romney’s leadership exposed more than Barack Obama’s ineptness in foreign policy. Coupled with his domestic policy, one indisputable personality trait jumps out. Obama’s self-identity is consistently invested with underachievement and with those who harbor anti-American sentiments. Obama has written that his basic concepts of government were formed by the cadre of friends he sought out in college who morphed into the current ranking members he recruits into his administration. Obama writes he preferred self-proclaimed Socialists, Marxists, and anti-Capitalists whom he claims swayed and continue to sway how he governs. Obama has written that he openly sought out “radicals” among his professors and schoolmates in a school that was dominated by Socialists and Marxists who wanted to bring down America’s free enterprise and capitalist system. Collectivism was their byword that relegated American citizenry to a level of mediocrity and a herd like mentality “to follow” without questioning. Their ideology is the antithesis of America and American ideals. Consequently, a pattern has evolved in both Obama’s foreign and domestic policies as he applies his radical ideology to both.

An example of how Obama tortures logic and reality to fit his own disturbing radical and collectivist view is an executive order that his Justice Department is prepared to foist upon America’s schoolchildren. Reported by the Daily Caller, a recent executive order signed by Obama will set-up quotas to force children, who do not qualify by current school standards as malcontents, into the ranks of those requiring disciplinary action or suspension. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are reportedly disturbed by the imbalance of the number of minorities who act out in school and comprise higher percentages of those needing disciplinary action or suspension. Instead of taking a strong stand against bad behavior, Obama seeks to mask the statistics by forcing more Asian and white students onto the detention rolls and classifying them as disorderly troublemakers. It has become clear that Obama does not champion success in the marketplace and now wants to “level the field” by falsely impugning students in the classroom, leaving a black mark on their educational records. Obama wants to equate, through a government imposed quota system, a false categorization of non-disruptive students into a base level of behavior with disruptive students. The Daily Caller reports:

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It is too bad that the president has chosen to set up a new bureaucracy with a focus on one particular racial group, to the exclusion of all others,” said Roger Clegg, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Obama creates real victims as he seeks to excuse rather than eliminate bad behavior and he cries racism rather than impose discipline. America’s children, especially our black children that Obama has targeted as being at the heart of the issue, need help, not excuses. That Obama has a deep-seated bias is indisputable when it comes to placing blame. An example is Obama’s charge that Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” and implied racism when his professor friend reportedly acted badly. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on Obama’s message of deflecting blame. Dowd wrote about Obama’s re-nomination acceptance speech in which Obama blamed the American people, not himself for his failed administration: “…he told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought. And, that is why he has kindly agreed to give us more time. Because, after all, it’s our fault.” Dowd chided Obama by writing, “Our forebearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard break-up line: It’s not you, it’s me. He gave it to us straight, it’s not me, it’s you.” Off-shifting the blame onto Americans for his failures, Obama unabashedly excuses himself.

How does his pattern of “excuses” reflect on how Obama handles foreign policy? Though not in any way to be compared with previous examples; Obama’s pattern of excuses repeatedly reveal his global biases. Radical Islam is no exception. Obama tends to find some excuse for the actions of Islamic extremists and assigns Americans partial responsibility for the radicals “bad behavior.” Obama is quick to point out that it is not his failed foreign policy of appeasement and feckless action, but the American people who are somehow to blame for attacks against us, thereby necessitating him to render an apology to America’s enemies. Instead of taking a strong stance to hold Egypt’s new government accountable with consequences, Obama bypasses Congress with plans to award $1.5 billion of Americans’ hard earned tax dollars to the new Egyptian leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Romney, on the other hand, has said, “Enough.” Americans not only need a responsible grown-up in the White House, but leadership.  Romney acknowledged that the attacks were planned and executed on 9/11 by America’s enemies – radical, extremist Muslims. Americans reacted favorably to Romney as they got a glimpse of his leadership. Romney revealed a Reagan-esque quality when he faced-down a hostile press and stood not only his ground, but America’s ground. Obama harbors a destructive mentality that sets America on a dangerous course both at home and globally. All Americans suffer the consequences of his actions. The tragedy is that so many Americans voted for a smooth operator, a phantom Obama, who never existed to begin with and made promises about a stronger America that he never intended to keep. In the blame game, Obama wants us to believe that it is not him or them, it’s us.

Sharon Sebastian () is an author, writer, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists – “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. 

“Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be ordered at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com,www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZHzMG66Kg