She is a favorite of ours here at Hard Astarboard, of course, and we always enjoy both her books and her TV interviews.

I will definitely read her latest book, which Jeffrey Lord rightly calls a Public Service, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From The Seventies To Obama as soon as I can pick up a copy.

From Human Events:

Top 10 Obama anti-business, anti-job actions

President Obama loves to complain that he inherited an economic mess. That may be true, but his wrong-headed policies have only made matters worse, taking actions that hurt businesses and stunt job growth.

The Obama anti-business/anti-job “Top Ten” is here.

For those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund endorses a vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket.

Of course, how could any right thinking American vote any other way?

Yes, President B. Hussein Obama did do more than a little poorly during his first debate with Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

My take(s)?

Romney showed the stand up and take charge, fully informed and thinking on his feet demeanor I like to believe are hallmarks of a true leader, supplying the basis’ for his solutions to our nation’s deep seated fiscal problems while Obama turned in the kind of lackluster performance one associates with someone who not only doesn’t have “the facts” at his fingertips, but can’t think on his feet and, in the final analysis, really doesn’t have anything to say.

After all, how can you tout your proactive accomplishments when you have no proactive accomplishments to tout?

As Wesley Pruden so deftly put it:

Now we’ll see how much debates really matter. Often they don’t matter much. But the presidential debate Wednesday night might matter a great deal, not because of what the candidates said, but what the debate told us about who the candidates really are.

Barack Obama was revealed to be the empty suit with a great gift of gab and a talent only for appealing to the nation’s guilty conscience. Some of us recognized the empty suit four years ago. Like all great salesmen, he can charm prospective customers when he tries, but without a teleprompter he’s hopelessly lost at sea. On Wednesday night, he forgot whether he was selling rubbing alcohol or ladies’ corsets, and it showed.

{Above Emphasis mine}

Anyway,

SNIP!

Mitt Romney, to our considerable surprise, has a gift for talking to the common man. He may be one of us, after all. This is particularly important in an age when everybody wants the president to feel his pain and the first lady to come over with a green-bean casserole. He arrived with a game plan and kept to it. He used the word “jobs” more than 30 times. It became a mantra. He was confident, respectful, and looked to be the man in charge of the evening. He showed unexpected flashes of humor….

Speaking of humor, I hate to laugh at something as pitiful as this, but then again, Obama’s presidency, if you could indeed call it that, has, at least for a patriotic American, been pretty pitiful.

Obama Sends Bizarre Fundraising E-mail After Debate Loss

Waking up this morning, I had a ton of e-mail in my inbox, but one really stood out. It was a fundraising e-mail for Barack Obama. Yes, even after his dismal debate performance against Mitt Romney, Obama was back to fundraising. But his e-mail message was one of the strangest I’ve seen.

First, let’s start with the subject line. Again… this was an e-mail from Barack Obama’s campaign. Supposedly, these are not a bunch of amateurs. Yet the subject line was simply: Hey. That’s it. Just “Hey.” They might have well just said Yo!

Then, we have the e-mail itself. Here is the entire message:

Friend –

I hope I made you proud out there explaining the vision we share for this country.

Now we need to go win this election — the most important thing that will happen tonight is what you do (or don’t do) to help in the little time we have left:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Tonight

Thank you,

Barack

His whole debate review is one sentence? I guess the brevity speaks louder than words. If anyone was proud of that performance, I guess they WOULD be likely candidates to still give him money.

Then, Obama talks about “the most important thing,” which is not the debate, but giving Obama money. That’s the most important thing about last night? Maybe in Barack Obama’s eyes. In the eyes of most Americans, I’m sure the most important thing was that the president of the United States can’t defend his policies and showed that he is completely out of touch.

What do you think? It sure seems like an odd e-mail to send following a complete debacle at the debate. Oh well… at least he considers me a friend.

Heh heh…

Of course, with support from loonbeams like this, anyone would be depressed to the point of near speechlessness.

Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi took it a step farther on CNN. When talking to Wolf Blitzer, she said killings were the fault of House Republicans: “It’s also important to note that the Republican appropriation Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for the State Department, including funding for security.”

This insane accusation cannot stand any kind of objective scrutiny. Administrations routinely “high-ball” their requests so that Congress can come in lower and still given them money. There is no evidence that Pelosi’s alleged missing millions prevented security from being beefed up—nor has anyone ventured such an accusation until Pelosi made it up on CNN. Security was not increased because someone decided not to increase it.

In fact, according to Breitbart.com, the White House had suggested cutting $129 million of the present budget from “embassy security, construction, and maintenance.”

So where is the media outrage at Pelosi’s transparent ploy to deflect attention away from the president’s policies in an election year, using the death of our diplomats to do it? Not only did she make such an outrageous suggestion, but she did so in a face to face interview with a mainstream TV interviewer. That tells us she had perfect confidence that, whether or not she was able to convince anyone, she would suffer no consequences.

Only Romney gets punished for speaking; Pelosi gets a free ride.

Yes, the obstacle to the truth called The Mainstream Media, there’s that, too.

After the fact, when he was no longer facing Romney, Obama suddenly had lots to say, leaving the question hanging, “Is our president a coward as well as a politics first and last, staunch destructionist, having to make his more aggressive statements when he’s not face-to-face with an opponent?”

In an attempt to recover from a disappointing Presidential debate, President Barack Obama blasted his Republican challenger for not being “the real Mitt Romney” by contradicting his own beliefs.

In campaign appearances after the debate, Obama said the Romney he met on the stage on Wednesday night was not the same Romney he knew.

“When I got on the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But I know it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney — because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favour the wealthy,” he said.

“Yet, the fellow on the stage last night — who looked like Mitt Romney — said he did not know anything about that.

It was all news to him. The real Mitt Romney said that we don’t need any more teachers in the classroom.

“But the fellow on stage last night, he said he loves teachers — can’t get enough of them,” he said.

He accused Romney of being dishonest on a host of policy issues and accused him of glossing over details of his economic plan.

Great, why didn’t he say all that during the debate? Because then Romney would have been there to once again expose him for the incompetent, clueless phony he really is. It was much more convenient to wait until after the debate, when Romney was nowhere to be seen, to speak his dubious piece without danger of once again being shown up as the liar this POTUS is.

Debating outside the debate actually goes well with a man whose political party is famous for legislating from the bench.

The consensus is that Romney administered a good, solid butt kicking during the debate, and that he garnered a significant increase in support as such.

Now the Obama camp is scrambling to teach their mouthpiece how to debate in time for the next one.

Good luck with that…

It’s about time, after all the relatively lackluster output we’ve been getting from our presidential candidate.

One thing we’ve “learned” is that while Obama sounds like he actually knows what he’s talking about when there’s no one there to challenge him, he really doesn’t know “squat” or, more properly, he hasn’t got anything practical to offer the American people other than a lot of words once he is debated “in your face” style.

His words were baltantly empty as Romney brought up all the fundamental ideas that built this great nation, the same ideas Obama’s been ignoring in favor of his liberal-socialist worldview — the one that never works, never has, anywhere in history, never will.

From Fox News

Debate Result: Is an A** Kicking Covered Under Obamacare?

Good Title!

At any rate, people on both sides of the political fence seem to agree that Obama did have his back door handed to him.

Go, Romney!

My first post today addressed, in part, the “homosexuals rule!” attitude prevalent in Obama’s America ©.

But there’s more.

From One News Now:

A border-enforcement advocate is blasting President Barack Obama over the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to allow illegal aliens with American same-sex partners to be eligible for consideration of having their deportation orders put on hold.

The announcement was made public late Friday afternoon. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano said a memo to Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices will state that binational same-sex couples in long-term relationships would meet the definition of family that government lawyers can use as grounds for deferring a foreign citizen’s removal from the U.S.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC), reacted to the announcement in an interview with OneNewsNow.

“… Here’s the Obama administration again giving legal status - a legal “family” status - to homosexuals as part of an amnesty for illegal immigrants,” he says. “He’s also expanding the unlawful, unconstitutional amnesty measures, which started with the DREAM Act kit.”

According to Gheen, Obama is acting outside the Constitution of the United States in an effort to strengthen his hold on “unlawful” political power.

“He’s creating legislation,” says Gheen. “He is a tyrant, he is a dictator, he is an authoritarian, [and] he is acting outside the law.

“He is contradicting the U.S. Constitution, and [he's] appealing to any group of people that he believes that he can appeal to to be loyal to him politically and possibly further than that. He’s calling on people that he can count on to mobilize for him politically and possibly anything else that he wants.”

Peter LaBarbera with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality concurs with Gheen.

“They’re trying to an end-run around Congress by promoting homosexual relationships,” says LaBarbera. “It’s bad enough if it were to be passed by Congress and then signed into law by the president — but here again, we have Obama going around Congress and just enacting these radical policies.”

Welcome to Obama’s America ©….

I wasn’t going to do a second post today until I ran across this must-listen-to speech from Rep. Allen White before the NRA.

Bravo!

These reports really grabbed my attention.

From World Net Daily:

Dozens of people have already been arrested over the weekend for kneeling and praying in front of the White House.

ActsFive29, a group of like-minded, pro-life defenders launched the D.C. prayer rally knowing their members could indeed be arrested, but asserting it’s worth it, because, “The future of religious freedom in America is at risk.”

been arrested… for… praying in front of the White House.

…knowing their members could indeed be arrested…

Is this America, or is it a communist country or, for that matter, a Muslim country, where Christians know they can be arrested for praying?

Or is this Obama’s America?

How does this grab you?

A retired Army chaplain says homosexual sailors have been able to choose their bunkmates on board Navy ships as a consequence of the repeal of the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military.

Col. Ron Crews (USA-Ret.) served as an Army chaplain for 28 years and now serves as a spokesman for the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. When asked by The Washington Times to write an op-ed on the consequences of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” he was quick to point out that “toleration does not cut both ways.”

“The Department of Defense is continually bringing forth homosexual soldiers and military personnel to do press conferences and talk about how wonderful it is,” Col. Crews notes. “And then they allow military personnel to march in a gay pride parade in San Diego. But yet those who hold biblical values are silenced.”

The Chaplain Alliance spokesman adds that homosexuals are now demanding and receiving special privileges in the military, including one egregious example aboard Navy ships.

From a Washington Times article linked in the above report:

The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.

At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would “make a great couple.” The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action.

Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.

A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.

The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.

Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.

This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.

Yes, friends, welcome to Obama’s America…

The Obama Administration seems to have a “thing” for arming the bad guys even while trying to take the Second Amendment rights from honest American gun owners.

First there was Fast & Furious, now there’s this:

While echoes of the “Fast and Furious” scandal still resound in the White House, another administration decision at the heart of Obama’s Mideast policy may prove even more explosive.

Almost entirely missing from the debate surrounding the anti-U.S. attacks in Libya is the administration’s policy of arming jihadists to overthrow Mideast governments. But in the case of Libya, the arming of jihadists may have directly resulted in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the subsequent murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, private security employees and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Naturally, liberals will yell that Republicans armed Saddam and the Taliban, but that all happened years before we had any problems with them (in one case it was a proxy war against Iran, the other against the Soviets who had occupied Afghanistan) and under entirely different circumstances.

This has only just happened, with the full knowledge on the part of the Obama Administration that these people we’ve been arming have definitive ties to or sympathies with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, while Fast & Furious I was an ill conceived ploy by our liberal president and his chief stooge attorney general to saturate the Mexican criminal element with assault weapons and lay it on the doorstep of the Second Amendment, blaming the weapons’ getting into the hands of the south-of-the-border nogoodnicks on legitimate American gun ownership. I’ll tell you, these leftist weasels will do anything to achieve their dubious ends.

After changing its story multiple times, the White House finally conceded the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate was a planned attack linked to al-Qaida, as per information released by national intelligence agencies.

The admission prompted Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., to call for the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for pushing the narrative that the attacks were part of a spontaneous uprising.

King may instead want to focus his investigative energies on the larger story: How the Obama administration armed Libyan rebels who were known to include al-Qaida and other anti-Western jihadists, and how the White House is currently continuing that same policy in Syria.

During the revolution against Muammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.

At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi boasted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida gunmen, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

Even Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted during the Libyan revolution that Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”

At the time, former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”

And Obama gave them weapons just the same. Maybe these pieces of intelligence were brought up in some of the daily briefings he mostly misses, because they would interfere with his perpetual campaigning schedule.

The arming of the Libyan rebels may have aided in the attacks on our consulate in Libya. One witness to those attacks said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya.

The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack.

Ambassador Stevens was directly involved in arming the rebels, reported Egyptian security officials speaking to WND. Those officials claimed Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The officials further claimed Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The Egyptian security officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

Regardless of Stevens’ alleged role, the Obama administration now continues to support the Syrian rebels, including the Free Syrian Army, despite widespread reports that al-Qaida is prominent among their ranks.

In addition to a reported $450 million in emergency cash for the Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday announced $45 million in additional aid for Syrian the opposition after nearly $100 million was provided to the Syrian rebels this year.

Read the entire World Net Daily report.

And Romney has to worry about poll numbers when he’s running against an incumbent like Obama? If Barack Hussein gets reelected, I have to say I will have little or no respect remaining for the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the voting majority in this country.

It will mean that finally, the left, through their revisionism, repetition, indoctrination of our youth through the public school system and outright propagandizing have worn down the resistance of our previously freedom loving populace, dumbed us down and are in the final stretch of winning their war on America and the American way.