Obama Says He'll Sign Bill Banning Insider Trading on Capitol Hill

As many of you are aware, Peter Schweizer, Governor Palin's adviser and an editor for Breitbart, has been leading the fight in exposing the insider trading and abuse of power by the nation's lawmakers. To the surprise of many of us, President Obama took up the issue of insider trading on Capitol Hill in last night's State of the Union speech.

Consider me skeptical, yet encouraged by Obama's statement on this particular issue. The other 99% of his speech was just more of the same class warfare, leftist drivel that we've come to expect from the current commander-in-chief, and thus, not very encouraging at all.

Via BigGovernment:

In a State of the Union speech devoid of clarity or specifics, President Barack Obama offered but one shining exception: a direct call for members of Congress to send him a bill to ban congressional insider trading.

“Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress and I will sign it tomorrow,” President Obama said to applause. “Let’s limit any elected official from owning stock in industries they impact.”

Since the release of “Throw Them All Out,” Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer has been a one-man battalion fighting for members of Congress to abide by the same insider trading laws that apply to all Americans. President Obama’s speech Tuesday night is evidence that Schweizer’s battle against congressional insider trading and cronyism has scored a critical victory.

“It appears that our message has finally broken through,” said Schweizer in an interview Tuesday night with Breitbart News. “Thousands of citizens across America have called and written their representatives and the White House demanding a ban on congressional insider trading. The President’s speech tonight is proof that their efforts were not in vain. Now is the time to apply maximum pressure and get behind Rep. Sean Duffy’s (R-WI) RESTRICT Act. It’s the best proposal I’ve seen to date.”

The RESTRICT (Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading) Act (H.R. 3550) would require members of Congress to either establish blind trusts or submit to a three day public disclosure of any and all investments. According to Schweizer, the bill is preferable to other bills, such as the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which Schweizer believes do not go far enough to remedy the problem...

“There’s still much work to be done,” said Schweizer. “We need to get behind Rep. Duffy’s RESTRICT Act and let our leaders know that we will not stand idly by as members of Congress profit off of access to material, nonpublic information.”

You can read the entire piece by Wynton Hall here.

While this is indeed a "victory" in the fight against corruption in government, I'll believe that the president is serious about signing a bill when I see it. I'd also like to read any bill he does sign if it ever does land on his desk. Obama is good at selling one thing as another, and since the media rarely calls him out on this, why wouldn't he be?

One last thing that struck me about the president's comments was his sheer hypocrisy. Towards the end of the clip above, he says:

Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Yes it does, Mr. President. However, the same should apply to the executive branch, shouldn't it? If you recall, Obama's bundlers were at the heart of the Solyndra scandal.

From the Washington Post:

A major Obama fundraiser strategized with one of his associates last year about how to get White House and Energy Department assistance for a solar company in which his family funds had a substantial interest, according to e-mails released Wednesday by House Republicans.

Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser advised on how to press officials for federal contracts and additional loan assistance for Solyndra, the failed solar company that left taxpayers on the hook for $535 million in federal loans, the e-mails show...

Kaiser was a bundler for Obama’s 2008 campaign and has been a frequent White House visitor, using meetings with top officials to seek stimulus funds for Tulsa-based projects and to discuss his charitable projects, he has said. His family foundation was the biggest investor in Solyndra, but he has denied that he had any involvement in discussions of Solyndra’s 2009 federal loan...

The new e-mails suggest more contact between Solyndra officials and White House officials than was previously known. They suggest that Kaiser and his advisers had hopes that Solyndra would secure a second federal loan.

I do commend Obama for talking about the "corrosive influence of money in politics," I also recognize that the current administration is just as 'corroded' as Congress. My advice to voters is to do as the title of Schweizer's book suggests and "throw them all out" come November, and that includes Obama.

Obama's Approval Rating Hits a Record Low 39%

President Obama has been flirting with low poll numbers since, well since shortly after he was inaugurated in 2009. Sunday, he hit an all-time low with his approval rating sinking into the thirties. This just before he kicks off a bus tour of his very own through Iowa, at the taxpayers expense.

The L.A. Times reports:

President Obama's summer woes have dragged his approval rating to an all-time low, sinking below 40% for the first time in Gallup's daily tracking poll.

New data posted Sunday shows that 39% of Americans approve of Obama's job performance, while 54% disapprove. Both are the worst numbers of his presidency.

Obama's approval rating has hovered in the 40% range for much of 2011, peaking at 53% in the weeks following the death of Osama bin Laden.

But Americans' view of his job performance continued to tick downward as the debt-ceiling debate heated up. By the time he signed legislation averting a federal default, he was mired in the low-40% range...

Obama is set to launch something of a counter-offensive on Monday with a three-day bus tour of the Midwest, a trip that includes two stops in Iowa. The White House denied that the itinerary was politically motivated, however.

ABC's John Berman Distorts Governor Palin's Statement on Oil

Tuesday evening, after Governor Palin released her statement concerning oil prices on Facebook, John Berman from ABC News filed this, somewhat ridiculous report:

Sarah Palin says 2012 “can’t come soon enough.” But for what? A dramatic run or the White House? Another reality show?

It's no mistake that Mr. Berman chose to begin his report that way. Before his readers are given a chance to take in the substance of what Governor Palin had written, this guy tries to cheapen her, and subsequently her message. Keep in mind that John Berman considers himself a "newsman," he's not an editorial writer.

So then, what is the relevance of bringing up a television show the governor recorded last summer to the current topic? None. It's merely a distraction and it is in no way covering the basic Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How of his story. Like so many reporters, perhaps John Berman forgot his job description.

Forced to actually cover his topic, Berman writes (emphasis mine):

Labeling President Obama as the “$4-per-gallon president," she asserts, “The evidence of the president’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see.”

She criticizes the drilling moratorium following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the proposed elimination of tax incentives for certain types of exploration, and what she calls his “anti-drilling regulatory policies.”

She disputes the notion that rising prices are related to the unrest in the Middle East, saying rather, “the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.”

Does this guy even know how to read? Governor Palin's statement actually read (emphasis mine):

The President may try to suggest that the rise in oil prices has nothing to do with him, but the American people won’t be fooled. Before we saw any protests in the Middle East, increased global demand led to a significant rise in oil prices; but the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.

That is not 'disputing' the "notion" that high gas prices are "related" to the situation in the Middle East. What she is stating is that BEFORE tensions broke out all over that region, oil prices had gone up, in large part because of Obama's energy policies. She really lays out quite the case against the Obama administration for their role in helping to create the perfect storm that we as Americans are now facing with energy costs. She lists the president's drilling moratorium, his 2012 budget, and his anti-drilling regulatory policies as all being factors to the current $4 gas at the pump. All of these things were in place before the massive demonstrations in Tunisia or Tahrir Square.

Obama's policies restrict our country from drilling our own oil. Therefore, leaving us to depend on these highly unstable parts of the globe, which in times like these, can take an already uncertain economy and throw it into a tailspin.

Berman then adds this gem to his piece:

She makes no mention of nuclear energy, so much in the news following the disaster in Japan. But she continues a refrain that she has used in recent interview -- claiming that the president is actively working to “weaken” the country.

What car runs off of nuclear energy? The title of Governor Palin's note is "The $4-Per-Gallon President." Those would be gallons of gasoline, Mr. Berman.

Since Obama has taken office, oil prices are up 67%, unemployment has gone from 7.6% to 9.5%, and the administration keeps injecting uncertainty into the market with their programs and power grabs. The economy is struggling to rebound, and high oil prices could easily prevent it from doing so, thereby making us a weaker country. Also, being beholden to dictators and foreign regimes in volatile neighborhoods isn't exactly as sign of strength. So, yes... Obama is working to weaken the country.

Governor Palin posted a great statement regarding the Obama administration's failed energy policies. While covering the item, "newsman" John Berman not only failed at journalism, but he also seems to have flunked basic comprehension.

Marc Schenker: Palin tells Obama to stop kowtowing to the Mexican President

In a piece posted at the Examiner today, Marc Schenker commends Governor Palin for taking Obama to task for his recent kowtowing to Mexican President, Felipe Calderón. He writes:

In an appearance on Fox News’ new Justice with Judge Jeanine (Pirro, that is) program, Palin was asked about her thoughts on the Mexican president and his refusal to take responsibility for the drug-cartel catastrophe in his own country. Calderon has a long and repulsive history of shifting the blame to America for his country’s faults, which is why the question directed at Palin was so appropriate and relevant. A couple of examples of the Mexican president’s blame-America moments included last year, when he wrongly demeaned Arizona’s anti-illegal immigrant law, and just last month before his White House visit, when he told El Universal newspaper that the fault of the Mexican drug cartels is really America’s, because of its appetite for drugs.

Calderon is clearly and fully partaking in a bash-America policy to distract from his failures to provide better security as Mexican leader. His repulsive attitude can be compared, for instance, to Obama blaming his loss of one-half of Congress to “negative” campaigning from the GOP, when it can really be explained by his push for widely unpopular legislation like Obamacare, just to name one. In short, it’s an attitude of scapegoating something else instead of owning up to your own faults, which is always an attitude that must not be tolerated due to its sheer intellectual dishonesty.

Palin accurately branding Obama’s reaction to Calderon as “kowtowing” is very apropos since Obama’s own behavior verifies his kowtowing. Take for instance the way that Obama agreed with Calderon on basically everything and failed to criticize him during their joint news conference from a few days ago. And this coming after the fact that Calderon’s country’s idiotic law made it possible for ICE agent Jaime Zapata to be killed (Mexico has the cojones to actually ban American agents from carrying guns on them while in Mexico!). Perversely, Obama seems to assume that making sure he does not dare offend the “mighty” Mexican leader and his third-world country is more important than looking out for fellow Americans. Mexico is the US’ second-largest export market, so Obama seems to be kowtowing to Calderon to ensure that does not get endangered. However, the US has more leverage against Mexico when you consider all the US taxpayer money it gives Mexico in the form of aid. With that leverage, Obama shouldn’t kowtow, but yet he does, because he’s the apologist-president.

Palin was right on the money with this basic principle. The US shouldn’t kowtow to Mexico (even under Obama) because of all the harm that Mexico does the US with all the illegals coming across the border and raising hell. This raising hell is reflected in illegal alien crime, the stealing of US jobs, and also the increased costs to American taxpayers of providing services to these aliens. A secure US-Mexico border helps the US more than it does Mexico, which is why Calderon has been so impotent in doing anything about the drug cartels. After all, all the aliens who enter the US take money out of the US when they send home remittances to help prop up a shabby Mexican economy.

You can read the article in it's entirety here.

As Obama's Hangover Subsides, WH Reportedly Decides to Take Governor Palin's Advice on Libya

Friday evening, Allah Pundit posted a piece stating that the Obama administration is asking for a contingency plan regarding the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya, in the wake of the recent unrest.

He writes:

Just a blurb on Twitter, but Jackson Diehl’s a longtime WaPo columnist with plenty of contacts, no doubt:

I hear Obama administration has asked for contingency planning on a no-fly zone for #Libya

Let’s hope so, because the White House’s new plan to impose sanctions is so palpably lame as to operate as an admission that they’re not planning to do anything to stop protesters from getting shot. [...]

As for the no-fly zone, if they’re going to do it, it has to begin immediately. Rebels beat back an attempt by Qaddafi’s forces to retake the areas around Tripoli, and in Benghazi they’re vowing to march to the capital and take Qaddafi’s palace. The final standoff is coming, so if President Present wants to make a difference, he needs to give an order ASAP. Just one question: Has Qaddafi already lost control of his air assets? The Guardian claims that rebels have taken Mitiga air base near Tripoli, which means…

If Mitiga air base near Tripoli is confirmed as having gone over to the Libyan popular uprising it would be a serious blow for the regime close to the heart of the capital. The military base is adjacent to a civilian airport used for domestic and some short-haul international flights.

Mitiga has figured before at dramatic moments in Libyan history. It was a primary target of the US bombing in 1986 — retaliation for Libyan involvement in alleged terrorist attacks on US servicemen in Europe. Soviet personnel were based the during the cold war. Until shortly after Gaddafi’s 1969 revolution June 1970, the US air force used the facility, then known as Wheelus air base.

So even the no-fly zone may come too late, days after it might have prevented demonstrators from being strafed by Libyan jets.

I was wondering what was taking the administration so long to take serious steps in dealing with the threat Gaddafi poses to his own people. Then, remembering the president's priorities, I recalled that Obama had indeed been focused on what is truly important to him.

AP reports:

White House jams to the Motown sound

The White House reverberated like a long-ago basement sound studio in Detroit as the likes of John Legend, Seal, Jamie Foxx, Nick Jonas and Sheryl Crow channeled their inner Motown before Michelle and Barack Obama.

So, I'm not surprised that Obama was, in all likelihood, nursing a little hangover after the event. He must have felt the need to blow off some steam Thursday, after his gallant effort to get 300 US citizens out of harms way in Libya, and on to a ferry... At least, out of the way of the stray bullets being fired from Gaddafi's mercenaries. The passengers aboard the US-chartered boat were actually stuck off the coast of Tripoli for more than two days, due to weather. There is said to be over 6,000 Americans registered at the US Embassy in Libya. I know the administration is doing everything they have thought to do, but perhaps they should give China a call to see exactly how they managed to get 12,000 of their nationals out of Libya, up to this point.

I will give credit where credit is due, and some credit is due to whoever on Obama's team reportedly decided to take Governor Palin's advice. Even though she offered it last Tuesday. She wrote:

Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people.

While reportedly taking her advice on the no-fly zone, Obama hasn't really spoken out so much for the people of Libya as he has tip-toed around the issue for days.

Brad Wilmouth at Newsbusters reported on Friday, that the Libyans who are standing up to Gaddafi in protest, are seeking a "strong message" from the president:

On Friday’s NBC Nightly News, during a report which focused on a group of Libyans helping to organize protests against dictator Muammar Qadhafi, correspondent Richard Engel gave viewers a glimpse into oppressed people looking to America for support as he concluded his report by relating that these protesters "have been waiting for a strong message from Washington." He also recounted that he had seen graffiti at the rebel headquarters calling on President Obama to "choose between the Libyan people or Qadhafi."

I wouldn't hold my breath, for anything "strong" from this administration.

Outside of the snarky tone of most of this post, I want people to understand the seriousness of the situation in Libya. Muammar Gaddafi has a big arsenal, including a large stockpile of mustard gas. He has shown a willingness to slaughter his enemies throughout history, and in recent days, his own citizens. Setting up a no-fly zone would disable Gaddafi's ability to gas the people of Libya, and perhaps save thousands of lives. Time is crucial, but the Obama administration has been behaving as though they have all the time in the world to deal with this problem. They don't. Throughout the last two years, they have proven themselves to be incompetent on all things regarding foreign policy. Now is the time for this administration to take the training-wheels off, grow up, and act like world leaders... If not for the sake of this nation, then perhaps for the people of Libya.

What About The Rumors of President Obama’s Affair?

In May of 2010, the National Enquirer ran a story claiming President Obama had an affair with his former aide, Vera Baker. They wrote:

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old Vera Baker in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that “nothing happened” between them, reports reveal that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says in 2004 that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous in a Washington hotel where Obama was staying.

An ENQUIRER reporter has confirmed the limo driver’s account of the secret 2004 rendezvous and has also learned that on-site hotel surveillance video camera footage could provide indisputable evidence to the investigation.

The scandalous tale of the tryst between Barack Obama and Vera Baker has been reported on by numerous gossip columnists and bloggers. However, the mainstream media managed to forgo the temptation to print anything in relation to the matter. To judge whether they based that decision on their loyalty to the president or the merits of the source, one must analyze their behavior in similar instances, with people whom they have a more hostile relationship. So let's do that, shall we?

Take for instance the ridiculous story the National Enquirer is currently running about Todd Palin supposedly having some "affair" with an Anchorage massage therapist. Given what we know about the Palin family, and their transparency in how they conduct themselves, this story is ludicrous on it's face. Also, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but if Todd Palin wanted to cheat on Governor Palin, he most certainly could do better than this. In the words of the governor, "have you seen Todd?" Beyond that, the details of National Enquirer's spread are marked with big red flags that those of us who are familiar with the antics of the left-wing goons in Alaska, recognize.

For starters, the "source" the National Enquirer cites is "an anonymous blogger from Alaska." Because everyone knows how credible anonymous bloggers from Alaska are, right? Secondly, the massage therapist (aka, prostitute) listed in the article is named Shailey Tripp... I'm sorry, but that just smacks of Google abuse. It appears as though someone went looking to create trouble, without any accountability, they went digging for dirt by mixing taboo subject matters with various Palin names in the search field. They settled on this troubled lady from Anchorage (a city where police reports and arrest records are available online), added some flare to sell it to the trash tabloid, and BAM! Instant scandal.

Theoretically, the process is supposed to end before the "BAM" part, but in this case it didn't. So let's get back to our "mainstream" friends shall we? Why exactly did the New York ("blood on her hands") Daily News find it necessary to report such gutter gossip? Even worse, why did a Yahoo News political writer pick up the story? I did some extensive research to write this blog, and I can tell you that neither Yahoo News nor the NY Daily News ever published an article about Vera Baker. Not one!

My earlier stated question about what motivated the lamestream media to withhold writing about Obama's alleged affair with a staffer, is irrelevant. It's actually just an example of the media using discretion in their reporting. A better question is what motivated them lose that discretion and report on the current trash directed at the Palin family? If they had the ability to see that the source for the Baker story was too dubious to cite, what makes the prostitute story any different? There is a double standard at work here, but it has more to do with the individual political figures at the center of each story, than it does with any shady witnesses.

David Jenkins: Obama vs. Palin; Polar opposite visions of what leadership should be

Pajamas Media ran a piece today, written by David Jenkins today titled, "Tale of the Tape: Obama vs. Palin; Polar opposite visions of what leadership should be." Jenkins highlights the clear contrast between Barack Obama ans Governor Palin in both character and leadership:

On December 4, 2009, pollster Matt Towery predicted that President Barack Obama’s approval ratings would drop to somewhere in the mid-40s by mid-2010. To his surprise, it took only a few days. By the second week of December, Obama’s approval had faded to 47 percent in a Gallup poll. The number of Americans who approve of the president’s job performance has gone as low as 41 percent, and he fares even worse among independent voters. All of this despite incessant drum-beating on his behalf by the MSM.

At the same time, Sarah Palin — whose favorability rating in some polls went as low as 39 percent in July when she resigned as Alaska’s governor — is currently at 46 percent in a recent AP-GfK poll, even though the MSM has treated her to a barrage of disparagement perhaps unequaled in American political history. Yet among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, Palin is viewed favorably by 80 percent — a higher rating than any other potential GOP presidential candidate. And 63 percent of everyday Americans say their views are more like Palin’s than Obama’s.

At first glance, Mrs. Palin and President Obama have many things in common. They are both physically attractive, mid-40s young, and have attractive spouses and families to which they are openly devoted. Both have strong leadership qualities and are dynamic speakers, arguably the two best on the political scene in recent years. In addition, they share to some degree an outsider’s perspective on American politics, hailing as they do from the states most recently added to the union, the only states which are not part of the continental U.S. Scratch beneath their personable surfaces, though, and they represent polar opposite visions of what leadership in this country should look like.

Obama presents as a victim; Palin a victor.

Dragged from pillar to post by an unstable mother and finally dumped on his grandparents, the young Barry Obama seems to have formed the habit of feeling sorry for himself early on. By the age of 12 or 13, as he tells us in his book, he ” … found solace in a sense of grievance and animosity against my [white] mother’s race.” He was mentored by Communist and sexual deviant Frank Marshall Davis through his teen years, and in college consistently chose to associate with radicals and Marxists. As a disciple of Saul Alinsky, he worked as a community organizer nurturing a sense of victimhood among the poor and disadvantaged. For 20 years he was a member of a church which taught black liberation theology, a cult which portrays black people as downtrodden and oppressed. He has built his career on appealing to those who prefer to consider themselves victims in this life.

Sarah Heath Palin, on the other hand, grew up in a lower-middle-class family in the demanding, near-frontier environment of Alaska, where she learned a can-do attitude early in life. She led her high-school basketball team to a state championship while playing on a broken ankle. As a young wife and mother she worked with her husband on his salmon-fishing boat in all kinds of weather. Since being selected as the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, she has endured personal attacks and vilification unprecedented in living memory. Far from being a victim, she chooses to display courage, grace, optimism, and what can only be described as a joyous spirit

[...]

Obama has campaigning ability, Palin has executive ability.

Getting himself elected to the nation’s highest office on a wave of nebulous “hope and change” was no small accomplishment. Though after nearly two years as “chief executive” he is still campaigning, which is not surprising — it’s the only thing he knows how to do. He had zero executive experience before entering the oval office, and has continued to pass the buck on governing. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, since the voters soundly rejected his agenda in the 2010 mid-term elections. (However, he continues to protest that the voters did not reject his agenda – they just failed to understand it.)

Certainly no slouch as a campaigner herself, Governor Palin has also proven to be an effective administrator, establishing a stellar record all the way from her home town mayor’s office to the Alaska governor’s office, where she earned an incredible 80-plus percent approval rating from her fellow citizens.

[...]

Palin is spotless, Obama is corrupt.

Since entering the national scene as John McCain’s vice-presidential pick in 2008, Sarah Palin has been the object of intense, hostile scrutiny by hordes of leftists. Nothing has been spared. Not her public life, not her private life, not her family. Droves of Democrats have gone to Alaska to examine the public records, talk to her neighbors and townspeople, and file frivolous ethics complaints against her. Legal defense against these complaints has cost her family a great deal of money and required so much of her time and attention that it became impossible for her to continue as governor of the state.

Yet, to the chagrin of the ankle-biters, nothing has stuck.

The Associated Press even assigned 11 writers to “fact-check” her memoir Going Rogue. They were able to find six “errors,” all of which upon examination turn out to be nothing more than differences in interpretation. Beyond her personal spotlessness, there is probably no politician in the country who has anything close to her record of fighting corruption in government, even when the “corrupt bastards” were members of her own party.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, who gave as his qualification to be president his experience as a community organizer for the thoroughly corrupt ACORN organization, is presiding over what is easily one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history while enjoying almost total immunity from scrutiny by the MSM. He has expressed scant regard for the Constitution, which he swore to uphold, calling it a flawed document, and which he has repeatedly violated by his efforts to extend the government’s domination over the lives of the citizens of this country. He has appointed numerous “czars” to positions of great authority without the advice and consent of Congress, another violation of the Constitution.

As for those “czars,” one resigned when it came to light that he was a self-avowed communist. Another czar who has not yet resigned but should is Obama’s hand-picked Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings, who has advocated teaching school children the finer details of “fisting.”

The White House communications director resigned after revealing that she is a fan of Chairman Mao. The director of communications for the National Endowment for the Arts stepped down after he was caught in the act of trying to convert the foundation into a propaganda machine for Obama.

And the Democrats in “the most honest, the most open, the most ethical Congress in history”? Jefferson, Schumer, Rangel, Dodds, Waters, the late John Murtha …

Palin loves America, Obama apologizes for America.

Sarah Palin knows and constantly affirms that America is objectively the most free, generous, and altruistic nation in history, a beacon to the world. A country where minorities find their rights respected and enjoy more acceptance and opportunity than anywhere else. These are the values of a great majority of her fellow citizens, and they respond to her because they recognize that she is one of them.

As for Obama, one of his first official acts as president was to apologize to the Arab world, granting his first sit-down interview to Arab television station Al-Arabiya. He took the opportunity to confirm the Arab view that the problem is America, not the jihadists who have murdered more than 3000 of our citizens. He soon followed up that performance by apologizing to Europe for America’s having been “arrogant, dismissive, and derisive.”

Palin is polarizing, Obama is radioactive.

The MSM’s current buzzword is that Sarah Palin is “polarizing.” This is an attempt to marginalize her by implying that her views are somehow extremist, rather than mainstream. As noted above, 63 percent of everyday Americans say their views are more like Palin’s than Obama’s.

Actually, the one who is polarizing is Mr. Obama himself, whose views are far out of the mainstream. As a senator, he was considered the most liberal member of the Senate. That would place him to the left of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist.

But worse than being polarizing, Obama is radioactive. In the 2010 mid-term elections, Democrats did not run on their records of voting for Obama’s agenda; most ran from their records, and some even ran against the Obama agenda. Very few were even willing to have him campaign for them. By comparison, two-thirds of Palin-endorsed candidates for the House and Senate won their races.

You can read the entire piece here.