Obama destroys decades of US dominant global power in just four years. How could we possibly afford four more?

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=4774

Redacted from an article BY JAMES KIRCHICK

COMMENTARY, October, 2012

…PRESIDENT OBAMA is not the wildly popular international leader that so many Americans (and foreigners) assumed he would be. On the contrary, far from improving global attitudes toward America across the board, his seeming similarity to President Bush has made a world already resentful and suspicious of American power even more cynical. After all, if the man who proclaimed himself a “citizen of the world” will carry out drone strikes against suspected terrorists and fail to close Guantanamo Bay, who could do otherwise?

The more important question for Americans remains: Does any of this matter? Bruce Stokes of the Pew Global Attitudes project thinks it does. In a commentary for CNN.com, he flatly declared: “Experience shows that the success or failure of [a president’s] foreign policy may depend, in part, on how it is perceived abroad but he provides no evidence to suggest that foreign perceptions of American foreign policy have anything to do with its success or failure.

Citing Obama’s enormous popularity with Europeans as a potential stumbling point for a President Romney, Stokes writes: “In the long run, if Romney wins, none of this may matter, as Europeans get to know him. But, in the short run, it could matter. A 2005 Pew Research Center survey found that in Britain, France, Germany; Spain and the Netherlands, strong majorities said the 2004 reelection of George W. Bush led them to have a less favorable opinion of the United States.” All right – but so what? Did the British, French Germans, Spaniards, and Dutch stop buying America products because they were so angry with George W Bush? Did they cancel vacations to the United State or, more gravely, take up arms against it?

Four years after he was first elected president, Obama’s global popularity (at least in contrast to his Republican opponent’s), has once again been marshaled as a decisive argument in his favor. Former New Mexico governor and United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson, citing his frequent overseas travels, told CBS’s Face the Nation at the beginning of September that, “The international community wants to see this president re-elected.”

(Why not, as he continues to deliberately and maliciously weaken our military and economic power throughout the world and empowers our enemies?) jsk

Appeals to the inherent wisdom of the “international community” are always problematic, since no such constituency exists – but here it was factually in error, considering that a plurality of people in the world’s most populous country, China, opposes Obama’s reelection. But such nitpicking belies the real point, which is that it is Americans who choose their President, not “the international community.”

To people who obsess about being popular, the persistence of negative attitudes about the United States must be dispiriting. But as in high school, there are things more important than popularity. A foreign policy predicated upon the opinion of “global publics whose views are often informed by false or insufficient information and whose values are often entirely different from those of many, if not most, Americans – risks jeopardizing the central role America has played in stabilizing the international order since the end of Worid War II.

The “humility” that foreigners often insist America (and only America) display is really just a call for a far greater redistribution of American-generated and earned wealth, a lessening of American economic power, thus ensuring the comparative rise of authoritarian challengers such as Russia and China, not to mention Iran and Venezuela.

A closer look at the polling data, however, reveals some important findings that are often overlooked by those who like to use such surveys for domestic partisan political attacks. In 16 countries polled by Pew in both 2007 and 2012, a median of 65 percent embrace American music, movies, and television today — up six percentage points from five years ago.

While much of American popular culture is loathed by many Arabs and Muslims, our way of doing business is not: In the four Arab Muslim – majority countries surveyed by Pew, most people said they think American entrepreneurship is something to emulate. (Not surprisingly, Europeans, with their dying welfare-state model, found little to like in American business practices.) And among the cohort of 18-to-29-year-olds, “American ideas about democracy” are admired by 72 percent of Tunisians, 59 percent of Chinese, 52 percent of Poles, and 51 percent of Lebanese.

Economic opportunity, cultural liveliness, and a vibrant democracy: These are the American qualities the president of the United States, whoever he will become November 7, should commit himself to preserving and strengthening. It is only icing on the cake that they happen to be the American qualities the rest of the world admires the most.

JAMES KIRCHICK, based in Berlin, is a fellow with the Foundation/or Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor to the New Republic.

Obama’s constipated record of the past 3½ years vis-à-vis Israel

Romney vs. Obama vis-à-vis Israel
By Daniel Pipes

Obama’s constipated record of the past 3½ years vis-à-vis Israel

September 4, 2012

“President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus.” That’s what Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for president, said in the high-profile speech accepting his party’s nomination last week, repeating a slang phrase for sacrificing a friend for selfish reasons. Romney had deployed this phrase before, for example in May 2011 and Jan. 2012. This criticism of Obama fits a persistent Republican critique. Specifically, several other recent presidential candidates used or endorsed the same “bus” formulation vis-à-vis Obama and Israel, including Herman Cain in May 2011, Rick Perry in Sept. 2011, Newt Gingrich in Jan. 2012, and Rick Santorum in Feb. 2012.

Barack Obama pointed a finger at Binyamin Netanyahu in 2008.

These Republican attacks on Obama’s relations with Israel have several important implications for U.S. foreign policy. First, out of the many Middle East-related issues, Israel, and Israel alone, retains a permanent role in U.S. electoral politics, influencing how a significant numbers of voters – not just Jews but also Arabs, Muslims, Evangelical Christians, conservatives and liberals – vote for president.

Second, attitudes toward Israel serve as a proxy for views toward other Middle Eastern issues: If I know your views on Israel, I have a good idea about your thinking on such topics as energy policy, Islamism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, AKP-led Turkey, the Iranian nuclear build-up, intervention in Libya, the Mohamed Morsi presidency in Egypt, and the Syrian civil war.

Third, the Republican criticism of Obama points to a sea change in what determines attitudes toward Israel. Religion was once the key, with Jews the ardent Zionists and Christians less engaged. Today, in contrast, the determining factor is political outlook. To discern someone’s views on Israel, the best question to ask is not “What is your religion?” but “Who do you want for president?”

As a rule, conservatives feel more warmly toward Israel and liberals more coolly. Polls show conservative Republicans to be the most ardent Zionists, followed by Republicans in general, followed by independents, Democrats, and lastly liberal Democrats. Yes, Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, also said, in Sept. 2011, that Obama “threw Israel under the bus,” but Koch, 87, represents the fading old guard of the Democratic party. The difference between the parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict is becoming as deep as their differences on the economy or on cultural issues.

Fourth, as Israel increasingly becomes an issue dividing Democrats from Republicans, I predict a reduction of the bipartisan support for Israel that has provided Israel a unique status in U.S. politics and sustained organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I also predict that Romney and Paul Ryan, as mainstream conservatives, will head an administration that will be the warmest ever to Israel, far surpassing the administrations of both Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. Contrarily, should Obama be re-elected, the coldest treatment of Israel ever by a U.S. president will follow.

Obama’s constipated record of the past 3½ years vis-à-vis Israel on such topics as the Palestinians and Iran leads to this conclusion; but so does what we know about his record before he entered high electoral politics in 2004, especially his associations with radical anti-Zionists. For example, Obama deferentially listened to Edward Said in May 1998 and sat quietly by at a going-away party in 2003 for former PLO flack Rashid Khalidi as Israel was accused of terrorism against Palestinians. (In contrast, Romney has been friends with Binyamin Netanyahu since 1976.)

Also revealing is what Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based anti-Israel extremist, wrote about his last conversation with Obama in early 2004, as the latter was in the midst of a primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. Abunimah wrote that Obama warmly greeted him and then added: “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” More: referring to Abunimah’s attacks on Israel in the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere, Obama encouraged him with “Keep up the good work!”

When one puts this in the context of what Obama said off-mic to then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in March 2012 (“This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility”) and in the context of Obama’s dislike for Netanyahu, it would be wise to assume that, if Obama wins on Nov. 6, things will “calm down” for him and he finally can “be more up front” about so-called Palestine. Then Israel’s troubles will really begin.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum
All rights reserved

Question still not answered: Why are all of Obama’s College records being hidden?

Question still not answered: Why are all of Obama’s College records being hidden?


From the Blaze Contributors Web Page Tel No. 1-888-321-9168


OBAMA’S COLLEGE CLASSMATE: ‘THE OBAMA SCANDAL IS AT COLUMBIA’

BY WAYNE ALLYN ROOT

August 6, 2012
Also, posted at and tweeted from the Drudge Report

(snopes.com checked to discredit this article and nothing found to counter statements below)

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee.

I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of 1983. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And, I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.

Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.

This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.

By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But, the reason for this baseless attack is clear – Make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.
My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer. If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of 1983. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And, I thought I knew almost everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But, not Obama (or as he was known then – Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But, don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But, even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And, if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades? I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But, did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:
A)   He rarely ever attended class.
B)   His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.
C)   He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.
D)   He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?
If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But, as Obama’s Columbia Class of 1983 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses.
It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee and the author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian.” Read more at his website: www.ROOTforAmerica.com 

Supreme Court Rejects Obama Stance on Arizona Immigration Law

Monday, 25 Jun 2012
Thomson/Reuters News Service

Supreme Court Rejects Obama Stance on Arizona Immigration Law

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants on Monday, rejecting the Obama administration’s stance that only the U.S. government should enforce immigration laws in the United States.

The nation’s highest court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, unanimously upheld the state law’s most controversial aspect, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.

But, in a split decision, the justices also ruled that the three other challenged provisions went too far in intruding on federal law, including one that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to work and another that requires them to carry their documents. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration … but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Justice Kennedy wrote in a 25-page opinion.

Kennedy said the mandatory nature of police checks did not interfere with the federal immigration scheme, and found unpersuasive the Obama administration’s argument that this portion of the law must be preempted at this stage. He said it was improper to block that provision before state courts had an opportunity to review it, and without some showing that its enforcement conflicted with federal immigration law. Kennedy also left open the possibility for future constitutional or other challenges to the law once it goes into effect.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer hailed the decision as a victory for supporters of tough immigration enforcement.

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens,” Brewer said in written statement. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.” SB 1070 is the official name of the Arizona law.

“While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.”

U.S. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, both of Arizona, also applauded the ruling.

“While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court’s decision, today’s ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070,” read a statement released by the two senators. “The Arizona law was born out of the state’s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress. We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom.”

The decision in part was an election-year setback for President Barack Obama. It went to the heart of a fierce national debate between Democrats and Republicans over the 11.5 million illegal immigrants the U.S. government estimates to be in the country. Obama has vowed to push for comprehensive immigration legislation if re-elected on November 6. Opinion polls show Hispanics, now equal to 16 percent of all Americans, overwhelmingly support Obama.

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney opposed the administration’s challenge to the law.

Arizona, on the southwest border with Mexico, two years ago became the first of half a dozen U.S. states to adopt laws to drive illegal immigrants out. The high court’s ruling cleared the way for other states to adopt similar laws. About 360,000 of the country’s illegal immigrants, or 3 percent, reside in Arizona. Most of the state’s nearly 2 million Latinos are in the United States legally.

Obama this month announced an important change in federal immigration policy ahead of the election contest Romney, who has taken a tough stance against illegal immigration. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought into the United States as children could be able to avoid deportation and get work permits under the policy change announced by Obama. (This latest Obama pronouncement will also be severely challenged in the courts as an abuse and overextension of executive power)

Most illegal immigrants in the United States are Hispanics.

© 2012 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

You’re damn right it’s a Ponzi Scheme

Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! – The Truth About Medicare and Social Security

Posted by Conservative Byte, September 14, 2011

Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I said it. To the extent people believe there are trust funds with their names on them, Social Security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. So is Medicare. People need to hear it.

Many people think that when the government takes payroll tax from their paychecks, it goes to something like a savings account. Seniors who collect Social Security think they’re just getting back money that they put into their “account.” Or they think it’s like an insurance policy — you win if you live long enough to get more than you paid in. Neither is true. Nothing is invested. The money taken from you was spent by government that year. Right away. There’s no trust fund. The plan is unsustainable. Medicare is worse.

Mitt Romney and other Republicans who scoff at Rick Perry shamelessly pander to older voters. They should tell people the truth. Still, I’m not convinced Perry has more than a sound bite. In his USA Today op-ed this week, the most he says is, “We must consider reforms to make Social Security financially viable.”. He doesn’t say what kind of reforms.

Viewer Responses to Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! – The Truth About Medicare and Social Security

Ronnie says: 


Social Security and Medicare was originally set up as a trust fund. The money kept on accumulating until there was billions of dollars in the fund. One day one of our Presidents (I won’t say which one} that since that money was just setting there accumulating, we should put it in the general fund. Social Security and Medicare have been on a downward spiral ever since. Don’t listen to their lies, that money was supposed to be USED ONLY for people on Social Security and Medicare and not for political needs and bonuses.



Paul McDonald says:


Perry is right, S/S and Medicare is a Ponzi scheme. In fact our whole federal government is a Ponzi scheme. Look at how it works . We give them tax money , they give us some money and benefits back. They give a lot of money to organization. Those organization give a lot back to there campaign coffers. The government gives a lot of our money to foreign countries we get nothing back.
 Now they are crying about going broke and need more money to give away , or they are going bankrupt ! They need more taxpayers to pay into the funds so they can give and receive.

Robert Thomson says:


I do not agree with the “Ponzi” call. 
The working people have paid 15 percent of everything they earned in their lifetime. The government told them (and if we go back a few decades, people believed what the government said) the money would go into a trust fund, where it would accumulate to pay for retirement when the worker got too old to work. 
Then the government STOLE the money. 
That isn’t a Ponzi scheme. It is a criminal act.


Red says:
Of course it is, but we are not supposed to say so. The SS system never had a prayer as time marched on. However, no one knew what to do about it and all those who have tried, like GW Bush, have been vilified by people who don’t have a clue about SS. It is an unworkable system dreamed up and put into action, in Germany, in the 19th century.



Ron Johnson says:


Both of these programs are worse than Ponzi schemes because it is mandatory that money is withdrawn from your paycheck. All those who die prior to their sixty-second birthday get a grand total death gratuity of $250.00 even if they paid in for more than forty years. Such a deal for the government! This might pay for some of the flowers. The same goes for Medicare. If one dies prior to their sixty-fifth birthday they get zero Medicare dollars. Just check the obituary pages and see just how many people die prior to getting their first dollar from a system 
that they paid into all of their working life.














1. Michele Bachmann’s Moment 2. The Liberal Elite’s ‘Next Jew.’

1. Michele Bachman’s Moment
By Donald Lambro
The Washington Times
July 4, 2011

2. Michelle Bachmann: The Liberal Elite’s ‘Next Jew.’
By Robert Avrech
The Jewish Press, June 24, 2011

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1019

1. By Donald Lambro

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann has singularly achieved what most of her colleagues only dream of doing but never will: Breaking out of the anonymity of 435 House members to become a national political figure in her own right and a candidate for the presidency.

She didn’t do it by ascending the ranks of the House Republican leadership or by championing legislative crusades. No major piece of legislation bears her name. She has piled up no political IOU’s by doing favors and playing by party rules. She chairs no committees.

Since she won her 6th District seat in 2006 – the first Republican woman elected to the House from Minnesota – she has been in a hurry to make her mark. She soon learned that she wasn’t going to become known by sitting through hours of tedious, inconsequential hearings, or listening to boring House debate or by pursuing a go-along-to-get-along career and patiently “waiting her turn.”

And she soon learned that in the Old Boys Club in the House she wasn’t going to be handed anything, either. So over these past six years, she became a fixture on virtually every cable television and broadcast network talk show in the business, denouncing President Obama’s health care law, bashing his trillion-dollar deficits and big government in general.

She embraced the Tea Party movement from its birth, organized and keynoted their rallies at the Capitol, and became the leader of Tea Party-backed lawmakers who won House seats in 2010. Her tireless efforts made her widely popular among the GOP’s conservative base, though she still was seen as an outsider and to some degree a loose cannon among many in the leadership ranks. After she audaciously made an unexpected bid in January for the House Republican Conference chairmanship, the No. 4 post in the party’s hierarchy, she withdrew her name in the face of certain defeat.

When House Speaker John Boehner picked Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the powerful Budget Committee chairman, to deliver the GOP response to Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address, she decided to deliver her own response on behalf of the Tea Party Express. She had another purpose in mind and that was to tell her party’s leaders, “Don’t ignore me.”

With Tea Party support from across the country and a growing campaign war chest (raising $1.7 million in the first three months of this year, the most of any House member behind Mr. Boehner), she set her sights on running for president. But could she match the heavy hitters in the crowded field of candidates, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the party’s front-runner?

Her poised, self-confident performance earlier this month at the CNN presidential debate in New Hampshire knocked that question out of the park. She had polished her delivery on countless TV talk shows, and it showed in her unflinching, well-thought-out answers.

“This election will be all about economics. It will be about how will we create jobs, how will we turn the economy around, how we will have a pro-growth economy. President Obama can’t tell that story. His report card right now has a big failing grade on it,” she said.

She officially announced her candidacy in Waterloo, Iowa, where she enjoys strong support from Tea Party conservatives and is virtually tied with Mr. Romney in early polls. “The surprise is that Mrs. Bachmann, who a Fox News host suggested Sunday may be ‘a flake,’ has quickly become one of the more sure-footed candidates in the race for the Republican nomination,” the liberal Washington Post reported in a front-page story Tuesday.

“She has built on momentum generated in a widely praised debate performance and has sent a jolt of energy through a GOP electorate that has been hungry for someone to be excited about,” the Post said.
But there are huge obstacles awaiting Mrs. Bachmann, not the least of which is historical precedent. No House member has won the White House since James A. Garfield was elected in 1880.

Historically, at least in the modern era, presidents by and large have been former governors who have had executive experience in running a government, balancing budgets, overseeing an economy, including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.

It’s a huge leap to go from representing a single congressional district, where your only constitutional job is to vote, to running the United States of America. Mrs. Bachmann’s other hurdle may be putting together a heavy-hitting team of national security and economic advisers to help develop a governing agenda. Her speeches thus far have not spelled out in any detail how she would expand economic growth and create jobs or deal with the myriad foreign policy and defense-related issues that await the next administration.

She’s shown herself to be a fiercely independent woman who is running on a set of core values that have made America the most successful country in the world. She’s not going to be a pushover in the primaries to come.

Donald Lambro is a syndicated columnist and former chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

2. Michelle Bachmann: The Liberal Elite’s ‘Next Jew.’
By Robert Avrech
The Jewish Press, June 24, 2011

… Michele Bachmann, the Republican congress woman from Minnesota and newly announced presidential candidate, is the Liberal elite’s next Jew. In the GOP debate last week, Bachmann dazzled she was articulate and knowledgeable. Clearly, she was enjoying herself: A majority of Americans want their politicians to be optimistic. Obama comes across as Jimmy Carter squared: petulant, dour, angry, resigned to an America mired in a future of diminishing returns.

Like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann is beautiful and glamorous, but not so glamorous that she threatens other women. Nor is she so sexy that she intimidates men. She dresses like a lady, modest but fashionable. I have never seen her in a pants suit. And she actually knows stuff. Unlike Obama, who seems to fashion himself a philosopher king – practical knowledge scorned – Bachmann is a skilled tax attorney and an entrepreneur.

It should come as no surprise that as a pious Christian, Bachmann, like Palin, is a huge supporter of Israel. My wife and I heard Bachmann at a Republican Jewish Coalition function last year and it was like listening to Golda Meir.

But here’s the main reason you can bet your bottom dollar the liberal lynch mob will go after Bachmann with jihadist fervor: Bachmann and her husband have raised five biological children. That’s way too many. Liberals cap families at 2.0 offspring. Anything more is so quaint and, well, churchy – and crowds the planet to boot.

Bachmann and her husband also raised 23 foster children. This, to the liberal mind, is unforgivable. Why? Because Michele Bachmann lives her conservative ideology by refusing to allow government to raise unwanted children. Parents who adopt children or take in and raise foster children are society’s greatest heroes. They repair the world. And for this, become an object of hate – A Jew to the jackals of the left.

Robert J. Avrech is an Emmy Award-winning Hollywood screenwriter arid producer. Among his numerous credits are “A Stranger Among Us” and “The Devil’s Arithmetic.” His novel “The Hebrew Kid and the Apache Maiden” won the 2006 Ben Franklin Award for Best First Novel and the Association of Jewish Libraries Award for Notable Children’s Book of Jewish Content.

His website is Seraphic Secret (www.seraphicpress.com).