NOW on to the BUMPING UP of Larry Johnson’s EXCEPTIONAL essay that sensible people everywhere should read. We realize that the KoolAid dipsomaniacs are unable to see, let alone comprehend, but we’ll persist.

By LARRY JOHNSON, originally published on November 11, 2008:

If you enjoyed the George W. Bush era, you are gonna love the Barack Obama regime, because Obama is relying on some of the same folks who helped create the mayhem and failures in the CIA. That’s right, boys and girls. Take a look at today’s Wall Street Journal:

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party. . . .

The intelligence-transition team is led by former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan and former CIA intelligence-analysis director Jami Miscik, say officials close to the matter. Mr. Brennan is viewed as a potential candidate for a top intelligence post. Ms. Miscik left amid a slew of departures from the CIA under then-Director Porter Goss.

Advisers caution that few decisions will be made until the team gets a better picture of how the Bush administration actually goes about gathering intelligence, including covert programs, and there could be a greater shift after a full review.

The Obama team plans to review secret and public executive orders and recent Justice Department guidelines that eased restrictions on domestic intelligence collection. “They’ll be looking at existing executive orders, then making sure from Jan. 20 on there’s going to be appropriate executive-branch oversight of intelligence functions,” Mr. Brennan said in an interview shortly before Election Day.

Putting John Brennan in charge of this effort is mind numbing. Brennan was one of the George Tenet toadies who defended the former CIA Director when I, along with a group of other retired CIA officers, demanded that Tenet donate part of the proceeds of his book to the families of U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq and to return his medal of freedom.

Brennan was part of the group of the insiders who saw no problem with George Tenet helping cook the intelligence and mislead the American people about the threat in Iraq. Here’s what Tim Shorrock wrote about that dust up:

Tenet’s ties with contractors were underscored last week in a dispute between two groups of former CIA officials over Tenet’s legacy. On April 28, six former intelligence officers wrote to Tenet, saying he shared culpability with President Bush and Vice President Cheney for “the debacle in Iraq,” and suggesting he donate half the royalties from his book to Iraq war veterans and their families. All of the signatories had severed their ties to U.S. intelligence, although three of them, Phil Giraldi, Larry Johnson and Vince Cannistraro, work as consultants for news organizations, corporations and government agencies outside of intelligence.

A few days later, six recently retired officers responded. They called the first letter a “bitter, inaccurate and misleading attack” on Tenet and pointed out that it was drafted by officers who “had not served in the Agency for years.” Tenet, his supporters said, “literally led the nation’s counterterrorism fight.” And three of its six signatories were directly involved in that fight — as contractors. They included John Brennan of the Analysis Corp.; Cofer Black, Tenet’s former counterterrorism director and vice chairman of Blackwater, the private military contractor; and Robert Richer, the former deputy director of the CIA’s clandestine services. Richer recently left Blackwater to become the CEO of Total Intelligence, a new company formed with Black and other ex-CIA officials to provide intelligence services to corporations and government agencies.

In the immediate aftermath of 9-11 Brennan was in charge of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (which was replaced subsequently by the National Counter Terrorism Center) and failed to give the U.S. State Department the correct statistics on the number of terrorist attacks in 2003. He forgot to count an entire month’s data. I discovered the error and alerted folks at State Department.

Professors Alan Krueger and David Laitin independently discovered the discrepancies and published an op-ed in the Washington Post. Here’s a link for a comprehensive article discussing that intelligence failure.

So you think I am being too hard on Brennan? Sure, anyone can make a mistake. However, he was back in the news in 2005. I learned in March of that year that the State Department was not going publish the CIA stats on terrorism because the number of attacks had dramatically increased and the Bush Administration thought that made it look like they were losing the war on terror. John Brennan was part of that effort to keep the truth from the American public. Here’s the piece I wrote to help draw attention to this issue back in 2005:

The numbers are in and the news is not good for U.S. efforts to contain and reduce the threat of international terrorism. 2004 marked the highest number of significant incidents of terrorism since the intelligence community started keeping statistics in 1968. (An incident is counted as significant if an attack results in the death, injury or kidnapping of one or more persons or property damage in excess of $10,000). Attacks jumped from 175 in 2003 to 651 in 2004. This surpasses the previous high of 273 significant attacks in 1985.

The bad news kept on coming. One thousand nine hundred and seven (1907) people died in international terrorist attacks last year. This marks the second highest death toll since 1968; falling short of the infamous record of 2001.

Unfortunately, former 9-11 Commission Staff Director, Phil Zelikow, and chief of the National Counter Terrorism Center, John Brennan, tried with some success to confuse the press and suggest that the numbers do not matter. In a deft display of obfuscation and spin Messrs. Zelikow and Brennan made several points. It started with Zelikow’s claim that:

The compilation of data about terrorist attacks is not a required part of the report, but traditionally had been provided by the State Department, going back to the years in which the State Department was basically the public voice of the U.S. Government on international terrorism, generally. . . . But what’s important for our purposes is what the law said the NCTC should do. It said the NCTC was the primary organization for analysis and integration of — and I’m quoting from the law now — “All intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States Government pertaining to terrorism or counterterrorism.” The law further stated that the NCTC would be the United States Government’s “shared knowledge bank on known and suspected terrorists and international terror groups, as well as their goals, strategies, capabilities, and networks of contact and support.” (Phil Zelikow)

State Department’s role as the lead for coordinating international terrorism was established by a National Security Decision Directive signed by President Reagan in early 1986. This was in response to an interagency fight that broke out during an effort to apprehend the terrorists responsible for the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship. While flying over Italy in late 1985 in pursuit of Abu Abbas, a State Department official and a CIA officer argued heatedly over who was in charge of the mission. Recognizing the need for a clear chain of command the Department of State was put in charge of coordinating the efforts of CIA, DOD, and FBI efforts to track and deal with terrorism. The first man put in charge of this effort was L. Paul (Jerry) Bremer.

Mr. Zelikow is misleading the media by asserting that the State Department “traditionally compiled the data”. That is simply not true. The State Department never was in charge of collecting or compiling the statistics. It simply coordinated the process of assembling the data in order to provide the Congress and the American people with a comprehensive view of international terrorist activity. Since 1986 the Counter Terrorism Center at the CIA had the task of compiling the data and writing the narrative analysis. Don’t take my word for it, just ask the former Chiefs of the Counter Terrorism Center starting with Dewey Claridge and ending with Cofer Black.

By splitting the statistics on terrorism from the country reports, Zelikow is creating the kind of stovepiping of information which the 9-11 Commission claimed helped undermine US efforts to detect and defeat Al Qaeda’s effort to launch their suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There is nothing in the new law requiring this move.

John Brennan, the head of the National Counter Terrorism Center, made the unbelievable admission that when the CIA shifted responsibility for counting terrorist incidents to the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) in the fall of 2003 only three part time people were assigned to the task. Brennan said:

To ensure a more comprehensive accounting of terrorist incidents, we in the NCTC significantly increased the level of effort from three part-time individuals to 10 full-time analysts, and we took a number of other steps to improve quality control and database management. This increased level of effort allowed a much deeper review of far more information and, along with Iraq, are the primary reasons for the significant growth in a number of terrorist incidents being reported.

The American people are asked to believe that nobody at TTIC understood in the aftermath of 2001 that we needed to keep a comprehensive count of terrorist events. Implicit in this criticism is a smear on the good work done previously at the Counter Terrorism Center. CTC did not consider counting terrorism events an afterthought. They used a sound methodology of monitoring news media reports, FBIS reports, and cables from US Embassies and Defense Attaches to identify possible acts of international terrorism. An act of violence did not necessarily mean that terrorism was involved. Instead expert analysts from CTC and State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) would meet periodically to review and decide what incidents represented acts of international terrorism.

This process broke down when the responsibility for doing this was shifted from CTC and put under Mr. Brennan’s stewardship at the Terrorist Threat Integration Center in late 2003. Mr. Brennan in fact shares much of the responsibility for the debacle with the statistics that were misreported in the report issued in April 2004. He did not ensure that his part time employees could count.

With the beefed up work force at NCTC we now know that 10 analysts were involved in counting 651 significant international terrorist attacks in 2004. Geez, I guess that means it took each analyst one year to keep track of 65 attacks.

Brennan asks the media and the American people to believe that the rise in attacks is simply the result of better counting by more people. Not true. An independent data source from RAND-MIPT shows a similar dramatic rise in attacks and deaths. This is not an artifice of methodology. Something bad is going on out there.

Two countries account for a major portion of the increased terrorist activity—the Kashmir region of India and Iraq. With respect to Kashmir, it is important to note that since 1998 this area has consistently appeared in the appendix in Patterns of Global Terrorism that described significant incidents. I have used this data in briefing for foreign governments during that period to point out that not only was India being repeatedly attacked by Islamic jihadists (who were funded and trained by Pakistan), but that the people of Kashmir repeatedly suffered one of the highest death tolls of any country in the world from terrorist attacks. The sad fact is that media, and to a lesser extent the U.S. Government, tended to ignore these attacks.

It is worth recalling that the cruise missiles fired by President Clinton in August of 1998 in retaliation for the Al Qaeda bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania struck a camp in Afghanistan and killed members of one of the groups that carried out attacks in the Kashmir as well as two Pakistani intelligence officers. In the war against Islamic extremists Kashmir matters.

Brennan’s response on Iraq is more puzzling:

QUESTION: Do you regard the Iraq numbers that you just gave us — for which, thank you — as comparable? And the reason I ask is that I’ve got to figure that if there’s one piece of real estate that the U.S. intelligence community has devoted enormous resources to in the last two years, it’s got to be — two-and-a-half years — it’s Iraq. Therefore, do you think those figures are comparable, ‘03 to ‘02?
MR. BRENNAN: In terms of what the term you’re using — “comparable” — to sort of denote here, I’m not certain. The rigor that we applied worldwide for the 2004 data also applied to Iraq. So it was Iraq, Kashmir, and others. So that number, I think, is the result of exhaustive search and research on that. Also, as I pointed out, the number of civilians that have come not just from the United States, but also from other countries — the number of individuals who, in fact, are in different places in Iraq that have been involved in some of the attacks that have taken place there, I think that is the reason why, in fact, we’re seeing an increase in that number.

Although Brennan is not certain about the comparability of the numbers we do not have to rely on him. Data maintained by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is reported on at least a weekly basis to the Secretary of Defense, shows clear unambiguous data that the level of terrorist activity in Iraq mushroomed in 2004. In fact, the highest level of attacks ever recorded in Iraq occurred in December 2004.

Iraq is relevant to the threat of international terrorism principally because it is serving as a drawing card for jihadists throughout the Islamic world. I have had recent discussions with senior government officials representing three countries in the Persian Gulf. To a man they were alarmed by the images coming out of Iraq showing US soldiers abusing muslim women and the shooting of unarmed insurgents. The perception of the United States as an invader is inciting terrorism in the region, not quelling it. Several commented on the perceived parallel of the U.S. presence in Iraq as comparable to what the Soviets did in Afghanistan during the 1980s. They worry that we are sowing the seeds of future jihadist terrorism.

The real news from the press conference of Messrs. Zelikow and Brennan is that they have not finished counting the incidents from last year and that the numbers are likely to go up when revised statistics are issued in June. Moreover, both conceded that events in Russia and Philippines, where several hundred were killed, were excluded from the data.

I welcome Mr. Brennan’s commitment to look at the methodology and recommend corrections. The failure to count attacks inside Russia by Chechen separatists, for example, needs to be re-examined. While ten years ago there was no evidence that the Chechen were receiving outside assistance, that is not the case today. In fact Chechen fighters in the battle of Anaconda in Afghanistan in March 2002 killed American soldiers. The Chechen movement has clear economic and military ties to international jihadists. In future reports it would be entirely appropriate to classify as international attacks something carried out by any group with established ties to groups outside of their country.

There is no single statistic that can tell us what is happening in the war on terrorism. Reporting multiple attacks does not necessarily mean that casualties will follow. As Brennan and Zelikow correctly note most of the casualties were caused by a relatively small number of attacks. But, those attacks were carried out by Islamic extremists that have clear ties with Al Qaeda.

In light of this it is breathtaking that someone with Zelikow’s intellect can argue that numbers don’t matter. The following exchange occurred during the Wednesday afternoon press conference:

QUESTION: Um, 651 attacks in 2004, compared to 175 attacks in your report in 2003. That’s a sharp increase in terrorist attacks. What does that tell us about the war on terrorism — the global war on terrorism and the cooperation? . . . .
MR. ZELIKOW: I mean, the short answer is it doesn’t tell us anything about the war on terror. The statistics are simply not valid for any inference about the progress, either good or bad, of American policy. I think that’s the honest answer. If you just look at what the statistics are and what kind of inferences can legitimately be drawn from them, I can’t come up with a defensible inference.

Here’s the bottom line. Numbers do matter. If more people are being killed in Iraq and India then we need to ensure that US policy for combating terrorism is focused on those areas. To pretend that the threat of terrorism is as great in Brazil as in Iraq is delusional. And to pretend that objective facts say nothing about the reality of terrorism perhaps shows us why the US effort to deal with Islamic extremists is going in the wrong direction.

Friends in the intelligence community tell me that Zelikow, when confronted with the higher numbers, tried to have those numbers suppressed. Once word of this leaked out Zelikow shifted gears to damage control and constructed the artificial and misleading explanation that NCTC is now doing something new that was never done before. Oh yeah, and it is mandated by law.

Sadly this simply shows how uninformed Zelikow is about the history of counter terrorism policies and procedures during the last 25 years, notwithstanding his post as staff director of the 9-11 Commission. Maybe this explains why the Commission had such difficulty identifying who failed in their duty to prevent those terrible attacks in September 2001. Phil Zelikow by his own admission has trouble making sense of numbers.

So you thought Barack Obama would bring change to the abuses at CIA? Think again. He’s relying on folks who helped debase and embarrass the CIA. That’s not change I want to believe in.

In this article, House Majority Whip: Climate Change Hurts Blacks More can tell you all about it), Rep. Clyburn said:

“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being.”

Well, okey dokey then. On what did Clyburn base this assertion, one he used to help “launch the Commission to Engage African-Americans on Climate Change, a project of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies”? That would be one prepared by an organization entitled Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative (EJCC). This group:

“claims African-Americans are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. EJCC describes itself as a “climate justice” advocacy group.

“Though far less responsible for climate change, African-Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non-Hispanic whites,” the report says. “Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability.

“African-Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S,” it says.

Hmmm. Now, I agree that, “health, housing, economic well-being,” etc., etc. are impacted by global warming, and while there is no doubt that many in the wake of Katrina were African American, especially in New Orleans, they were not, by any stretch, the only people affected by that hurricane. They were not the only ones who lost homes, jobs, family, pets, and location as a result. I hasten to add, I am in NO way diminishing the horrors that many in New Orleans and other areas in the Gulf Coast experienced during Katrina (or Gustav, or Ike, for that matter), absolutely not. I just wonder at extrapolating from that event to such a broad statement. But it seems like that is exactly what happened:

The commission Clyburn helped launch claims Hurricane Katrina’s impact on New Orleans was a preview of how global warming will affect African-Americans.

“[W]hile individual storms cannot be linked specifically to climate change, scientists warn that warmer waters may foster-more intense storms,” the background paper on the commission’s efforts, authored by Michel Gelobter, Carla Peterman and Azebuilke Akaba said. “The flooding of New Orleans still highlights the vulnerability of the African-American community to types of extreme weather events expected with global climate change.”

Uh huh. I agree absolutely that warmer weather will foster more, and more INTENSE storms - I do live on the SC coast, after all. I am well aware. And I am certainly aware that with ANY of these big storms, it is hard for middle/upper middle class people to leave when things get bad, thus MUCH harder for people who are in a lower economic bracket. No doubt about that. And, no doubt that will include African Americans. And Hispanics, who comprise a larger part of the population than African Americans, by the way. I know that the majority of migrant farmworkers in this area are Hispanic. I am pretty sure that is the case in FL, another state frequently hit by hurricanes. And Caucasians live there, here, in LA, TX, MS…I’m just sayin’.

And another thing I find to be surprising in this report is this: HOW is it that African Americans are not as much to blame as all the rest of us for global warming? I mean, they drive cars, warm/cool their homes, and all of that just like the rest of us do, right? But somehow, they are not as much to blame for it as the rest of us? Please tell me if I am missing something here. I just find that claim to be a bit of a stretch.

And really - in all the world, US African Americans are hit HARDEST by global warming? REALLY? More than, say, China, or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Bangladesh or India that have been hit HARD by monsoons? Yeah. Okay.

There’s a little more to the study:

But the goals of environmental and race activists don’t include allowing investors to earn the benefits of putting their money into proposed solutions.

J. Andrew Hoerner, director of the sustainable economics program at Redefining Progress and a co-author of the EJCC report, told the Business & Media Institute that solutions to climate change should be designed in a way so investors don’t reap all the benefits.

“There is a certain disconnect between what is good for workers, consumers, managers, and the economy on one hand and stockholders on the other,” Hoerner said. “We found that the combination of efficient market instruments, return of the revenue, cost-effective promotion of new clean technologies and efficiency, and targeted policies for low-income households grows the economy. It increases employment and profits overall, and provides a net benefit for consumers.”

The report suggested implementing a “fee, tax or allowance auction on polluters,” which was meant to “eliminate the financial burden on low-income and moderate-income households.” This would pay for efforts to reduce global warming. Hoerner said that although it would cause product costs to increase, under his policy, the revenue from the “fee, tax, or allowance auction payment” would be redistributed to consumers to offset the higher costs.

“However, this increase in profits may be smaller than the windfall to stockholders if allowances are given away for free, even though this windfall is partially offset by higher product prices, lower sales, lower production and lower profits on the firm’s output, exclusive of the value of the allowances,” Hoerner continued. “Most businesses are energy consumers, not producers, and their interests lie with household energy consumers.”

Oh, boy. Read those last two paragraphs again. Sounds like it might be a hard sell to me - on all counts.

(If you are interested, go check out this organization: The Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative www.ejcc.org. Go to the “About Us” or whatever it’s called section. I am not implying anything untoward about this organization at all - And here is the address for Redefining Progress.)

Tonight at 10pm ET on NQR: The South Asia Hour, our weekly show with DCMediagirl and Nail ‘em Up.

DCMediagirl is a veteran broadcaster who’s been on assignment in Islamabad and produced Urdu news programs. Her co-host, Nail ‘em Up, is “the rudest Pakistani blogger” on the internet. Together they’ll give us an inside look at the culture and politics of one of the most critical regions in the world today.

Listen to the livestream broadcast on NoQuarter Radio from 10pm to 11pm ET tonight. The call-in line for questions is (347) 677-0792.

An audio archive of the show will be available at NQR immediately following the broadcast.

Tonight at 10pm ET on NQR: The South Asia Hour.

Join DCMediaGirl and co-host Nail ‘em Up as they welcome guest Raza Rumi, a multi-talented writer and self-described “progressive Muslim with Sufi leanings.” Raza blogs at Jahane Rumi, edits the online magazine Pak Tea House, and is a regular contributor to the Pakistani weekly “The Friday Times” and other publications.

Listen to the livestream broadcast on NoQuarter Radio from 10pm to 11pm ET tonight. The call-in line for questions is (347) 677-0792. There will be a chat room open, too — look for the green “chat” sign.

An audio archive of the show will be available at NQR immediately following the broadcast.

Tonight at 10pm ET on NQR: The South Asia Hour.

It’s a new day in Pakistan: President Musharraf resigned this week, ending his 9-year military rule of the country. Will Pakistan be able to build a real democracy? What does this mean for the U.S.?

Join co-hosts DCMediagirl and Nail ‘em Up tonight as they explore these questions and more.

Listen to the livestream broadcast on NoQuarter Radio from 10pm to 11pm ET tonight. The call-in line for questions is (347) 677-0792. There will be a chat room open, too — look for the green “chat” sign.

An audio archive of the show will be available at NQR immediately following the broadcast.

Tonight at 10pm ET on NQR: The South Asia Hour, our weekly show with DCMediagirl and Nail ‘em Up.

DCMediagirl is a veteran broadcaster who’s been on assignment in Islamabad and produced Urdu news programs. Her co-host, Nail ‘em Up, is “the rudest Pakistani blogger” on the internet. Together they’ll give us an inside look at the culture and politics of one of the most critical regions in the world today.

Listen to the livestream broadcast on NoQuarter Radio from 10pm to 11pm ET tonight. The call-in line for questions is (347) 677-0792.

An audio archive of the show will be available at NQR immediately following the broadcast.

Tonight on NQR from 10pm to 11pm ET: The South Asia Hour.

Join us tonight at 10pm for the debut of our new weekly show on South Asia, hosted by DCMediagirl and Pakistani blogger Nail ‘em Up.

It’s another election cycle here in the U.S. and yet another presidential candidate is trying to score points with voters by promising to level more countries. This time the candidate is Barack Obama, and it’s South Asia’s turn to feel the pain. Didn’t we learn ANYTHING from our misadventures in Iraq? During this show, we’ll be demystifying the region - India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. - and answering questions about the subcontinent.

DCMediagirl is a veteran broadcaster who’s been on assignment in Islamabad and produced Urdu news programs. Her co-host, Nail ‘em Up, is “the rudest Pakistani blogger” on the internet. Together they’ll give us an inside look at the culture and concerns of South Asians today.

Listen to the livestream broadcast on NoQuarter Radio from 10pm to 11pm ET tonight. The call-in line for questions is (347) 677-0792.

An audio archive of the show will be available at NQR immediately following the broadcast.

DCMediaGirl told me last night that she’d been watching Stewart’s videos all day, so I had to pop into ComedyCentral.com and take a look.

And … coming soon … a formal press release announcing DCMediaGirl’s first show Friday night, July 25, at 10 p.m. ET on NoQuarter’s BlogRadio channel. (That’s TONIGHT!) Larry Johnson, her pal, talked her into calling her show “DCMediaGirl’s Hour of Power.”

DCMediaGirl is going to give “no quarter” to the media’s coverage of Barack’s travels, and she wants your phone calls.

She also plans to talk about Pakistan.

At issue: This week’s New Yorker cover.

Honestly, is this what we’ve come to? Is this the most important issue the press has to focus on in this campaign? Is this really worth all the faux agita and high dudgeon it’s stirred up?

Just to be clear, here’s what I care about.

Two years ago my then-husband talked me into buying a house. I did so and took out a traditional 30-year mortgage. Thank God I wasn’t talked into one of those goofy ARMs.

Last fall I put the house on the market. No takers. I’ve reduced the price $50,000 and thrown in every conceivable goodie imagineable. No dice. Even if I rent the place I’d still be about $800 per month in the hole. In the meantime, as I wait for this house to move half my take-home pay - that’s half - is going to pay the mortgage. And that doesn’t count the money I’m sinking into the house to entice a buyer - landscaping, repairs, etc. Just to be clear, the house is located Montgomery County, a decent suburb of D.C. It’s close to shopping and public transportation. It’s a great deal at the price it’s listed for. But I can’t give the damn thing away.

I’m sure that there are a lot of people in my position.

I’m concerned about whether the Bush administration’s meddling could cause Pakistan’s government to fall. I’m also concerned about whether the same crowd that brought us the Iraq war could embark on a demented mission in Iran as an au revoir to the country. Hey, there’s still plenty of time. The Bush people could do a lot of damage between now and January.

So pardon me for not giving a damn about what the New Yorker wants to feature on its cover. Some of us have more important things to worry about.

Now let’s take a stroll down memory lane and take a look at Joe Scarborough giving Hillary Clinton some love:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0ojemY6cN4[/youtube]

It’s…It’s…embarrassing when.. when …uh… [sic] Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and [snicker] all we can say is Merci beaucoup.

What an insulting Asshat™ this guy is. Worse yet, to use an American expression: He should talk! He struggled with the language of a country he was living in and he has the Audacity and Arrogance™ to snort at others in America for being unable to speak other languages while simply visiting other countries.

Obama has claimed on numerous occasions to have become fluent in Indonesian in six months. Yet those who knew him disputed that during recent interviews.

Israella Pareira Darmawan, Obama’s 1st-grade teacher, said she attempted to help him learn the Indonesian language by going over pronunciation and vowel sounds. He struggled greatly with the foreign language, she said, and with his studies as a result.

As far as I can see, Comrade Obama is only capable of saying one phrase in other languages: Yes We Can. Even with that one line, his Spanish was atrocious, so I would like to know how it is that he thinks he can continually make fun of the country he wants to be President of and get away with it? Comrade, who were you referring to? Those “bitter hicks” with guns who work from sun-up to sun-down to provide you with your Whole Foods selection? Are you referring to those “downscale” voters who are too busy to learn other languages because they are working two jobs just to make ends meet–while they serve arrogant snotty asses like you?

Comrade, did it ever occur to Arrogant Asshat You that you insulted Hispanic Americans in this country who are struggling with our most difficult language that has an exception to nearly every grammar rule? Of course not! You are far too arrogant and self-impressed for that!

Speaking of languages of countries you visit without speaking their language: I also understand that Barack Obama plans on holding fundraisers in China. I am not surprised, considering he seems to be the darling of Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Maoists, Theocracies and lovers of Lenin and Stalin the World Over. The thing is, many Americans live in China. This is because China has stolen so many of our jobs. I would think that as a so-called Democrat, Obama would be more concerned with bringing these folks and their jobs back to America, but true to what he is, he is more concerned with getting their money.

I also understand that the Comrade has a half brother in China, named Mark. His father sure did get around, having left kids everywhere, it seems. This must be where he inherited his “respect” for women. Perhaps his brother will be helping him raise funds and set him up to talk to some Government Leaders there to get tips on how to run America. More importantly, I was wondering if Obama plans to pay a visit to China, and if so, will he be speaking Chinese?

Come to think of it, the only relative he has in the USA where he wants to Reign Supreme is his Typical White Grandmother, and he tossed her under the bus months ago. While Barack Obama enjoys pretending to be as great and as American as JFK, I can tell you for certain that when the truly great JFK was President, you could find all of his family in Hyannisport very easily on any given weekend. Nobody was hidden and JFK was proud to pubilicly speak of them and name them. Why is it, Barack Obama never speaks of the relatives he has all over the world? Why is it we have to go hunting for them? When he visits them in their respective countries, does he speak their language or does he speak English? This seems to be a fair question, don’t you think?

If Barack Obama thinks everyone else in America who doesn’t speak the language when he or she visits another country is worth snickering at, then should he not be able to speak the language of every place he has visited? For example, I know that Barack Obama has visited one of his favorite places where some of his biggest fundraisers are citizens: Pakistan. I was wondering, does Barack Obama speak their language?

Barack Obama has a stick up his ass and the most amusing part of that is he has no right to have a stick up his ass. He is a mediocre man with minimal achievements, the greatest of them is his great success at working the Chicago Thug Political Machine and sticking his nose in the air, pretending he is above everybody and everything.

He is so without substance of his own, that he spends most of his time pretending he is the equal to great men such as RFK, JFK, MLK, FDR and Lincoln. Yet, he parades himself as Above The Rest - ad nauseum.

I wonder exactly how many more Americans he insulted by laughing at America again–this time for speaking only one language: The language of the country in which he is running for President.

While this Out of Touch Snot is busy telling everyone in America to go learn another language, Somebody also needs to explain to Comrade Obama that, in spite of his attitude that the country he wants to become Czar of is inferior to the places he really loves–such as the Middle East, English is the preferred language of business communication World-Wide.

While it certainly does open doors for people to learn other languages, Comrade Obama might be more helpful to the USA if he chastises many of his own young followers for their own communication problems with the English language. In fact, back when I could stand to listen to him, I heard The Comrade Himself butcher the use of verbs with respect to singular and plural. So, comrade, try telling your worshippers to focus on their own language first before shipping them off to butcher another country’s language. Thanks!

Having spent a fair amount of my life in Academia before moving to the Real World, I get the sense that Obama needs to permanently assign himself to the Faculty Lounge instead of running for President of The United States. His arrogance and snottiness with respect to the Real World is simply staggering. He is so snotty, he can’t even help himself. Insults just roll right off his tongue.

Comrade, we are truly sorry that so many Stupid Americans just don’t speak French and German. We all know that you are classy and we are not.

It’s a wonder you put up with this country at all, you are just too damned superior for us! Let us Worship You for that.

Say! I have an idea! Comrade Obama! We are sorry our country “embarrasses” you so much! This might come as a huge surprise to Snotty You, but you embarrass plenty of us as well! Perhaps you would be more comfortable running for President of France. I know many of us here in America would be more comfortable with that thought. For sure, you would hear millions of us say, Merci Beaucoup.

By the way, speaking of embarrassing: It’s embarrassing to listen to a Presidential Candidate act like a snob when he can’t even put two sentences together sans teleprompter without saying “uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh………ahhhhhhhhhhh” every sixty seconds. Just saying!

So tell us, Comrade, do you speak French and German? Just wondering. If not, get on it, Mr. Lead-By-Example! Merci Beaucoup!