In December of 2008, The Heritage Foundation disclosed that, according to the Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics, “approximately 1.5 million children (2.9% of school-age children) were being homeschooled in the spring of 2007, representing a 36% relative increase since 2003 and a 74% relative increase since 1999.”

According to Christopher J. Klicka, senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, “Standardized test results for 16,000 home-educated children, grades K-12, were analyzed in 1994 by researcher Dr. Brian Ray.… Nearly 80% of homeschooled children achieved individual scores above the national average and 54.7% of the 16,000 homeschoolers achieved individual scores in the top quarter of the population, more than double the number of conventional school students who score in the top quarter.”

There’s no question that statistics provide great insight into trends and success vs. failure rates. However, as someone who has taught at the middle school, high school, and college levels, I’ve found that sometimes being up close and personal provides an awareness that no statistic could ever dream of eliciting.

With that in mind, I set out to speak to parents who home-school their children, most of whom transitioned them from the public school system. Why did they make the switch? How has the performance of their child/children changed since?

Sven Larson, who home-schooled his son in New York, said the public middle school his son attended “was big, bureaucratic, and failed to stimulate his academic curiosity.” He continued, “There was also an unacceptable level of violence at the school. The principal and the school administrators were uninterested in either issue.”

Larson added, “Getting the right to home-school was not easy. I had to fight the public school bureaucracy, who obviously fought back—in their own interest, of course. They raised hell about the very idea when I first notified them. They regularly sent arrogant letters to homeschoolers who did not submit their quarterly progress report to the school district on the minute, threatening to send child protective services after them.”

“He was already a top student, and he excelled even more,” Larson said with respect to his son’s homeschooling. “We put together a tough history course that, according to my son, was the most in-depth learning experience he has had thus far in school.”

Paul (last name omitted at his request) and his wife just began the fourth year of homeschooling their two children, ages seven and ten. Paul’s wife is certified in the Texas to teach general education K-12 and taught in public school for ten years. They became concerned when their kindergartener—then in public school—was bored in class.

Paul said, “One of her unsolicited comments about school was, ‘I don’t want to color during math, I want to learn math. I don’t want to color during science, I want to learn science.’”
“The time spent learning in school seemed to be shrinking. Too much time in public schools is wasted on disciplining other students, getting organized and getting in line, or on other tasks deemed important by local school officials,” Paul added.

“The main benefit homeschooling provides is that you can teach to the learning styles of your children,” Paul said. “By understanding how your children learn best, you can craft an educational environment that will help them flourish. They can move at their own skill levels, not an arbitrary state-defined timeline that holds them back.”

Lennie Jarratt and his wife currently home-school their two children in Illinois. They made the decision to home-school when their oldest was in public school and they “met a lot of resistance when we asked questions about why things were done a certain way,” and had “bad experiences with long-term tenured teachers.”

Since homeschooling, Jarratt said “Their performance has improved greatly. They understand the basic processes—foundation—so whatever is given to them, they can figure it out methodically instead of guessing as taught in public schools.”

Laurie (last name omitted at her request), a former public high school teacher, currently home-schools her four children in Virginia. Three of her children formerly spent one year in public school.

“My fifth-grade son came home one day asking—of his social studies lesson—‘Which political party is the one that doesn’t care about the environment, again?’” she said. “He also ended up, after his public school study of American ‘history’, saying things like, ‘I’m ashamed to be an American’.”

Laurie said homeschooling is effective because of “the one-on-one attention” and because “it allows each child to progress at his or her own academic pace.”

“We are homeschooling because homeschooling works so much more effectively to produce well-rounded, intelligent students who can think, reason, and express coherent thoughts, because said students understand ethics, morality, and integrity to be important issues,” said Laurie. “Because they are able to learn—really learn—the material, instead of just cramming SOL [Standards of Learning] facts into their brains for tests, only to forget them as soon as the tests are over.”

Homeschooling is undoubtedly a tough job. It involves a great sense of commitment, discipline, and diligence on the part of parents. Many parents are nonetheless embracing it, believing that it is a step in the right direction for their children’s education.

Of course, there are many wonderful public and private schools—and a number of great teachers in those schools who create a healthy learning environment for America’s children.

But as someone who has witnessed plenty of indoctrination in education firsthand, plenty of revisionist history and brainwashing as kids are not-so-subtly encouraged to think one way over another, I can’t help but empathize with the instinct by parents to take matters into their own hands.

Cross-published at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38860

I oppose the Park51 Islamic center for three main reasons:

1) The proximity of the proposed location to Ground Zero, a mere 560 feet away. Out of sensitivity to those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001 – and to their families – the location is downright unnecessary. Not to mention that, as reported by The New York Times, “On Sept. 11, the landing gear assembly of one of the planes used in the attack crashed through the roof of what was then a Burlington Coat Factory” (and is now the proposed site of Park51).

2) The man behind the proposed project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has made some outrageous comments with respect to the United States. Like how he said just nineteen days after 9/11, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

Or his declaration in 2005 that “We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.”

What about Rauf’s refusal to label Hamas as a terrorist organization, citing instead that “The issue of terrorism is a very complex question”?

Murder isn’t complex. It’s heinous. And anyone unwilling to instantly label it as such makes me decidedly uncomfortable.

3) Where is the full extent of the funding coming from? Developer Sharif El-Gamal has said, “We will not take money from Iran. We will not take money from Hamas. We will not take money from organizations that have un-American values.”

Pardon me if I’d like to see some proof.

Not to mention that the project may qualify for public financing. That’s your dollar and mine. Shouldn’t some serious questions be answered first?

I experienced 9/11 right along with so many other New Yorkers. I was working across the street from the World Trade Center that morning. I feel incredibly lucky to have missed a memo that would’ve placed me in the South Tower at 9:00 a.m. and would’ve likely cost me my life.

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting so many Muslims who condemn the behavior of the extremists behind the 9/11 attacks and spend their days fighting to honor and protect the America we all love so much.

And I live in the heart of New York City (a.k.a. Lefty Loon Central), in which 63% of New York voters – Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, and liberals alike – oppose the Park51 project.

Bottom line: Location aside, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has quite a bit more explaining to do. While he’s at it, he might want to address reports that he “owns taxpayer-subsidized apartment buildings in Hudson County where the tenants have made municipal health complaints including rat, roach and bedbug infestations, seeping toilets, leaks, urine-soaked hallways, no heat and no hot water.”

Take your time, Rauf. We’ll be waiting.

• If Barack Obama were a superhero, who would he be? – Becky; New York City

His name? Captain Redistribution, no doubt. His costume? A nifty suit and tie. His power? The ability to funnel one person’s money to another with the stroke of a pen. His motto? “Spread the Wealth Around.” His secret identity? The President of the United States.

Captain Redistribution is already alive and well. I’m not sure I’d use the word “superhero,” though. But then again, “elitist fibber who robs you blind while trying to paint himself as Robin Hood, savior in tights” might be a bit long.

• I love when you do “media insanity of the week.” Any winners for this week yet? – Adam; California

Mike Lupica has started off the week with a hilarious “news” column for the New York Daily News titled “Shock jock Glenn Beck has a dream: Turn rightward toward God and ‘restore honor’ to U.S.”

Some highlights from Lupica’s column include:

“Beck. Big honor hunter. He probably wants to dress up like the guy who used to hunt crocodiles on television.”

“In the end, Beck has no real interest in unity or honor, just the best show.”

“Then, of course, there is Palin, the pompom girl for pep rallies like Saturday’s, telling the crowd that she’s an even better American than we knew because, well, she raised a combat veteran.”

“But really Palin should have been talking about her daughter Bristol, on her way to ‘Dancing With the Stars’ in the fall. You want to trace Palin’s DNA, you don’t have to look further than Levi Johnston’s former squeeze.”

As always, Lupica’s political commentary is hilarious. Poor guy. November just might put him over the edge.

Maybe I’ll mail him some “Sarah Palin Unplugged” videos to help cheer him up. It’s the least I could do.

Cross-published at http://www.amac.us/q-a-with-jedediah-ground-zero-mosque-captain-redistribution-and-lupica-hilarity

I will be on FTR Radio at 9:30 p.m. ET. Tune in live here: http://www.ftrradio.com

He founded a health food restaurant in New York City and is a principal in a Texas bio-fuel company.

He has a BBA in accountancy with a concentration in finance and a law degree from New York Law School.

And he’s a Republican running for Congress in New York 13th Congressional District as the “People’s Candidate.”

His name is Michael Grimm. He’s been endorsed by Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, the Conservative Party of New York State, Combat Veterans for Congress, and the Molinari Republican Club, among others.

If you haven’t already checked him out, you should.

At a time when so many Americans are disheartened with Washington’s business-as-usual, when so many voters have had enough of political elitism and the “say one thing, do another” fad among establishment candidates, Grimm is a much-needed breath of fresh air.

He’s humble. He loves our country and our Constitution. He’s not afraid to call it like he sees it. And he treasures his father’s words that “Nothing in life worth anything is ever given; it is earned.”

In an exclusive interview with me for HUMAN EVENTS, Grimm said, “I believe that words like honor, integrity, and character are not platitudes, but essential ingredients in a good, honest man. I am running for Congress for the same reasons that I enlisted in the Marine Corps and the same reasons that I accepted an appointment to the FBI, because I love this country enough to give my life for it and I believe in the oath that I took 21 years ago: ‘To support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, so help me God.’”

Grimm said, “There is no expiration date on that oath.”

Some prominent aspects of his agenda include repealing Obama’s healthcare law, stopping out-of-control spending, cutting taxes across the board, promoting job creation, voting against cap-and-trade, prioritizing national security, and strengthening our relationship with Israel.

Grimm stated, “The United States Constitution specifically enumerates the powers of the federal government in order to protect our individual and economic liberty. These founding principles have allowed us to become the most prosperous nation in the world, as well as a beacon of freedom. I am running for Congress because those principles and our Constitution have been placed in jeopardy by the current administration. Congressman McMahon has voted almost down the line in support of the liberal policies that threaten those very values.”

Grimm spoke about the differences between himself and his primary opponent, Michael Allegretti, citing “level of experience” as one of the key distinctions.

“I have served in combat with the U.S. Marine Corps, worked in law enforcement as a special agent for the FBI, worked on Wall Street while licensed to sell small-cap equities,” Grimm said.

“Additionally, I started two small businesses from scratch, which I got off the ground by mortgaging my house. I have had the pressure and responsibility of meeting a payroll, while my opponent inherited a business and has never successfully run one,” he added.

Grimm also asserted, “My opponent spent most of his professional career as a lobbyist for the Climate Group, as well as for other organizations in ‘climate change’-related positions. Through his experience, he articulated his support for the Waxman-Markey Bill and other costly policies such as congestion pricing. Cap-and-trade stands for everything that I oppose—overbearing, big-government regulation that imposes heavy burdens on businesses and consumers.”

He added, “Issues regarding the role of government also separate me from my opponent Michael McMahon, who is the Democratic incumbent. McMahon is also a supporter of cap-and-trade, as well as the financial reform package that wraps Wall Street in even more red tape.”

When asked what kind of impact his victory would have on both his district and the country at large, Grimm responded with this: “N.Y.-13, a traditionally Republican district, will finally have a leader in Washington who represents their values and interests. The district will have someone who will fight against government expansion and instead advocate for free-market solutions to decrease skyrocketing unemployment and improve our economy. We need a representative who is willing to work as hard as possible representing, helping, and fighting for the people at home and the thousands of troops abroad putting their lives in harm’s way for our freedom.”

He added, “Congressman McMahon and most of his Democrat colleagues in Congress have been nothing more than a rubber stamp for this administration’s ill-advised and widely-opposed policies. In November, the people can and will send a message to our current administration that they will no longer tolerate an ever-expanding government, overbearing regulation, backroom deals, and broken promises.”

Michael Grimm isn’t a career politician. In many ways, he’s a guy from the neighborhood with a whole lot of ambition and smarts, a good deal of experience, and a passion for our country I wish more people had.

Like I always say—if you want to change Washington, take a good, hard look at the movers and the shakers, the business owners and the patriots, who aren’t entrenched in the Washington machine.

Enter N.Y.-13’s Michael Grimm.

Cross-published at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38729

America’s seniors are gearing up to make their voices heard louder and clearer than the rest. They know what’s worth fighting for and aren’t about to be passive bystanders.

According to SeniorJournal.com, the 2002 election turnout for all voters was 42.3%. In reviewing historical data, it revealed: “Seniors, on the other hand, continued to vote at a high rate in these off years – A 61 percent rate in 2002, and 59.5 in 1998. These are about the same voting rates for seniors that were recorded in all the off-year elections since 1980.”

Tucker Sutherland, editor of SeniorJournal.com, asserted that “Seniors have voted in larger percentages than younger voters in every election since 1966. And, the gap has consistently widened.”

So, with the November elections rapidly approaching, are Democrats shaking in their boots?

You bet they are.

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA) recently paid a visit to the Springfield retirement community, Greenspring Village. According to The Washington Post, “He brought cake and diabetic-friendly cookies, and made a personal plea to supporters who showed up to clasp his hand and tell them he has their vote.”

Perhaps the rising tide of Tea Party seniors has been keeping him up at night.

The Washington Post also revealed, “In a poll this month by the Pew Research Center, 46 percent of seniors reported that they would be voting for the Republican on their congressional ballot this fall, compared with 43 percent for the Democrat. The most recent Gallup data showed an even starker difference: Fifty-three percent of seniors said they would vote for a Republican House candidate and 38 percent said they would opt for the Democrat.”

Why?

For starters, Obama’s health care law continues to be unpopular with the American majority. Rasmussen reported on August 23 that 56% of U.S. voters favor repeal.

Robert Moffit, senior fellow in domestic and economic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, has offered some important reminders to seniors about Obamacare:

• “Under the new law, seniors are going to pay higher taxes. The higher taxes on drugs (effective in 2011) and medical devices (effective in 2013) will affect seniors especially, as they are more heavily dependent on those very products.”
• “New federal health insurance taxes—both the premium taxes and the excise taxes—will also impact older workers and retirees.”
• “With the freezing of Medicare Advantage payments in 2011, Congress has set the stage for a progressive reduction in seniors’ access to, and choice of, the popular Medicare Advantage health plans.”
• “With the retirement of 77 million baby boomers beginning in 2011, the Medicare program will have to absorb an unprecedented demand for medical services. For the next generation of senior citizens, finding a doctor will be more difficult and waiting times for doctor appointments are likely to be longer. The American Association of Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 124,000 doctors by 2025. Obamacare has not ameliorated the growing problem of projected physician shortages and has surely made it worse.”
• “Furthermore, the law creates an Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will recommend measures to reduce Medicare spending.”

Seniors aren’t happy with Obamacare. Democrats in Congress know what that means: many of them will be sent packing come November.

And let’s face the facts: seniors aren’t only thinking of themselves. Yes, they are individuals looking out for their best interests. However, many of them are also grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, and uncles. If you think for a second that they aren’t concerned about the implications of insurance mandates, higher taxes, and a ballooning federal deficit on the futures of their children, grandchildren, and other youngsters, you better think twice.

As November draws near, what can we expect to see?

It’s safe to say that there will be plenty of Democrat scare tactics coming down the pike, as the best and brightest of the left-wing loons try to convince seniors that Republicans want to jeopardize their Social Security benefits.

Panicked, Democrats will present the case that big daddy government is here to protect our senior citizens, much like Barack Obama brainwashed so many youths in 2008 into believing that his big-government, liberty-limiting agenda was somehow looking out for them.

The difference? Seniors aren’t impressionable young minds. They don’t fawn over idealistic rhetoric, aren’t looking for the next political rock star, and are listening to what you’re actually saying – despite how cool your delivery may sound.

My prediction for November?

Watch out, Democrats. America’s seniors are coming for you.

Cross-published at http://www.amac.us/seniors-gear-up-for-2010-elections

If you haven’t checked out the video, you must. It’s downright hysterical. And not just because of the bear costumes and growling.

Some of the featured quotes from the video include:

• “The fact that if you [Sarah Palin] were in charge of this country, my little cubs wouldn’t have health care.”
• “When the salmon stopped coming down the stream and I didn’t work for three months, guess how we survived? Unemployment benefits, which is something that you [Sarah Palin] and your gang of candidates want to do away with.”
• “You may think we’re on the wrong track because we want to … protect our right to hibernate with whoever we choose.”

That’s right, ladies and gentlemen. If Sarah Palin were President, all of America’s children would be denied healthcare (Ahem). Jobless adults would have to pitch cardboard-box tents in the streets while praying for God to instill compassion in evil Republicans. Toddlers would put on their best evening garb and hit the New York City subways with microphones, empty glass jars, and Disney karaoke CDs.

Of course, Palin would also sport the part-time midnight job of peeping into your bedrooms to assure that you’d be “hibernating” with a man or woman of her choosing. Hey, everybody has to earn a living!

I’ve said it before about Sarah Palin and I’ll say it again: that earmark-slashing, fiscally responsible, 10th Amendment-upholding, veteran-loving, pro-Constitution, cost-cutting, transparency-advocating, fetus-friendly, oil and gas aficionado is a menace!

As entertaining as the EMILY’s List video is—and I truly do thank you, ladies, as I’ve been waiting with bated breath for something to induce a fit of laughter besides Keith Olbermann speaking—there’s much more fun to come!

EMILY’s List released a statement that Sarah Doesn’t Speak for Me “will feature a new multi-media interactive website, a page for users to share personal stories, and information about the radical agenda of Palin’s candidates and where they stand on critical issues. It includes branded merchandise and an aggressive online presence that will extend our reach to a broad and diverse range of audiences and, through a targeted advertising campaign, get more than six million impressions.”

According to EMILY’s List President, Stephanie Schriock, “EMILY’s List is calling on women—and men!—to let their voices be heard and to reject Palin’s reactionary candidates and backward-looking agenda.” (Translation: Sarah Palin is wildly popular—as was her video—and that scares the living crap out of us.)

EMILY’s List has offered an online pledge “to vote in November and send the message loud and clear: Sarah, you do NOT speak for me,” as well as a link to “The truth about Sarah Palin’s candidates’ extreme views.”

It has also extended an invite “to share your story, your YouTube video—anything you’ve got—with us about how you’re speaking out against Sarah Palin’s extremist agenda” and an online form “to let your friends know about how they can also speak out against Sarah.”
According to EMILY’s List, some of the “extreme views” of Palin-backed candidates include:

• “Handel is ‘staunchly and unequivocally pro-life’”—(Karen Handel)
• “Called healthcare reform a ‘deeply-flawed law’”—(Kelly Ayotte)
• “Recommended by Right to Life New Mexico”—(Susana Martinez)
• “On healthcare reform: ‘I believe we must repeal this bill immediately’”—(John McCain)
• “Called a ‘dedicated pro-life candidate’ by anti-choice group Susan B. Anthony List”—(Adam Kinzinger)

Speaking of the Susan B. Anthony List, SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser—just back from a 23-city bus tour throughout Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—offered me her take on the EMILY’s List video and anti-Palin campaign.

“EMILY’s List’s attempt to make light of women leaders who affirm the best in women—who seek to include rather than exclude the rest of humanity as we find our fulfillment—falls flat,” Dannenfelser said.

“This video comes as further proof of how out-of-touch their narrow view of women’s rights really is,” she asserted. “With poll results showing a repeated hunger for authentic pro-life leadership, their response provides only further evidence that EMILY’s List is on the defensive this election cycle. Inclusive, pro-life leadership, like the kind Susan B. Anthony List and Sarah Palin promote, threatens the very core of the bitter, exclusive ‘feminism’ EMILY’s List must perpetuate in order to survive.”

Dannenfelser added, “EMILY’s List is running scared—and it shows. With polls confirming a consistent pro-life voting majority and a rising tide of authentic pro-life women leaders rising up to meet it, EMILY’s List’s pro-abortion agenda is falling further and further out of vogue. Yet, they continue to fight back by perpetuating what they purport to abhor: using women candidates with whom they disagree as punching bags.”

My bottom line: The EMILY’s List ladies are certainly entitled to their opinions. This is America, after all. But misrepresenting policy in order to market propaganda shouldn’t be the trademark of any organization, be it on the left or the right.

Now I’d love to stick around, but I’m about to get suited up in a donkey costume for my “Party of No” video on the DNC. Hee-haw!

Cross-published at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38631

No? Well, you got one anyway.

According to Rasmussen on August 11, 30% of likely voters feel that the country is heading in the right direction. Since last July, the percentage has ranged from 27% to 35%.

Rasmussen reported on August 16 that “26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.”

On August 11, Rasmussen disclosed that “57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the agenda of Democrats in Congress is extreme.”

Gallup revealed on August 11 that “Barack Obama’s 52% approval rating for handling race relations is the only issue among 13 tested in two recent Gallup polls for which the president receives majority-level approval. In fact, a majority disapprove of the job the president is doing on eight of these issues, with his worst scores for his handling of immigration and the federal budget deficit.” Areas where a majority of Americans disapprove of the President’s performance – besides immigration and the federal budget deficit – include the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the economy, healthcare policy, taxes, and the environment.

How can it be that America’s hope and change captain has fallen from grace?

The answer is simple: President Obama has made a persistent habit of siding against the American majority.

Let’s start with health care.

On August 16, Rasmussen reported that a “national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 60% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care reform law, while 36% oppose repeal.” Since the law was passed in March, the percentage of those favoring repeal has ranged from 52% to 63%.

On August 3, roughly 71% of Missouri voters backed Proposition C, a ballot measure that would prohibit the government from forcing individuals to have health insurance or from penalizing them for declining it.

And yet, has Obama changed course? Not one bit.

Let’s take a look at Arizona’s SB 1070.

On July 9, Gallup revealed that “Americans’ initial reactions to the U.S. Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona’s new illegal immigration law are more negative than positive, by a 50% to 33% margin.”

Rasmussen reported on July 8 that 56% of voters oppose the Justice Department’s challenge of SB 1070 and 61% favor the passage of a law similar to Arizona’s in their own state.

On August 14, Rasmussen disclosed that 60% of likely voters in Florida favor a law like SB 1070 in their state.

And yet, the Justice Department persists with its lawsuit. You know, after Napolitano and Holder publicly criticized the law while admitting to not having read it. And after Obama publicly misrepresented it with an absurd ice cream shop harassment hypothetical.

A few more stats: In February of 2009, 54% of American voters said no to all bailouts. In July of 2010, a Rasmussen survey revealed that “29% believe last year’s economic stimulus plan has helped the economy, while 43% believe it hurt.”

So, what’s the point?

The point is that we have a President whose decisions are routinely guided by his far-left ideology, which embraces an imposing federal government, bullies federalism, and reveres political-correctness . . . via an arrogant, dismissive, self-righteous delivery.

We have a President who was elected on the premise of building bridges, but whose presidency has been characterized by criticizing the Tea Party, FOX News, and anyone and everyone who won’t “get out of the way.” Not to mention repeated public commentary devoid of preliminary research.

Many in the media may not hold Barack Obama properly accountable, but you should.

So here’s the final question: What about the recent debate surrounding a mosque and Islamic cultural center to be potentially constructed near Ground Zero?

According to a CNN poll conducted from August 6-10, 68% of 1,009 adult Americans, including 935 registered voters, oppose the plan to construct a mosque in that location.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll, which questioned 1,183 registered New York City voters from June 21-28, revealed that “Fifty-two percent of the respondents said they did not want the mosque to be built at all, 31 percent are in favor of it, and 17 percent are undecided.”

At a dinner celebrating the beginning of Ramadan on Friday, President Obama said the following with respect to the debate: “As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

On Saturday, the President added, “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.”

Had he commented “on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there,” would Obama have sided with the American majority, discouraging the proposed mosque and cultural center location?

I guess we may never know.

Overall, the good news is that our President couldn’t be doing a better job of highlighting what an ideal 2012 Obama opponent should look like.

Humility, a belief in American exceptionalism, executive experience, and respect for the will of the people have perhaps never been so valued by American voters.

Cross-published at http://www.amac.us/obama-vs-the-american-majority

Tune in live here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/reagantman/2010/08/19/patricks-world-usa-081810