At every point in some boy's life, he has to face down a bully and fight him. It's a rite of passage, a transitional moment in which every young man must establish who he is and how far he'll let his enemies go. For me, that moment came when I was 10 years old. One of the kids at school -- he seemed 8 feet tall at the time -- was smacking me with a ruler across the shoulders during P.E. class. Eventually, I'd had enough; I grabbed him around the neck and punched him on the top of the head. His nose started bleeding, to my surprise (I'm not exactly Joe Frazier). Naturally, the principal blamed me ("do you know how much money his father makes?" she asked my dad), but the bully never bothered me again.

The same holds true of presidents. Every president has to draw a line in the sand. Every president has to determine just how far he's willing to be pushed around. Every president has to decide who his enemies are, and then face them down.

President Obama has decided that his real enemies aren't Iranian genocidal dictators, anti-Semitic reporters or Muslim terrorists. His real enemies are conservatives and corporations.

How can we tell? From his rhetoric. Obama doesn't punch anyone in the face directly (not that his fists would do much damage, judging from the way he throws a baseball). But he does lash out at his enemies with his most valuable tool: his silver tongue. When Obama talks about his enemies, his honeyed mouth becomes a blunt instrument rather than a scalpel. The supposed master of the nuances of the English language is apparently rendered stupefyingly inarticulate when faced with those he dislikes; he's suddenly a WWE wrestler pumped up on testosterone, the mic boosted to deafening levels. He calls people out. He uses colorful and confrontational language. He threatens physical force.

When faced with the prospect of Americans who don't like his policies, Obama tells his followers to "argue with them and get in their face." When confronted with his administration's inability to handle the Gulf oil spill, Obama sends out his lackeys to threaten BP in purple terminology; " [we'll] keep our boot on [BP's] neck," they say. This week, Obama doubled down, stating that he had traveled to the Gulf region "so I know whose ass to kick."

Meanwhile, Obama's confrontational tone becomes downright dainty when faced with actual terrorists, murderers and anti-Semites. All of a sudden, the Chicago thug disappears, replaced by the man of considered diplomacy. After waiting for crucial days to comment on the burgeoning Iranian resistance in June 2009, Obama finally spoke ... with all the force of a small mewling kitten. "I would suggest that Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people," Obama hesitantly intoned. When Obama was faced with the murderous hatred of Muslims like the Ft. Hood shooter, he urged Americans not to "jump to conclusions."

When Jew-hater Helen Thomas suggested that Jews in Israel return to the lands of the Holocaust, Germany and Poland, Obama said that her remarks were "out of line, " but said it was a "shame, because Helen's someone who ... was a real institution." (So was Father Coughlin, for the record.)

It would be one thing if Obama spoke softly and carried a large stick. But he speaks in velvet whispers and carries a corsage for the enemies of Western Civilization. John Brennan, Obama's pro-jihad alleged counterterrorism adviser, explains Obama's delicacy when it comes to those who truly threaten us: "We're trying to be very careful and precise in our use of language because I think the language we use and the images we project really do have resonance."

That isn't true, though, with regard to those who criticize President Obama in the natural course of legitimate political debate, nor is it true of private companies he can attack for his own political benefit. He'll slap them, punch them, scratch them, kick them with all the blustery force he can muster. After all, they're his chosen enemies.

You can tell a lot about a man by the enemies he makes. And you can tell who Obama's enemies are by the anger he displays when confronted with them; Obama's misplaced rage tells us more about where he stands than his teleprompter-ed utterances ever will. The problem for President Obama is that the enemies he identifies seem a good deal less dangerous than the friends he seeks.

This is not a presidency known for its reactive speed. After British Petroleum’s oil rig sprung a leak in the Gulf of Mexico, it took more than a week for the Obama Administration to mobilize; it has been well over a month, and the Administration still has no coherent strategy to plug the leak. After Iranian protesters took to the streets in 2009, risking life and limb to defy the terroristic Ahmadinejad regime, Obama futzed around for days before weakly condemning the regime’s crackdown.

But this week, when Israel rightly stopped a Turkish ship carrying terrorist-supporters from breaking the naval blockade surrounding the Gaza Strip, Obama responded within hours. “The United States deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries sustained,” intoned White House spokeman William Burton. The Obama Administration also embraced a United Nations Security Council resolution “deeply regret[ting] the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza.” This is language the White House normally reserves for actual terrorists. For example, when Britain released Pan-Am bomber Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi, the White House released a statement that it “deeply regrets the decision.” For the Obama Administration, legitimate Israeli self-defense is now on par with the release of a mass murderer.

And this was clearly self-defense. The so-called “activists” aboard the Turkish flotilla aimed at the Gaza Strip were caught on tape lynching Israeli soldiers -- and declaring their intention to do so the day before the incident. These weren’t members of Greenpeace. They were members and friends of the IHH, a Turkish-sponsored terrorist organization with links to al-Qaeda and Hamas. Weeks in advance of the flotilla’s launch, organizers were declaring their intent to break the Gaza blockade – an act aimed directly at funneling weapons to Hamas, since Israel already sends millions of tons of aid to the residents of the Gaza Strip.

But that didn’t stop Obama from inserting his large proboscis into yet another situation where it does not belong. Of course, we’re used to that by now. On virtually every foreign policy crisis of his presidency, this pathetic poseur has been wrong (Honduras, North Korea, Russia, Greece, Afghanistan, Iran, among others). This situation is no exception.

To read more, click here.

The literacy rate in the United States is 99 percent. That means that only 1 percent of people in the United States above the age of 15 are incapable of reading and writing. Apparently, all of them are members of the Obama administration.

Attorney General Eric Holder admits that he has not read the Arizona immigration law, which requires law enforcement officers to check immigration status upon stopping people based on reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano says she hasn't read the law, either. You can also lump State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley into that group.

That did not stop any of them from opining at length on the Arizona law; Holder called the law "a slippery slope" leading to racial profiling, saying he based that opinion on "television, talking to people who are on the review panel." Napolitano called the law "bad law enforcement law." Crowley defended a U.S. diplomat who actually apologized to China for the immigration law -- as though American states should apologize for enforcing their borders to a country that routinely excises and sells the internal organs of its political prisoners.

Democrats didn't bother reading the massive Obamacare law, either, before passing it. The official actuary of the Obama administration didn't even have time to do a cost analysis of the health care bill before the vote. In fact, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Americans "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

To be fair, the health care bill was almost 2,500 pages long and clocked in at almost 400,000 words. (By contrast, the Old Testament contains about 80,000 Hebrew words, which means the Democrats' attempts to play God fail on both a practical and rhetorical level.) The Arizona law is 15 pages long and runs about 8,000 words. An ADHD-addled teenager could peruse it in an hour. It's been approximately one month since Arizona passed the law, and the Democrats still haven't read it.

Which means one of two things: either they prefer to remain ignorant so they don't have to honestly appraise the merits of the bill or they can't read. If it's the former, they're disingenuous liars. If it's the latter, they're ignorant boobs.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's the latter.

With that in mind, I now offer these boobs a linguistic Wonderbra. Because they obviously can't read, I suggest that someone who can read -- Sasha and Malia? -- sit these Democrats down and read this to them out loud. Slowly.

Dear Democrats: Think of reading as a text-based thong-clad intern. Reading, like that thong-clad intern, can be fun, so long as you ensure that you stay on the page. Here are a few basic rules to help you achieve that purpose.

First, you must learn what words mean. The word "literally" means the plain, unvarnished truth. Yet you guys somehow use that word as though it means its precise opposite, "figuratively." During the 2008 election campaign, Joe Biden said that Obama would be able to "literally, literally ... change the direction of the world." This is untrue. The only Democrat with the ability to literally change the direction of the world is Michael Moore, who can do so using his gravitational pull. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, one of Obama's former best buddies, misused the word in classic fashion this week, claiming that "When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!" If only.

Second, once you know what words mean, take them literally when it comes to the law. This means that you should read laws as doing what they say they do, not what you wish they did. The Constitution does not say anything about a right to abortion because there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. The Arizona law explicitly bars racial profiling, which means that it does not allow racial profiling. Law is not poetry. It is law.

Third, read the laws before you pass them. This one isn't tough once you realize that it's important. All it takes is a quick call to Hooked on Phonics. Their number is 1-800-ABCDEFG. Sasha and Malia can dial it for you -- judging by your spending habits, you have as much trouble with numbers as with letters.

We elected you to do your job. That job entails thinking about policy prescriptions, then codifying those policy prescriptions in law. So far, it seems you are skipping both of these elements, and focusing instead on the perks of your office. If you refuse to read, we'll send you a piece of paper you can understand: a pink slip.

On May 1, 2010, Pakistani-born, naturalized American citizen Faisal Shahzad drove a green SUV into Times Square, parked it there, and walked away. Inside the SUV were explosives and a jerry-rigged timing device. Fortunately, the bomb didn't go off, and the authorities captured Shahzad just before his plane took off for Dubai.

After his detention, members of the Obama clique immediately put out the misinformation that Shahzad had acted alone. On May 6, The Associated Press reported that law enforcement officials were virtually certain he had been an isolated actor. On May 7, Gen. Petraeus -- who has proved himself to be a lackey to the Obama administration -- told The AP that Shahzad was a "lone wolf" who had been "inspired by militants in Pakistan but didn't have direct contact with them."

Meanwhile, the press leaped on the "lone wolf" meme to suggest that Shahzad wasn't a radical Muslim -- he was a sad little man who had been crushed by the disappointments of capitalism. Diane Sawyer of ABC News described the poor fellow's apartment on May 6: "It's a Spartan existence. A bare kitchen. There were Oreos there. A shelf with the George Clooney movie in it, 'Up in the Air,' and most surprisingly, in a way, professional paints on the table. The FBI took away a painting, apparently, that he may have made, of a mosque ... and a tree." By George, we arrested the Muslim Van Gogh!

CBS's Bob Orr parroted Sawyer's report on Shahzad's humble living conditions and checkered financial background. "Shahzad claims he's angry about U.S. predator attacks on Pakistan," Orr intoned. But Shahzad's word wasn't good enough for Orr -- the real reason for his attempted terrorism, according to Orr, was "financial pressures" which "may have helped his rage. Sources tell CBS News he defaulted on both his mortgage and another $65,000 equity loan." Shahzad "lived a Spartan and seemingly lonely existence."

Why did the media and the Obama administration decide that this man was Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov, as opposed to the radical Muslim he so clearly was? Because the media buys into President Obama's worldview -- a worldview which suggests that all crime springs from social circumstance. In order for President Obama to foist his socialist vision on the world, he must suggest that redistributionism solves social ills like crime and terrorism. And indeed, that is exactly what Obama suggests in the introduction to his Bill Ayers-ghostwritten autobiography, "Dreams From My Father." In that work, he decries the "underlying struggle" of humanity -- the struggle "between worlds of plenty and worlds of want." He states badly that kids on the South Side of Chicago are just the same as potential terrorists in Jakarta or Nairobi -- they all suffer from "the desperation and disorder of the powerless," which "twists the lives of children" and leads them to "slip into violence and despair."

In Obama's mind, Islamic terrorism isn't fundamentally Islamic -- it's fundamentally Marxist. It's all about class struggle. On June 4, 2009, Obama told the Muslim world that he felt it was his "responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." His solution to Muslim violence wasn't to set harsh penalties for Muslim violence or force Muslims around the world to denounce such violence -- it was to throw Israel under the bus, unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear weapons, and allow Muslim dictatorships to flourish in the name of self-determination. On a more practical level, Obama's solution was to redistribute wealth from America to the Muslim world through a bevy of programs.

This also explains why President Obama constantly feels the urge to apologize to other nations -- all ills spring from America's superpower status. That's why Obama apologizes to the Europeans and then forces American taxpayers to foot a $50 billion bill to bail out the European Union. That's why Obama apologizes to the Muslim world, and then allows Iran to go nuclear and has his lackeys threaten to shoot down Israeli jets if the Israelis take matters into their own hands. America and her allies are the oppressive exploiters, and they must be whittled down to size.

Shahzad, in Obama's view, was an emissary of the underclass, not an emissary of the Pakistani Taliban. Naturally, Obama was proved wrong. But the facts never change Obama's mind. His ideology is set rigidly into place: inequality breeds violence and instability. And only drastic measures can level the playing field.