The Democrats all agree that President George Bush received a surplus  when he took office after President Clinton’s term, and then he passed  a deficit to President Obama. Democrats are outrageous prevaricators.

David Axelrod in the Washington Post, 15 January 2010:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton  in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus — with a  projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

Hillary said much the same thing on “Meet the Press,” 15 November 2009:

It, it breaks my heart, David (Gregory), that in 2001 we had a  balanced budget and a surplus; and if we’d stayed on that path, we  were heading toward eliminating our debt.

Similarly, Senator Robert Menendez on “This Week,” 24 January 2010:

And, you know, I love my dear friend (Jim DeMint) talking about, you  know, fiscal responsibility, but when George Bush came to office, he  had a $236 billion surplus. Barack Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion  deficit.

And a 07 February 2010 NYT editorial put it this way:

When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been  in the black for three (four, actually) years, and continued surpluses  were projected for a decade to come.

President Obama in his first State of the Union address also mentioned  the large surplus that President Bush inherited in contrast to the  deficit that Obama himself inherited.

Every one of the above statements is patently and provably false. The  dot-com bubble crashed almost exactly one year before Clinton left  office, and the value of the NASDAQ (symbol ^IXIC available on YAHOO!)  fell by $2.5 trillion dollars (half its total value) before the end of  the Clinton administration. When the dot-com bubble popped, as all
economic bubbles do, the NASDAQ fell sharply. Every economic indicator  during Clinton’s last year in office turned decisively downward — the  surplus, government revenues, and the markets included. Economic  projections made at the very top of an economic bubble are foolish,  but the dot-com bubble had long since popped, and everything was going  south by the time Clinton left office. Consequently, the Democrats’  projections of surpluses years into the future at a time when all  indices were falling are not just foolish, but dishonest.

A lot of things happened in the economy during Clinton’s last year,  all of them bad. Besides the dot-com bubble crash in January 2000, the  DOW also peaked and started down shortly before Clinton left office,  and the S&P started down shortly after that. The NASDAQ continued to  fall for an eventual loss of $4 trillion, and the collapse of the DOW
and the S&P also resulted in more trillions of dollars lost in the  markets.

With the markets crashing, federal revenues were reduced, and GDP  growth slowed as President Clinton left office. The vaunted Clinton  surplus fell from $236 billion in FY 1999 (ending 30 September 1999)  to $128 billion in FY 2000 (ending 30 September 2000), Clinton’s last  year. Axelrod’s and Menendez’s claims that the surplus was $236  billion on “[t]he day the Bush administration took over” were off by  just sixteen months, during which time markets,  government revenues,  and the “Clinton surplus” were falling like rocks. At the end of the  first FY of President Bush’s term (2001), the budget had a deficit of  over $157 billion. The “Clinton surplus” fell $393 billion in twenty-  four months (FY 1999 to FY 2001) following the dot-com crash, and  Clinton was still in office for sixteen of those months.

Empirically, if the American voters in late 2000 believed that the  Clinton surplus was as high as the Democrats now claim, and if the  long-term projection for the surplus was accepted as valid by those  voters, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election in a landslide that  would have rivaled President Reagan’s victories. In reality, the  voters in 2000 were nervous about the economy, having just witnessed  trillions of dollars lost in the dot-com fiasco, and Bush won.

Not only did Bush inherit a plunging economy, but given the magnitude  of the dot-com crash, this was an extremely perilous time for the  American economic outlook. In the event, President Bush applied the  proper corrective measures and the damage was minimized, with  unemployment limited to a relatively benign 6.1%. The economy went on  to register solid jobs, growth, and productivity from 2003 to 2007  until the next Democratic disaster hit: the unaffordable housing bubble.
Sandwiched between the stupid Clinton dot-com bubble and the  deliberate Democratic housing bubble, the Bush economy did quite well  from 2003 to 2007, with deficits steadily being reduced and government  growing at a slower relative rate than the economy. But President Bush  had to pay for the considerable costs of Clinton’s dot-com bubble
(unemployment compensation, job training, lost tax revenues, etc.)  until the economy began to recover in 2003, and then, at the end of  his term, Bush had to stop the economic collapse that was triggered by  the Democrats’ mortgage follies. Democrats have hung a bad rap on  President Bush because they want to achieve power, and dishonesty is
one of the tools they have used successfully (and frequently) in their  quest to tell us how to live.

Every economic crisis we have suffered since WWII has been the result  of Democratic Party malfeasance or misfeasance. LBJ’s wasteful and  corrupt War on Poverty did almost nothing to lessen poverty, cost $6.6  trillion over a thirty-year period, and ended when President Clinton  signed off on a Republican initiative to end it. In comparison, the  total national debt was $5.2 trillion at the point when the fraud-  ridden, $6.6-trillion War on Poverty was mercifully ended. President  Obama has now substantially reinstituted the War on Poverty with his  non-stimulating stimulus package.

President Reagan and President Bush pulled us out of the first two  Democratic disasters described above, but Obama’s disaster is much  worse. Obama is adding fuel to the raging inferno as the economy melts  down, rather than taking known corrective actions similar to what  Reagan and Bush (and Kennedy, in a similar scenario) did.

If Hillary is really interested in “heading toward eliminating our  debt,” then she could tell the Democrats to quit spending our money  foolishly.

In the Soviet era, Pravda was the major official Soviet newspaper. The  term “pravda” is usually translated as “truth,” but as Russians use  the term, pravda would be more accurately translated as “the official  word.” The official Democratic word and the official words of all  declining mainstream Pravdas is that everything is President Bush’s
fault, even if the disastrous dot-com bubble and its inevitable crash  happened during the Clinton administration.
James Long is a professional engineer and manager.

As a result, more emphasis is placed on Harriet Tubman than on George Washington; more about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II than about D-Day or Iwo Jima; more on the dangers we faced from Joseph McCarthy than those we faced from Josef Stalin.

A Patriot’s History of the United States corrects those doctrinaire biases. In this groundbreaking book, America’s discovery, founding, and development are reexamined with an appreciation for the elements of public virtue, personal liberty, and private property that make this nation uniquely successful. This book offers a long-overdue acknowledgment of America’s true and proud history.

A Patriot’s History of the United States: From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror

Some reviews:

“A welcome, refreshing, and solid contribution to relearning what we have forgotten and remembering why this nation is good, and worth defending.” — Matthew Spalding, National Review

“In A Patriot’s History of the United States, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen remind us what a few good individuals can do in just a few short centuries . . . . A fluid account of America from the discovery of the Continent up to the present day”. — Brandon Miniter, The Wall Street Journal

“No recent American history challenges the conventional wisdom of academics as aggressively as Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States”. — Daniel J. Flynn, Front Page Magazine

“There are a thousand pleasant surprises and heartening reminders that underneath it all America remains a country of ideas, ideals, and optimism—and no amount of revisionism can take that legacy away”. (John Coleman, Humane Studies Review)

ABC News has recently reported on the fact that Trijicon, the manufacturer of gun sites for our military has placed Bible verses in their serial numbers. ABC is quoted:

“U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious “Crusade” in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.”

Trijicon has stated that their company has been doing this since 2003. The company founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa, who was killed in a  plane crash, started this practice.

Like every company the site manufacturer Trijicon, has no limits on how it can create its  logo or any other limitations. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions “have always been there” and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is “not Christian.”

The Bible verses is question reference light:

John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

There is nothing wrong with giving our troops something to bolster their faith!

Combat vets have said that there truly is no atheist in a foxhole!

I find it incomprehensible that our Government can be bullied by a vocal minority who want Christianity to be removed from every aspect of our lives.

This country was founded upon the freedom OF religion, not from religion. The separation of Church and State is a progressive gross misinterpretation of our Constitution!

As much as the anti-religion pushes, we of any faith, need to push back harder to maintain our freedoms.

By James Simpson

Many are puzzled that Democrats persist in ramming unpopular and destructive legislation down our collective throats with no apparent concern for their plummeting poll numbers. A widespread belief is that the Democrats are committing political suicide and will be swept from one or both houses of Congress with unprecedented electoral losses next November. But since Democrat politicians rarely do things that will not ultimately benefit themselves, this column asked two weeks ago, “What do they know that we don’t?”

We may have found out. It’s called universal voter registration. The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund described the Democrat plan recently at a David Horowitz Freedom Center forum. Watch the video here.

Fund describes the proposal as follows:

In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: ‘take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver’s license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be …’

Fund anticipates that Congress will attempt to ram this legislation through, as with the health care bill. What a surprise! Fund covers the vote issue at greater length in his book, How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections.

Leftist groups are already arguing that universal voter registration will solve all the problems with our voting system. But the left created most of these problems. The radical leftist Nation Magazine, for example, absolutely loves the idea of universal voter registration. This is the same magazine, however, that advanced Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven’s Manufactured Crisis strategy. The Cloward/Piven strategy was designed to undermine government institutions by overwhelming them with impossible demands for services. Cloward and Piven focused on welfare, housing, and voting as the main targets of this strategy, and the radical group ACORN was specifically created for the purpose of executing it.

The Nation article enthusiastically lists Cloward/Piven-inspired organizations like Project Vote, the ACORN group where President Obama cut his teeth. It also discusses the left’s efforts to push enforcement of the Motor Voter law and explains how universal voter registration could assist in these efforts. Cloward and Piven were the ones who crafted Motor Voter legislation in the early 1980s and pushed for its enactment until 1993, when President Clinton signed it into law.

Cloward and Piven considered Motor Voter to be their crowning, lifetime achievement. The picture,
from White House photo archives, shows Cloward (light gray suit) and Piven (green coat and navy dress)standing directly behind Clinton at the Motor Voter signing ceremony. The left has predictably launched vicious smear attacks against John Fund for bringing universal voter registration to our attention. A Google search of the issue brings up any number of nasty ad hominem attacks. Most notable is Media Matters, the leftist group whose sole purpose seems to be to smear Republicans and defend the left’s indefensible policies. They put up this gem: “Right-Wing Ass Weasel John Fund Doesn’t Like Universal Voter Registration because of ACORN.”

The problems with universal voter registration are numerous and obvious. Many states’ lists include vast numbers of illegals, including some states which allow illegals to obtain drivers licenses; because many homeowners have more than one home, there will be duplicates; because so many people are on so many separate federal and state government agency lists, there will be duplicates; and because so many lists exist with little or no cross-checking capability, all of these duplicates are likely to go uncorrected. Add to this the fact that Dems hope to extend voting rights to felons, and the whole thing begins to look like a nationwide Democrat voter registration drive facilitated by taxpayers.

Universal voter registration will create massive vulnerabilities to systemic voter fraud nationwide, and if Democrats have proven anything in recent years, it is that they can win elections that way. The George-Soros-funded Secretary of State project (SOS) was designed to take advantage of such vulnerabilities and may have been developed in anticipation of the universal voter registration plan. Al Franken’s stolen election in Minnesota was a trial run for the SOS project. Longtime ACORN friend Mark Ritchie was elected Minnesota Secretary of State in 2006 with Soros’s SOS and ACORN money, and what followed in Norm Coleman’s Senate runoff election was a frightening demonstration of just how far Democrats will go to win. Franken won the runoff, and the Democrats got their filibuster-proof sixty-vote Senate majority.

The Motor Voter law was correctly identified as a facilitator of vote fraud. One of the few legal issues Barack Obama actually participated in as a lawyer was a 1995 suit against the State of Illinois, which he brought on behalf of ACORN. Then-Republican Governor Jim Edgars saw the newly passed Motor Voter act as creating the potential for massive vote fraud and refused to implement it. With the assistance of the Clinton Justice Department, Obama’s legal team won that suit. Obama himself actually participated very little, a strategy that seems to have served him well in life. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, after identifying himself in court proceedings, Obama sat back and let “the heavy-hitters at the Justice Department make the arguments.”

It is not surprising that the Democrats are now choosing to push this new initiative, for universal voter registration will be Motor Voter on turbochargers. And who better to sign it into law than the president from ACORN?

Joseph L. Galloway is former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller “We Were Soldiers Once … and Young
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Friday Mornings at the Pentagon
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.
This week, I’m turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a yearlong tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here’s Lt. Col. Bateman’s account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.

“It is 110 yards from the “E” ring to the “A” ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.

This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army’ hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew.

Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area.

The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares. 10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

“A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.
“Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden … yet.

“Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier’s chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.

“Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

“11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway – 20, 25, 30… Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along.. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

“There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband’s wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20′s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son’s behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

“Did you know that?

The media haven’t yet told the story.”

Terry O’Brien

By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
What, exactly does this mean? It means that INTERPOL now has the full authority to conduct investigations and other law enforcement activities on U.S. soil, with full immunity from U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.

In short, a global law enforcement entity now has full law-enforcement authority in the U.S. without any check on its power afforded by U.S. law and U.S. law enforcement agencies.

A bit of background is in order here, and Hot Air provides it:

During his presidency, Ronald Reagan granted the global police agency Interpol the status of diplomatic personnel in order to engage more constructively on international law enforcement. In Executive Order 12425, Reagan made two exceptions to that status. The first had to do with taxation, but the second was to make sure that Interpol had the same accountability for its actions as American law enforcement — namely, they had to produce records when demanded by courts and could not have immunity for their actions.

Barack Obama unexpectedly revoked those exceptions in a change to EO 12425 last (week)…

Thus, Interpol now can conduct its operations on U.S. soil with ZERO accountability to anyone in this country.

And you beginning to understand now just what the ‘end game’ is on the part of those who are currently running the U.S. Government?

Let’s go a step further in fleshing out exactly what this means in practical terms. It gets ugly…and scary. Again, from ThreatsWatch:

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.
Why would INTERPOL be arresting American citizens on our own soil, without oversight from our own law enforcement agencies? And remember, citizens who are thusly arrested would have no legal authority to demand full documentation from the International Police concerning the charges brought against them.

Andy McCarthy at National Review asks these crucial, sobering questions of the secretive Obama order:

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
At least one answer to these questions is very clear. A coup is underway in the United States of America, the goal of which is to establish complete, unquestioned authority over the citizens–a ‘fundamental change’ to the United States where citizens have no legal recourse against an authoritarian central government.

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today released the following statement regarding the Committee’s approval of S. 1733, the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act: 

“Senator Boxer said, A Majority of the EPW Committee voted to send the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act – S. 1733 — to the floor of the Senate today in full accordance with longstanding Committee and Senate Rules. 

We did it for three reasons.   

1. S. 1733 addresses a crucial issue of our time and advancing the bill is a necessary step on the road to garnering the 60 votes we need for a comprehensive bill that will be melded together from various Committees and Senators from different regions of the country.  This bill is already being worked on by Senators Kerry, Lieberman, Graham and others.

1. We found, after questioning the EPA extensively, that the Republicans’ demand for another EPA analysis now would be duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The absence of the Republicans during the EPA’s presentation was a clear message that their criticism of the EPA analysis was not a substantive one.  Indeed, the EPA said their economic analysis was “unprecedented” in scope and was never done for any other energy or climate bill at this stage of the process.

1. The Committee and Senate rules that have been in place during Republican and Democratic majorities are there to be used when the Majority feels it is in the best interest of their states and of the nation to act.  A majority of the Committee believes that S. 1733, and the efforts that will be built upon it, will move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans one billion dollars a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean energy jobs, and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment.

We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill.”

There are many issues with this thinking. This is the first time in history that a bill has moved from committee without a quorum being met.

                   Rule 2. Quorums

(a) Business Meetings: At committee business meetings, six members, at least two of whom are members of the minority party, constitute a quorum, except as provided in subsection (d).

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued the following statement in response to Chairman Boxer’s violation of committee rules by reporting out S. 1733, the Kerry-Boxer bill:

I am deeply disappointed by Chairman Boxer’s decision to violate the rules and longstanding precedent of the committee.  The Republicans offered a clear path forward to a bipartisan markup, but it was summarily rejected by Chairman Boxer.  Instead, she decided to ignore the entreaties of all 6 ranking members from Senate committees with some share of jurisdiction over climate change legislation, as well as leading moderates in the Senate.  Her action signals the death knell for the Kerry Boxer bill.

“As was written recently, the Kerry-Boxer bill is ‘bad policy’ that ‘resembles the failed climate proposals of the past.’  It is time for a different approach, one that grows, rather than shrinks our economy, creates, rather than destroys jobs, and strengthens, rather than weakens our energy security.  We can do this by encouraging development of all of America’s vast energy resources.”

With this move the Socialist Progressive Party of America, known as the Democratic Party is one step closer to a Marxist form of Government that the American People can not seem to stop.

From:

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official — not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate, but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the President — could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers — that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to “change the United States of America,” the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles, and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: “God d— America!” Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn’t know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government — people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America’s influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration’s enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama’s own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year — each bill more than a thousand pages long — too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question — and the biggest question for this generation.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.