After the “Boston Massacre,” he spread Revolutionary sentiment with his Committees of Correspondence.  Known as “The Father of the American Revolution,” Samuel Adams, who was born SEPTEMBER 27, 1722, called for the first Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of
Independence.

A cousin of 2nd President John Adams, Samuel Adams wrote in The Rights of Colonists, 1772: “Among the natural rights of
Colonists are: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to defend them…

The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property without his consent.” As Massachusetts’ Governor, Samuel Adams wrote to James Warren, February 12, 1779: “A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the
whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to
surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”

Samuel Adams ended:   “If we would enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.”

To schedule Bill Federer for
a speaking engagement, contact 314-487-4395
wjfederer@gmail.com

Sign up now for the Patriot Cruise, January 8-15, 2012 w/ Alan Keyes, Gary
DeMar, Bill Federer & Victoria Jackson (former SNL entertainer) SPECIAL
RATE! http://www.patriotcruise.com/am/

The Constitution or Sharia, Preserving Freedom Conference, Friday, November 11, 2011, in
Nashville, TN. http://preserving-freedom-conference.ettend.com/
http://shariafreeusa.com/nashville-911-commemoration-a-prelude-to-november-11-sharia-conference

To  share this American Minute on Facebook, click:
http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.americanminute.com/index.php?date=09-27

To
share on Twitter, click:
http://www.twitter.com/share?url=http://www.americanminute.com/index.php?date=09-27

Watch
William J. Federer’s “Faith in History” program at:
http://vidego.multicastmedia.com/player.php?p=y2b99484

Daily
Reading
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/index.php/2011/09/27?plan=1&version=50

American
Minute is a registered trademark. Permission granted to reproduce
with
acknowledgement to www.AmericanMinute.com, P.O. Box 20163, St. Louis,
MO
63123, 314-487-4395, wjfederer@gmail.com

To
unsubscribe, click:
http://www.imailbot.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&profile=amerisearch&profile=amerisearch&uid=bd26b70d8a7631f9e58f0273ee2d6874

Charles Finney died AUGUST 16, 1875. An attorney, Finney saw so many Scripture references in Blackstone’s Law Commentaries that he bought a Bible and came to faith. Charles Finney’s 1835 Revival Lectures inspired George Williams to found the YMCA-Young Men’s Christian Association-in 1844, and William Booth to found The Salvation Army in 1865. Charles Finney formed the Benevolent Empire, a network of volunteer organizations to aid poor with healthcare and social needs, which in 1834 had a budget rivaling the Federal Government. Concerning the Kingdom of God, Charles Finney wrote “Every member must work or quit. No honorary members.” While Charles Finney was president of Oberlin College, 1851-1866, it was a station on the Underground Railroad smuggling slaves to freedom and it granted the first college degree in the United States to a black woman, Mary Jane Patterson. Charles Finney wrote: “The time has come for Christians to vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them…Politics are a part of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to their country as a part of their duty to God.” Charles Finney concluded: “God will bless or curse this nation according to the course Christians take in politics.”

Add American Minute on your Website How to use the American Minute RSS feed Post to Facebook Post to Twitter

Joel Rosenberg

More than 100 rockets, mortars and anti-tank missiles have been fired from Gaza at Israeli towns and cities along the south…

READ FULL STORY-GO TO JOEL’S BLOG

SCHUBERT – CoreReport.com Bunker -

QUOTE   “If you haven’t thrown your name in the hat yet, make a donation of $5 or more before midnight tonight — you’ll be automatically entered for a chance to be one of our guests. I wanted to say thank you before the midnight deadline passes. And I’m looking forward to thanking four of you in person over dinner sometime soon.”

Like most of us who have an email address, I get a plethora of different offers, spam, etc..but I have to tell you, this is the first time the President, himself has taken the time out of his busy schedule to sell me and millions of other people a raffle ticket for 5-bucks for a chance to Win a Dinner him and the vp. Think about it for 30-seconds, the president of the United States of America is selling raffle tickets to raise money as his latest scheme to to fund his Re-Election Campaign…Yes folks, it really is a carnival and now is our golden opportunity to make sure it’s their last show. VOTE YOUR VALUES. SHARE THE TRUTH. BE SALT, BE LIGHT, BE WHO GOD CREATED YOU TO BE – PRAY DILIGENTLY AND MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Check out the INFOMERCIAL HERE:

Oh and by the way, turns out that the DNC filmed the infomercial  for the this spectacle was filmed in the White House which according to the law IS ILLEGAL! This Statute clearly states that it is a Violation of Federal Law quote:

“According to federal law (Title 18, subsection 607 U.S.C.), “It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.”

However, being the master of deception, lies and abuse of presidential power, The White House is spending more of our money on legal fees to defend these actions, attempting to redeem themselves by siting a “LOOPHOLE” that give them an exemption. Imagine That..

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE CNSNews.com –

Most of the popular culture would have you think that if you believe in the true definition of marriage, you are part of a small minority. A new comprehensive study by the Alliance Defense Fund suggests otherwise. In what is likely the most extensive national research survey of its kind, ADF and Public Opinion Strategists found that 62 percent of Americans believe that “marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.”

This actually shouldn’t come as a shock. When this issue has been before the voters, 31 states have voted to protect marriage in their state constitution – like Arizona did in 2008. Reality is that we have much to be hopeful about in our battle to preserve the definition of marriage.

READ FULL POST AND STAND WITH CAP

Our generation has confused freedom, as defined and understood by the Founding Fathers, with license. With regard to public discourse, however, one finds that speech is ever more limited by the current state of affairs.  In examining our current public discourse and convention(s), it is necessary to delve into our own Republic’s history and those who established it, and the respective rhetorical philosophy they engendered.

Our Founding Fathers were men of great learning, products of the Enlightenment, and inculcated with the knowledge of the Classic Civilizations i.e. Greece and Rome.  Having as their example the despotism of the English monarchy, the absolutism of the other European monarchies and the hegemony of the Roman Church, they strived to form a republic based on the best egalitarian ideals of Athens and the Roman Republic.  As such, they were also well versed in the inherent weaknesses of each civilization.  In addition, most all were products of the Reformation and well apprised of the recent history of the Roman Church.  In truth, 29 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary or Bible school degrees.  They were desirous of founding a republic that was unencumbered by a state religion i.e. denomination, but one that had a strong Christian foundation. The veracity of this statement is well documented (and not the purpose of this writing); the organic record of the Founding Father’s writings is unequivocal regarding this intention.  The raison d’être for this statement is germane to this writing, however.  The Founding Fathers understood the difference between freedom and license.  Furthermore, they understood that a democratic republic would not succeed if the people were not educated and moral.  To quote John Adams (in a Presidential address to the military in October of 1798):

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Thus, the first public educational institutions in the Republic were all dedicated to the proposition that education is religious in nature and that the precepts of Christ be taught in all schools at all levels.  The public school system was originally designed as a vehicle to promote responsible citizenry in accordance with these principles.  At the university level, one need only read the charters upon which the institutions of Harvard, Yale and Princeton (to name but a few) were founded as evidence of this truth.  Daily reading of the Holy Scriptures was mandated for the student as an integral part of education.

The survival of our constitutional Republic is incumbent upon the morality of the people.  Freedom, by definition, is the ability to act and live as one chooses.  The Founding Fathers understood that doing so, without moral restraint, involved serious consequences—both in ones’ personal life, and, by extension, for the Republic itself.  They emphasized the concept that unrestrained actions lead to lesser freedom personally and tyranny politically.  This is a lesson that our generation would do well to learn.  Having dismantled the legal and social bulwarks that protected our Republic in former times, we now witness the demise of our civilization unabated and unhindered.  Laws are passed to curb and regulate our behavior and society.  Increasingly, the infringement and incremental encroachment upon our collective freedoms is facilitated by a government that is more than happy to increase its power under the guise of retaining law and order.

READ FULL ARTICLE – CLICK ON THIS PDF

Treatises on Public Discourse[2][1]3final

Not easy, but the only way forward.]

(Jerusalem, Israel) — First, I want to welcome those of you who are now reading my blog in Hebrew at www.joelrosenberg.co.il. We have just launched this Hebrew edition and from this point forward it will include all the articles about geopolitics and Bible prophecy that I write in English. It also includes key columns I have posted over the past six months and link to send me your questions. Please let your friends who read Hebrew know about the blog. I hope you and they find it informative and encouraging.

Second, I wanted to give you a link to a 50 minute radio interview I just did describing the upcoming Epicenter Conference (www.epicenterconference.com) on May 15-16 in Jerusalem, the latest on the revolutions underway throughout the Middle East, why Christians should love and bless Israel and her neighbors and not treat one side or the other with hostility or contempt, and more. Hope you find it helpful.

Third, I wanted to fill you in on an interesting opportunity I had on Friday, May 6th to address a conference of some 300 Israeli Jews and Arabs and was asked to speak on ”Current Events In Light of Bible Prophecy.” It was the first event of its kind to which I have been invited in Israel and it was a fascinating experience. My focus was the prophecies found in Ezekiel chapters 38 & 39, what Bible scholars describe as the coming “War of Gog & Magog.”

READ FULL STORY HERE

Throughout our nation’s history, Presidents and other leaders have called our nation to prayer. Our country’s founders opened meetings with prayer. Numerous court rulings have upheld prayers like invocations. Our national heritage of prayer is well-documented and is an essential part of our nation’s history and future. Yet we continue to see individuals and organizations that persist in challenging this heritage by trying to completely remove religion from the public square by court action. Read Full Story

Dr. David Jeremiah

Pastor John Hagee

Reverend Billy Grahm

Dennis Prager

There was a time when liberalism was identified with anti-Communism; the liberal-led Korean and Vietnam Wars were examples. But the Vietnam War led liberals into the arms of the left, which had been morally confused about communism since its inception and had become essentially pacifist following the carnage of World War I.

After the Vietnam War, even liberals who continued to describe communism as evil were labeled “right-wingers” and “Cold Warriors.” And the United States, with its moral flaws, was often likened to the Soviet Union. I recall asking the pre-eminent liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in a public forum in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, if he would say that the United States was a morally superior society to that of the Soviet Union. He would not.

Little has changed regarding the Left’s inability to identify and confront evil. And its moral equation of good guys and bad guys was made evident again in recent weeks by hosts on three major liberal networks — ABC, NPR and PBS.

First, on May 25, PBS host Tavis Smiley interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the ex-Muslim Somali writer and activist for human, especially women’s, rights in Islamic countries. After mentioning American Muslim terrorists Maj. Nidal Hasan (who murdered 13 and injured 30 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood) and Faisal Shahzad (who attempted to murder hundreds in Times Square), this dialogue ensued:

Ali: “Somehow, the idea got into their (Hasan’s and Shahzad’s) minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter.”

Smiley: “But Christians do that every single day in this country.”

Ali: “Do they blow people up?”

Smiley: “Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that’s what Columbine is — I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian.

“There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.”

Then, on Aug. 22, Michel Martin, host of NPR’s “Tell Me More,” in discussing whether the Islamic Center and mosque planned for near ground zero should be moved, said this on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with Howard Kurtz:

“Should anybody move a Catholic church? Did anybody move a Christian church after Timothy McVeigh, who adhered to a cultic white supremacist cultic version of Christianity, bombed (the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City)?”

And third, on Aug. 26, ABC “20/20″ anchor Chris Cuomo tweeted this to his nearly one million followers:

“To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics — before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades….study them.”

I have known Smiley since the 1980s when we both worked at the same radio station in Los Angeles. He is smart, and he is a gentleman who has accorded me great respect both on his television show and off air.

How, then, does such a man equate Muslims who murder in the name of Islam with Americans who “murder every day,” none one of whom commit their murders in the name of Christianity?

How does Martin equate the thousands of Islamic terrorists around the world, all of whom are devout Muslims, with a single American — one who, in any case, professed no religion, let alone Christianity?

And how does Cuomo claim that Christians cannot condemn Muslims for violence because of the Christian Crusades?

First of all, the Crusades occurred a thousand years ago. One might as well argue that Jews cannot condemn Christian and secular anti-Semitic violence because Jews destroyed Canaanite communities 3,200 years ago.

Second, it is hardly a defense of Muslims to have to go back a thousand years to find comparable Christian conduct.

Third, even then there is little moral equivalence. The Crusades were waged in order to recapture lands that had been Christian for centuries until Muslim armies attacked them and destroyed most Christian communities in the Middle East. (Some Crusaders also massacred whole Jewish communities in Germany on the way to the Holy Land, and that was a grotesque evil — which Church officials condemned at the time.) As the dean of Western Islamic scholars, Princeton Professor Bernard Lewis, has written, “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad — a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”

So how did Smiley, Martin and Cuomo make such morally egregious statements?

The answer is not that these are bad people, let alone that they are not repulsed by terrorist violence.

The answer is leftism, the way of looking at the world that permeates high schools, universities, news and entertainment media. Those indoctrinated by leftist thinking become largely incapable of accurate moral judgments: They regarded America and the Soviet Union as morally similar. And today, they claim that people they call “extremists” within Christianity (who are they?) and Islamist terrorists and their supporters pose equal threats to America and the world.

That is how bright and decent people become moral relativists and thereby undermine the battles against the greatest evils — communist totalitarianism in its time and Islamic totalitarianism in ours.

The only solution is to keep exposing leftist moral confusion. One problem, however, is that in countries without talk radio, an equivalent to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative columnists and a vigorous anti-left political party, this is largely impossible.

The other major problem is that the media that dominate American life have little problem, indeed largely concur, with the foolish and dangerous comments made by their mainstream media colleagues. That is why these comments, worthy of universal moral condemnation, were ignored by the mainstream (i.e., leftwing) media. Instead, they directed mind-numbing attention and waves of opprobrium toward Dr. Laura.

Those who don’t fight real evils fight imaginary ones.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently “Happiness Is a Serious Problem” (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Phyllis Schlafly

For the first time in the long record of U.S.-Russian treaties, New START links offensive and defensive weapons. Obama’s advocates of ratification say that doesn’t matter because the link is only in the preamble and that doesn’t bind us.

But this interpretation hasn’t been cleared with the Russians, who assert that the preamble puts a binding limit on the U.S. missile defense program. The Russian government issued a statement that the New START treaty “can operate and be viable only if the United States refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.”

The Russians are salivating at the thought that the New START proclaims their victory in their long-running battle to kill U.S. missile defenses. For decades, Russia’s primary goal was to stop the United States from building any anti-missile capability.

Ronald Reagan’s adamant refusal to give up his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was the principal reason he won the Cold War (without firing a shot, as Margaret Thatcher said). But now Barack Obama is casually willing to abandon our right to build defensive weapons.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., accurately warns that New START revives the Cold War policy known as MAD, a label that famously served as a double entendre. The acronym stands for Mutual Assured Destruction, the policy that was supposed to deter nuclear attack because of the threat that the United States was committed to retaliate and dump massive destruction on the Soviet Union.

In the years of the Cold War, we assumed we were dealing with a rational enemy who, even though dedicated to world conquest, dared not risk such devastating retaliation. That may not be true of today’s potential adversaries, who have trained their younger generation to believe that suicide is noble and their key to Heaven.

New START doesn’t make nukes obsolete, it just tries to ensure that the U.S. and Russia have an equal capacity to destroy each other. Most important, New START does nothing whatever to protect us from a nuclear Iran or North Korea or Syria or even China.

The U.S. Constitution gives the Senate “advice and consent” power over treaties. But the Obama administration refuses to let senators review the treaty’s negotiating documents.

Whatever happened to transparency? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserts that it’s not customary to allow senators to see the records, but DeMint cited the precedent of two previous U.S.-U.S.S.R. treaties that disprove her claim — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the 1972 ABM Treaty.

New START bars the U.S. and Russia from deploying more than 1,550 strategic warheads and 700 launchers. To achieve that goal, we will have to destroy some of our missiles and not modernize the ones we keep because the treaty locks us into a permanent comprehensive nuclear test ban.

The State Department admits that Russia has consistently cheated on all its arms-control treaties, including the 1991 START I treaty right up until it expired last December. Russia admits that it cheated on the famous 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, from which President George W. Bush finally (and thankfully) withdrew the United States.

U.S. intelligence analysts have raised questions about whether Russian cheating can even be detected. But a State Department report to Congress claims that potential Russian cheating on the New START nuclear-arms treaty would not be significant because the benefits of cheating would be “questionable.”

Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., said we’re all wasting a lot of time if the State Department admits that Russia has consistently cheated on all arms-control treaties as a matter of course and that cheating doesn’t matter anyway. McCain believes that cheating does matter.

Another provision where the New START treaty favors Russia is that it fails to limit Russia’s massive tactical nuclear weapons for use on the battlefield. They outnumber U.S. tactical nukes by a ratio of 10 to one and can be launched from rockets, submarines and bomber planes.

The New START treaty is based on Obama’s foolish notion that the United States can create “a world without nuclear weapons.” We have power only to create a world without American nuclear weapons, a condition that would make us a sitting duck for countries that have evil nuclear objectives.

The New START treaty is a big victory for Russia and defeat for the United States. The Senate should reject it.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded “Supremacists.” She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

David Limbaugh

In my new book, “Crimes Against Liberty” (I know, another shameless plug, but you’d do the same in my position), I dedicate an entire chapter to detailing the Obama administration’s horrendous and unprecedented mistreatment of Israel. Can you believe we’re even having a discussion about Israel’s right to the land six-plus decades and numerous wars after the modern Israeli state was restored to the Jews?

It’s bad enough when misfit countries oppose Israel’s right to existence and always demonize Israel while downplaying the Palestinians’ misdeeds, but it’s shocking and disturbing when the president of the United States abuses our greatest ally in the Mideast.

It’s mystifying to me that so many Jewish people in America have been so tolerant of Obama’s behavior toward Israel, almost as if in denial, but what more evidence do we need?

During the campaign, it was widely suspected that Obama had strong ties with pro-Palestinian groups, not to mention his membership in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church — one that is known for its sympathy for the causes of certain terrorist organizations and the Palestinian position.

The Los Angeles Times reportedly possessed and protected a damning video of Obama toasting Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO operative and an outspoken Israel critic who, after the 9/11 attacks, referred to the media’s “hysteria about suicide bombers.”

Obama’s official campaign website, Organizing for America, permitted the posting of a blog entry titled “How the Jewish Lobby Works.” Though the post was eventually removed, it’s suspicious that someone with posting privileges had these virulently anti-Semitic views. The post said: “No lobby is feared more or catered to by politicians than the Jewish Lobby. If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, or re-elected, and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media.” NewsBusters cited numerous other links to similar anti-Jewish posts on the website, showing this was not an isolated event. How does one explain away that kind of climate in the bowels of the administration?

Once elected, Obama appointed James Jones as his national security adviser, a man The Lid said is “not known as a friend of the Jewish State.” Jones assembled a team that reportedly intended to be tougher and “impose a solution on” Israel. Early in his term, Obama pledged more than $900 million to rebuild Gaza and to shore up the Palestinian Authority. The rationale was to strengthen Palestinian moderates, but many experts warned that much of this money could get into the hands of Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gratuitously denounced Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza while ignoring the many Palestinian sins against Israel. The administration also demanded that Israel negotiate with Syria — a primary sponsor of Hezbollah — just two days after Syrian foreign minister Walid Mueller praised a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling Israel “the most cruel and repressive racist regime.”

The administration has also applied fierce pressure on Israel to acquiesce on the matter of the creation of a Palestinian state, even to the point of conditioning our efforts to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions on that Israeli concession. Obama directed our return to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which the Bush administration had left nine months before because the council had incessantly condemned Israel while ignoring the abuses of Mideast dictatorships. Obama snubbed Netanyahu and announced he would discontinue the established practice of hosting Israeli prime ministers when they are in Washington.

Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, adopted the controversial 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which called for Israel to withdraw from east Jerusalem, the entire West Bank and Golan Heights and also for Israel to accept the influx of millions of foreign Arabs as Israeli citizens as part of the “right of return.” Mideast expert Caroline Glick says this would mean “Israel would effectively cease to be a Jewish state.”

Vice President Biden engaged in a public temper tantrum and harshly “condemned” Israel for not bowing to the administration’s demands that it discontinue its settlements in east Jerusalem. Rarely does the United States publicly condemn an ally, especially in such harsh terms.

We’re just scratching the surface, but surely you get the picture. There is, however, one gratifying development in this ongoing saga. Finally, some Jewish Americans have had enough and are speaking up. As I chronicle in the book, former New York Mayor Ed Koch wrote two scathing editorials against Obama’s appalling policies and called out his fellow Jews to speak up against them. Amazingly, Obama’s stalwart supporter Sen. Chuck Schumer finally joined Koch in pushing back. Others, not just American Jews, need to wake up.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, “Crimes Against Liberty,” is in bookstores everywhere. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Dick Morris

Party trend usually indicates itself in the 10 days before an election when voters who do not typically follow politics closely tune in and decide for whom to vote. Until this window, they usually describe themselves to pollsters as “undecided.” There will be a huge Republican party trend this year, but it hasn’t happened yet.

The huge Republican poll numbers these days do not reflect the last-minute switches typical of less involved voters but rather mirror the disappointment with Barack Obama and with Congress among voters who do follow politics closely that has accumulated over the past year and a half. It is this reappraisal of their political opinions that is occasioning the big swing toward Republicans in the 2010 election.

The ranks of these disaffected voters who are now turning against Obama and the Democrats will soon be joined by the less-involved voters who will come around in the week or 10 days before the election.

From the perception of the pollster, party trend is a bit like a curveball thrown by a pitcher to a batter. The election statistics remain fairly static for weeks or even months with little change as the race unfolds through September and early through mid October. Like a fastball that comes in straight and true.

Then, suddenly, as the election nears, the vote swings wildly to one side or the other, akin to a curveball that breaks as it approaches the batter — usually too late for him to make an adjustment. Suddenly, the tied races show up as decisive victories for the side that benefits from party trend. And the unwinnable races come into play.

2010 is a year like no other in the magnitude of the partisan shift going on. It dwarfs 1994 and even 1974 in its order of magnitude. But we haven’t yet seen the full impact of the last-minute party shift that will take place. Plenty of voters who are now undecided are yet to be heard from, and when they are, they will impact the results decisively.

In which direction? Most likely they will transform a massive Republican win into an even more massive victory. The uninvolved voters who will decide late in the process are likely to break the same way the rest of the country is breaking: toward the Republicans. Surveys suggest that they share the disenchantment of the participating voters with the economy and Obama’s performance. They have just not focused on the coming election.

Democrats hope that the less involved voters are also less educated and more likely to be the young or minority voters on whom their party depends. But the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats for Obama indicates that these voters are likely to decide by staying home. In the most recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics study, 54 percent of Republicans said they were “very enthusiastic” about voting in the 2010 elections, while only 28 percent of Democrats felt the same way.

So the net result is that for those who anticipate a major Republican win in 2010, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are authors of the new book “2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan.” To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Is this really an act of bridging and healing relationships or pure defiance. The  original name for this mosque was to be called The Cordoba House (do the research on this name)but after so much backlash, they changed it to a more acceptable, NY Style American name…now it’s Park 51 Community. The majority of Americans are opposed to building this mosque so close to Ground Zero, for many obvious reasons. Again, we’re not opposed to building a mosque – just Not On Hallowed Ground. Check this out,  a recent  CNN Poll taken just this week states that nearly 70% oppose it ( Fact Check Here – CNN Poll 081110 – refer to Q# 41). Further evidence that there is more to this than outreach, after a “bridge building” attempt by some to meet with the mosque building committee to discuss searching and selecting an alternative sight was flat-out ignored and subsequently denied.

Since announcing his endorsement of the mosque last night at the White House Ramadan kick-off dinner – Obama, shrouded in our Constitution said this in an attempt to align patriotic Americans with his ideology … “But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be — and will be — today”. Is that an order Mr. President? Kind of feels like you are lecturing the American people on how to be patriotic. A simple statement as to the inappropriateness of the site and a shout-out to encourage an alternative location could have gone a long way.

Like others who are intent on bringing America down, our president has shielded himself with our very own US Constitution and in the name of Freedom of Religion made a strong appeal to support the building of this mosque just two blocks from the 9/11 terrorism grave sight.

Arial Photo showing proximity to Ground Zero – proposed mosque site outlined in red.

While it (May Be) constitutionally legal, perhaps the President of the United States of America could have at least condemned the insensitivity of this provocative act and held fast to the concept that the greatest act of respect, compassion and bridge-building with the Muslim community would be to relocate it.  In fact, the mosque was originally proposed for another site away from ground zero but was later moved to its currently proposed location – less than a 9-iron away. To all the families impacted by this act of terror, we are very sorry.

What to do with those who use our freedoms to harm us? How do we protect ourselves from enemies who use us and abuse our laws to do the opposite of the original laws’ intent? Yes, these are big questions concerning known enemies from outside our borders, much less enemies from within.

One thing is for sure, from this point forward all things Ground Zero Mosque and all that evolves from it will be identified with and owned by  the President, the democratic party, progressives and all the media networks that are sold out to this administration. With the November elections just around the corner, timing will be everything and such a time is this for America to take back the leadership of our great nation before its too late.

So, as the controversial imam responsible for driving the “Cordoba Initiative” the mosque takes off on an All Expenses Paid by the American Tax Payer Sojourn around the world on a “bridge-building” effort and raising funds  for the estimated $100 Million construction costs for this Mosque  – he must be thrilled knowing that our President, Barrack Hussein Obama has his back.

Watch Speech Here:

This pretty much sums it up. Perhaps our own commander in chief should have made this speech instead:

Ground Zero Mosque Imam Claims America Already a Sharia Compliant State:

Other Related Stories:

• The Core Report OpEd
• Powerful Ad from victims of 9/11 opposing mosque
  
• Obama’s Mosque…Now He Owns It

• Obama uses Ramadan dinner to endorse NY mosque

Organizations Opposing Mosque:

• 911 Familiesforamerica

• Keep America Safe

Other Sources for Tracking the Mosque Issues

Jihad Watch

Jim Schubert is the founder & publisher of The Core Report.com, Core Alerts and Core Media Network. All rights reserved August 14, 2010 TheCoreReport.com.  Sign-up to receive Free subscription, alerts & feeds today.

After one of Pat Toomey’s ads accused Sestak of voting “100 percent” with Nancy Pelosi, Sestak howled that this was a lie. He voted with her 97 percent of the time. Hmmm.

Sestak displayed the same unwise litigiousness after a group called the Emergency Committee for Israel ran ads calling attention to his poor record on support for Israel. Sestak’s lawyers contacted Comcast and insisted that the ads be pulled. In so doing, he has invited closer examination of his record.

It is false and “offensive,” Sestak’s lawyer argues, to say that the congressman “raised money for an anti-Israel organization that the FBI labeled a ‘front group for Hamas.’” Oh, did Sestak not deliver the keynote address at a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)? Well, yes, he did, admits the lawyer, “but during a portion of the event explicitly free of fundraising.” Please. People paid $50 to attend the banquet and hear a speech by Congressman Joe Sestak. That he didn’t personally solicit funds is quite irrelevant.

Sestak certainly had notice, before agreeing to deliver the speech, that CAIR was a problematic group. In 2007, the founders of the Holy Land Foundation were indicted for funneling money to terrorist organizations including Hamas. (They received life sentences in 2009.) CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Repeatedly, over the course of two decades, CAIR has justified terror, condemned Israel, and declined to denounce suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians. Mustafa Carroll of the Dallas chapter of CAIR stressed in 2007 that “the root cause of terrorism is oppression.”

Sestak might have consulted with Sen. Barbara Boxer, a fellow liberal Democrat, who rescinded an award to an Islamic activist in California after learning of his association with CAIR. Several former CAIR officials have been deported or indicted on terror-related charges.

Sestak himself said, in an interview with the Exponent, a Philadelphia Jewish weekly, that “I don’t just speak to groups that I support … I think that is the job of a congressman in order to have a dialogue. And I went to CAIR and I criticized their failure to condemn terrorists by name, Hezbollah and Hamas, and the fact that they had not dissociated themselves.”

Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin examined the speech, looking for that “criticism.” The speech doesn’t bear close reading. It contains pages upon pages of praise for Muslims, which is fine, but also praise of CAIR, which isn’t. Here is Sestak’s endorsement of CAIR’s hypersensitivity to any and all security measures in the wake of 9/11: “We need to claim our values, not betray them, by ensuring there is not a psychology that ‘pulls out’ of the rich fabric of our American community those who look like ‘one of them’? We are better than that. CAIR does such important and necessary work in a difficult environment to change such perceptions and wrongs — from racial profiling and civil rights to promoting justice and mutual understanding — at a time when it is challenging to be an American-Muslim and pass, for example, through an airport checkpoint.”

And here is Sestak’s confrontation with CAIR: “This is why it is my, and your, just duty to condemn not just terrorism — as you have done — but also condemn the specific acts, and specific individuals and groups by name, associated with those acts, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.” Hardly heroic.

The ad to which Sestak so hotly objects also noted that he signed a letter to President Obama in February of this year asking the president to intervene with Israel to loosen the blockade of Gaza. Acknowledging Israel’s security needs, the letter nevertheless referred to the blockade (which permitted humanitarian aid) as “collective punishment” of the Palestinian people — a favorite accusation of the anti-Israel left, as “collective punishment” is defined as a war crime by the Geneva Conventions. At the time, Sestak boasted that he knew the letter might “be used against me” in a political campaign but that he had to “stand up for” his “convictions.” He signed, he said, because “I think we should be looking at this because I think it’s part of what we stand for as a nation.”

If Sestak retains any self-respect at all, he should justify his actions or apologize for them — not whine that truthful ads be pulled from the airwaves.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Chuck Norris

This presidential lie is tragically just one more in an unprecedented string of flat-out falsehoods, reaching back to Obama’s campaign promise to “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.” He repeatedly declared then that “an Obama administration is going to have the toughest ethics laws of any administration in history.”

Really?

The question that keeps coming to mind is: What about the kids across the nation who have so uniquely looked up to this relatively youthful president? What are they learning from him? Does President Obama naively believe that they never will overhear their parents discussing his array of presidential lies (http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies)?

What happened to the days when presidents — and even sports stars — were role models?

Maybe it’s time even our presidents looked up to some new examples of decency and integrity.

I’ve got just such a person in mind, and he always will be one of my models and heroes, despite the fact that he died just last Wednesday — 12-year-old Cody Ty Humphries.

Cody was one of several Make-A-Wish Foundation kids who visited my Texas ranch in the same month that Obama was elected, November 2008. Though all the children were certainly special and a great blessing to my wife, Gena, and me, Cody stole my heart.

Cody was born March 13, 1998. He was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy, which eventually crippled nearly every part of his little body and spawned a series of progressive deteriorations that ultimately would lead to his death.

All of the precious children visiting my house that day had a wish to meet me, for which I’m humbly honored. I found out later that Cody waited 2 1/2 years to meet me. The Make-A-Wish Foundation asked him for a second wish, just in case they couldn’t fulfill the first, but he replied, “I don’t have a second choice. You need to ask him. I have to meet him because I am running out of time.”

Cody was so proud that his birthday was only three days after mine. Like the other kids, Cody pet our ranch animals and even rode my horse, though it was painful for him to do so.

I was so impressed by Cody that I asked him whether he wanted to see my Western collection. He was particularly thrilled to see the Uzi that I used in my “Missing in Action” movies. I gave him a western belt that I received from President Ronald Reagan. And I also gave him one of my authentic Texas Ranger badges.

Cody’s stare was piercing, and his eyes sparkled with his love for life and others. What he was incapable of doing with his body he made up for in his heart and mind. He was an amazingly mature, compassionate and bright young man for his age, no doubt in part from enduring what he had for his decade on this planet. Yet he maintained his childlike innocence and was honest to the core. He saw the good in everyone, and nothing got him down, not even his MD. Even as his condition declined, he adapted and always maintained his optimism. He once said that “love and friendship are something that you can take with you for all time.”

As Cody left that November day, Gena and I gave him a big hug. But he wanted to give me one of his “pat-hugs.” Because he was incapable of putting his arms around people, his mother lifted his arms around me, and with his palms resting on my back, he moved his fingers slowly up and down as much as he could to extend his love to me. (I was told he rarely gave pat-hugs.)

A year ago last June, I was speaking with him on the phone, and we expressed our love for each other. Then I told him that when we both got home to heaven, he would be my first martial arts student there!

This past week, Cody’s mother, Deedee, described a dream he had just before he passed on.

The Sunday before last, Cody’s mom held him on the couch as he slept. He later told her that as he was sleeping, he also was standing with his grandpa Gary (who died five years ago), both dressed in white and watching his mom hold him on the couch. Cody told his grandpa that he wasn’t ready to go and that he needed a few more days. Later Cody told his mother, “I just want you to know that I love you and that the next time Grandpa visits me, I’m going to go with him.”

Late the next day, Cody said he wanted to hug his mom, so she placed his arms around her. He held her for about 10 minutes and then whispered, “Mom, I’m going to pass away. I love you, and I’ll see you again when it’s your time to come home.”

At 5:15 a.m. the next day, Cody departed his earthly body and went to his heavenly home.

Now you see why Cody stole my heart — and why I think we all should emulate those young brave souls like him. Of course, Cody is not alone. There are many small heroes all around us — maybe even in your home or community.

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14).

He also said, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3).

Maybe it’s time to quit asking the kids to learn from us and it’s time we learned from them.

Maybe we should be more concerned with growing down than with growing up.

Maybe even the president would be a better man and leader if he did.

Maybe we all would.

To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CHUCK NORRIS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Petraeus takes command in the midst of an increasingly difficult and bloody campaign. U.S. and NATO casualties topped 100 in June, the most in one month since the war began in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 on U.S. soil. The 46-nation “grand coalition” he now heads under a United Nations mandate is rife with dozens of conflicting “national caveats” that limit how troops from various countries can be deployed and employed. Placating our “allies” in this fight is a full-time task in itself.

The “surge” of 30,000 additional U.S. troops, which Obama famously announced in a surreal speech at the U.S. Military Academy on Dec. 1, 2009, is not yet complete. Logistics support for deploying additional forces to a country suffering from “infrastructure-deficit disorder” continues to be hampered by the need to move personnel, equipment and supplies into Afghanistan by air or overland through lovely places such as Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. All of these routes depend on the good will of their governments — and exorbitant fees for fuel, bases, security and “transit rights.”

Meanwhile, factions in both Iran and Pakistan are doing their best to confound any possibility of “success” — the word Obama uses instead of “victory” — for what we’re trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Recent intelligence reports do not bode well.

Taliban-inspired terror attacks have become nearly a daily occurrence in Pakistan’s major cities. Despite hundreds of civilian casualties and the inherent risks to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal, Islamabad’s infamous Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence continues to provide safe harbor, training and materiel support to Afghan Taliban-affiliated networks at war with the government in Kabul. Though Hellfire missiles delivered by U.S. remotely piloted aircraft have proved effective in eliminating high-value Taliban and al-Qaida targets in the mountainous Af-Pak border region, nearly all the targeting data for these attacks have to be acquired at great risk by small teams of human intelligence collectors.

Along Afghanistan’s western border, the ayatollahs running Iran are playing a dangerous game of their own. On June 24, Congress passed a new set of sanctions designed to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The next day, I was shown new information about how the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is delivering new long-range rockets, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, machine-made explosively formed penetrators and batteries for surface-to-air missiles to Afghan insurgents.

The IRGC is known to have provided weapons, training and safe harbor to Shiite militias in Iraq since 2004. Opium from Afghanistan has been running through IRGC-protected “ratlines” for at least as many years. But until now, there had been scant evidence that Tehran’s agents were supplying advanced munitions and support to the Afghan insurgency. This support threatens to make the difficult fight in Afghanistan even more perilous in the months ahead.

As if these challenges for the new International Security Assistance Force commander were not enough, the Karzai government in Kabul is creating even more. Charges of rampant corruption, opium dealing and outright theft of U.S. and European aid were heightened this week when The Wall Street Journal revealed that billions of dollars in cash has been flown out of the country over the past three years — a practice that continues to this day.

Though significant, these problems are not insurmountable if Gen. Petraeus is given sufficient time and resources and essential political support from Washington. And that may prove to be his greatest challenge. The foolhardy July 2011 “deadline” Obama has imposed for commencing U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan has emboldened our adversaries and disheartened our allies. Coupled with overly restrictive rules of engagement for combat operations, the pullout (troops in theater call it the “bug-out date”) threatens to jeopardize any prospect for a positive outcome in Afghanistan. In his confirmation hearings this week, the new ISAF commander distanced himself from the O-Team on both issues.

Sen. John McCain, inquiring about the withdrawal date, asked, “Was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July 2011?” Petraeus responded, “There was not.”

The general also told the solons he already had talked to President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan government officials about the rules of engagement and stated, “I want to assure the mothers and fathers of those fighting in Afghanistan that I see it as a moral imperative to bring all assets to bear to protect our men and women in uniform.”

Abandoning a withdrawal date and revising the rules of engagement to “bring all assets to bear” are absolutely essential. Convincing Obama of these necessities may be the hardest task of all.

Oliver North is the host of “War Stories” on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of “American Heroes.” To find out more about Oliver North and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Michelle Malkin

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, headed by Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, took the lead in prepping the legal brief against Arizona. The son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, Perez is a far-left lawyer and activist who worked for the late mass illegal alien amnesty champion Ted Kennedy and served in the Clinton administration DOJ. While holding down a key government position there in which he was entrusted to abide by the rule of law, Perez volunteered for CASA de Maryland — a notorious illegal alien advocacy group funded through a combination of taxpayer-subsidized grants and radical liberal philanthropy, including billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute (not to mention more than $1 million showered on the group by Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez’s regime-owned oil company, CITGO).

Perez rose from CASA de Maryland volunteer to president of the group’s board of directors. Under the guise of enhancing the “multicultural” experience, he crusaded for an ever-expanding set of illegal alien benefits ranging from in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students to driver’s licenses. CASA de Maryland opposes enforcement of deportation orders, has protested post-9/11 coordination of local, state and national criminal databases, and produced a “know your rights” propaganda pamphlet for illegal aliens depicting federal immigration agents as armed bullies making babies cry.

In 2006, CASA de Maryland threatened to protest at the schools of children whose parents belonged to the pro-immigration enforcement group Minuteman Project — and then headed into the Montgomery County, Md., public schools to recruit junior amnesty protesters who were offered school credits for traveling with CASA de Maryland to march on Washington.

As a former Maryland resident, I got to see Perez’s militant friends and colleagues in action. I watched CASA de Maryland President Gustavo Torres (who met with President Obama last week) complain that motor vehicle administration officials have “absolutely no right to ask for people’s Social Security number or immigration status to get a driver’s license.” I stood among CASA de Maryland grievance-mongers who shouted, “No license, no justice! No justice, no peace!” while playing the race card against naturalized Americans and legal immigrants who opposed the illegal alien welfare state.

Perez himself derided secure-borders citizen activists as “xenophobes,” but denied painting the grassroots immigration enforcement movement as racist. Questioned by GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions during his Obama DOJ confirmation hearing last year about the illegal alien rights guide produced by CASA de Maryland, Perez grudgingly stated that “the Civil Rights Division must not act in contravention to valid enforcement actions of our federal immigration laws.” But “act(ing) in contravention” is exactly what the Civil Rights Division is doing in spearheading the challenge to Arizona’s valid enforcement actions of our federal immigration law.

Perez, Attorney General Eric Holder and the rest of the open-borders DOJ team have invoked a “preemption” doctrine based on the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause to attack Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration measure and oppose local and state enforcement of federal immigration laws. Never mind that the Arizona law was drafted scrupulously to comply with all federal statutes and the Constitution.

You gotta love Obama’s fair-weather friends of the Constitution. When a state acts to do the job the feds won’t do, Obama’s legal eagles run to the Founding Fathers for protection. When, on the other hand, left-wing cities across the country pass illegal alien sanctuary policies that flagrantly defy national immigration laws and hamper cross-jurisdiction enforcement, the newfound federal preemption advocates are nowhere in sight.

The Obama DOJ’s lawsuit against Arizona is sabotage of the people’s will and the government’s fundamental responsibility to provide for the common defense. No border enforcement, no security. No security, no peace. Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

The opportunism and hypocrisy of his attempt to manipulate America’s Latinos into forgetting his previous inaction is transparent and obvious. Polls show him losing Hispanics due to high and continuing unemployment and losing congressional seats in the bargain, so Obama has dug up the immigration proposals of former President George W. Bush, dusted them off and made them his own.

He knows it won’t pass. But he hopes that it will reignite Latino enthusiasm for his failing presidency and anger at Republicans for frustrating immigration reform.

In the process, Obama is neglecting the real answer to immigration. It is ridiculous to speak of sealing the border. A border of more than 1,500 miles can’t be sealed. It can’t even be controlled. As long as people want to cross, they will be able to get over. Some won’t make it. They will just keep trying until they do.

To sell his amnesty program for those already here, Obama raised the red herring of deportation, saying that we could never round up and send away 11 million people.

But he brushed over the real answer: to dry up the jobs. If employers would not hire illegal immigrants, they would stop coming here — and those already here would pack up and go home of their own accord. Obama’s promise, in his speech, to invigorate the enforcement of sanctions on employers who hire illegals rang hollow. If he hasn’t done it over the past year and a half, what confidence do we have that he will see the light now?

Employer sanctions, a guest-worker program at good wages with health care and a national biometric identification card must be the pillars of a real solution to illegal immigration. The promise of amnesty would be totally unnecessary if there were no jobs here to lure them and hold them. Amnesty presents a false choice. It assumes that we cannot dry up the jobs. But we can!

Were companies to face heavy corporate fines and jail time for those who hired the illegal workers, they would stop hiring. If a guest-worker program brought in a sufficient labor force to meet their needs — and returned them back home again — it would not be necessary to hire illegal immigrants.

But as long as employers can get away with hiring illegals and paying them starvation wages, they will do so. It is only when they face the prospect of prison that they will see the light and start paying good wages as part of a national guest-worker program.

The cynicism of Obama in kindling hopes for amnesty only to see them certainly dashed is breathtaking. And his pushing the false choice of amnesty — when eliminating the jobs that fuel illegal immigration is a readily available solution — is revolting.

He doesn’t want a law. He wants a fight, and he wants the votes that a fight may bring him. It is Chicago polarizing politics at its very worst.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are authors of the new book “2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan.” To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Under the guise of “saving” the American auto industry through a bipartisan, taxpayer-funded bailout now topping $80 billion, President Obama’s know-nothing bureaucrats pushed the car companies to eliminate thousands of jobs — with unjustified haste using dubious economic models.

Obama ordered the bailout recipients to “prove” their long-term viability by submitting restructuring plans. But White House and Treasury Department “experts” rejected the auto manufacturers’ proposals, citing the too-slow pace of their plans to reduce their dealership networks over a period of five years. Once the auto companies modified those plans to meet government-backed timelines, the money flowed.

But Neil Barofsky, the federal watchdog overseeing the bank-auto-insurance-all-purpose bailout fund, found that the White House auto industry task force and the Treasury Department “Auto Team” had no basis for ordering the expedited car dealership closure schedules. They relied on a single consulting firm’s internal report recommending that the U.S. companies adopt foreign auto industry models to increase profits — a recommendation hotly disputed by auto experts who questioned whether foreign practices could be applied to domestic American dealership networks.

Team Obama’s government auto mechanics also ignored the economic impact of rushing those closures. According to Barofsky, they discounted counter-testimony from industry officials that “closing dealerships in an environment already disrupted by the recession could result in an even greater crisis in sales.”

The inspector general also noted that “it is clear that tens of thousands of dealership jobs were immediately put in jeopardy as a result of the terminations by GM and Chrysler.” After extensive investigation, the watchdog concluded that “the acceleration of dealership closings was not done with any explicit cost savings to the manufacturers in mind.” Only after Capitol Hill critics — both Republican and Democrat — started questioning the Dealergate decisions did Obama’s auto “experts” come up with market studies and estimated job loss data to assess the impact of their reckless, arbitrary orders.

In sum, the inspector general found: “(A)t a time when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs, Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses and thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls — all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions’ broader economic impact.”

This is no surprise, of course, considering the amount of actual business expertise among Obama’s auto czars and key staff. That is: zero. Obama’s first auto czar, Steve Rattner, ran a private equity firm in New York before resigning his position amid a financial ethics cloud.

Rattner’s chief auto expert adviser, Brian Deese, is a 30-something former Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama campaign aide and law school grad with no business experience, who openly boasted that he “never set foot in an automotive assembly plant.”

And Rattner’s auto czar successor, Ron Bloom, is a far-left union lawyer who cut his teeth under Big Labor boss John Sweeney, has ideological ties to the corporate-hating Labor Zionist movement; and opined that “the blather about free trade, free-markets and the joys of competition is nothing but pabulum for the suckers.”

In search of the rationale for Team Obama’s bizarre, job-killing exercise of power over thousands of small car dealerships, the TARP inspector general may have stumbled onto the truth from Bloom. On page 33 of its report, Barofsky writes that “no one from Treasury, the manufacturers or from anywhere else indicated that implementing a smaller or more gradual dealership termination plan would have resulted in the cataclysmic scenario spelled out in Treasury’s response; indeed, when asked explicitly whether the Auto Team could have left the dealerships out of the restructurings, Mr. Bloom, the current head of the Auto Team, confirmed that the Auto Team ‘could have left any one component (of the restructuring plan) alone,’ but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President’s mandate for ‘shared sacrifice.’”

“Social justice” chickens coming home to roost.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Dick Morris - Having worked with Elena Kagan at the Bill Clinton White House, I was inclined to see her as a political moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the Barack Obama White House. But no more.

Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against Kagan’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: Her support for Shariah Law while she was dean of the Harvard Law School.

Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in which their clients can invest. These funds follow the prescriptions of Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity) and only invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.

Unfortunately, the decisions as to which investments are compliant and which charities receive their benefice are made by Shariah Compliance Boards appointed by the financial institution, which typically include radical Muslim extremists who routinely designate terrorist-linked entities to receive their charitable donations and also proscribe investment in any firm engaged in U.S. defense contracting on the ground that the contract could aid Israel.

Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by 2007 — and likely more today.

At Harvard, Elena Kagan “proceeded to forge the law school’s ‘Islamic Finance Project.”" It’s purpose, according to McCarthy, was “to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector.”

Indeed, when Harvard President Larry Summers — now in the Obama administration — accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies of Islam’s history and Shariah Law, Kagan raised no objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin Talal had blamed the 9-11 attack on American foreign policy. Harvard Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of Shariah.

Kagan, as a Supreme Court justice, will be required to rule frequently on possible applications of Shariah law in the United States. She has already noted that she welcomes “good ideas wherever they originate” and is open to applications of foreign law to the interpretation of U.S. statutes and common law. In fact, a lawsuit seeking to ban Shariah Compliance Funds in banks that accepted TARP money (as violating the First Amendment separation of church and state) is now making its way up to the Supreme Court. Kagan cannot be trusted to rule dispassionately on this case, nor can we rely on her to exclude Shariah law from American jurisprudence.

For this reason — if for no other — senators should vote no on her confirmation.

To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

David Limbaugh

For instance, some I respect recommend against Republican efforts to repeal the Democrats’ financial “overhaul” bill. They laud the effort but believe it will reduce the likelihood of their repealing Obamacare.

I reject the notion that Republicans possess a finite amount of political capital to oppose bills that are bad for America. It’s not as if they’re playing “Monopoly” and must conserve their “Monopoly” money. This isn’t about what’s good for the Republican Party. It’s about opposing — as a matter of principle — Obama’s systematic assault on America. Americans understand that.

Those who suggest that we approach these matters delicately grossly underestimate the American people and their innate appreciation for liberty. The timid approach, the fear of governing to the right, is always what gets Republicans in trouble.

Modern history bears this out. Ronald Reagan won landslides by sticking to his conservative principles, albeit imperfectly. George H.W. Bush lost favor with the electorate, starting with his base, for defecting from conservative principles, e.g., with his broken “no new taxes” pledge.

George W. Bush lost favor with the electorate far more because of his betrayal of conservative principles on domestic policy than because of the unpopularity of the protracted Iraq war. Liberals would have us believe Dubya was too conservative, but for mainstreamers, he wasn’t nearly conservative enough.

Republicans urgently need to jump onto the Obamacare repeal bandwagon because if left in place, even if significantly diluted, it will destroy the best health care system in the world, greatly erode our individual liberties, further expand the government and bureaucratic classes, and accelerate the nation’s financial ruin. You cannot leave any of it in place because, like all government programs, it will mushroom again at the first opportunity. Obama was counting on this when he shoved and bribed through Obamacare, knowing that it would be very difficult to repeal it once in place.

If Republicans lead the repeal effort, they should not have to expend one molecule of political capital in the process, because every one of their reasons is in line with the will of the people and what is good for the nation.

On the other hand, if they approach this fecklessly and nibble around at the edges, as even some conservative congressmen have suggested, they’ll greatly dispirit their base and undermine the cause of principled opposition. They will be giving our Alinskyite president a gift and playing right into his hands. They will be enabling — after the fact — his sordid, corrupt methods to pass Obamacare in the first place.

The same is true if they pick and choose their battles as to which major items of legislation they oppose. That is, if Republicans calculate that they can’t vigorously oppose the financial boondoggle because they’re going all-out to repeal Obamacare, they’ll reduce their chances to repeal Obamacare, as well.

In promoting his extremist, no-holds-barred agenda, Obama has been counting on Republican weakness and disunity. The more damaging slop he throws on the legislative wall the more will remain.

To their credit, Republicans have been united on many issues. But they seem to be losing steam in the face of Obama’s relentlessness.

The best formula for reversing this brutal war on our nation’s financial stability, national security and national identity and on our individual liberties is for Republicans to oppose Obama with full force on each and every noxious proposal he presents — which is just about every one. They must be as tireless in their opposition as he is in his assault. If they balk, they’ll simply be fueling third-party efforts — efforts that will only redound to Obama’s benefit.

They should repeal Obamacare when they can, vigorously fight back on “comprehensive immigration reform” and financial reform, obliterate cap and trade, repeal the newly imposed tax increases and reduce other taxes — including corporate, estate and capital gains — as soon as possible.

They mustn’t agonize over whether to filibuster Elena Kagan, who is manifestly contemptuous of the United States Constitution as written. The Democrats — Obama himself — set the precedent for such filibusters, and Republicans have to fight fire with fire. No more Mr. Nice Guy, and no more apologies for standing against these monumentally wrongheaded judges. This is a no-brainer, so quit dithering and oppose her, and do it openly and unapologetically.

By opposing Obama across the board — on principle — they will not only be doing the right thing but also be rewarded at the polls. Look at the latest Arizona poll, showing Obama’s approval rating down to 28 percent, in no small part because Arizona politicians are standing up to Obama’s tyranny.

Half-measures won’t work against tyranny.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, “Crimes Against Liberty,” will come out in August. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Oliver North

The first blow will land in the next two weeks unless Harry Reid’s Senate and Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives can get their acts together to pass a supplemental appropriations bill to fund combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May, while proselytizing for homosexuals in our military, Defense Secretary Robert Gates gently reminded the congressional Armed Services committees that he needed the appropriation by Memorial Day. They ignored him.

Last month, he went again and told them the funds had to be approved before the Independence Day recess or the Pentagon would have to start doing “stupid things” — such as shifting funds within the overall Defense Department budget just to keep the troops in the field supplied with beans, bullets and bandages. Once again, Congress — taking its cue from Obama’s virtual silence on the matter — did nothing.

On July 13, Gates went up to Capitol Hill again, urging the solons to break the deadlock before the House recesses for “campaign season” at the end of the month. The defense secretary warned that without action by then, he will have to start canceling contracts on everything from weapons and equipment repairs to ammunition and fuel purchases in order to pay the troops. Not exactly what a soldier, sailor, airman, guardsman or Marine needs to hear in the middle of Afghanistan’s “fighting season.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., describes the situation as “a true emergency.” Yet despite dire predictions of higher unemployment as defense suppliers shed employees when contracts for munitions and equipment are delayed, there doesn’t seem to be any sense of urgency at the Obama White House. Perhaps that’s because this is just the first low blow.

A second salvo is making its way through Washington’s “think tanks” and elite soirees. For more than a month, while Gates has been begging Congress to act on this year’s $33 billion war supplemental, the Sustainable Defense Task Force quietly has been circulating a report, titled “Debt, Deficits, & Defense: A Way Forward,” to the same congressional offices. The 56-page document lays the groundwork for drastic cuts in U.S. military spending — starting next year.

The 14-member, allegedly nonpartisan task force was convened last year at the direction of Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Its mandate was to “explore possible defense budget contributions to deficit reduction efforts that would not compromise the essential security of the United States.”

No one from the so-called “mainstream media” has inquired about which, if any, members of the Obama administration have read the report. They should. The document not only proffers an entirely new definition of the word “contribution” but also provides a blueprint for unilateral disarmament in the midst of a war and a global spike in the development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

Though few would argue with the task force’s conclusions that better acquisition, contracting and auditing at the Pentagon are essential to saving billions, the authors’ base line budget urges the U.S. to reduce military spending by nearly a trillion dollars over the course of the next decade by making drastic cuts in ships, aircraft, weapons systems and military personnel. The premise for making such major strategic and conventional force structure cuts is naive and dangerous.

For example, in Section 3 of the report, labeled “Realistic Goals, Sustainable Strategy,” the authors preface their proposed cuts by baldly claiming, “In the conventional realm, the United States today faces no global threat remotely comparable to that once posed by the Soviet Union and its allies.” Somehow they seem to have missed a salient fact: More Americans have been killed by radical Islamists than by the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal.

Section 7, “A Strategy of Restraint Would Allow Even Greater Savings,” posits that billions more can be saved by our adopting a “strategy of restraint — one that reacts to danger rather than going out in search of it.” For those of us who once learned what happened at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, or who vividly recall planes flying into buildings on Sept. 11, 2001, those words are highly offensive. But at the Obama White House — where it’s blame America first and apologize globally — they undoubtedly will get a high-five.

Oliver North is the host of “War Stories” on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of “American Heroes.” To find out more about Oliver North and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Pat Buchanan

Blacks and Hispanics, Unz found, were then being admitted to his alma mater in numbers approaching their share of the population.

And who were the most underrepresented Americans at Harvard?

White Christians and ethnic Catholics. Though two-thirds of the U.S. population then, they had dropped to one-fourth of the student body.

Comes now a more scientific study from Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford to confirm that a deep bias against the white conservative and Christian young of America is pervasive at America’s elite colleges and Ivy League schools.

The Espenshade-Radford study “draws from … the National Study of College Experience … gathered from eight highly competitive private colleges and universities (entering freshman SAT scores: 1360),” writes Princeton Professor Russell K. Nieli, who has summarized the findings:

Elite college admissions officers may prattle about “diversity,” but what they mean is the African-American contingent on campus should be 5 percent to 7 percent, with Hispanics about as numerous.

However, “an estimated 40-50 of those categorized as black are Afro-Caribbean or African immigrants, or the children of such immigrants,” who never suffered segregation or Jim Crow.

To achieve even these percentages, however, the discrimination against white and Asian applicants, because of the color of their skin and where their ancestors came from, is astonishing.

As Nieli puts it, “Being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white … equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1,600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310-point SAT advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points.”

“To have the same chance of gaining admission as a black student with a SAT score of 1100, a Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550.”

Was this what the civil rights revolution was all about — requiring kids whose parents came from Korea, Japan or Vietnam to get a perfect SAT score of 1600 to be given equal consideration with a Jamaican or Kenyan kid who got an 1150? Is this what it means to be an Ivy League progressive?

What are the historic and moral arguments for discriminating in favor of kids from Angola and Argentina over kids whose parents came from Poland and Vietnam?

There is yet another form of bigotry prevalent among our academic elite that is a throwback to the snobbery of the WASPs of yesterday. While Ivy League recruiters prefer working-class to middle-class black kids with the same test scores, the reverse is true with white kids.

White kids from poor families who score as well as white kids from wealthy families — think George W. Bush — not only get no break, they seem to be the most undesirable and unwanted of all students.

Though elite schools give points to applicants for extracurricular activities, especially for leadership roles and honors, writes Nieli, if you played a lead role in Future Farmers of America, the 4-H Clubs or junior ROTC, leave it off your resume or you may just be blackballed. “Excelling in these activities is ‘associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds on admissions.’”

Writes Nieli, there seems an unwritten admissions rule at America’s elite schools: “Poor Whites Need Not Apply.”

For admissions officers at our top private and public schools, diversity is “a code word” for particular prejudices.

For these schools are not interested in a diversity that would include “born-again Christians from the Bible belt, students from Appalachia and other rural and small-town areas, people who have served in the U.S. military, those who have grown up on farms or ranches, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, lower- and middle-class Catholics, working class ‘white ethnics,’ social and political conservatives, wheelchair users, married students, married students with children or older students just starting into college and raising children.”

“Students in these categories,” writes Nieli, “are often very rare at the most competitive colleges, especially the Ivy League.”

“Lower-class whites prove to be all-around losers” at the elite schools. They are rarely accepted. Lower-class Hispanics and blacks are eight to 10 times more likely to get in with the same scores.

That such bigotry is pervasive in 2010 at institutions that preen about how progressive they are is disgusting. That a GOP which purports to represents Middle America, whose young are bearing the brunt of this bigotry, has remained largely silent is shameful.

Many of these elite public and private colleges and universities benefit from U.S. tax dollars through student loans and direct grants. The future flow of those tax dollars should be made contingent on Harvard and Yale ending racial practices that went out at Little Rock Central High in 1957.

Patrick Buchanan is the author of the book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Take all the time you need. But no matter how much time you take, you probably won’t come up with any examples.

Here are examples of major world issues and what is deemed “world opinion.” They happen to all be Leftist views as well.

– hatred of President George W. Bush and admiration of President Barack Obama

– Manmade carbon emissions lead to global warming and devastation of the environment. Therefore, the world’s nations must tax carbon-based energy.

– The American invasion of Iraq was morally wrong, motivated by desire for oil.

– Israel is bad, as exemplified most recently by the Turkish flotilla incident.

– The American free-enterprise system is inferior to Europe’s welfare-state systems.

– The American health care system is inferior to that of all other wealthy countries (see last week’s column).

This list in no way differs from a list of Leftist positions. Nor would any other list of “world opinion” positions differ in any meaningful way from Leftist positions.

Why is that?

The most obvious answer would be that much of the world is Leftist in its views. Therefore, Leftist positions and world opinion are the same.

The truth is, for reasons to be explained, there is some validity to this explanation.

But there is a deeper and more accurate explanation: The world’s media and virtually all international organizations are Leftist in their politics, and they both define “world opinion” and in turn shape it.

Of course, there are other powerful institutions in the world that shape public opinion. But virtually none contravene the Left-wing views of the world’s media and world organizations on world issues.

Take Islam, for example. Islamic institutions shape the opinions of the majority of the world’s billion Muslims. But while the Left and Islam diverge on a great number of issues — women’s rights, gay rights, individual rights, press freedom, freedom of dissent, religious pluralism, just to name a few major ones — they coincide on international issues and views of America.

The Islamic world, Leftist media and the United Nations agree on virtually every international issue — on the villainy of Israel first and foremost, on support for the United Nations, on weakening American influence around the world, on opposition to the use of American force in Iraq and Afghanistan, on abolishing nuclear weapons, etc.

Another highly influential institution is the Roman Catholic Church. But its differences from Leftist positions are only on personal moral matters such as same-sex marriage and abortion. It is not a strong voice against the Left, and like the Left, it is largely silent on moral problems within the Muslim world. When the current pope did make a statement critical of Islam, the world press — and therefore “world opinion” — were united in condemning him. The world media, in keeping with its Left-wing agenda, is incomparably more critical of the Catholic Church than of Islam.

To better understand how the Left, the United Nations and most international institutions determine “world opinion,” take the issue of manmade global warming. The United Nations declared global warming a closed issue, the world’s media uncritically echo the U.N. report, and that’s it.

According to a BBC World Service poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries (as reported by WorldPublicOpinion.org, in 2007), “Large majorities around the world believe that human activity causes global warming and that strong action must be taken, sooner rather than later, in developing as well as developed countries.” It is remarkable how similar “world opinion” on global warming sounds to the Left’s position on global warming. The Left believes it is the vital environmental issue of our time, the United Nations announces it is, the media around the world report it as such, and lo and behold, the “world” demands immediate and drastic action to combat something that may happen (if at all) sometime in the distant future.

The great exception to all this is the United States. A vigorous conservative part of the American population has contempt for “world opinion,” rightly regarding it as useless against real evil and as a mere reflection of Leftist views. Equally important, and almost unique to America, there is a vigorous conservative news and opinion media. Compared to the Leftist domination of virtually all mass news media — newspapers, magazines and television — the conservative media are almost tiny. But talk radio, the Internet, Ronald Reagan and his ideological heirs in the Republican Party, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page have made an impact that belies their numbers.

But they are only powerful in America. And even there, it is often difficult to overcome the United Nations, the Left, the universities, the media and “world opinion.”

And conservative influence in America and everywhere else is in direct proportion to the public coming to understand that “world opinion” is a creation of the Left, reported by the Left.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently “Happiness Is a Serious Problem” (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Phylis Schlafly

The Declaration of Independence is the official and unequivocal recognition by the American people of our belief and faith in God. It affirms God’s existence as a “self-evident” truth that requires no further discussion, debate or litigation.

The nation created by the great declaration is God’s country. The rights it defines are God-given. The actions of its signers are God-inspired.

The Declaration of Independence contains five references to God: God as Creator of all men, God as supreme Lawmaker, God as the Source of all rights, God as the world’s supreme Judge, and God as our Patron and Protector. The declaration declares that each of us was created —so if we were created, we must have had a Creator and, as the modern discovery of DNA confirms, each of God’s creatures is different from every other person who has ever lived or ever will live on this earth.

The declaration proclaims that life and liberty are the unalienable gifts of God, natural rights, which no person or government can rightfully take away. It affirms that the purpose of government is to secure our God-given unalienable individual rights.

For the first time in history, our declaration reduced government from master to servant. Government was proclaimed to derive its powers only from the consent of the governed.

Knowledge of our Declaration of Independence should be required of all schoolchildren. They should also be taught that many of the 56 men who signed it then paid for their courage with their lives and fortunes, and that’s why we are able to enjoy our freedom and independence today.

It is dishonest for schools to ignore our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage. It is historical fact that our Founding Fathers were men of faith who took their Christian religion seriously, were well-schooled in the Bible, and believed that religion and morality are the foundation of good government.

Fortunately, the declaration is not subject to amendment or to whims and biases of supremacist judges who may claim it is a “living” Declaration that can be reinterpreted. It’s important for Americans to be on guard against those who don’t like our Declaration of Independence or are in denial about what it says.

The message of the Declaration of Independence is under attack from the ACLU and atheists because it refuted the lie about a constitutional mandate for “separation of church and state.” Atheists have filed numerous lawsuits in the courts of activist judges to try to eliminate our right to acknowledge God in public places, in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and in Ten Commandments monuments.

The atheists are trying to change American history, expunge all reference to religion from textbooks and make us a completely secular nation. History proves America was founded by religious men who believed that a divine Creator is basic to good government.

We get the impression that President Obama is embarrassed not only about references to God, but also by the concept of independence, which asserts our national sovereignty. He’s more comfortable bowing to foreign dictators, declaring himself a “citizen of the world” and pledging to “rejoin the world community,” as he did when speaking to cheering German socialists.

The globalists and international extremists really don’t like our Declaration of Independence. A couple of years ago, then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to Harvard to lecture us to ditch our Declaration of Independence and replace it with a “Declaration of Interdependence” and a “New World Order.”

Brown’s speech was a classic of impudence and globalist propaganda, using the word interdependence 13 times, globalization seven times and global 69 times. Brave Americans rejected Britain’s royalists in 1776, and we don’t want to reinstate any globalist supervision from Britain, the United Nations or any U.N. treaties.

Brown also peddled the politically correct line that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists) have “common values” and “similar ideals.” They certainly do not, as a rereading of our Declaration of Independence makes clear.

One of the legacies of the late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., is a federal law that requires all educational institutions receiving federal finds to teach something about the Constitution on Constitution Day, Sept. 17. In the absence of any law about the Fourth of July, it’s up to each of us to observe this important 234th anniversary.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded “Supremacists.” She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Tony Blankley

Finally, he announced his decision in his December 2009 speech at West Point, where he stated: “(A)s commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

“… (T)aken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.”

So was born a conceptual confusion that is leading us to defeat in that war. As I and many others observed a few weeks after the speech:

“The confusions as to intentions, strategies and exit-timing started immediately after the president’s Dec. 1 speech, and have gotten dangerously worse in the ensuing month. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and the top generals all said we were there to win and the July 2011 exit date was conditional on whether enough had been accomplished by then. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, adviser David Axelrod, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the president all indicated July 2011 was real, and senior White House sources said ‘winning’ was not an objective … Saturday’s Washington Post … laid bare the shockingly different understandings of the Afghan mission held by the White House and the Pentagon (see ‘Civilian, military planners have different views on new approach to Afghanistan, Dec. 26.) … A senior Democratic staff member in Congress told The Post: ‘Is the surge a way of helping us leave more quickly, or is the timeline a way to help win support for the surge? Which is the strategy and which is the head fake? Nobody knows.’ A senior officer is quoted in the article saying they ‘don’t know if this is all over in 18 months, or whether this is just a progress report that leads to minor changes.’”

In the ensuing two-thirds of a year, Mr. Obama and his senior aides proceeded to publicly characterize President Karzai and his brother as irredeemably corrupt and incompetent. Then, when Mr. Karzai started negotiating with the Taliban, he was invited to the White House for a heavy dose of warm words and good photo ops. The war continued to go worse and worse; Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal (and his aides) inexcusably whined to the press about the incompetence of the president and his top aides, was justifiably fired for it and was replaced by Gen. David H. Petraeus.

CBS, meanwhile, reported: “The Obama administration is giving different explanations of its July 2011 deadline for the start of an Afghanistan troop withdrawal, assuring foreign officials that it applies only to the 30,000 to 35,000 additional U.S. troops that President Barack Obama is sending next year (2010), but suggesting to Congress that it covers all U.S. forces.

“The conflicting versions suggest that the administration is trying to reassure U.S. allies in the region and elsewhere that the U.S. won’t cut and run, while telling a concerned American public, Congress and Democratic Party that it has an exit strategy.”

That last CBS observation gets us to the essence of the White House’s strategic communications blunder. The president and his men have confused the effect of “political spin” — when heard as such — on domestic public opinion with its effect when heard as formal pronouncements of state by enemies, allies and institutional forces such as the Pentagon.

The American public has become accustomed to discounting the spin of politicians — even of presidents. The public views political spin the way it does professional wrestling: It’s fun to cheer or boo, but don’t take it seriously.

Unfortunately, what the president and his political operatives meant as a little useful spin for their domestic base was taken as formal policy by foreign players — and they have acted accordingly. Our two allies in the Afghan War — Pakistan and Afghanistan — having heard the “spin” as policy have irrevocably taken the strategic action of discounting America as a reliable force in theater. And, as the president’s strategy relied on gaining and keeping their trust and loyalty, his strategy has necessarily collapsed. In the coming months, we should expect many more words of explanation in Washington and many more failures in Afghanistan. Alea iacta est (the die is cast).

Even the greatest chef cannot unscramble an egg. Even the president of the United States cannot unspin his words.

Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. E-mail him at TonyBlankley@gmail.com. To find out more about Tony Blankley and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

David Limbaugh

In a speech in Wisconsin, Obama was bragging about how wonderful the terrible economy is. You’ll recall that during both of President George W. Bush’s terms, Democrats, including Obama, castigated him for destroying the economy, despite the existence of empirically verifiable robust growth during some seven of those eight years.

Now that Obama has been in office for a year and a half and his economy is failing by all objective measures, he and his Democrats demand, once again, that we ignore the empirical evidence in front of our faces and bow down to them in reverent gratitude for ensuring that things are not worse than they are.

Everyone knows Obama promised — he was hardly tentative about his prediction — that if the nation followed him over the cliff with his harebrained “stimulus” scheme, unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. When unemployment soared above 10 percent, he insisted we be patient to allow his plan to work. Now that it stubbornly remains in the high 9s, he tells us that if he hadn’t implemented his stimulus bill, the economy would be much worse (12 or 13 or 15 percent), so we not only are forbidden from criticizing him for this disaster but also must genuflect because only three of the four wheels of the economy are teetering over the edge of the cliff.

He said, “There may be some roads that not only were repaired but also were … linked up to create a new industrial park that would facilitate long-term economic development beyond this immediate crisis.”

Can you imagine the reaction of the liberal media had a Republican president uttered such gibberish? There “may be some roads”? How’s that for a non-statement? That were linked up to a new industrial park to facilitate long-term growth? How about some facts here, Mr. Intellectual? Then again, how can you blame him for citing nebulous “facts” and failed economic theory when neither the real facts nor the economic evidence substantiates his claims.

He also said that every economist who’s looked at it has said that the recovery did its job. Would someone please get this man a link to The Heritage Foundation’s website or any other credible conservative think tank or economist? Time and time again, Heritage scholars have not only argued but also demonstrated why Obama’s economic policies don’t work in theory and haven’t worked in practice. As noted many times before, they have not helped avert a crisis, but have exacerbated already bleak conditions. Sure, all economists agree with him, just as all Americans agree with his socialistic policies.

Moving on, in the past few days, we’ve also heard from former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams, who has confirmed — from the belly of the beast — our worst suspicions about Obama and Eric Holder’s Justice Department’s dismissing a slam-dunk case for voter intimidation against New Black Panther Party members for racial reasons. This is an egregious trampling on the rule of law, an outrage that would subject any Republican president to charges of high crimes and misdemeanors, a scandal of the first order for which this administration isn’t even bothering to develop “plausible deniability.”

Next, we read about Obama’s reaction to Sen. Lamar Alexander’s reasonable suggestion that any energy discussion between the president and a “bipartisan” group of senators should include a focus on the oil spill and BP. Obama said, “That’s just your talking point,” and flat-out refused to discuss the subject. Is he king or what?

Finally, we’ve also witnessed this week another outburst from that paragon of smugness, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, whom I criticized earlier for mocking members of the press corps for their legitimate questions in lieu of attempting to answer them in good faith.

This time, this little smarmy nerd-thug mocked Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona for claiming Obama told him in a private meeting he would not secure our borders because it would disincentivize Republicans from supporting his effort to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” (read: amnesty). Gibbs accused Kyl of changing his story and basically arguing with himself on the matter, even though Kyl has not retreated an iota from the only relevant assertion: that Obama made the statement in question. Watch the video in which Gibbs clearly intends to create the false impression Kyl had vacillated on his charge (http://freedomslighthouse.net/2010/06/30/robert-gibbs-mocks-gop-sen-jon-kyl-in-answer-about-border-conversation-with-obama-video), and tell me with a straight face we’re not dealing with an entirely unprecedented level of arrogance in this White House.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, “Crimes Against Liberty,” will come out in August. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Pat Buchanan

In 2011, said the Financial Times, China will surpass the United States as first manufacturing power, a title America has held since surpassing Great Britain around 1890.

Each years, China passes a new milestone.

Last year, China surpassed Germany as the greatest exporting nation. This year, China surpasses Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. This year, China became the first auto manufacturer on earth.

For a decade, China has been running history’s largest trade surpluses with the United States and has amassed a hoard of $2.3 trillion in foreign currency. She now holds the mortgage on America.

How has China vaulted to the forefront in manufacturing, trade and technology? Export-driven economic nationalism.

Beijing cut the value of its currency in half in 1994, doubling the price of imports, slashing the price of exports and making Chinese labor the best bargain in Asia. Foreign firms were invited to relocate their plants in China and told this was the price of access to the Chinese market. Beijing began looting these firms of technology, as she sent her sons to study in America. Industrial espionage and intellectual property theft became Chinese specialties.

And how has America fared in the new century?

One in every three manufacturing jobs we had in 2000, nearly 6 million, vanished. Some 50,000 U.S. factories shut down. We have run trade deficits totaling $5 trillion since NAFTA passed. The real wages of working Americans have been stagnant for a decade.

While China has resumed her 12 percent growth rate, the United States, with 25 million unemployed or underemployed, appears headed for a double-dip recession.

Yet, even as the end of America’s tenure as the world’s first manufacturing power was being announced, The Wall Street Journal admonished us to keep our eyes on the prize: a new world order where it does not matter who produces what or where.

“The pursuit of some ideal global ‘balance’ in trade and capital flows is an illusion. … World leaders would do better to worry less about (trade) imbalances and more about whether their own nations are pursuing policies that contribute to global prosperity.”

There you have it — the conflict in visions between us.

For decades, America’s leaders have followed the Wall Street Journal ideology. We put a mythical world economy before our own economy. We put “global prosperity” before national interest. We forced our workers to compete, in their own country, against the products of foreign laborers earning a tenth of their pay. And we let in tens of millions of semi-skilled and unskilled immigrants, legal and illegal, to take the jobs of our countrymen.

And the Chinese? They put China first, second and third.

And who won the decade? And who is winning the future?

Inside the July 1 Washington Post is a small story about how the World Trade Organization finally ruled that European nations have been unfairly subsidizing Airbus — for 40 years.

While welcome, what good will it do now for scores of thousands of U.S. workers who built commercial jets for Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, which Airbus took down, or Boeing, which was outsourcing jobs even before Airbus dethroned it as the world’s No. 1 aircraft manufacturer.

Why did some U.S. president not tell the Europeans when they started this: Either stop subsidizing Airbus to kill our U.S. aircraft companies — or start defending yourselves against the Russians.

The day the FT reported that China was sweeping past us to become No. 1 in manufacturing, The New York Times ran a front-page story on the closing of the Whirlpool refrigerator plant in Evansville, Ind., and the loss of 1,100 jobs. The plant is moving to Mexico.

The Times spoke with Natalie Ford, a worker, whose husband and son also worked at Whirlpool, as had her dad, “This is all about corporate greed,” Mrs. Ford said, “It’s devastating to our family and to everyone in the plant. I wonder where we’ll be two years from now. There aren’t any jobs here. How is this community going to survive?”

“My mom and dad told me that when they were young, there were jobs everywhere. They said we had Whirlpool, Bristol-Myers, Mead Johnson, Windsor Plastics, Guardian Automotive, Zenith. Now if you want to find a job, there’s nothing around.”

“Free trade! Free trade!” said Henry Clay in the tariff debate of 1833. “The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child in its nurse’s arms for the moon or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven. It has never existed. It will never exist.”

It will only place us, said Clay, “under the commercial dominion of Great Britain.” Today, it is the dominion of China.

Patrick Buchanan is the author of the book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Of course, it turned out that the post-Christian West produced considerably more evil than the Christian world had. No mass cruelty in the name of Christianity approximated the vastness of the cruelty unleashed by secular doctrines and regimes in the post-Christian world. The argument against religion that more people have been killed in the name of religion than by any other doctrine is false propaganda on behalf of secularism and Leftism.

The amount of evil done by Christians — against, for example, “heretics” and Jews — in both the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity — was extensive, as was the failure of most European Christians to see Nazism for the evil that it was. The good news is that Christian evils have been acknowledged and addressed by most Christian leaders and thinkers.

But there were never any Christian Auschwitzes — i.e., systematic genocides of every man, woman and child of a particular race or religion. Nor were there Christian Gulags — the shipping of millions of innocents to conditions so horrific that prolonged suffering leading to death was the almost -inevitable end.

The anti-religious Left offers two responses to these facts: The first is that modern technology made the Nazi and Communist murders of scores of millions possible; had the church been technologically able to do so, it would have made its own Auschwitz and Gulag. The second is that Nazism and Communism were religions and not secular doctrines.

The response to the first is that technology was not necessary for the Communist murders of over a hundred million innocent people in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and elsewhere. In Cambodia, millions were murdered with hammers, in Rwanda with machetes.

The response to the second is that Communism and Nazism were secular movements and to deny that is to tell a gargantuan lie. Even if one argues that Nazism and Communism were religions, they were nevertheless secular religions. That too many Christians morally failed when confronted with Nazism is true, but irrelevant to the fact that Nazism was in no way a Christian movement.

And now the post-Christian world is getting worse.

The moral news about the world in which we live is almost unremittingly negative.

Russia

Russia is devoid of a moral values system. Whatever moral role the Russian Orthodox Church played was largely extinguished during the seven decades of Communist suppression of religion. Today, pockets of religious morality notwithstanding, Russia is essentially a nihilistic state. Under the leadership of a former KGB director, Russia now plays a destructive role in world affairs. Russia today is characterized by major arms shipments to Syria, protecting Iran while it becomes a nuclear power, forcing its will on Ukraine and other neighboring states, and the violent suppression of domestic critics who shed any light on the organized crime syndicate that rules the geographically largest nation in the world.

Turkey

The Ataturk Revolution is being undone. Turkey, the country long regarded as the bridge between the West and Islam, is rapidly moving away from the West and to an increasingly anti-Western Islam.

Iran

Iran is ruled by the heirs of Nazism, if that word still means anything after being cheapened by the Left for decades, most recently by the Left’s comparison of Arizona to a Nazi state. The rulers of Iran boast of their desire to initiate a second Holocaust against the Jews, all the while denying that the first Holocaust took place. And the country’s treatment of Iranians who seek elementary human freedoms and of Iranian women is among the worst on earth.

Congo

According to all reports, nearly 6 million people have been killed in the Congo in the last decade. The great secular liberal hope in “humanity” and “world opinion” has once again been shown to be the false hope it is. World opinion and “humanity” have rarely done anything to help the truly persecuted. But there is more to the Congolese genocide — the absence of reporting about it in the world’s media and its being a non-issue at the United Nations. If an Israeli soldier kills a rock-throwing Palestinian, or even worse, makes plans to build 1,600 apartments in east Jerusalem, the U.N., world opinion and the world media cover it as if it were the primary evil on earth. But the Congolese deaths are barely worth a mention.

Mexico

Mexico is fighting for its life against narcotics gangs that compete with Islamists in their sadism. Mexico could become the largest narco-state in the world. To be a good person in Mexico today, i.e., to oppose the drug lords in any way, is to put oneself in danger of being slowly tortured to death.

Europe

Europe long ago gave up fighting for or believing in anything other than living a life with as much economic security, as many days off and as young a retirement age as possible. World War I killed off European idealism. And whatever remained was destroyed by World War II. What I have written about the Germans is true for nearly all of Europe: Instead of learning to fight evil, Europe has learned that fighting is evil.

Other consequences of European secularism and the demise of non-materialistic ideals include a low birthrate (children cost money and limit the number of fine restaurants in which one can afford to dine), and appeasement of evil. Thus most European nations are slowly disappearing and nearly every European country has compromised Western liberties in order to appease radical Muslims.

Radical Islam

Polls taken in the Muslim world regularly report that about 10 percent of the world’s Muslims say they support radical Islam — meaning Islamic totalitarianism as practiced by the Taliban and terror as practiced by Al-Qaida. That means at least one hundred million people. Add to that the unspecified number of Muslims who support the Nazi-level and Nazi-like anti-Semitism promulgated in much of the Middle East and you have an enormous body of people committed to the death of the West.

China

As in Russia, traditional Chinese virtues were largely destroyed by Communism, and China, too, is essentially a nihilistic state whose government spends its vast sums of foreign currency in buying influence in some of the cruelest places on earth (Zimbabwe, for example) and protecting the genocide-advocating regime of Iran.

The United Nations

The net result of the United Nations is an increase in evil on earth. Whatever good is performed by some of its institutions, like the World Health Organization or UNICEF, that good is outweighed by the amount of evil the U.N. either abets or allows. It has supervised genocide in Rwanda, done nothing to stop genocide elsewhere (e.g., Congo and Sudan), gives a respectable forum to tyrannies, and is preoccupied with vilifying one of its relatively few humane states, Israel. Its contributing to human suffering is exemplified by Libya being elected to its Human Rights Commission and Iran’s election to its Commission on the Status of Women.

The United States

The United States was described by President Abraham Lincoln as The Last Best Hope of Earth. Most Americans agreed then. However, with the ascent of the Left in America — in our educational institutions, news and entertainment media, and arts world — fewer and fewer Americans believe this. On the contrary, the Leftist view of America, which pervades American life, is of a country deeply morally compromised by endemic racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, militarism, imperialism and a rapacious capitalism, leading to immoral levels of economic inequality.

As in Europe, these views are leading America to avoid offending its enemies. The American attorney general recently refused to answer a congressman’s repeated question about whether he believes that radical Islam might have been one factor motivating recent Muslim terrorists in America.

With America more interested in being like Europe and being liked rather than in fighting its enemies, more and more countries are identifying with America’s enemies than with America. Last week’s three-way hug among the leaders of Brazil, Turkey and Iran was a clear example of such.

Meanwhile, America is rapidly accumulating unpayable debts that will render it not very different from Greece. Indeed, California, once the grease of the American economy, has become the Greece of the American economy.

As the Left’s power increases, America’s power recedes — and the world further deteriorates. Under Democratic Party rule, the Last Best Hope of Earth has decided that the United Nations and Western Europe deserve that title, not the United States.

Those of us working to remove Democrats from power regard this November’s election as not only a referendum on the direction of America, but of the world itself.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently “Happiness Is a Serious Problem” (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Phyllis Schlafly

The Democrats have not placed a veteran on the Supreme Court in nearly half a century. When President Obama fills Stevens’ seat, will the High Court be left without anyone who has military experience?

Veterans in the U.S. Senate should make sure that such an embarrassment does not occur. Cases concerning the military appear every year before the Supreme Court, and our nation will not be well-served by a court lacking in military experience.

“Somebody was saying that there ought to be at least one person on the court who had military experience,” Stevens himself declared in a recent interview. “I sort of feel that it is important. I have to confess that.”

Stevens is a liberal, but he loves our nation as veterans do. In 1989 in Texas v. Johnson, Stevens dissented when the Supreme Court by 5-to-4 OK-ed a so-called free-speech right to burn the American flag.

Stevens wrote: “The case has nothing to do with ‘disagreeable ideas.’ It involves disagreeable conduct that, in my opinion, diminishes the value of an important national asset.”

Obama’s disdain for the military is no secret, and the leading names on his short list for possible Supreme Court appointment are as anti-military as he is. The number of veterans in Congress has declined to about 21 percent, but that’s enough for them to make a public demand that high court diversity include a veteran.

Elena Kagan, who tops Obama’s short list, banned military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus where she was the dean. She defied the Solomon Amendment, passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, which requires withholding federal funds from any schools that exclude the military from their campuses.

Kagan even signed a legal brief claiming that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rejected that argument by an 8-to-0 vote.

Next on Obama’s list of nominees is Diane Wood, perhaps better known as the “Ghost of Harry Blackmun.” She had clerked for Justice Blackmun and now sides with the abortion industry, as her mentor Blackmun did.

Blackmun wrote the Roe v. Wade decision that imposed abortion-on-demand, and Judge Wood has done as much as anyone to perpetuate and extend that mistake. She held, for example, that pro-life protesters of abortion clinics were liable under a racketeering law that was designed to combat mobsters. Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed her 8 to 1.

Not only the women but the men on Obama’s short list also lack military service. Cass Sunstein, a former law professor who is now Czar of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has such a twisted view of the First Amendment that he wants to regulate Internet bloggers.

Sunstein is infamous for claiming that animals should have lawyers to represent them in court. We wonder if he would want to exclude testimony, based on attorney-client privilege, about how a dog barked during a crime!

Sunstein wants “to ban hunting … if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun.” “It’s time,” he declared, to make it “against the law.”

Next on the list is Harold Koh, the former dean of Yale Law School, who is now the top attorney in Obama’s State Department. Koh calls himself a “transnationalist,” which means he wants to import and integrate all sorts of foreign laws into our domestic laws.

Obama could nominate any of the above to the Supreme Court or to another federal court. He recently nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Goodwin Liu, who thinks that illegal aliens are entitled to the same rights as American citizens, which would include driver’s licenses and full government financial benefits.

Senators stood up against Obama’s nomination of Craig Becker, refusing to confirm him for the National Labor Relations Board. Becker has been an attorney for the powerful SEIU union of government workers and is known for wanting to implement the so-called “card check” regulation so that unions can intimidate workers by depriving them of the secret ballot.

Senators blocked Becker’s confirmation and even sent Obama a letter warning him not to give Becker a recess appointment. Obama ignored the Senate and installed Becker as soon as the Senate adjourned for Easter.

Obama thumbed his nose at the Senate, but the Senate should not allow him to thumb his nose at our armed services by replacing the last decorated veteran on the Supreme Court with a non-veteran. The men and women who risk their lives for our nation’s security deserve better.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded “Supremacists.” She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Upon decimating the deliberative process to hand President Obama a health care “reform” victory, unpopular Beltway Democrats and their media water-carriers now claim there’s a Tea Party epidemic of racism, harassment and violence against them.

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a tepid, obligatory statement against smearing all conservatives as national security threats. But her lieutenants had already emptied their tar buckets. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen accused Republican leaders of “stoking the flames.” Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn accused the GOP of “aiding and abetting” what he called “terrorism.”

Yet, the claims that Tea Party activists shouted “nigger” at black House Democrats remain uncorroborated. The coffin reportedly left outside Missouri Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan’s home was used in a prayer vigil by pro-life activists in St. Louis protesting the phony Demcare abortion-funding ban in Obama’s deal-cutting executive order. Videotape of a supposed intentional spitting incident targeting Missouri Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver at the Capitol shows no such thing. Cleaver himself backed off the claim a few days later. He described his heckler to The Washington Post in more passive terms as “the man who allowed his saliva to hit my face.” Slovenliness equals terrorism!

The FBI is now investigating the most serious allegation — that Tea Party activists in Virginia are somehow responsible for a cut gas line at the home of Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother. But instead of waiting for the outcome of that probe, liberal pundits have enshrined the claim as conclusive evidence of the Tea Party reign of terror.

Need more reasons to treat the latest Democratic hysteria with a grain of salt the size of their gargantuan health care bill? Remember:

— In November 2009, Kentucky census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead in a secluded rural cemetery with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest and a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly, Huffington Post and liberal media hosts stampeded over themselves to blame Fox News, conservative blogs, Republicans and right-wing radio. Federal, state and local authorities discovered that Sparkman had killed himself and deliberately concocted a hate-crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.

— In mid-October 2008, news outlets from Scranton, Pa., to ABC News to the Associated Press and MSNBC reported that someone at a Sarah Palin rally shouted “kill him” when Obama’s name was mentioned. In fact, the Secret Service (which was at the event in full force) couldn’t find a single person to corroborate the story — other than the local reporter for the Scranton Times-Tribune who made an international incident out of the claim. Agent Bill Slavoski “said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers, and not one heard the comment,” the paper reported in a red-faced follow-up. Maybe the shouter is hiding with Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman’s real killer.

— In late October 2008, a gaggle of liberal blogs spread the rumor that a Republican supporter of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s had shouted that Obama was “a nigger” during a campaign rally in Iowa. Video and firsthand accounts showed that the protester did not shout “he’s a nigger,” but “he’s a redistributor.” A lefty activist at the “progressive” Daily Kos blog confirmed the truth — but to this day, the crisis-manufacturing smear stands uncorrected and unretracted across the Internet.

— In September 2009, supporters of Colorado Democratic Rep. John Salazar falsely accused a town hall protester of hurling a death threat at the congressman. Liberal blogs again disseminated the angry Tea Party mob narrative. A week later, the local press quietly reported that Grand Junction police had investigated the incident — and determined the claim was “unfounded.” A police spokeswoman revealed that “(p)eople who witnessed the interaction between the man who made the complaint and the suspect confirmed they never heard any direct threats made regarding Congressman Salazar.” Witnesses included a Grand Junction cop “in close proximity when the interaction took place.”

— In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic Party decried a vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. A hammer-wielding thug smashed 11 windows and caused $11,000 in property damage. The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far-left nutball/transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for an SEIU-tied 527 group and canvassed for a Democratic candidate. Nevertheless, Colorado Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak continued to blame “people opposed to health care” for the attack.

Then, as now, being a Democratic Party official means never having to say you’re sorry for smearing conservative dissent.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

So, as New Yorkers are coughing their lungs out from mustard gas or dying in the streets of biological weapons, they will know that their government will not use nuclear weapons to retaliate against their murderers.

In effect, Obama has said if you are a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and do not have nuclear weapons, we will not hit you with nuclear bombs even if you unleash poison gas or biological microbes in crowed American cities or cripple our economy by a massive electromagnetic pulse.

His incredible announcement amounts to a green light for anti-American nations to hit our cities with gas or poisons, resting secure in the knowledge that we will not use our nuclear arsenal to reply.

The Nuclear Policy Review, issued by the Pentagon yesterday, said that “the U.S. does not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states party to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and (who are) meeting their obligations.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that “there is a limited range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may have a role to stop an attack with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.”

He said that these contingencies only included countries “that possess nuclear weapons or that do not comply with their nonproliferation obligations.” In other words, if Iran, India, Pakistan or North Korea hits us with chemical weapons, we will reply with nuclear retaliation. But if any other nation (like a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) does so, we will only use conventional weapons to retaliate.

Republicans should reply by introducing a bill in the Senate committing the United States to a nuclear response should any nation attack us with biological, chemical or electromagnetic pulse weapons. Let the Democrats vote against it. Let them filibuster it. Let them explain why we will not use our strongest weapons to deter an attack that could kill millions of our citizens or immobilize our entire economy!

Obama’s motivations for this absurd policy are plain enough. He wants to up the ante for Iran and make it clear that the Islamic Republic can develop crippling weapons for use against the United States without going nuclear. He wants to invest chemical, biological and electromagnetic pulse weaponry with an impunity that can only be obtained at the price of nuclear virginity.

But think about the consequences of his policy! Are we really going to overlook so horrendous an attack and confine our response to cruise missiles with conventional warheads or a few divisions of American soldiers? Is it really material to our nation whether millions of our fellow citizens die of a nuclear bomb or are slain by chemical or biological weaponry?

Obama has violated the Ronald Reagan rule that a president must “never say never.” He has eliminated the ambiguity that has kept us safe for decades and made it clear that our nation will not use its full resources to defend its citizenry even if millions are obliterated by heinous biological or chemical weaponry.

He has made a big mistake, and the Republicans must pounce on it.

To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

To borrow a phrase from President Barack Obama, “let’s be clear” on a couple of things:

First, it’s not an exaggeration to say Obamacare is socialized medicine; in fact, it doesn’t go far enough simply to say it represents the government takeover of our entire health care system. It is also a major step (begun long ago) in the complete dismantling of the unique American constitutional experiment and of the social compact between Americans and their government. Obama’s now-realized goal of fundamental change is to make the government the people’s master instead of their servant.

Secondly, we should not suffer gladly those painfully naive people who will continue to say that Obama and his obedient congressional Democrats are not radical. It may make people feel better about themselves to promote congeniality and bipartisanship, but to fantasize about such quixotic goals under this type of radical assault on our nation is tantamount to enabling it.

Thirdly, Obama and the Democrats have been unconscionably deceptive about their aims, even though Obama couldn’t help but reveal his extremism from time to time. He certainly promised “fundamental change” but was so vague that many assumed his idea of “hope and change” meant something consistent with American values. Others knew full well what grandiose plans he had in store to overthrow America’s social compact. There was no mistaking his intent when you examined his radical background and radical relationships; his extremist position on human life, including supporting a form of infanticide; his promise to redistribute wealth; his obvious grudge against America; and his experience as a street agitator in Chicago.

If the Democrats’ motives were honorable, they wouldn’t be so deceptive in everything they do, particularly in their endless drive to impose Obamacare on this nation against the unmistakable and undeniable will of the people. I couldn’t fully catalog the Democratic lies and abuses surrounding this bill with the space remaining in this column, but let’s just touch on a few:

—Public option: Obama kept insisting that his bill wasn’t about a government takeover of insurance, yet the bill will result in government’s taking comprehensive control over health care (17,000 new IRS agents alone) and government’s converting private insurers from private market risk evaluators to publicly regulated utilities completely under government control.

—Abortion: How long ago was it that Obama was promising the bill didn’t contain a provision for the federal funding of abortion? Now we’re way beyond that lie and discussing the enforceability of his bogus pledge to negate that provision through an executive order.

—Costs and taxes: In considering the whopper that Obamacare will reduce health care costs, don’t just consider the direct cost increases for care. Also factor in the hidden transfer costs that will be imposed on working people and the enormous tax increases this will involve, which even many liberals have admitted.

—Fraud: the accounting shenanigans they employed to get the Congressional Budget Office to score this debacle as deficit-neutral.

—Abuse of process: If this were a plan beneficial to Americans, Democrats wouldn’t have had to resort to every unconstitutional and illegal legislative trick imaginable.

—Choice: They said the bill wouldn’t interfere with patients’ choices over care and their physicians, that it would even — don’t laugh — give people the same luxurious plans afforded to members of Congress.

—The uninsured: This bill was never about insuring the uninsured; millions already have federal assistance and don’t use it. Millions more can afford it and choose not to but will now be forced to buy it. And millions will remain uninsured after this bill.

—Rationing: It’s inevitable. They planned it, and it’s all over the bill, but they still deny it.

—Transparency: worse than laughable.

—Republicans: Obama was forced to retract his lie that Republicans have no plan and favor retaining the status quo, but he has already resurrected it under the apparent assumption people didn’t hear his earlier retraction.

—Quality of care: How dare he continue to slander the quality of America’s health care when it is the best in the world and when he has just rammed through a system that guarantees a reduction in quality of care, as it has in every other nation that has adopted it.

—Obamacare essential to economic revival: Obama swore he couldn’t revive the economy without Obamacare, but the opposite is true because it will add yet another — the biggest ever — entitlement onto our already overburdened system.

—Bribes: If this plan were aboveboard, why the need to give special, corrupt payoffs to particular states, such as Nebraska and Louisiana?

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

They want Benjamin Netanyahu out. Specifically, they want him to feel such pressure that he dumps his right-wing coalition partners and forms a new government with the center-left party Kadima headed by former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, who thinks nothing of trading land for peace, no matter how flawed the peace might be, will then hold Netanyahu’s government hostage and force it to bend to the will of Washington and sign a deal with the Palestinians that cedes them land in return for a handful of vague vapors and promises none of which will be kept.

On March 3, Livni said in a Knesset debate that since Netanyahu took control, “Israel has become a pariah country in the world.” She is trying to use Obama’s and Clinton’s rejection of Netanyahu’s course to force her way into the government. And Obama and Clinton are intent on helping her do so by publicly humiliating Netanyahu.

But Netanyahu insists that he’d be happy to negotiate a peace accord. But, as he told me last year, “I just don’t have a peace partner with whom to negotiate.”

The Palestinians are expert at playing “good cop/bad cop” with Israel. The good cop — the Palestinian Authority — wants to negotiate a peace deal and insists on signs of Israeli good faith in order to do so. Meanwhile, the bad cop — Hamas — fires missiles at Israel from Gaza, land Israel ceded to the Palestinians in order to promote the peace process earlier in the decade.

Any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will not be binding on Hamas, and the pattern of Gaza will likely play out again: First, Israel ceded land to the Palestinian Authority. Second, Hamas seizes the newly ceded land through elections or military action. Third, Hamas refuses to recognize the peace deal and uses the newly acquired territory as a base from which to launch further attacks against Israel.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.

When Hillary Clinton and Obama explode in indignation against Israel for building apartments in East Jerusalem, they deliberately miss the point: There is no reason for Israel to catalyze peace negotiations when there is no single entity that is both committed to peace and speaks for the entire Palestinian people. Without a peace partner, negotiations are either a trip to nowhere or a slippery slope to more Gaza-like concessions that do nothing but strengthen the enemies of Israel without providing any advancement to the cause of peace.

The merits of building in East Jerusalem or the need for a moratorium on all settlement construction are quite irrelevant as long as a substantial body of Palestinian opinion wants a war with Israel and the prevailing political authority in Gaza insists on the Jewish state’s eradication.

Clinton’s and Obama’s studied humiliation of Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington suggest a more sinister agenda at work. They are trying to show the Arab world that the United States is quite willing to throw Israel into the sea. When Clinton characterized the American commitment to Israel as “rock solid” while, at the same time, warning that Israel faced destruction unless it concluded a peace deal with the Arabs, it illustrates how conditional U.S. support really is.

Unless Israel toes the U.S. line — to the satisfaction of the Arab world — American support won’t really be there. The rocks to which the secretary refers will be tied to Israel’s foot as she is thrown overboard by the Obama administration.

By raising the profile of the housing issue and by lending legitimacy to the idea that it is Israeli construction that is frustrating the peace process, Obama and Clinton both redirect pressure that should be aimed at Hamas’ refusal to honor or participate in any peace talks or accord.

So why are Obama and Clinton so intent on raising the profile of the construction issue and publicizing it? One suspects that an effort is afoot to link Israeli resistance to the peace process to the ongoing loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not to the global terrorism of al-Qaida.

Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples (in the region). … Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.” In other words, blame Israel.

And ultimately, the administration agenda may be to explain its withdrawal of support for Israel by blaming its stubborn insistence on housing construction. One can well see the Obama administration learning to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon while blaming Israel for fomenting Iranian hostility by building housing.

All the while, through American aid to Gaza, the Obama administration is helping Hamas to solidify its position in Gaza and lengthen its lease on political power — the very power it is using to torpedo the peace process.

To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Michelle Malkin

ShoreBank is a Windy City investment bank with all the right (or, rather, left) ties. Its stated progressive mission isn’t merely to make good lending decisions, but to engage in Barack Obama-esque social engineering to “create economic equity and a healthy environment.” The ShoreBank corporate slogan: “Let’s change the world.”

The company website features a video of Obama in Kenya championing ShoreBank microlending projects overseas. ShoreBank has also touted itself as a “green” bank from its founding days — promoting dubious carbon credit programs, subjecting new borrowers to eco-litmus tests (“we look at how you use water, how you recover water and clean it, how you use energy, if you produce clean energy, how you manage CO2, whether you are offsetting CO2 that your product produces, if you are using sustainably produced materials”) and encouraging customers to participate in “EcoDeposits” to “directly support the green agenda.”

Social and environmental justice may make for good Volvo bumper stickers. They do not, however, make for a good bottom line. While the bank was on do-gooder missions around the world, business at home was in trouble. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “Losses racked up during the recession have left the bank facing a demand to raise new capital or face likely closure by regulators.”

Enter the Chicago political friends and family of ShoreBank. The ties are long and deep, as the Central Illinois 9/12 Project has been chronicling for months:

— ShoreBank co-founder Jan Piercy was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton’s, who has long supported the bank along with former president Bill Clinton.

— Former ShoreBank Vice Chairman Bob Nash worked for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid as deputy campaign manager. Board of Directors member Howard Stanback is a Hyde Park neighborhood pal of President Obama, who served with Stanback on the board of the radical Woods Fund (where Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers also sat).

— White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett served on the board of Chicago Metropolis 2020 with ShoreBank Director Adele Simmons, former president of the liberal MacArthur Foundation, where she focused on “climate change” and “global governance” issues.

— The bank and its employees donated some $12,000 to the Obama 2008 presidential campaign, and co-founder Mary Houghton reportedly gave advice to Obama’s late mother about small business lending issues.

In other words: ShoreBank is too politically connected to fail. And now you, the taxpayer, may be on the hook for helping its cronies engineer a special rescue. Fox Business News reported this week that a consortium of large lenders — including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and GE Capital — have partnered with the feds to pitch in a combined $200 million public-private bailout. (In addition, Illinois Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky has been crusading for a state-level bailout of the beleaguered bank.) The buzz on both Wall Street and Capitol Hill is that Goldman and perhaps others in the public-private partnership were pressured to lend a hand.

It wouldn’t be the first time that businesses have felt the Obama squeeze. And it wouldn’t be the first time that Democrats exploited the financial crisis to milk public money for their banking cronies.

The laggardly House Ethics Committee is still investigating Democrat California Rep. Maxine Waters, who had a personal and financial stake in Boston-based OneUnited, a minority bank that received $12 million in TARP bailout money under smelly circumstances. The bank’s executives donated $12,500 to her congressional campaigns. Her husband, Sidney Williams, was an investor in one of the banks that merged into OneUnited. Waters secured meetings between OneUnited execs and Treasury Department officials.

That probe has dragged on for nearly a year, which doesn’t bode well for fresh GOP demands for an investigation into the shady ShoreBank bailout. House Financial Services Committee ranking minority member Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., has demanded that the White House cough up documentation about any possible overt contact with Goldman about the deal.

Team Obama is smarter than that, of course. To quote Obama’s environmental czar Carol Browner, who pressured auto industry execs last year to cooperate on a fuel standards increase, they know “to put nothing in writing, ever.”

The fingerprints may be missing, but the stench of the Chicago Way is impossible to cover up.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

They want Benjamin Netanyahu out. Specifically, they want him to feel such pressure that he dumps his right-wing coalition partners and forms a new government with the center-left party Kadima headed by former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, who thinks nothing of trading land for peace, no matter how flawed the peace might be, will then hold Netanyahu’s government hostage and force it to bend to the will of Washington and sign a deal with the Palestinians that cedes them land in return for a handful of vague vapors and promises none of which will be kept.

On March 3, Livni said in a Knesset debate that since Netanyahu took control, “Israel has become a pariah country in the world.” She is trying to use Obama’s and Clinton’s rejection of Netanyahu’s course to force her way into the government. And Obama and Clinton are intent on helping her do so by publicly humiliating Netanyahu.

But Netanyahu insists that he’d be happy to negotiate a peace accord. But, as he told me last year, “I just don’t have a peace partner with whom to negotiate.”

The Palestinians are expert at playing “good cop/bad cop” with Israel. The good cop — the Palestinian Authority — wants to negotiate a peace deal and insists on signs of Israeli good faith in order to do so. Meanwhile, the bad cop — Hamas — fires missiles at Israel from Gaza, land Israel ceded to the Palestinians in order to promote the peace process earlier in the decade.

Any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will not be binding on Hamas, and the pattern of Gaza will likely play out again: First, Israel ceded land to the Palestinian Authority. Second, Hamas seizes the newly ceded land through elections or military action. Third, Hamas refuses to recognize the peace deal and uses the newly acquired territory as a base from which to launch further attacks against Israel.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.

When Hillary Clinton and Obama explode in indignation against Israel for building apartments in East Jerusalem, they deliberately miss the point: There is no reason for Israel to catalyze peace negotiations when there is no single entity that is both committed to peace and speaks for the entire Palestinian people. Without a peace partner, negotiations are either a trip to nowhere or a slippery slope to more Gaza-like concessions that do nothing but strengthen the enemies of Israel without providing any advancement to the cause of peace.

The merits of building in East Jerusalem or the need for a moratorium on all settlement construction are quite irrelevant as long as a substantial body of Palestinian opinion wants a war with Israel and the prevailing political authority in Gaza insists on the Jewish state’s eradication.

Clinton’s and Obama’s studied humiliation of Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington suggest a more sinister agenda at work. They are trying to show the Arab world that the United States is quite willing to throw Israel into the sea. When Clinton characterized the American commitment to Israel as “rock solid” while, at the same time, warning that Israel faced destruction unless it concluded a peace deal with the Arabs, it illustrates how conditional U.S. support really is.

Unless Israel toes the U.S. line — to the satisfaction of the Arab world — American support won’t really be there. The rocks to which the secretary refers will be tied to Israel’s foot as she is thrown overboard by the Obama administration.

By raising the profile of the housing issue and by lending legitimacy to the idea that it is Israeli construction that is frustrating the peace process, Obama and Clinton both redirect pressure that should be aimed at Hamas’ refusal to honor or participate in any peace talks or accord.

So why are Obama and Clinton so intent on raising the profile of the construction issue and publicizing it? One suspects that an effort is afoot to link Israeli resistance to the peace process to the ongoing loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not to the global terrorism of al-Qaida.

Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples (in the region). … Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.” In other words, blame Israel.

And ultimately, the administration agenda may be to explain its withdrawal of support for Israel by blaming its stubborn insistence on housing construction. One can well see the Obama administration learning to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon while blaming Israel for fomenting Iranian hostility by building housing.

All the while, through American aid to Gaza, the Obama administration is helping Hamas to solidify its position in Gaza and lengthen its lease on political power — the very power it is using to torpedo the peace process.

To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Pat Buchanan

Globalists all, they rejected any federal measure to protect America’s industrial base, economic independence or the wages of U.S. workers.

Together they rammed through NAFTA, brought America under the World Trade Organization, abolished tariffs and granted Chinese-made goods unrestricted access to the immense U.S. market.

Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services has compiled, in 44 pages of charts and graphs, the results of two decades of this Bush-Clinton experiment in globalization. His compilation might be titled, “Indices of the Industrial Decline and Fall of the United States.”

From 2000 to 2009, industrial production declined here for the first time since the 1930s. Gross domestic product also fell, and we actually lost jobs.

In traded goods alone, we ran up $6.2 trillion in deficits — $3.8 trillion of that in manufactured goods.

Things that we once made in America — indeed, we made everything — we now buy from abroad with money that we borrow from abroad.

Over this Lost Decade, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs, one of every three we had in Y2K, disappeared. That unprecedented job loss was partly made up by adding 1.9 million government workers.

The last decade was the first in history where government employed more workers than manufacturing, a stunning development to those of us who remember an America where nearly one-third of the U.S. labor force was producing almost all of our goods and much of the world’s, as well.

Not to worry, we hear, the foreign products we buy are toys and low-tech goods. We keep the high-tech jobs here in the U.S.A.

Sorry. U.S. trade surpluses in advanced technology products ended in Bush’s first term. The last three years we have run annual trade deficits in ATP of nearly $70 billion with China alone.

About our dependency on Mideast oil we hear endless wailing.

Yet most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola. And for every dollar we send abroad for oil or gas, we send $4.20 abroad for manufactured goods. Why is a dependency on the Persian Gulf for a fraction of the oil we consume more of a danger than a huge growing dependency on China for the necessities of our national life?

How great is that dependency?

China accounts for 83 percent of the U.S. global trade deficit in manufactures and 84 percent of our global trade deficit in electronics and machinery.

Over the last decade, our total trade deficit with China in manufactured goods was $1.75 trillion, which explains why China, its cash reserves approaching $3 trillion, holds the mortgage on America.

This week came a report that Detroit, forge and furnace of the Arsenal of Democracy in World War II, is considering razing a fourth of the city and turning it into farm and pastureland. Did the $1.2 trillion trade deficit we ran in autos and parts last decade help kill Detroit?

And if our purpose with NAFTA was to assist our neighbor Mexico, consider. Textile and apparel imports from China are now five times the dollar value of those imports from Mexico and Canada combined.

As exports are added to a nation’s GDP, and a trade deficit subtracted, the U.S. trade deficits that have averaged $500 billion to $600 billion a year for 10 years represent the single greatest factor pulling the United States down and raising China up into a rival for world power.

Yet, what is as astonishing as these indices of American decline is the indifference, the insouciance of our political class. Do they care?

How can one explain it?

Ignorance of history is surely one explanation. How many know that every modern nation that rose to world power did so by sheltering and nurturing its manufacturing and industrial base — from Britain under the Acts of Navigation to 1850, to protectionist America from the Civil War to the Roaring Twenties, to Bismarck’s Germany before World War I, to Stalin’s Russia, to postwar Japan, to China today?

No nation rose to world power on free trade. From Britain after 1860 to America after 1960, free trade has been the policy of powers that put consumption before production and today before tomorrow.

Nations rise on economic nationalism; they descend on free trade.

Ideology is another explanation. Even a (Milton) Friedmanite free-trader should be able to see the disaster all around us and ask: What benefit does America receive from these mountains of imported goods to justify the terrible damage done to our country and countrymen?

Can they not see the correlation between the trade deficits and relative decline?

Republicans seem certain to benefit from the nation’s economic crisis this November. But is there any evidence they have learned anything about economics from the disastrous Bush decade?

Do they have any ideas for a wholesale restructuring of U.S. trade and tax policy, for a course correction to prevent America’s continuing decline?

Has anyone seen any evidence of it?

Patrick Buchanan is the author of the book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Phyllis Schlafly

But the congressional votes to pass Obamacare will not make the issue go away. It will stick around to plague the Democrats not only through the 2010 elections but for the rest of Obama’s administration.

The American people have figured out that the issue is not health care, it’s freedom. It’s whether Obama will succeed in “fundamentally transforming” the American nation, the first leg of which is to put complete control over every individual’s health into the hands of government bureaucrats and their appointed “experts.”

Opposition to this Obamanation is manifesting itself not only in Tea Parties, Town Hall Meetings, a tsunami of phone calls to the U.S. Capitol and spontaneous demonstrations in unprecedented numbers. The revolt against Obamacare is also resonating in state capitols all over the country.

Virginia was the first state legislature to pass a Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act to protect Virginians’ right to make their own health care and health insurance choices, to pay directly for medical care and to prohibit any individual or employer from being penalized for not buying government-defined health insurance. When Virginia’s House of Delegates voted 80 to 17, 21 Democrats sided with the GOP.

Idaho had the first state governor sign a Freedom of Choice in Health Care law. The Arizona Legislature has placed the Health Care Freedom Act as a proposed constitutional amendment on Arizona’s 2010 election ballot.

Three states have passed a Freedom of Choice bill in one House. Similar measures are under consideration in more than 35 states.

Oklahoma passed a law to allow its citizens to opt out of Obamacare. Utah passed three resolutions, one of which asserts the “inviolable sovereignty of the State of Utah under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”

Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, South Carolina’s Attorney General Henry McMaster and Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum are gearing up to sue the federal government. They say the bill is unconstitutional because it requires all Americans to purchase health insurance.

McMaster said, “It’s essentially a direct tax on the people. … There’s no authority in the Constitution that allows the Congress to do that.”

The New York Times reluctantly admitted that these state laws and constitutional amendments are “on a roll.” The Times is worried — it’s not sure whether they constitute a movement or a backlash or just political theater.

Many people look upon Massachusetts as the model for Obamacare. That state imposed individual and employer mandates in 2006, and it’s time to look at the results.

By 2010, one-third of the uninsured still don’t have coverage, and it’s become harder to see a doctor. Health insurance is 40 percent more expensive than in the rest of the country, and Massachusetts is expecting a $2 billion to $4 billion shortfall over the next decade.

Obama says repeatedly that under his plan you can keep your present health insurance. But Massachusetts told 20 percent of its already insured citizens they had to buy more expensive health insurance because their existing coverage wasn’t “good enough.”

Remember, if the government can force us to buy health insurance, it can define what that insurance must cover. It’s estimated that a federal mandate would force 100 million Americans to drop their existing plans and buy more expensive health insurance to meet Obamacare requirements.

Now that state legislatures are flexing their state sovereignty muscles, some are tackling other issues, too. Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee and Utah enacted laws declaring that federal regulation of guns is invalid if a weapon is made and used only within the state. Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin passed bills to reaffirm their state’s authority over the National Guard.

Opponents of these state sovereignty laws claim they are unconstitutional because the Constitution’s Article VI states that federal law prevails over state law. Supporters of state sovereignty laws respond by asserting the Tenth Amendment.

Texas opted out of Obama’s pot of $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” (a.k.a. Race to the Takeover) grants to states that accept federal control of public school curriculum and standards, and Rick Perry just won an unexpected landslide in a gubernatorial primary by warning Washington, “Don’t mess with Texas!”

Obamacare is a major weapon to carry out Obama’s plan to transform America into a country of incredible debt, government control of industries, redistribution of taxpayers’ earnings and savings to non-taxpayers, and massive authority exercised by weirdo czars. The American people — and the various states — are not going to accept Obama’s transformation.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded “Supremacists.” She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Dick Morris – President Obama has taken the United States one more giant step toward socialism by ramming through the Senate his financial regulation bill.

The bill authorizes the secretary of the treasury — a political appointee — to seize any financial company (bank or non-bank) simply because, in his opinion, it is too big to fail and in danger of insolvency. This power can be used for political retribution, pressure for campaign funding or any other abuse that bureaucratic whim or partisan politics can conceive. It is a power Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez would love to have!

The legislation also requires that any business that extends credit, in any form, needs to clear the loan instrument in advance with the new consumer protection agency. The backlog of pending applications will strangle consumer credit.

And the bill fails to do the one thing it must do: regulate derivatives and make them transparent. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., bowed to pressure from his sponsors on Wall Street and deleted the regulatory provision and set up a commission to study the situation for two years! Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., protested the cop-out with a no vote against the legislation.

So how did it pass? Four Republicans sold out, that’s how! Among the RINOs were, of course, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine. But, surprisingly, Scott Brown, R-Mass., the newly elected Massachusetts Miracle, defected, as did the normally stalwart Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Now the federal government has effectively taken over about one third of our national economy by passing Obamacare and regulatory reform in almost the same breath.

Repealing this regulatory travesty must be high on our 2011 agenda!

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are authors of the new book “2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan.” To find out more about Dick Morris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Our Founders had a far better solution than only government. And it’s probably a good time, during Christendom’s Holy Week and with heightened frustrations toward government across the country, to recall that solution and that, though our Founders initiated our government, they didn’t expect it to usher in any form of Utopia.

As proud as they were of their newfound republic, our Founders’ trust and hope was not in government, but in God. For what? For most of the things that people today often look to government to provide: life, liberty, happiness, provision, salvation, decency, civility, morality, honesty, restraint, equity of power and future hope, to name a few. Tragically, in modern times, government has usurped God’s role in our republic and Americans’ lives.

But if our government and even public schools won’t remind Americans of our godly heritage (and hence the way out of this national mess), who will? The answer: we patriots. The least we can do is to remember and recall to others the Creator’s place in our republic, in hope of reawakening just one more American, especially during this Easter week.

For America’s Founding Fathers, God and government were intricately linked. As Thomas Paine echoed in 1775, “Spiritual freedom is the root of political liberty. … As the union between spiritual freedom and political liberty seems nearly inseparable, it is our duty to defend both.”

It is no coincidence that the Declaration of Independence begins with a spiritual emphasis: “When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People … to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes. … We hold … that all Men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Even to the Framers of our Constitution, which often is hailed by critics of religion as a godless document, God was behind its monumental words. As James Madison wrote, “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in (the Constitution) a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

To our Founders, God was the source of our human rights, which put limits on government power. Even more, God was (and should be) the ultimate agent for national sustenance and renewal. That is why we are dreaming if we think we can correct the ills in ourselves, our government or our society without his aid.

Ben Franklin was particularly eloquent on this very point while addressing those who attended the Constitutional Convention: “In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proof I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

If Franklin, a presumed deist, could believe that “God governs in the affairs of men,” it is certain that all or nearly all of the Founding Fathers did, as well. That belief shaped our country; it is part of our heritage. And I do not believe that we can neglect or repudiate that belief — that we are responsible to God — without endangering our future.

As Franklin declared, the American empire cannot rise or (I would add) resurrect “without his aid.” That is also why an entire chapter in my new paperback expanded version of “Black Belt Patriotism” is devoted to the role God played in the founding of our republic and must play in America’s reawakening.

Friends, I am a patriot and an optimist at heart. I, like many of you, believe that we can become a great nation again, known more for who we are than what we have. I believe in the resurrection of America. But that’s not going to happen by traveling down the same road we’ve been on. If America has lost its way, its heart, its moral compass, the answer is to return to the old path, the path followed by our Founders who put God first, trusting in him — not big government — to be our salvation.

When human government seems lost and without hope, let us remember not only that we the people have the power to make changes in government but also that our hope is ultimately not in men or government. It is in God and his future government, upon whose throne will be a crucified and risen Messiah and about whom this prophecy was given: “Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on the throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.”

No wonder the term “gospel” means “good news.”

To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CHUCK NORRIS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Dennis Prager

Many Americans find it difficult to understand why Jews on the Left — including many who would call themselves “liberal” rather than “Left” — continued to enthusiastically support President Obama after the revelations about the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the religious mentor and close friend of Obama. This confusion is all the greater now that Obama has humiliated the prime minister of Israel and created the most tense moment in American-Israel relations in memory.

Likewise, many Americans wonder how Democratic congressmen who claim to be faithful Catholics and are pro-life could vote for the health care bill that allows for federal funding of abortions — after opposing it up to the last day.

There is an explanation.

Leftism, though secular, must be understood as a religion (which is why I have begun capitalizing it). The Leftist value system’s hold on its adherents is as strong as the hold Christianity, Judaism and Islam have on their adherents. Nancy Pelosi’s belief in expanding the government’s role in American life, and therefore her passion for the health care bill, is as strong as a pro-life Christian’s belief in the sanctity of the life of the unborn.

Given the religious nature and the emotional power of Leftist values, Jews and Christians on the Left often derive their values from the Left more than from their religion.

Now, of course, most Leftist Jews and Christians will counter that Leftist values cannot trump their religion’s values because Leftist values are identical to their religion’s values. But this argument only reinforces my argument that Leftism has conquered the Christianity and the Judaism of Leftist Christians and Jews. If there is no difference between Leftist moral values and those of Judaism or Christianity, then Christianity is little more than Leftism with “Jesus” rhetoric added, and Judaism is Leftism with Jewish terms — such as “Tikkun Olam” (“repairing the world”) and “Prophetic values” — added.

But if Christianity is, morally speaking, really Leftism, why didn’t Catholics or Protestants assert these values prior to 19th-century European Leftism? And, if Judaism is essentially a set of Left-wing values, does that mean that the Torah and the Talmud are Leftist documents? Or are the two pillars of Judaism generally wrong?

More questions:

Why are almost no Christians and Jews who believe that God is the author of the Bible (or, in the case of Jews, the Torah) on the Left?

Why are so few pro-life Catholic and Protestant Christians on the Left? Do they not care about “the poor”?

Of course, that is what people on the Left believe. As former head of the Democratic Party Howard Dean said, “Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans, is, we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

They believe such things despite the fact that traditional Protestants and Catholics have created more institutions to take care of the sick and needy than probably any other groups in the world. And despite the fact that religious Americans give more charity and volunteer more time than secular Americans do.

And why have the great majority of Orthodox Jews rejected the Left? For Jews on the Left, the explanation is simple: Orthodox Jews have primitive beliefs and therefore primitive values.

The obvious response is that for the Leftist, all opposition to the Left, secular or religious, is primitive and usually worse (Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Xenophobic, Ignorant, Bigoted, Intolerant, Mean-Spirited, etc.). So this doesn’t tell us much. What might tell us much is this: With a handful of exceptions, Orthodox Jews know Judaism far better than non-Orthodox Jews do. Given how few of them are Leftist, this would suggest that Judaism and Leftism are indeed in conflict.

But that doesn’t matter to most Jews on the Left because to be a good person (and, to those for whom it matters, to be a good Jew), one need not know Judaism, let alone follow Judaism. One needs only to feel what is right (Leftism is overwhelmingly based on feeling); and, when in doubt, one can determine what is right from The New York Times, not from sacred Jewish texts.

One of the many fundamental differences between Leftism and Judaism concerns evil. Jews and others on the Left (everywhere, not just in America) have a real problem identifying, let alone confronting, evil. Yet, for Judaism, identifying and confronting evil is as basic a Jewish value as exists. That is why, for example, there is no pacifist tradition in Judaism.

Regarding evil, the Psalmist writes — and this is recited in synagogue every Sabbath — “Those who love God — hate evil.” And as regards pacifism, one of the Prophets, Joel (3:10), inverts what became the much more famous quotation of Isaiah and Micah: “Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears.” And later, the Talmud, almost equivalent in importance to the Bible, teaches (Berakhot 58a): “The Torah has said: If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.”

In contrast, Leftists, including Leftist Jews and Christians:

— were the loudest in condemning President Ronald Reagan when he labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”

— devoted much of their lives to opposing the war in Vietnam, which they labeled immoral even though it was a war against Stalinist tyranny.

— opposed deposing the mass murderer Saddam Hussein. Many even opposed the Gulf War.

— believe that the moral wasteland known as the United Nations is, or must be the greatest force for good on earth, not the United States.

— oppose allowing the American military to recruit on campuses.

And the further Left one goes, the more one demonizes free Israel and supports the dictatorships that wish to destroy Israel.

Indeed, Israel provides the clearest proof of how Leftism is stronger than the Jewishness of most Jews on the Left. Israel is threatened with a Holocaust by Iran and tens of millions of Islamic supporters outside of Iran, and Palestinian society is saturated with the most virulent Jew-hatred since the Nazis. Yet while today’s Jew- and Israel-haters call the Left home, Jews on the Left continue to be proud members of the Left. Such is the power of Leftism, the most dynamic religion in the world for the last 150 years.

And that explains Bart Stupak’s vote, too. In his inner conflict between Catholicism and Leftism, the more dynamic religion won.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently “Happiness Is a Serious Problem” (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Dennis Prager

The country took its biggest step ever down a road diametrically opposed to its original intent of keeping the state small so that the individual can be free and great.

Therefore, in this unprecedented crisis of values, this is what needs to be done:

1. Know and teach America’s core values.

We got to this point solely because over the past few generations, Americans have forgotten the values that have made America distinctive and great. Even the “Greatest Generation” failed to communicate them.

In a nutshell, they are what I call the American Trinity: “In God we trust,” “Liberty” and “E Pluribus Unum.” The left has successfully made war on all three — substituting secularism for God and religion in as much of American life as possible; substituting equality (of result) for liberty; and multiculturalism is the opposite of “E Pluribus Unum.”

People who do not understand American ideals — especially small government — now dominate our schools, our entertainment media and our news media.

(My own contribution here is a video titled, “The American Trinity” at www.prageru.com. Please view it and forward it.)

2. Recognize that we are fighting the left, not liberals.

Conservatives and centrists are no longer fighting liberals. We are fighting the left.

Liberalism believed in American exceptionalism; the left not only does not believe in it, the left opposes it. President Obama, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism, replied, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Liberalism believed in creating wealth; the left is interested in redistributing it.

Liberalism believed in a strong defense. The left believes in cutting defense and a strong United Nations.

3. Democrats should be referred to as Social Democrats.

This is not meant to be cute, let alone as a slur. But calling Democrats Social Democrats is an effective way of reminding Americans that there is no longer any difference between what is now known as the Democratic Party and the Social Democratic parties of Europe. When the Democratic Party returns to its roots as a liberal, not a left-wing, party, we will happily resume calling the party by its original name. However, since no Democrat can cite a significant difference between the Democratic Party and the SD parties, there is no good reason not to use the more accurate nomenclature.

4. Work tirelessly to repeal the bill.

We must single-mindedly work to repeal the government health plan. We all know that it is difficult to repeal entitlements because they are like drugs and it is very difficult to wean people off drugs. But it is not impossible. We need to warn our fellow Americans that entitlements will do to America what drugs eventually do to addicts.

All Republicans must run for office on the “repeal” issue. Even when they lose, the difference between right and left, between Republicans and Social Democrats will have been made clear; and clarity is our best friend.

5. Our motto: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

I used this phrase in addressing the Republican members of Congress. It has become widely used, including by Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., on the House floor during the Congressional debate on Sunday. It encapsulates this epic battle of American values versus leftist values. Every movement needs a motto. I nominate this.

6. Do not let other matters distract.

Neither Republicans nor conservatives are united on every issue facing America. Immigration is one example. But we are united on the big government vs. free individual issue, which, more than anything else, has defined America. If we allow any other domestic issue to divide us, we will lose.

And here’s why: If Americans forget what America stands for, it won’t help us if there is not one illegal immigrant here. And if we do remember what it means to be American, we can handle anything.

7. Acknowledge that we are in a non-violent civil war.

I write the words “civil war” with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.

Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently “Happiness Is a Serious Problem” (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Michelle Malkin

Democratic leaders leaked a solid-seeming price tag — $940 billion over 10 years — before the CBO released any official comment or report. Liberal blogs and mainstream newswires started parroting Democrats’ claims that their plan “would cut the deficit by $130 billion over the next decade, and $1.2 trillion in the second decade of the plan’s implementation” — again, before the CBO had released an iota of information, and hours before the House Rules Committee posted the long-awaited reconciliation bill.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn pronounced himself “giddy” over the supposed CBO scoring. Math lover and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed: “I love numbers. They’re so precise.”

But “precise” does not mean “accurate.” And the most “precise” numbers can be utterly worthless. That is basically what CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf pointed out in his summary of the unofficial preliminary analysis of Demcare:

“Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.”

Translation: Garbage in, garbage out. Elmendorf’s weary number crunchers know they are just more stage props in the Oba-Kabuki health care theater. Like the president’s partisan donor-doctors dressed up in their White House-supplied lab coats, the CBO’s statistical authorities are being exploited to lend credibility and solidity to the Democrats’ legislative vaporware.

The CBO didn’t release its non-report because it was finished. The agency released it because Democrats needed cover for their bogus transparency pledge to post the bill 72 hours before voting on it (which they still didn’t fulfill).

The good news is that the number crunchers say they may have a real, final, useful analysis done by Sunday. The bad news is that House Democrats — moving forward with their “deem-and-pass” trickery — are scheduled to ram this monstrosity through by Sunday.

Pelosi touted fantasy savings from cutting Medicare waste, fraud and abuse totaling some $500 billion over the first 10 years of the Demcare plan. But House Democrats are relying on reaping massive dividends from Medicare reimbursement cuts that no one in Congress has had the courage to make. They also set aside the projected $200 billion so-called “doctor fix” to Medicare to make their math fit.

The first four years of Demcare clock in at $17 billion, which means the last six would cost a whopping $923 billion. As the CBO noted, it “does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period” — with second-decade projections subject to “an even greater degree of uncertainty” than its projections for the first 10 years.

Yet, over the past week, Democratic leaders blithely jiggered and re-jiggered their plan to get below a trillion-dollar spending threshold. Like the children’s building-block game of Jenga, they stacked tax hikes and subsidies onto Medicare cuts and illusory savings until a rickety tower of budget deception was formed. Then they gingerly slid out the priciest pieces, rearranged them all and pushed back the spending kick-ins until the resulting edifice stood steady long enough to stay beneath 12 zeroes for a passing moment.

There’s an old saying that “figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure.” Every major Demcare statistic — from the inflated number of uninsured to the politicized junk-science statistic on the number of Americans who purportedly die from lack of health insurance to the mythical savings that will come from squandering “$940 billion” — is a single-payer-promoting figment of liberal imagination.

Mathematical corruption is ideological corruption. The health care battle — and the battle over truth in government accounting — is not just about health care. It’s about the lies that will be used to ram through cap-and-trade, illegal alien amnesty and endless bailouts.

As Pelosi vowed last week, “Kick open that door, and there will be other legislation to follow. We’ll take the country in a new direction.” Yep — straight to a red-ink-stained hell in a handbasket.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Michelle Malkin

After years of covering racial hoaxes on college campuses and victim sob stories in the public arena, I’ve encountered countless opportunists who live by that demented mindset. At best, the fakers are desperately seeking 15 minutes of infamy. At worst, their aim is the criminalization of political dissent.

Upon decimating the deliberative process to hand President Obama a health care “reform” victory, unpopular Beltway Democrats and their media water-carriers now claim there’s a Tea Party epidemic of racism, harassment and violence against them.

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a tepid, obligatory statement against smearing all conservatives as national security threats. But her lieutenants had already emptied their tar buckets. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen accused Republican leaders of “stoking the flames.” Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn accused the GOP of “aiding and abetting” what he called “terrorism.”

Yet, the claims that Tea Party activists shouted “nigger” at black House Democrats remain uncorroborated. The coffin reportedly left outside Missouri Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan’s home was used in a prayer vigil by pro-life activists in St. Louis protesting the phony Demcare abortion-funding ban in Obama’s deal-cutting executive order. Videotape of a supposed intentional spitting incident targeting Missouri Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver at the Capitol shows no such thing. Cleaver himself backed off the claim a few days later. He described his heckler to The Washington Post in more passive terms as “the man who allowed his saliva to hit my face.” Slovenliness equals terrorism!

The FBI is now investigating the most serious allegation — that Tea Party activists in Virginia are somehow responsible for a cut gas line at the home of Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother. But instead of waiting for the outcome of that probe, liberal pundits have enshrined the claim as conclusive evidence of the Tea Party reign of terror.

Need more reasons to treat the latest Democratic hysteria with a grain of salt the size of their gargantuan health care bill? Remember:

— In November 2009, Kentucky census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead in a secluded rural cemetery with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest and a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly, Huffington Post and liberal media hosts stampeded over themselves to blame Fox News, conservative blogs, Republicans and right-wing radio. Federal, state and local authorities discovered that Sparkman had killed himself and deliberately concocted a hate-crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.

— In mid-October 2008, news outlets from Scranton, Pa., to ABC News to the Associated Press and MSNBC reported that someone at a Sarah Palin rally shouted “kill him” when Obama’s name was mentioned. In fact, the Secret Service (which was at the event in full force) couldn’t find a single person to corroborate the story — other than the local reporter for the Scranton Times-Tribune who made an international incident out of the claim. Agent Bill Slavoski “said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers, and not one heard the comment,” the paper reported in a red-faced follow-up. Maybe the shouter is hiding with Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman’s real killer.

— In late October 2008, a gaggle of liberal blogs spread the rumor that a Republican supporter of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s had shouted that Obama was “a nigger” during a campaign rally in Iowa. Video and firsthand accounts showed that the protester did not shout “he’s a nigger,” but “he’s a redistributor.” A lefty activist at the “progressive” Daily Kos blog confirmed the truth — but to this day, the crisis-manufacturing smear stands uncorrected and unretracted across the Internet.

— In September 2009, supporters of Colorado Democratic Rep. John Salazar falsely accused a town hall protester of hurling a death threat at the congressman. Liberal blogs again disseminated the angry Tea Party mob narrative. A week later, the local press quietly reported that Grand Junction police had investigated the incident — and determined the claim was “unfounded.” A police spokeswoman revealed that “(p)eople who witnessed the interaction between the man who made the complaint and the suspect confirmed they never heard any direct threats made regarding Congressman Salazar.” Witnesses included a Grand Junction cop “in close proximity when the interaction took place.”

— In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic Party decried a vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. A hammer-wielding thug smashed 11 windows and caused $11,000 in property damage. The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far-left nutball/transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for an SEIU-tied 527 group and canvassed for a Democratic candidate. Nevertheless, Colorado Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak continued to blame “people opposed to health care” for the attack.

Then, as now, being a Democratic Party official means never having to say you’re sorry for smearing conservative dissent.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Pat Buchanan

Tea Partiers deny it all. And neither audio nor video of this alleged incident has been produced, though TV cameras and voice recorders were everywhere on the Hill.

Other Democrats say their offices were vandalized and they’ve been threatened. A few received, and eagerly played for cable TV, obscene phone calls they got.

If true, this is crude and inexcusable behavior. And any threat should be investigated. But Democrats are also exploiting these real, imaginary or hoked-up slurs to portray themselves as political martyrs and to smear opponents as racists and bigots.

This is the politics of desperation.

Majority Whip James Clyburn accuses Republicans of “aiding and abetting … terrorism.” New York Times columnist Frank Rich compared the Tea Party treatment of Democrats to Nazi treatment of the Jews during Kristallnacht:

“How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.”

Kristallnacht, “Crystal Night,” the “Night of Broken Glass,” was the worst pogrom in Germany since the Middle Ages. Synagogues were torched and hundreds of businesses smashed. Shattered glass covered the streets. Women were assaulted and men beaten and murdered. After that terrible night, half the Jews remaining in Germany fled.

To compare a brick tossed through the window of a congressional office and two shouted slurs to Kristallnacht suggests a growing paranoia on the left about the populist right.

Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made “some Americans run off the rails,” said Rich, have we seen anything like this.

Was Rich awake in 1964? Because it wasn’t the right that went off the rails. The really big riot in 1964 was in Harlem, lasting five days, with 500 injured and as many arrested. The Watts riot in 1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967, Washington, D.C., and 100 other cities in 1968, all bringing troops into American cities, were not the work of George Wallace populists or Barry Goldwater conservatives. They were the work of folks who went “all the way with LBJ.”

Nor was it Young Americans for Freedom that burned ROTC buildings, vandalized professors’ offices, toted the guns at Cornell or took over Columbia in 1968. And it was not the Birchers who set off that 1970 explosion in the Greenwich Village townhouse that killed three radicals and aborted the terrorist bombing of the NCO club at Fort Dix.

No, this was not the New Right. This was the New Left, and it was Obama not John Boehner who used to “pal around” with one of the boys who did the Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombings.

As for calling Barney Frank a naughty name, that is not nice. But one wonders what Rich thought of the students marching under Viet Cong flags chanting, about the man who signed that Civil Rights Act, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” and, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win,” when American boys were dying in the hundreds every week fighting the communist NLF?

The 1967 attack on the Pentagon, where thousands tried to break through military police to get into the building, was the work of left-wing radicals. Did the Tea Party folks who chanted, “Kill the bill,” outside the House behave worse than that?

Some of us recall the anarchy of May Day 1971, when 15,000 leftists tried to shut down Washington on a Monday morning by rolling logs onto Canal Road, smashing car windows, blocking traffic circles and wilding in Georgetown. Most wound up behind a chain-link fence at the Armory.

How many were arrested on Capitol Hill Sunday a week ago?

Not one Tea Partier, man or woman.

The “mass hysteria” of the Tea Party right, writes Rich, is at root about race. “By 2012 … non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party is virtually all white. … Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.”

Rich is implying that when America’s white majority disappears, in 2042 according to 2008 Census Bureau projections, the day of the white conservative is over.

Given the rise in ethnic consciousness among all Americans, Rich may be right. But it is not just white folks who want illegal aliens deported and legal immigration curtailed, while 25 million of our own are out of work or underemployed.

A Zogby poll for the Center for Immigration Studies found that 56 percent of Hispanics, 57 percent of Asian-Americans and 68 percent of African-Americans think legal immigration is too high.

If the Tea Party folks think it is leftist elites who detest and wish to be rid of the America they grew up in and love, they are right.

Patrick Buchanan is the author of the book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

On April 8 in Prague, President Obama signed what is called the New START bilateral arms control agreement. It reads like it was written by the Russians and has nothing good in it for the United States.

Obama is demanding a rush to ratification, after which we can then discover the details of what the treaty requires. Does that remind you of the procedure used for Obamacare?

If there ever were a need for the Senate to read the bill and for the Senate to use its “advice” power as well as its “consent” power, this is it, including reading the treaty’s protocols and annexes. Harry Reid’s Senate promptly held one hearing, but heard only from treaty advocates, not from its critics.

In the globalist world that Obama inhabits, he dreams of a nuclear-zero world. But his “world without nuclear weapons” would be a world where the United States is a sitting duck for nukes fired by a rogue nation.

The treaty allows Russia to build new and modern weapons to reach New START limits, whereas the United States is locked into reducing its current number. That means Russia will have new and tested weapons, but the U.S. will be stuck with its current, out-of-date, untested warheads.

We live in a dangerous world in which bad guys respect strength and weapons, and disdain weakness and disarmament. Yet Obama is already presiding over the steady obsolescence of our aging deterrent, a failure to test our weapons and the phasing out of our skilled workforce to sustain them.

The fantasy that our abandonment of nuclear weapons will inspire other nations to follow our example is so foolish that it can only be described as nuts. When the Cold War thawed and the U.S. and the old U.S.S.R. dramatically reduced their nuclear warheads, that encouraged proliferation — with India, Pakistan, North Korea, Syria and Iran trying to join the nuclear club.

New START allows the United States to have only as many nuclear warheads as Russia can afford to build. And Russia gets to set the count of weapons.

Equal ceilings on warheads are ridiculous because, while Russia only has to defend its own people, our allies all over the world count on us for protection. If the treaty prohibits us from having weapons to fulfill those expectations, they will try to build their own.

The treaty does not limit tactical nuclear weapons, leaving Russia with a 10-to-one numeric superiority, which Russia has threatened to use in regional conflicts. We could build more tactical missiles, but there is no chance Obama will do that.

New START gives up the verification, on-site inspections and monitoring of production that were requirements of previous treaties. Whatever happened to Ronald Reagan’s maxim, “Trust, but verify”?

Obama has made it clear that his eagerness for a nuclear-zero world also means a world without any defense against nuclear weapons. He has cut spending for missile defenses and killed or mothballed the few innovative programs we have to knock down incoming rockets in their boost phase.

Ever since President Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983, the Kremlin has tried to ban all U.S. missile defenses. The Kremlin brags that it achieved this goal in New START.

This treaty gives Russia a veto over all U.S. defenses against incoming missiles. Article V contains a binding clause that we “shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and (submarine-launched ballistic missile) launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors therein.”

Article XIV confirms this prohibition, stating that any party can withdraw from New START if “extraordinary events … have jeopardized its supreme interests.” Russia explained that this means it will stick with New START “only if the (U.S.) refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.”

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is available to save us from New START folly — i.e., the constitutional provision that ratification requires approval by two-thirds of senators. That’s the provision the globalists hate the most.

The Council on Foreign Relations complained in print on May 1, 2008, that “the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions, complicates U.S. assumptions of new international obligations.”

Our Constitution can save us from New START if 34 senators will stand up for America.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded “Supremacists.” She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Tony Blankley

So, considering the rhetorical onslaught that is about to be unleashed on the public, to paraphrase (and with the deepest apologies to) Winston Churchill on the occasion of the fall of France in June 1940:

What House Minority Leader John A. Boehner has called the Battle of Capitol Hill is over. I expect that the Battle of the Electorate is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of a nonsocialist America. Upon it depends our own American way of life and the long continuity of our institutions and our history. The whole fury and might of the media and the Democratic Party must very soon be trained on the electorate.

If they can stand up to the coming propaganda, America may be free, and the life of the wider free world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if the voters succumb to those seven months of blandishments and deceptions, then free America — including all that we have known and cared for — will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Let the public therefore brace itself to its duties, and so concentrate its mind on the true facts, that if the American spirit of freedom and dignity last for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was the American voters’ finest hour.”

As I said, apologies to Winston Churchill for borrowing and abusing his immortal words on the fall of France and the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

And yet, for us, now and here is where we must battle for our freedom. Not, pray God, with bullets, but with words and ideas.

This battle will not be fought in the skies over London, but on the Internet and airwaves over America. The target is not the homes and factories of the people, but the minds and judgments of the voters. But the power of a mind confused and misused is every bit as threatening to freedom as is the power of bombs and bullets.

The path to Sunday’s catastrophic vote was paved with cynical blandishments by the Democratic Party’s congressional leaders to their members. The votes were induced by the assurance that in the seven remaining months before the election, the true facts of their legislation, which led to overwhelming public opposition to the bill when passed — can be undone in the minds of the voters by remorselessly repeating misconceptions to the public.

The most mendacious, cruel and destructive proposition put forth by the Democratic congressional leadership — and soon by almost all its ranks and files — is, of course, the outlandish claim that the bill will reduce the deficit.

The uncontrolled growth of the annual deficits and total public debt is at the crux of the public’s slack-jawed horror of Washington policy these past 18 months. Washington is placing our grandchildren’s prosperity on a slow boat to China.

Everything that more than 200 years of American invention, investment, labor, suffering and triumph, war and victory has created is being sold off to the world’s lowest bidders in a matter of months.

So far, the public has not been fooled by the claim that a new entitlement for 30 million people is being created — and it will cost less.

But now the Democrats have the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) official accounting — and they plan to use it as a shield and a sword as they wade into the public debate.

Of course, every informed person understands why the CBO calculation is an honest measure of a dishonest bill. Republican Rep. Paul Ryan at the health care summit, former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, in last Sunday’s New York Times, and hundreds of commentators have all laid out the lamentable, indisputable and undisputed fact that the CBO methodology has been gamed by the congressional Democrats to turn what will be more than a trillion dollars in further public deficit and debt into a fantasy savings of $140 billion.

While Medicare is at about $30 trillion in unfunded liability by 2070, the bill preposterously claims it is going to cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars a decade. The quarter- to half-trillion dollars per 10 years that it will cost to pay Medicare doctors enough to keep them providing services has simply been put in another bill. The mendacities go on and on. They are not merely small, politically useful little deceptions. They are of a dimension that may destroy the republic.

The Democratic congressional leadership seems to have a stunningly insulting view of their potential voters’ intelligence. But on such a basis is the battle for the minds of the voters joined.

Never will the wisdom and common sense of the American public have been put to a more fateful test. The organized opposition to the bill must do its best. But, as fitting to a constitutional republic, the fate of American freedom lies with the people.

Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. E-mail him at TonyBlankley@gmail.com. To find out more about Tony Blankley and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

David Limbaugh

To borrow a phrase from President Barack Obama, “let’s be clear” on a couple of things:

First, it’s not an exaggeration to say Obamacare is socialized medicine; in fact, it doesn’t go far enough simply to say it represents the government takeover of our entire health care system. It is also a major step (begun long ago) in the complete dismantling of the unique American constitutional experiment and of the social compact between Americans and their government. Obama’s now-realized goal of fundamental change is to make the government the people’s master instead of their servant.

Secondly, we should not suffer gladly those painfully naive people who will continue to say that Obama and his obedient congressional Democrats are not radical. It may make people feel better about themselves to promote congeniality and bipartisanship, but to fantasize about such quixotic goals under this type of radical assault on our nation is tantamount to enabling it.

Thirdly, Obama and the Democrats have been unconscionably deceptive about their aims, even though Obama couldn’t help but reveal his extremism from time to time. He certainly promised “fundamental change” but was so vague that many assumed his idea of “hope and change” meant something consistent with American values. Others knew full well what grandiose plans he had in store to overthrow America’s social compact. There was no mistaking his intent when you examined his radical background and radical relationships; his extremist position on human life, including supporting a form of infanticide; his promise to redistribute wealth; his obvious grudge against America; and his experience as a street agitator in Chicago.

If the Democrats’ motives were honorable, they wouldn’t be so deceptive in everything they do, particularly in their endless drive to impose Obamacare on this nation against the unmistakable and undeniable will of the people. I couldn’t fully catalog the Democratic lies and abuses surrounding this bill with the space remaining in this column, but let’s just touch on a few:

—Public option: Obama kept insisting that his bill wasn’t about a government takeover of insurance, yet the bill will result in government’s taking comprehensive control over health care (17,000 new IRS agents alone) and government’s converting private insurers from private market risk evaluators to publicly regulated utilities completely under government control.

—Abortion: How long ago was it that Obama was promising the bill didn’t contain a provision for the federal funding of abortion? Now we’re way beyond that lie and discussing the enforceability of his bogus pledge to negate that provision through an executive order.

—Costs and taxes: In considering the whopper that Obamacare will reduce health care costs, don’t just consider the direct cost increases for care. Also factor in the hidden transfer costs that will be imposed on working people and the enormous tax increases this will involve, which even many liberals have admitted.

—Fraud: the accounting shenanigans they employed to get the Congressional Budget Office to score this debacle as deficit-neutral.

—Abuse of process: If this were a plan beneficial to Americans, Democrats wouldn’t have had to resort to every unconstitutional and illegal legislative trick imaginable.

—Choice: They said the bill wouldn’t interfere with patients’ choices over care and their physicians, that it would even — don’t laugh — give people the same luxurious plans afforded to members of Congress.

—The uninsured: This bill was never about insuring the uninsured; millions already have federal assistance and don’t use it. Millions more can afford it and choose not to but will now be forced to buy it. And millions will remain uninsured after this bill.

—Rationing: It’s inevitable. They planned it, and it’s all over the bill, but they still deny it.

—Transparency: worse than laughable.

—Republicans: Obama was forced to retract his lie that Republicans have no plan and favor retaining the status quo, but he has already resurrected it under the apparent assumption people didn’t hear his earlier retraction.

—Quality of care: How dare he continue to slander the quality of America’s health care when it is the best in the world and when he has just rammed through a system that guarantees a reduction in quality of care, as it has in every other nation that has adopted it.

—Obamacare essential to economic revival: Obama swore he couldn’t revive the economy without Obamacare, but the opposite is true because it will add yet another — the biggest ever — entitlement onto our already overburdened system.

—Bribes: If this plan were aboveboard, why the need to give special, corrupt payoffs to particular states, such as Nebraska and Louisiana?

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Remember this photo? Yes, the radical socialist candidate Obama…
has been groomed and positioned for his role in leading us into a “Post American World”.  Note the book he is readingby Fareed Zakaria – So why is it any surprise that he grades himself with a B+ and an A- if he can jam Obamacare down America’s throat. Unfortunately, with each passing day it is more evident that Obama is right on course with his Post American agenda…

It is critically important for all Americans to understand beyond a shadow of a doubt and accept the fact that our current administration has been placed in power not by chance, politics or anything other than spiritual warfare and divine intervention. We the people, His people are called for such a time as this to recognize these circumstances for what they are - specifically, not business or politics as usual.

And my fellow Americans, such a time is this as presented by our almighty God of perfection to stand bold, fight the good fight and run the race He has called us to. This new year, 2010, represents a significant opportunity for all of us who call upon our Lord, our God of this great nation to supernaturally begin the process of reclaiming and restoring America’s foundational building blocks. 2010 represents a New Years Revolution!

As we launch count down to the November elections, time is short to take advantage of this unique opportunity to reclaim many congressional seats. The 2010 elections are a gift from Heaven and a powerful opportunity to strategically replace leadership with God revering patriots who will actually honor their oath.

A 9 Point Plan to Take Back America:

1. Pray for our leaders, our great nation and for personal wisdom on how you can use your gifts and passions to be engaged in the process.     2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal thier land”

2. Engage with Passion

• Get educated – seek  the truth about our heritage/history as well as current events and stay informed.
• Stay connected with other God revering patriots, especially the church body. Spread the truth through all your networks.
• Get motivated to be involved. Attend local events to share your opinion, send letters and call your local representatives. Discover your “thing”, what drives you most about these issues and pursue it with passion.

3. Change America’s Leadership – Vote to replace the traitors and socialists. In America we have this awesome gift but yet less than half of the country exercised this right and a smaller percentage of Christians voted. The November elections are a gift from God to His people and Christian soldiers across America - stay tuned to our 2010 Amen project created to keep you informed of conservative, patriotic candidates -their voting records, platforms, etc and information on how to support them.

4. Expose and Derail the Progressives Agenda to Radically Transform America. We aim to expose this evil agenda through a series of media presentations so stay tuned to stay in the know.

5. Protect & Preserve America’s  Sovereignty, Constitutional Freedoms, Rights and Judeo-Christian Heritage:

• Protect the family and sanctity of life
• Protect freedom of religion – preserve our Christian Heritage
• Protect freedom of speech by – Defeat government takeover of the Internet
• Defeat proposed Obamacare, Card-check, Amnesty legislation
• Protect America’s Homeland - interesting potential conflicts of interest that may expain why we are not safer under this administration. Also add this areticle to your reading list. A powerful example of what is really going on in the mind of our elected commander in chief – (click here)

6. Expose and Stop Government Violations Against our Constitution

7. Challenge Obama’s Appointees and Czars:

• Demand removal of safe School czar Jennings (click here for details)
• Monitor all appointees and czars closely and defeat their marxist/socialist agendas (click here for details)

8. Expose and Challenge Government Corruption (earmarks, lobbyist conflicts, etc.) and demand accountability / temination / prosecution.

9. Protect Capitalism and Free-market Enterprise – defeat more government takeovers, intervention and big labor/union power-grabs that strips employees’ voting privacy rights (e.g; Card Check legislation)

Well it looks like We His People have our work cut out for us but do not be dismayed. Be energized and encouraged and know that God is with us. I am confident that We His People are up for the challenge and will prevail with Almighty God’s guidance, wisdom and assurance, along with His renewing encouragement to persevere.

Contact your representatives today and let them know you will fire them if they don’t stand-up in the gap for America, Liberty and Freedom.

Stay Informed, Be Inspired and Get Involved. And always remember, The Truth Shall Keep America Free.

Jim Schubert, The Core Report

Oliver North  -  

Since the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound passenger flight on Christmas Day, the Obama administration has attempted to deflect criticism for its inept handling of counterterrorism. President Barack Obama, the leadoff hitter, tried to convince us that the Nigerian underpants bomber was an “isolated case,” that closing Gitmo and sending jihadists to Yemen is proper and that holding show trials in Manhattan for the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is “the right thing to do.”

White House “terror czar” John Brennan was up next. Brennan, apparently convinced that the best defense is a truly offensive offense, accused administration detractors of aiding and abetting the enemy. “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda,” he wrote.

Now the O-Team has rolled out its ace rhetorical warrior — its big gun — Vice President Joe Biden. The veep has been making the rounds on the “talking head” TV shows — and blasting away in every direction — with considerably less accuracy than we have come to expect from a Hellfire missile launched from a Predator.

During a conversation on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Biden was asked about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s critique of the Obama administration’s handling of terrorism. The veep blustered, “I don’t know where Dick Cheney has been. … What is he talking about?” He accused his predecessor of rewriting history.

In true shoot-from-the-lip fashion, he also made it personal: “I don’t think … Cheney listens. The president of the United States said in the State of the Union, ‘We’re at war with al-Qaida.’ He stated this.” Biden went on to catalog the administration’s “successes” in pursuing al-Qaida since taking office, claiming, “We’re pursuing that war with a vigor like it’s never been seen before.”

Referring to al-Qaida, Biden continued: “We’ve eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of their associates. … We’ve sent them underground. They are, in fact, not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run.”

The “their,” “them” and “they” Biden speaks of are, of course, al-Qaida — many of whose members have indeed been “eliminated” by RPAs like the ones that I’ve seen in action in Iraq and Afghanistan and that I’m standing next to here in the New Mexico desert. Biden could have pointed out that these remarkable aerial weapons platforms were purchased by the much-maligned Bush-Cheney administration. But why bother with the facts?

There’s another problem with Biden’s answer: He wasn’t asked about al-Qaida. The question David Gregory posed was, “What about the general proposition that the president, according to former Vice President Cheney, doesn’t consider America to be at war and is essentially soft on terrorism?” It’s a question Biden apparently doesn’t want to answer.

But the veep deserves an answer to his own question. “What is (Cheney) talking about?” Here it is. Cheney is referring to those who have declared war on us: al-Qaida, the Taliban, al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, Hamas, the Fort Hood shooter, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds force and the Christmas Day underpants bomber, to name a few. Include Muslim clerics who promote, defend and encourage terrorist activities. Add in financiers who underwrite terrorism, whom we no longer can find because the EU has shut down the Terrorist Finance Tracking system. And don’t forget radical madrassas that foster hatred and foment jihad in Muslim boys around the world.

Twisting the truth is a Biden forte. His shameful claim to CNN’s Larry King, “I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration,” would be laughable but for Iranian efforts to undo the sacrifice of so much American blood and treasure. Equally shocking is Biden’s confession to Harry Smith on CBS of his newfound concern for “a terrorist attack in the United States along the lines of the Christmas Day bomber. You get a disgruntled student, someone who has some relationship with the United States who is able to be recruited quickly, able to be indoctrinated quickly. And they say, basically, ‘Here’s a bomb. Go do it.”

Lone bombers; dozens of jihadist terror organizations; radical clerics, madrassas and financiers — all are targeting America. Sounds like war to me. Is Biden a revisionist or just oblivious? You decide.

Oliver North is the host of “War Stories” on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of “American Heroes.” To find out more about Oliver North and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Obama vs. the 10th Amendment

Chuck Norris

2010-03-02

Not surprisingly, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released last Friday revealed that 56 percent of Americans think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to their rights and freedoms.

Particularly apropos here is the feds’ health care violation of the 10th Amendment, which is part of our Bill of Rights and was ratified Dec. 15, 1791. The amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Thomas Jefferson explained the pre-eminence of this amendment in 1791: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

The point is that based on the 10th Amendment, when it comes to legislating and controlling our health care, the federal government doesn’t have a constitutional leg to stand on. And even its past violations of the 10th Amendment by implementing government health care services have proved to break more national legs than they have to mend them. The proof is in the pudding. How many times does it have to be pointed out to Washington? Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. Case closed.

The government is inept to run America’s health care system. And now it wants to expand its programs (its health care business) to oversee what equates to one-sixth of the gross national product? What rational board anywhere in the world would rightly appoint a CEO who had a string of miserable business failures and major corporate bankruptcies in his dossier?

I agree with Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at Stanford University Medical Center, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who put it best in their article a few months back, titled “Alternatives to government health takeover.” They said this: “We think it’s critical that power shifts to the American consumer and away from government, employers and insurers, as evidence shows medical care prices come down when patients pay directly. Government should offer tax relief, such as refundable tax credits, to encourage private health insurance purchasing — especially for low-income families. Similar ideas, like those in the Patients’ Choice Act … are important for Americans to consider. We would do well also to consider creative ideas such as changing federal payments to state-based medicaid plans to individual vouchers or expanding health savings accounts, as has been done in South Carolina.”

Returning the onus of solving health care issues to families, local communities and states would not only return a balance of power to our federal government but also help with America’s economic recovery and build up communities at the same time.

The abuse of federal political power to intervene in areas such as Americans’ private health care could exist only in a nation that no longer holds its leaders accountable to its constitution and that has governmental leadership that regards itself as above its people and its constitution. Sadly, I was listening to an interview the other day in which President Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as “an imperfect document … a document that reflects some deep flaws … (and) an enormous blind spot.” He also said, “The Framers had that same blind spot.”

In so doing, the president established a rationale and justification for disregarding the Constitution. Even worse, he placed himself above the Constitution and those “blind Framers,” who just couldn’t see the big picture as he does today. After all, he’s the constitutional scholar, and the Framers were just, well, the creators of the document!

Our 44th president would do well to learn from America’s third president, Thomas Jefferson, himself a source greater than any living constitutional lawyer. Imagine Jefferson sitting there at the health care summit, a ripe sage at roughly 80 years of age. After listening to all the clamoring of both Republicans and Democrats, he politely but sternly utters these words, which he also wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson in 1823: “The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers. They (did not learn from the past), nor (were they) aware of the slipperiness of the eels of the law. I ask for no straining of words against the General Government, nor yet against the States. I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market.”

It couldn’t be any clearer or wiser than that.

I encourage you to go to http://www.TenthAmendmentCenter.com and learn more about your 10th Amendment rights, and then fight for those rights by holding all your representatives accountable to them.

To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CHUCK NORRIS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM