Daniel Horowitz, in RedState, has gotten this issue exactly right.

About Rick Santorum’s intense confrontation of Mitt Romney on the subject of Romneycare in Massachusetts, Horowitz says:

He [Romney] has the nerve to feign outrage over Obamacare, even while he touts Romneycare – a carbon copy of Obamacare – as a virtuous success, supported by 90% of Massachusetts residents.  Santorum did his homework, and called him out on the hypocrisy.  Romney was never able to answer why the same market intervention and distortions – mandates, subsidies, and Medicaid – which form the bedrock of Obamacare , supposedly worked so well in Massachusetts.  The reason he couldn’t answer the question is because Romneycare was a complete failure.  It is the canary in the coal mine for Obamacare.

Gov. Romney’s statement that most Massachusetts citizens are happy with Romneycare is ludicrous. In 2010, Massachusetts and Vermont delivered the highest average individual market health insurance premiums–over $400 per person per month, approximately twice the national average. Those in the state who cannot afford these outrageous costs are forced into Medicaid which, in turn, encourages people not to work so that they can meet the eligibility requirements for the federally funded plan.

]]> http://biggovernment.com/sberry/2012/01/28/axelrod-mitt-gave-eloquent-defense-of-obamacare/feed/ 105 http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/11/fact-checking-david-axelrod-jeremiah-wrights-long-career-of-hateful-statements-wasnt-just-selective-editing/ http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/11/fact-checking-david-axelrod-jeremiah-wrights-long-career-of-hateful-statements-wasnt-just-selective-editing/#comments Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:17:30 +0000 Charles C. Johnson http://biggovernment.com/?p=406404 David Axelrod, chief political strategist for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign and former White House political adviser, defended Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday evening in a speech in Thousand Oaks, Ca, saying that the news reports depicting the man once called an Obama “confidant” as anti-Semite and racist were “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”

Axelrod is lying.

As I wrote in the American Spectator, this wasn’t the first time that the official spin was that Wright was “selectively edited”:

Candidate Obama tried to dismiss his support for Wright, telling Charlie Gibson of ABC News, “It’s as if we took the five dumbest things that I ever said or you ever said…in our lives and compressed them, and put them out there, you know, I think that people’s reaction, would be understandably upset.” And rightly so. In sermon after sermon, Wright’s radical black nationalist ideas were clearly and emphatically stated. They were not an aberration, but the focal point of Pastor Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Obama was an active member for 20 years.

As far as I know, I am the only writer to have read every single one of Jeremiah Wright’s published sermons, so take it from me when I say that they are very racist and very racialist. Here’s just a little bit of what I uncovered:

In [Wright’s] church-associated Kwame Nkrumah Academy, the congregation’s children learned such canards as the claim that “[h]istorically, Europeans tried to build themselves up by tearing down all that Africans had done.” Obama biographer David Remnick notes that Obama approved of this “African-centered” grade school, where Wright’s God loves all people, but black people especially. And why shouldn’t he? Jesus, Wright taught, was “an African Jew,” as were most of the figures of the Bible. As Wright said in Africans Who Shaped Our Faith (1995), “evidence exists within and outside of the Bible to support the notion that the people of Israel…were of African descent!”

Wright believes that the Jews as we know them aren’t really Jews.

To support this bizarre claim, Wright must contend that African Jews are different from European Jews. To draw this distinction more clearly, he often invokes Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe, which claims that the Jews are descended not from ancient people of Israel, but from the Khazars in Eastern Europe, which also happens to be a historical claim of anti-Semites. The book is contradicted by genetic evidence, but still politically useful. If Jews are not Semitic in origin, they cannot claim a historic or theological tie to Israel. God’s promise to the Israelites be inoperative for modern Jews. It is in this context that Wright’s comments on Zionism should be seen. Borrowing from the struggle to defeat apartheid-era South Africa, Wright attacks Israel’s right to exist. “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” he writes. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.” Zionism is like the Dutch Afrikaner [Reformed] Church of the Afrikaners, where the “white racism…is so open and blatant in the doctrines of apartheid or in Zionism.” America had too long practiced “unquestioning” support of Zionism.

I wrote:

It is in this context that Wright’s comments on Zionism should be seen. Attacking Israel’s right to exist, Wright held that “[t]he Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for more than 40 years now.” America, by defending Zionism and its apartheid-like regime, had too long practiced “unquestioning” support of Zionism. Given his hostility to Zionism and non-”African” Jews, it wasn’t surprising that Wright’s anti-Semitism reared its ugly head in June 2009. “Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me,” he told the Daily Press of Hampton Roads, Virginia. They were “controlling” Obama and therefore preventing the United States from sending a delegation to an anti-racism United Nations conference. (America boycotted it on the grounds that it would descend into an anti-Jew hate fest as it had in previous years.) Wright remained loyal to Malcolm X (Trinity United Church celebrates his birthday) and to Louis Farrakhan.

Wright even joined Farrakhan on a trip to meet with the latter’s benefactor, Muammar Gaddafi, in 1984. (Wright has also routinely bragged about his trips to Castro’s Cuba and Ortega’s Nicaragua. He predicted that his trip to Libya would cause trouble for Obama in 2008: “When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gaddafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell,” he said.)

Wright routinely cites the work of conspiracy theorists who believes that Jewish doctors working with the U.S. government created H.I.V./AIDs.

So anti-Semitic is the Reverend Wright that Simon Wiesenthal Center included him in its top ten anti-Semitic slurs of 2011.

“The state of Israel is an illegal, genocidal … place,” he told an audience in Baltimore in June of last year. “To equate Judaism with the state of Israel is to equate Christianity with [rapper] Flavor Flav.”

Wright’s solution is the sort of anti-racial harmony we’ve come to expect: “We need to help African-Americans see they are just Africans born in another country.”

Axelrod described the initial news reports in 2008 on Obama’s long-time family pastor and mentor as “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”

The claim that Wright’s sermons were selectively edited by Obama’s political opponents contradicts what is known about Wright’s preaching and the radical, racialist creed of the Trinity United Church of Christ, to which Obama belonged for two decades and to which he contributed a large amount of money.

Axelrod’s claim is also contradicted by Obama himself, who has cited Wright’s enthusiasm for radical politics as the main reason he was attracted to the church.

Axelrod brought up the Wright controversy during a lecture recounting his role as the “architect” of Obama’s rise from the Illinois state senate to the presidency. Axelrod praised Obama’s infamous “race speech,” contrasting his media skills to those of GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

Photo source: Distinguished Speaker Series

The lecture was part of the Distinguished Speaker Series of Southern California, and was delivered before a largely friendly audience.

Recording was not permitted in the Fred Kavli Theater, but Axelrod’s remarks on Wright are an exact quote, written down and tweeted immediately upon delivery. Axelrod’s tone was somewhat bitter, a brief flash of passion in an otherwise relaxed presentation.

The questions that followed the lecture were non-controversial, having been pre-screened by a sympathetic moderator to weed out any hostile or even remotely challenging inquiries.

Asked to describe the highlights of his service in the White House, Axelrod cited the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; the killing of Osama bin Laden, the nomination of two new liberal Supreme Court justices; the resumption of stem cell research, the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Act (extending the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits); and the vote to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.

Almost apologetically, the moderator asked Axelrod to comment on Jodi Kantor’s new and controversial book, The Obamas, which has alleged that First Lady Michelle Obama clashed with the president’s senior advisers. While saying that he generally respected Kantor’s work, Axelrod claimed that Kantor had not spoken to the “best” sources, and described the role of the First Lady in the administration as a positive one.

The audience tittered in agreement when Axelrod criticized the creation of Super PACs, acknowledging the fact that Democrats as well as Republicans had formed them, but noting that Democratic Super PACs were raising far less money. He mentioned that Mitt Romney’s Super PAC was formed by his friends and former aides, but failed to note that former Obama aides had created the pro-Obama Priorities USA Super PAC last year.

Axelrod also claimed that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2009 had let corporations spend massive amounts of money on elections–neglecting to mention that the ruling also applied to unions, and that the case rested on principles of free speech. Conversely, he praised the administration’s efforts to push campaign finance legislation through the Senate–failing to mention that the bill only applied to corporations.

Clearly, Axelrod’s purpose was not to inform, but to inspire. He suggested that Obama would reiterate the “hope and change” message of his 2008 campaign in 2012, and would emphasize economic equality as well as economic growth.

Axelrod’s defense of Jeremiah Wright, however, is a sign that the Obama camp is still resisting and obscuring the degree to which Obama’s own inspirations and ideas remain outside the political mainstream.

Let’s dispense with the obvious losers first:

• Michele Bachmann: Hometown girl did not make good. Bachmann made much of her Iowa roots on the campaign trail and won the Ames Straw poll, but in the end she won barely five percent of the vote. Part of the problem was that she was prone to gaffe and conspiracies. Her argument that vaccines cause autism didn’t wash. Her supporters are now politically homeless, though she might still have some residual effect on the presidential race. She has a choice to make now when it comes to endorsements. Expect her to wait though if she waits too long she risks becoming irrelevant.

• Rick Perry: I’m not prepared to join John Carville in calling him the worse presidential candidate in history, but it’s pretty bad.  He placed fifth after spending over $300 per vote in TV ad buys. Conventional wisdom suggests that Perry made a tactical error in ignoring the power of the presidential debates which tuned off many voters. Perhaps. But his biggest error seems to have been waiting too long to join the presidential field. Between the dates of announcing for president on August 13, 2011 and the Iowa caucuses barely 144 days have passed, compared to say, nearly five years for Mitt Romney. Remember, Governor Perry is also governor of Texas at that same time. As it stands, with the exception of Ron Paul who isn’t running for election to the House, Perry is the only candidate running who has a day job other than running for president. He might have to return to it especially as he is costing the state of Texas some $400,000 a month in security costs. The Governor could argue that this is cheap advertising for the Texas economy, which he heralds wherever he goes, but that might not wash with Texans. Nevertheless, Perry can still make a stand, arguing that he is only credible limited government candidate left in the race. Look to South Carolina, which will be his Alamo. If he succeeds there, he could very well win the nomination, but he’ll have to stop running ads advertising himself and start advertising his opponent’s flaws. If Perry can secure the endorsement of Jim DeMint who has refused to endorse or some of the other conservative South Carolinians, it’s over for Romney and Gingrich.

• Newt Gingrich: Grinch has allowed Mitt Romney to get his goat and distract him from his one talent: spinning off ideas. He bemoans the negative ads that Mitt Romney’s Super PAC is churning out against him, so much so that he has vowed that he will begin going after Mitt Romney. This isn’t Romney’s fault. Thanks to the inanities of campaign finance law, the Wall Street Journal editorial page points out that Romney is legally prohibited from admitting what everyone knows: his allies and former aides are behind the ads. He refused to congratulate Romney on his win and is running fourth in New Hampshire. He may well make a stand in South Carolina or Florida, where he is still the presumptive front runner, but then again he was the front runner of Iowa just two weeks ago.  Gingrich has vowed an alliance with Santorum to take out Romney, who has thus far been something of a teflon candidate, and for all Gingrich’s disapproval of Super PACs, he seems to have forgotten that he has one, too.

• Jon Huntsman, Jr.: By refusing to debate in Iowa and by repeatedly insulting the Iowa electorate, there simply is no path to victory in Iowa that excludes New Hampshire. Governor Huntsman even suggested that nobody cares about the Iowa results. He presumably forgot that Iowans–who live in a swing state–do care.  That wouldn’t be so bad if he were leading in the New Hampshire primary, another swing state, but he isn’t despite effectively having moved there.

• Ron Paul: Representative Paul expected to win Iowa, predicting that he would come in first or second. He came in third. This proves what I had been saying about Ron Paul and the problems of polling him.  Independents may like Paul, but they don’t vote for him enough to win. Fortunately, Paul was decisively in third place. The Paul fans would have assuredly seen foul play had he narrowly lost to Mitt Romney.

• Rick Santorum: He should have outright won the Iowa caucuses, but lost it narrowly. If anything, the state is tailor-made for him: evangelical, white, working class, and post-industrial. He ought to have won it in a cake walk.  Sure, the evangelicals came too late in the game, but he ought to have had more appeal outside of their ranks. If Santorum can’t win decisively in Iowa, where he went door to door, where can he win? His big government credentials–he voted for the “Bridge to Nowhere”, supports anti-free trade legislation, voted for the new Prescription D Medicare entitlement–make it hard to see him winning in a post-Tea Party electorate. One of the lessons of the 2012 primary is that the voters seem to get over a candidate almost as quickly as they get to know him. Santorum was lucky. We didn’t get to know him before the Iowa caucus. The other candidates will see to it that we know him now. Santorum’s model of going door-to-door doesn’t scale well and unlike Huckabee, he is not a son of the South. It’s hard to see him hitting the pavement all throughout the country on Super Tuesday. He needs a cash infusion to be competitive, but it seems doubtful that he will get it fast enough.

• Mitt Romney: Governor Romney got exactly the percentage of the vote he got in 2008. This ought to worry him. After all, he has been running for president for nearly five years. To be sure, there was a record turnout this time– 122, 255 votes cast– but Romney was unable to grow his coalition. Could it be that there is a ceiling of 25% in Iowa? David Axelrod, Obama’s strategist, seems to think so, calling Romney “Mr. 25 percent.” Romney spent a lot of money in 2008 in Iowa, only to lose it to Governor Huckabee. He spent a lot less in 2012 and parachuted in, narrowly beating Santorum who had campaigned in all of Iowa’s 99 counties. Romney  seems assured to win New Hampshire where he owns a home and has spent a lot of time, but he will have a tough time in the South.

Of course the biggest loser of the 2012 election is the Tea Party. With the exception of Rick Perry, who seeks to make Washington as “inconsequential in your life as possible,” there is no credible limited government, pro-American defense candidate.

OBAMA:  Hey Axe!  Whassup?

No, I don’t know who leaked our decision to abandon blue collar whites.  Soon’s we find the S.O.B., we’ll dress him up like a banker and drop him into the middle of an OWS protest.

You’re kidding.  We gotta reverse course because word got out?

Okay, I understand: you want me and Joe to be regular people for a while.  Suggestions?

Avoid Camp David.  Fine.  Too rustic for my taste, anyway.  Anything else?

Wait until after the election to eminent domain Lafayette Square and build a White House pitch and putt complex?  No problem.  That it?

What?!  Aw, c’mon, man!  You can’t be serious.  That would demean the office of the Presidency.

All right, all right, I’ll do it.  Yeah, we’ll brainstorm more ideas, too.  Okay, later. [hangs up]

BIDEN:  Chief?

OBAMA:  First thing tomorrow, Joe, you and I begin hanging new drapery in the East Room.

JAY CARNEY:  I’ll alert the networks to have camera crews in place by 10:00 a.m., sir.

BILL DALEY:  Your 9:00 o’clock tee time with Tiger at Congressional, Mr. President?  I’ll call him and canc. …

OBAMA:  Ixnay!  SNL’s Fred Armisen owes me big for resuscitating his career.  Request his presence here at dawn in work clothes and cap.   Jay, don’t give the signal to start taping until Fred and Joe are atop their ladders.  No close ups.

VALERIE JARRETT:  [hanging up phone] You and Michelle are signed up for the Tuesday night mixed league at the Lucky Strikes Lanes in Bethesda, sir.  First-timers bring beer.

OBAMA:  Oh joy.  Well, anyway, Versace’ll need a few weeks to design Michelle’s bowling duds.  We’ll start after we get back from Hawaii in Jan . . . Joe, what?

BIDEN:  Um, regular folks don’t go to the islands on holiday, Skipper.   Better stick close this year.  How ‘bout us two and the wives do some day trips:  Busch Gardens, say; maybe check out Bob’s Reptile House in Virginia; or take a bird walk at the National Zoo.

OBAMA:  This is getting out of hand.

BIDEN:  Ooh, that sparks a thought, Number One.  Let’s you and me do a Bush-Cheney sock puppet show for poor kids next Saturday in the Rose Garden.  Bush and Cheney are quail hunting in Jersey, see, when Cheney turns towards Bush and accidentally discharges his weapon, winging Jon Corzine who’s nearby throwing bags of money into a big hole he’s dug. Meanwhile. . . .

OBAMA:  Wait wait wait.  We’re going about this bass ackwards.  I won’t get reelected because the great unwashed think I’m one of them; I’ll win if the economy booms.  How do we make that a reality in eleven months?

BIDEN:  Bring Rick Santelli in and do what he says?

JARRETT:  The President means, without openly abandoning his war on capitalism, Joe.

OBAMA:  Correct.  Look, unemployment fell to 8.6%.  Why?  Because employers are buoyed by the fact I’m looking more unelectable every day.  They’re anticipating my defeat and trying to get a leg up on competitors.

DAVID PLOUFFE:  I think I get where you’re going, sir.  We keep doing what we’ve been doing to drive your numbers down further, through the 30s and even into the 20s.  The lower you go, the more hoarded cash gets pumped into the marketplace.  By late summer, the economy’s ignited, leaving the Republican nominee gasping like a landed fish.

OBAMA:  Exactly.  Naturally, my numbers rebound dramatically in the fall, with businesses too committed to expansion to pull back even though I’m surging.  Their tough luck when I win and punish them for trying to profit on the backs of their customers.

JARRETT:  On another front, sir: the Ice Queen has agreed to break ranks with Senate Republicans and sign on to your American Jobs Bill,

OBAMA:  And what did we give up for Senator Snowe’s favors?

PLOUFFE:  She remains a Republican, sir, but she’ll have a vote in Reid’s caucus.

OBAMA:  Not too bad in exchange for. . . .

PLOUFFE:  There’s more, sir: she has first call on the White House movie theater.  And next vacancy, you’re nominating her for the Supreme Court.

OBAMA:  Ouch!  The pain in Maine weighs heav’ly on my brain.  Still, nice having a token Republican on our side.

BIDEN:  Whew!  All this Machiavellian stuff is making my head spin.  And it’s been days since you had a day off, Boss.  Whyncha reach out to Tiger and Michael Jordan.  Check if they’re available to fly to Pebble Beach this weekend.

DALEY:  Snowe’s already reserved Air Force One through Sunday, sir.

OBAMA:  Oh?  Has she moved into the Residence yet?  What more can possibly happen to. . . .

[enter First Lady]

MICHELLE:  Hey, who booked the Blue Room Friday night for “An Old-Fashioned Maine Snowbound Hoedown”?   I need it for my seminar on “Weak Men, and the Strong Women Who Push Them to Greatness.”  Move the Maine shindig to your basketball court.  You hear me, Barack?

In 2009, another RockPort investment, Satcon technologies, partnered with SunPower Corporation and Exelon Energy to build a 41-acre solar array in Chicago. SunPower, recently covered here, is the recipient of a controversial $1.2 billion DOE loan guarantee. SunPower also worked with Satcon on another government-funded solar project in Hawai’i.

Meanwhile, the DOE has doubled down on their loan program with a $646 million loan guarantee to Exelon Energy (who own the SunPower/Satcon project in Chicago). Exelon bought out the Antelope Valley Project from First Solar Energy after First Solar missed the DOE’s loan guarantee deadline and was denied an extension. In another interesting appearance, Jeffrey Immelt’s GE Energy Financial just bought out First Solar’s Desert Sunlight project after receiving a DOE guarantee for a portion of their $1.46 billion loan. It’s probably more than a matter of coincidence Exelon arose out of an $8.2 billion merger advised by Rahm Emanuel in 1999 and that White House political strategist David Axelrod is a former consultant for Exelon. Furthermore, Exelon executives were major contributors to Obama’s 2008 campaign, bundling several hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions.

Beacon Power, who just filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy after receiving $67 million in stimulus loans and grants, was a major recipient of investment funding from “The Beacon Group”. The Beacon Group, a division of bank bailout recipient JP Morgan Chase, has also invested in RockPort Capital’s PowerSpan Energy. PowerSpan CEO Frank Alix was a White House guest for a December 2009 Jobs Summit, in addition to testifying in favor of carbon sequestration regulations in his March 2009 Congressional Testimony. In return for their government lobbying, PowerSpan enjoyed $50 million worth of financial backing from George Soros for their carbon sequestration technology five days after an EPA ruling established CO₂ as a regulated environmental pollutant.

In total, we have found more than $4.2 billion in preferential grants and loans to companies that either lobbied for or had conflicts of interest with the White House. The incestuous relationship between the Obama White House, RockPort Capital investments, and companies such as GE, Beacon Energy, and Exelon Energy suggest unethical, if not illegal, dispersion of taxpayer funds. Meanwhile, the White House is claiming executive privilege on Solyndra while dishing out more DOE loan guarantees to major supporters and donors.

The evidence presented coupled with the Obama Administration’s response to these scandals eliminate any doubt whether there was wrongdoing. Rather, it’s a question of whether Congressional Republicans and the MSM will let this administration slide out from yet another scandal, especially one as far-reaching as this.

Karl Marx, the infamous German political philosopher had a vision.  Marx, together with Joseph Engels, predicted and even called for the dismantling of capitalist economic systems worldwide into a socialist and ultimately classless communist world.  24thState will be asking the question of the late Mr. Marx, “How is that working out for you?”

In a series of columns, we will expose the 5th column in the United States.  We will name names and expose the ties from David Axelrod, who just visited St. Louis referring to some GOP presidential contenders as “nutty folks,” to active Marxists and communist party loyalists in Congress and even the Missouri General Assembly.  We will expose their plans and how even their favorite Republican member of Congress (yes, they have one) works to fulfill them.

If we contemplate for a second, whether it is realistic to assume that the Marxists quit being Marxists, in Russia, China and even the U.S., can we assume that the workers of the world decided to not unite?  Did they pack up their tents and go home?  Are Russian and Chinese leaders relinquishing power and creating new constitutional republics?  Did the Communist Party USA shut their doors or just change their tactics? The answers to these questions are unquestionably obvious but uncomfortable to contemplate.

First published in 1848, the Manifesto had ten very specific goals (briefly examine their progress in the U.S. here).  The most alarming tenet however, may be the assertion that communism will never really work until the entire world is communist.  In other words, the true believers have a duty to spread it.  What then is the duty of those opposed to it?  What is IT?

Another alarming tenet of Marxism is the Machiavellian notion that the idea is so important and people so naturally resistant, that deception, propaganda and assorted treachery are not just hallmarks, but mandates.  The history of their “class struggle” shows us their conviction that some must die.  We wonder if Marx and Engels would have desired that upwards of 100 million should die.  When you add up the slaughter of the “less useful” of the “useful idiots” in the lexicon of the Leninists, we have over 35 million human beings “sacrificed” for the cause in Russia alone.  Add in Pol Pot, Castro, Chairman Mao and the estimated 3.5 million dead and still dying daily in North Korea, utopia has what most of us would view as one unacceptably high price.  Some evidently are so untroubled by that legacy that they seek to spread the ideology of death despite the clear and modern existence of communist regimes like North Korea which kills people daily.  Where are the calls of the Marxists of the world for North Korea to stop killing people?  Where are the calls of the leftists in Congress to China to stop paying bounties on escaped North Koreans who are sent back to die?  The deafening silence is the natural sign of an allied relationship.  The hard leftists view China as the partner.

If you ask a naval admiral who he or she fears the most, you will here it is China.  The backwards Marxist state turned economic super power also has the most treacherous anti-ship missile known to man.  Their spies have surpassed the Russians in both U.S. Government and corporate espionage.  Worse, China and Russia have formed a military alliance even bringing Pakistan into their military alliance; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

So if Russia and China are the first two columns allied against us, East and West, and Cuba and Venezuela make up the third column, certainly radical Islam is the fourth.  We know that they work together allying against our interests around the world, against any civil, peaceful nation that is not communist or radicalized Islamist.  So could the U.S. suffer a fifth column?  Of course we could.  Is it radical Islamic terror cells, Marxists, or both?  If they are here, what goals would they have?  Disarming us, maybe?

So while we bask in the blissful ignorance that the Cold War is over and China is our friendly neighborhood banker ever since Nixon went there, the Islamists, and communists among us are working for “change.”  What are they changing?  We know that the Democrats had two non-negotiable demands out of the failed budget deal:  tax increases and military decreases.  Do we have your attention yet?