I find the direction in which our country is being surreptitiously guided, while
generally ignored by our citizens, to be
absolutely incomprehensible! There is no acceptable explanation for subverting the Constitution, yet - on the whole - Americans are sitting on their hands as the United States of America is being converted into the
Socialist States of America.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sacrificed their life all over the world so that others may be free. Yet when
our own freedoms are threatened, we sit idly by. The word you're probably looking for right now is either "incredulity" or "apathy". For many of us, the thought of the USA possibly becoming anything other than a Democratic Republic is absolutely "incredulous" -
totally outside the realm of believability. Since we don't believe it could happen, we adopt an attitude of "apathy" toward the possibility even when an exercise in "connect the dots" tells us it
IS happening -
right here, right now.
What are these "dots" that we should be connecting?
Dot #1. A few short years ago Anthony (Van) Jones was a Bay Area radical agitator - a committed
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, waging war on the police and capitalist system. Van Jones' meteoric rise was assisted by many different liberal-left foundations, including the Open Society Institute of
George Soros, which helped finance his "Green for All" organization. Today Van Jones holds a key position in the US government and has the ear of President Barack Obama as the
Green Jobs Czar. (A
non-elected, non-vetted political appointment.)
Dot #2. Mark Lloyd, a
left-wing radical who supports stifling our rights of free speech one small step at a time, has been appointed as the Communications "
Diversity" Czar. Besides just wanting to "backdoor" a newer, more strict version of the "Fairness Doctrine" (which was abandoned by the FCC about 25 years ago as "unconstitutional), Lloyd thinks we should "model our governance after Hugo Chavez" president/dictator of Venezuela. Chavez has forced the closure of all media opposed to his administration, effectively
nationalizing Venezuelan
television, radio and the press! How would Lloyd accomplish this destruction of the First Amendment? By
taxing privately owned broadcast media stations at the rate of
100% of their annual operating costs, and then institute a
fine, if the station is not meeting
his definition of "diversity"! And how are the revenues from those fines used? They are
given to PBS to support their radical left-wing agenda! Lloyd also espouses a "revolution in America". Apparently he has never heard that one should, "be careful of what you wish for - you may get it." And he
may discover that the revolution he
gets is
not the revolution he desired.
Dot #3. Cass Sunstein, a
radical left-wing Harvard Law professor, appointed to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the next nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. Below are a collection of quotes attributed to Cass Sunstein. It is believed that these quotes are accurate:
On The
First Amendment -
“Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds. The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as jurisprudential twins.” (The most recent "prominent specialists" to
support the Second Amendment was the
9th Circuit Court and the
Supreme Court of The United States.)
Hunting & Animal Rights
“We ought to ban hunting. [Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”
Free Speech - “A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”
“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”
“Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and television broadcasters:
…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”
Taxes“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …” (The singular answer to all the questions asked is a resounding
"YES!")
This idiot's list, which looks like something taken directly from Mao-Tse Tung's "Little Red Book", goes on and on. Sunstein stands firmly against anything remotely resembling our
Constitution and the
Democratic Republic to which it gave birth! He emphasizes the "democratic" part, but fails to even recognize the
republic aspect of our system of government, and
that is what differentiates it from a strictly
democratic form of government.
Dot #4. Obama has called for "a civilian army, equal in number and strength to that of our military".
Excuse me?? Why do we
need a "civilian army" when we have a standing military, and
against whom are these civilians supposed to "defend" us? Or, are they not supposed to defend the
citizens of our nation... just the
administration? Perhaps Obama feels the need for this "civilian army" because all our military personnel have taken an oath to "protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic...". It is the
principles set forth in that document - above all else - that they have sworn to defend. Nowhere in the Constitution is the protection or defense of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the government mentioned. The Constitution
IS the establishment of the rules of governance of the free people of the United States.
This is just a
sampling of the undermining of our nation by our own government. More than 90% of the so-called "Czars" (interesting choice of labels for somebody working within
our government), are far-left radicals appointed by Obama to assist him in his elimination of the United States of America. In the immortal words of Pogo Possum, "We have met the enemy, and he is
us."
The
Democratic Republic of the United States of America can be rightfully restored. The accepted means would be by way of Congressional impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama. If Obama is replaced, then all his Czars would have to go, along with any other appointments he may have made. Our country is
not safe so long as avowed Communist/Marxist/Socialist left-wing radicals are in
unelected power positions within our own government!
"How could they impeach Obama?", you may be wondering. If
intentional violation of the Constitution, mismanagement of national resources, and gross fiscal irresponsibility don't qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors", then I have no idea what might. Realistically however, with a lopsided Congress being controlled by the Democrats, the chances of impeachment proceedings being initiated are probably somewhere on the
negative side of
ZERO...
unless there is an uproar from the public sector that Congress simply
cannot ignore! You can be heard, but only if you speak loud and clear, in unison with a chorus of hundreds or thousands of voices. The question is... "Who will organize and lead that 'chorus'?" Will it be
you... or will you wait for "George" to do it... and George
doesn't?
May God save us from our own apathetic ignorance.
ave done, is the epitome of hypocrisy! Did Obama say what he initially said during his world tour simply to impress other leaders with how understanding he is of their animosity/hatred/jealously toward the U.S. without believing it himself? Or, did he caution the 190 member states of the United Nations against finding fault with the U.S. without believing it himself? A hypocrite is a hypocrite! It's also very difficult to vote "present" as the President of the United States of America. The president cannot be seen as vacillating on the issues - domestic or international. He is expected to be decisive. Obama's administration is - just as he promised - transparent. I can see right through it and evaluate it for what it truly is... and I don't like it!
