Category Archives: illegal immigration

The Administration’s Assault on Home Schooling: Part Two

In my previous post we already established the fact that despite the sequestration, having to release over 2,000 illegal aliens from holding for non-violent criminal activity and a myriad of other issues engulfing our nation, this administration and the Justice Department finds it necessary to go after a German Christian family living in Tennessee that has already been granted asylum from a federal immigration judge. If you believe as I do that this has nothing to do with the Romeike family, you’ll have to draw some conclusions as to why this particular case is so important. I believe this case has everything to do with precedent: An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar actions. That is, there is something compelling about this case that the Justice Department would like to establish in the court system so as to have it on record for a basis of argument in future cases. So what exactly is the government’s position on the Romeike case?

A lot of this information comes directly from HSLDA Founder and Chairman, Michael Farris. He’s the gentleman who wrote the brief for the Romeike family. In his summary of the government’s position, the Justice Department is making three arguments to support sending the Romeike family back to Germany with the possibility of having their children taken away from them.

First: The government isn’t violating anyone’s rights if homeschooling is banned altogether.

Second: The Romeikes failed to show there was discrimination based on religion since not all homeschooling families are Christian, and not every Christian believes they have to homeschool.

Third: The Romeikes did not meet the standard of being part of a social group with “immutable” characteristics that can’t change and should not be required to change.  They said the Romeikes could choose not to homeschool and send their children to public school and then teach from home since their children would have only been in school for 22-26 hours during the week.

Michael Farris already makes some well thought out compelling arguments regarding the fallacy and potential dangers of the government’s position and I strongly encourage you to read his take here. It is not my intention to just reiterate what has already been stated but I want to look at the government’s arguments through the backdrop of Common Core or any other federally mandated educational system. And it’s important to point out that once your state turns over its educational sovereignty to the federal government under the banner of Common Core, it’s a federally mandated educational system. You may continue to have your “state” Department of Education, but that department will continue to morph into an enforcement arm of the “federal” Department of Education reporting directly to the United States Secretary of Education, currently Arne Duncan.

The government isn’t violating anyone’s rights if homeschooling is banned altogether.

According to the Justice Department, there is no fundamental right to homeschool your children. Put another way, the government is the arbitrator of the right to homeschool and as long as the government applies equal treatment in the way it pursues rights to homeschool, or not to homeschool. This is a shocking revelation by the Justice Department. Currently it is your decision whether or not to homeschool your children. You may decide to do so for religious reasons. Or you may decide that the scholastic standards in your district aren’t what they should be. Maybe the school your child attends isn’t safe. For any of these reasons, you currently have the right to educate your child the way you see fit. But only because the federal government is permitting you to, currently. If the government should decide that homeschooling is not in the best interest of your child for, say, not being able to keep up with the Common Core standards, the government has every right to institute compulsory education for the benefit of society as long as it applies equal treatment across the board.

The Romeikes failed to show there was discrimination based on religion since not all homeschooling families are Christian, and not every Christian believes they have to homeschool.

Again, Mr. Farris makes an excellent argument regarding the government’s lack of understanding that religious freedom is an individual right and it should be read. However, I don’t think this is as much a lack of understanding individual rights as it is a major push for collectivism. This philosophy is so firmly entrenched within this administration, whether it be collective salvation or children belonging to the communities, I believe the Justice Department is looking to win this case to set the precedent that there is no individual religious thought and unless all Christians are homeschoolers, no Christians have the right to homeschool. I personally believe this government understands individual rights perfectly and this government absolutely does not subscribe to this philosophy.

The Romeikes did not meet the standard of being part of a social group with “immutable” characteristics that can’t change and should not be required to change.  They said the Romeikes could choose not to homeschool and send their children to public school and then teach from home since their children would have only been in school for 22-26 hours during the week.

This is, in my opinion, the “media” argument. This is, and will be the “common sense solution” for compulsory government mandated education. It’s already being used in defense of Common Core! “Well the states get to choose what they want for 15% of the curriculum.” In fact, I love Mr. Farris’s take regarding this third argument from the Justice Department:

“This argument necessarily means that the United States government believes that it would not violate your rights if our own government banned homeschooling entirely. After all, you could teach your children your own values after they have had 22-26 hours of public school indoctrination aimed at counteracting religious and philosophical views the government doesn’t like.”

So there it is. While the Common Core issues are being played out by the states, behind the scenes the Justice Department, at the behest of the Obama Administration, is working to ensure judicial precedence is set to force homeschoolers to comply with compulsory federally regulated government education. We can’t have all of these parents pulling their kids out of school because of Common Core can we? It’s what the left hand is doing while the right hand is showing. That’s my opinion. If you’ve got a better explanation as to why the Federal Government is so interested in a Christian German family living in Tennessee, I’d love to hear it.

Advertisements

Another Big Lie of the Left

One of the most absurd and dangerous ideas ever sold to the American people is found in the oft repeated slogan, “Our diversity is our strength”. We have heard this a lot lately with the push for open borders and sodomite marriage. A little reflection mixed with a little common sense quickly shows the fallacy of this cliché. “How can two walk together except they be agreed?”  The problem is that it has been repeated so often and sounds so appealing that many if not most of our fellow citizens have accepted it as the gospel truth. Consequently, they are not too alarmed when the Democrat Party uses the many diverse groups that make up the American society to divide us into voting blocks designed to keep them in power.

The Hallmark of the American socialists who make up today’s Democrat Party, is their success in dividing the American people into groups along racial, ethnic, economic and social lines, and then pandering to those groups through legislation designed to secure their loyalty in dependable, organized voting blocs. Often proponents of this tactic use the motto, “E Pluribus Unum”, Latin for, “Out of many, one,”  inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States, to show that diversity has always been an American ideal.

As is usual when progressives attempt to use language to support their causes, the motto on the Great Seal has a meaning opposite to what the left would have us believe. At the time it was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1781, it had nothing do with the population makeup of the thirteen colonies. Rather it was a graphic illustration of the unity of those colonies in their opposition to British tyranny under King George III.

On the face of the Great Seal immediately above the banner containing the motto, we see a constellation of thirteen stars representing the unity of the thirteen colonies. The shield has thirteen stripes, again representing the thirteen colonies. The olive branch, a universally recognized symbol of peace, held in the eagle’s claw, has thirteen leaves and thirteen berries. The thirteen arrows, held in the other claw represent the Iroquois symbol of war. Together, they form a graphic illustration of a line found in the Declaration of Independence, “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends. (End of next to last para.)

On the reverse side of the seal, we see an unfinished pyramid with thirteen levels representing the yet unfilled potential of the Union. Above the pyramid we have the all-seeing eye of Divine Providence watching over its progress, another reference to the Declaration; “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Last sentence in Declaration of Ind.)

The Great Seal of the United States was officially adopted by the new Congress on September 15, 1789 when it ordered, “that the seal heretofore used by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be, and hereby is declared to be, the seal of the United States.”  The motto inscribed on the seal became the unofficial motto of the U.S. until Congress adopted “In God We Trust” as the Nation’s official motto in 1956. U. S. coins today have both mottoes inscribed on them, one on each side. It is important to recognize that in the thinking of the Founders the emphasis was on the unity, “One”, not the diverse, “Many”.

It was not diversity that supplied the strength to build the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth. Our unity was, and is our strength. When we lose that unity, we become correspondingly weaker as a nation. Neither does our history support the proponents of multiculturalism and diversity. There were several other colonies on the North American continent at the time of the Revolution in 1776. The largely French speaking colonies of Canada did not join in the Revolution or in the formation of the new government, although the Articles of Confederation made provision for their inclusion. Of course, the Spanish speaking colonies to the south did not participate, leaving the thirteen English speaking colonies along the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Georgia with one culture, one language and one God. It was the unification of this group that was illustrated by the Great Seal.

In Matthew 12:25 Jesus spoke the self-evident truth that, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:”  That will be America’s fate, if we continue to allow the left’s efforts to divide us to succeed, as it has been doing for the last several decades. We must reject the ideas of multilingualism and multiculturalism if we are to regain the liberties we have lost and once again take control of our government. That does not mean that we should reject immigration or that we deny the many blessings of citizenship to the diverse sub-cultures that make up our society. It means that new immigrants and the positive elements of the sub-cultures must be assimilated into the overall American culture, as they were by our forefathers during the founding and expansion of America for the first four-hundred or so years of our existence. America is a nation of former immigrants who wished to become Americans. America afforded them the opportunity and encouragement to do just that, and we must do so again or we will be brought to “desolation” and “shall not stand” as a nation.

It’s Time To Retire Both Political Parties: Part II

The two-party system that has been in place for most of our existence as a nation has not served us well. For over a century, we have been moving inexorably toward the abyss of national socialism under the American pseudonym of “progressivism”. It has made little difference which political party has been in power. Under the Democrat Party, we move faster and under the Republican Party, we move slower, but always in the same direction. Now we find ourselves at the very brink of the abyss.

Most of us have been unaware of the perilous path down which our national leaders have been leading us. The election of Barack Obama and the introduction of one socialist policy after another by him and his progressive Democrat followers has brought the problem into sharp focus. For the first time in their life, millions of Americans are paying attention to the direction we are going and beginning to weigh the consequences. Anger and frustration has become the normal daily state of an ever-growing number of our people. The most frequently asked question is, what can we do to turn things around? How can we stop the seemingly unstoppable rush into socialism?

It is easy to blame, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, et al. A little reflection, however, points to another mostly unrecognized culprit. As already pointed out, we have been moving in the same direction for more than a hundred years. There is not an official in government that has been in office for that length of time. Presidents, Senators and Congressmen come and go while the condition continues to worsen. It is not the people in power that causes our problem— although they are certainly culpable and need to be held accountable — the real problem is the system itself. We have allowed ourselves, over the years, to become subjects of the Republican or Democrat Parties.

The last two elections have shown just how tyrannical these parties have become.  Two examples stand out, the nomination of John McCain for President in ‘08, and in Illinois, the nomination of Mark Kirk for Senate in this election. If you need further proof, consider the bills that have been passed and signed during this Congress, against the will of the people. If you need still more proof consider the situation with illegal immigration, particularly in Arizona. Decisions are made by members of the Party establishment and millions of dollars are targeted at the voting public to get them to “rubber stamp” the Party’s decision. All too often it works, albeit often against the best interest of the Country.

We are always going to have political parties and I am not suggesting that we get rid of them. However, the Republican and Democrat Parties have become too powerful, have too much control over government at all levels, and have strayed too far from our founding principles, for us to allow the status quo to continue. Both parties must be stripped of their power for the good of the country and the survival of the Republic. If that suggestion seems too radical for some, consider that the founding documents are devoid of any reference or foundation principle to justify the prominence either Party has in the running of our government today.

The good news is that reforming our political system does not require an Amendment to the Constitution. Primary elections, winner-take-all outcomes, and the nominating processes, are all extra-constitutional and in some cases unconstitutional. Ostensibly, the political customs and traditions developed over the years are for the convenience of the voters. In reality, they are designed to secure the power of the respective political parties. The timing and order of primaries, the gerrymandering of Congressional Districts, the hurdles aspiring candidates are forced to go through and a host of others are all designed to provide job security to incumbents and protect the Party in power.

A relatively small number of major changes could correct our electoral system and bring it in line with the Constitution and intent of the Founders. A similar small number of changes in the way Washington does business would return us closer to the model of government left to us by the Founders.

Electoral Process

The tradition of primary elections has no basis in the Constitution. Primaries are completely and solely for the benefit of political parties for the purpose of deciding on a single candidate for each office to appear on the ballot in the general election. The winner take all policy adhered to by most states is also not required by the Constitution. The Constitution does not require a majority vote for the offices of Representative or Senator. However, the Constitution does not preclude the states from requiring a majority vote for those offices. For those states choosing a majority requirement, a second runoff election could be held among the top vote getters for each office, similar to the process prescribed in Article II for choosing a President and Vice President by Congress when there is no Electoral College majority.

If we followed the spirit and letter of the Constitution and applied the electoral model put forth in the election of a President, to other elective offices, it would simplify the election process and more than likely, result in better representation. While the Constitution allows the states to determine the manner in which electors are chosen or appointed, it also allows Congress to set the time of choosing electors and the day on which they shall vote. Article II, Section 1, clauses 16 and 17 reads,

“The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

Traditionally, the time for choosing Electors is a multi-step process, not sanctioned by the Constitution. Electors are first chosen in the primaries and advance to the party convention. The convention delegates then usually take the candidate with the highest number of Electoral College votes pledged to him or her in the primaries nationwide and declare that person to be their candidate for the general election. This step requires a percentage of the Electoral College candidates to change their pledge from the candidates for whom citizens voted, to the Party‘s ultimate selection. (Note: the name appearing on the primary ballot is the candidate running for office, but the real candidate is the Electoral College candidate pledged to vote for that candidate, not the candidate himself or herself.) This process is not only highly confusing to voters but is constitutionally suspect in its legality, if not downright unconstitutional.

A major factor in choosing Electoral College Candidates is the timing sequence of the various primaries, taking advantage of the “lemming” factor, the popularity of the candidates building on the outcomes of each succeeding primary. The wording of the Constitution clauses quoted above may allow each state to choose their electors on a different day. However, the normal understanding would be that all states should do so on the same day, just as the day on which they actually vote is required to be the same nationwide. The nation would be better served if the primary process were done away with and a general election day determined on which candidates for state, local, and Congressional offices, and Electoral College members were elected. If runoffs are required for various offices, those elections could take place on the same day the Electoral College meets to vote.

Summation: Under this process, a single “election day” would be held nationwide. Candidates for state and local offices would be elected as well as members of Congress and Electoral College members. Party affiliation would not appear on the ballots and would not be a factor in voting. The practice of substituting the names of candidates for President and Vice President for the Electoral College candidates would still be permitted as a service to the voters. Any required runoff elections may or may not be held in conjunction with the day the Electoral College votes.

This reform alone in our election process would remove much of the power from the two major parties and make it much easier for alternative parties to form and be counted.

To be continued in future posts…

Bookmark and Share

The Case For Impeachment

A Tea Party group in San Diego, California is holding a rally on August 28, to demand the impeachment of President Obama. On its blog site, the group gives as a reason for impeachment, “loss of public confidence”. It seems our friends in California have confused our form of government with a parliamentary system where heads of government are routinely removed from office by a vote of “no confidence”. Under a parliamentary system, a coalition of the political parties making up the membership of Parliament elects the Prime Minister. When the coalition loses confidence in the PM to lead the nation effectively, they remove him from office and replace him with another.

In America, the people elect the President through the Electoral College in a round-about and complicated process. No President has ever been successfully impeached and convicted in our 221-year history. It is not likely that an impeachment of Obama would be any more successful than those of Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton. That does not mean the San Diego rally will not be a good venue of protest, and will send a message to politicians that Californians are not happy with their performance. There are plenty of reasons for impeaching Obama; a lack of confidence is not one of them. Evidently, he still has the confidence of the majority in Congress making impeachment by the House highly unlikely and conviction by the Senate all but impossible.

Impeachment for the right purpose and carried out in a proper manner can have a beneficial effect on the nation. I was not around for the Impeachment of Johnson, but I do remember the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That one quickly deteriorated into a political squabble that divided the country and accomplished little. An impeachment of Obama would be even more divisive and would not lead to removing him from office as the San Diego Tea Party wishes.  Any attempt by Republicans to bring Articles of Impeachment against Obama would immediately lead to accusations of racism and political pettiness.

The one thing most needed in America today is an increased knowledge of the Constitution by those inside and outside the government. An impeachment trial could be one of the best methods for increasing our understanding if it was properly focused. An impeachment hearing by the House of Representative is, in many ways, like a Grand Jury hearing, and as has been rightly noted, a Grand Jury “can indict a ham sandwich”. As Gerald Ford observed, an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives says it is at any given time. The Constitution gives as an impeachable offense the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

The term “high crimes” is a holdover from English common law and has nothing to do with criminal activities in violation of statutory law. The word “high” has to do with the position of the official being impeached rather than the type of “crime”, the higher the position, the more serious the crime. “Crime” has to do with malfeasance in office, including such things as failure to carry out the duties of the office, favoritism, abuse of power, etc. It also might involve criminal activity such as, bribe taking, perjury, treason or other criminal acts. The penalty for an impeachment conviction is removal from office, after which criminal charges can also be filed by the Justice Department if crime is involved. Otherwise, the penalty is only removal from office and the inability to hold public office afterward.

By its very nature, conviction in an impeachment case is a highly subjective matter unless it involves an overt criminal act. In order to be effective as a teachable event regarding the Constitution, impeachment would need to be focused on a specific unconstitutional act(s) by a government official. Furthermore, the offense would have to be easily ascertainable by the general public without any legal knowledge. A perfect example was given to us last moth by Judge Susan Bolton and the Arizona Federal District Court.

The overt violation of Constitution Law is found in Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2:

“In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”.

In order to understand the Framers’ meaning and intent, it is not necessary to refer to previous Supreme Court cases, or the Federal Code. Neither is it necessary to have any training in law. In fact, legal training seems to be a hindrance to understanding the clear meaning of the sentences used, as is often the case with Constitution questions. Understanding the motivation of the Framers is also not necessary, although the status of the four parties mentioned would seem to indicate that their motivation was to preserve the sovereign dignity of the parties to the cases singled out by the clause for special treatment.

The meaning of this paragraph stands on its own, independent of any consideration of other parts of the Constitution or other writings of the Founders. The first sentence clearly says that, in all cases in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The three most common reasons given by those who either support or accept the usurpation of power by the Arizona District Court are tradition, Congresses’ power to regulate Court jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court’s acceptance of Congressional exceptions.

Neither of the three is constitutionally acceptable. The arguments of tradition and acceptance are reminiscent of the theological question debated by seminarians since time immemorial. “How long does a heresy need to continue before it becomes truth?” If District Courts have routinely ignored this Constitution paragraph since the founding of the Republic, it does not change the meaning or arrangement of the words used. Neither Congress nor the Court has the constitutional power to change the language of the Constitution without an Amendment. In this case, Congress is given the power to make exceptions to cases over which the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. It is not given the power to make exceptions in cases over which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The second use of the word “shall” in the first sentence precludes the Supreme Court itself from having the power to make exceptions.

This paragraph is clear enough in meaning and sufficiently vague in the understanding of the political class and ordinary citizens that it makes the ideal teaching tool for acquainting citizens with the Constitution and its interpretation. It involves one of the most clearly written and easy to understand passages in the Constitution, a clear usurpation of power by the District Court, and an overt attack on the constitutional doctrine of state sovereignty. The nation clearly needs a debate on the nature, purpose and meaning of the Constitution. We would be hard put to find a better case to start the debate than the one presented by “United States vs. Arizona”.

Bookmark and Share

The Death of Federalism

Federalism is dead in America; its Constitution on life support. With Barack Obama in the White House and progressive democrats in control of Congress, the left’s centuries old goal of a consolidated government has finally been realized. With federalism gone, the Constitution becomes little more than an interesting historical artifact to be marveled at by historians and academicians. The experiment of enumerated powers and state sovereignty no longer has any relevance in American politics.

For over two hundred years, the one defining characteristic of the American psyche has been a desire for independence and its natural twin, liberty. It was to secure and maintain this independence that the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were written and published to the world. Thomas Jefferson, writing what he considered to be “an expression of the American mind” wrote in the concluding paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, these words:

“We, therefore, the  Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”

For more than a hundred and fifty years, the Colonies had considered themselves as independent colonies, governed by laws of their own making, under the protection of the British Crown. Their relationship with the British government as expressed through its Parliament had always been tenuous at best. It was the increasing encroachment on the colonies independent status by Parliament that eventually led to the break with Great Britain and the Revolutionary War.

It is interesting to note that in the original copy of the Declaration of Independence on display in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in Washington, D.C., and in most published copies of the Declaration, the word “united” in the first line of the final paragraph is not capitalized. It is “united States of America” not “United States of America”. The significance of this minor detail is in the type of union the Colonies envisioned. Also, notice that states never appears in the singular, always the plural. Compare the plural word “states” as used in our founding documents with the singular title, “State of Great Britain”. The colonies were “united” in their independence from England and they were “united” in defense. They did not consider themselves to be, and did not contemplate becoming a single consolidated “State” government.

The government later established under the Articles of Confederation was anything but a united, state government. In fact, the Articles were primarily concerned with mutual defense and international commerce. Article Two specifically precludes any type of central authority over the states other than the few specified.

Article Two
“Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”

This spirit of independence held by the states was carried over in the Constitution and was the principle underlying the list of enumerated powers in the Constitution and the prohibition of encroachment by the national government on the liberties of its citizens, by the Bill of Rights, especially the Tenth Amendment. The states would never have ratified a Constitution calling for a central consolidated government. The highly venerated Federalist Papers were written primarily to convince the inhabitants of the various states that such a consolidated government could never develop under the Constitution. As it turns out, Hamilton, Jay and Madison severely underestimated the ingenuity of politicians on a quest for power, and the fears of the anti-federalist who opposed the Constitution have been proven by history, to be valid.

The difference between a “federal government” and a “national government” is more than just a matter of semantics. The national government envisioned by the present administration, regulating a centrally planned economy and regulating the private and collective lives of American citizens cannot be accomplished without uniform national laws and despotic enforcement. This fact has been made manifest by the recently passed and proposed regulatory bills of this administration concerning health care, finance, manufacturing, energy, etc. It is further manifested in the ongoing court cases in Arizona, California, Virginia and some dozen other states concerning immigration, gay marriage, energy production, etc.

The Constitution is a static document. Its words do not change with the calendar. If we are successful in taking back control of the government in the next two elections, there is hope for the restoration of limited constitutional government. However, federalism is dead. Nationalization of the central government has advanced to the point it can never be restored to the status of a federal government without major social upheavals that would never be condoned by the people. The best we can hope for is a modified national government with the gradual elimination of some if its more egregious encroachments.

Bookmark and Share

Why Left Fears Hitler Comparisons

The left cannot afford to have Obama compared with Hitler

Last week, a two hundred-member Iowa Tea Party group erected a billboard in downtown Mason City, Iowa, depicting three people under the headings of “National Socialism”, “Democratic Socialism” and “Marxist Socialism”. Underneath the headings were pictures of Hitler, Obama, and Lenin. Immediately the left went into attack mode because, according to it, the billboard compared Obama to Hitler. There were no complaints about comparing him with Lenin and there is a good reason why not.

After more than a hundred-and-fifty years of the abject failure of socialism all over the world, it is essential that the left deny the lessons of history, in order to sell its failed policies. As its grip on America’s education system grew during the last half of the twentieth century, the left began to revise American history in education curricula at every level. Contexts and facts concerning important historical characters and events important to the development of America were changed to present them in a negative light. Since World War Two, the left has worked diligently and successfully to place Hitler to the right on the political spectrum in the minds of the American people.

Historically the American left has shown an admiration for socialism as it gained strength in other parts of the world. In the late nineteenth century, it worked to spread the teachings of Marx and Lenin in America. After the communist revolution in Russia, many Americans traveled to Russia to study its social and government structure, returning to America with glowing reviews. During the Great Depression, a lot of the American Left transferred its admiration from Communist Socialism to the National Socialism of Germany.

After World War Two, the left again switched its high regard for socialism, this time to Asia. The left’s love affair with socialism and communism reached its height during the Viet Nam era. It was during that period that the left adopted the doctrine of “politically correct speech” from Communist China as an effective means for controlling political and social debate in America. Self-respecting socialists of the sixties and seventies delighted in quoting passages from Mao’s “little red book”.

National Socialism as practiced in Germany fell out of favor with the American left during and after World War Two because of the genocide and cruelty of Germany’s concentration camps. Germany simply went too far even for the most dedicated American Socialist. Since then, the left has worked to convince the American people that the atrociousness and brutality of Nazi Germany were the product of right wing political policies. Aside from the revulsion toward Hitler in the American mind, there is another reason why the left cannot afford to have Obama associated with German National Socialism.

During the twentieth century, communism and socialism spread throughout Europe, Asia and to a limited degree, South and Central America. Totalitarian socialism, for the most part, has been spread through revolution or military conquest, with one major exception: Nazi Germany. Only three totalitarian socialist leaders of any consequence have risen to power through the democratic process. Hitler, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Barack Obama. Admittedly Chavez and Obama are still works in progress, and the outcome for Obama is far from certain, however, the similarity in their rise to power cannot be denied other than by closing our eyes to history.

With each passing news cycle, it is getting more difficult for the national media to camouflage the true agenda of the Obama Administration. In order for American socialists (progressives) to reach their ultimate goal of a Socialist America, it must accomplish three major objectives, the dismantling of our capitalist economy, the fragmentation of our common culture and the destruction of our Constitution. In the eighteen months Obama has been in office, he has made amazing progress toward all three of these objectives.

Marshalling the socialist elements that have been growing in government for the past seventy-five to one-hundred years, Obama has focused single-mindedly on getting the nation to a point of no return during his four years in office. Following the Marxist-Alinsky playbooks, so succinctly summed up in Emanuel’s famous quote, “never let a good crisis go to waste”, he has used the EPA, the Justice Department, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Treasury Department to inflict, what may be irreparable damage on both the Economy and the Culture.

Nowhere is the Obama agenda more transparent than the events surrounding the Gulf Oil Spill and the lawsuit brought against the state of Arizona over its immigration law enforcement bill. His exploitation of both these events to fracture our culture and damage our economy cannot be denied. Even after losing two consecutive lawsuits concerning his moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, he refuses to accept the court’s decisions. Rather than accept the federal government’s constitutional requirement to protect our borders, he chose to file a lawsuit against Arizona to prevent it from protecting its citizens from the effects of a foreign invasion across its borders.

The damage already caused by the Obama policies will take years and maybe generations to heal. The only good news in the gloom brought about by the election of Obama is the slow but sure awakening of the American people. In less than four months we will find out if America is capable of recovery, or if we have reached the point prophesied by Benjamin Franklin, becoming so corrupted as a people that we cannot be ruled by any means other than despotism.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share