Saturday, January 28, 2012

In the Footsteps of Manuel Zelaya

Similar Paths, Similar Fates?
There is a trend developing in the Obama administration that is troubling in more ways than one. The obvious reason is not the most disturbing, however, since many like me expected it, and that is Obama's disdain for our nation and its Constitution. What is more unsettling than that is the fact that Obama is unabashed about his intentions and increasingly unconcerned about our reaction to his acting upon them.

Obama has half jokingly stated that it would be a lot easier to govern a country like China, where his edict would become law automatically, or how he could get more done if he didn't have to bother with Congress. Oh, how we laughed and laughed at those silly remarks. Funny, they were, because this is America, after all, and that's not how we roll. Or is it?

Just as poor parenting can allow a petulant child to run amok, so have we and our alleged watchdog free press surrendered incremental latitudes to this president. Just as the child tests his parents' limits of allowable transgressions, so has this president. When little Johnny steps over the line set by the parents, and the parents then set another line rather than discipline the child, the road to ruin is begun. Soon there will be no rules for Johnny that can't be broken with impunity. The same may be happening with Barry, but he can prove much more dangerous than one little boy gone awry.

Just last month, Obama told a news station in Colorado, KOAA-TV, that Congress is inconsequential, saying:
"Well, what we’re going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill.”
Here, the president effectively dismisses the constitutional requirement for the advice and consent of Congress and there was hardly a whisper of caution. Yet, on January 20, 2009, Obama was compelled to say these words before the American people and to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Did Obama have his fingers crossed as he was sworn in? It would appear to be so -- Orly Taitz notwithstanding -- since he immediately set about violating the document he swore to uphold.

From the "Patient Affordable Care Act (PACA), otherwise known as "ObamaCare", to the recent illegal non-recess, recess appointments of four people, Obama has thumbed his nose at us and the constitution, using a false sense of urgency and, in some cases, semantics. Congress was not in recess when Richard Cordray, et al, were appointed, but Obama declared that they were. Swell, so now the president makes his own determinations on constitutionality?

Then, while Congress has been haggling over the particulars of the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Obama took it upon himself to sign an international treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote. Another line to cross, another chance to see if he'll get away with it.

So to where do these incremental steps ultimately lead? We might look back a few years to the country of Honduras. In June of 2009, Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was removed from office by what has been termed a "military coup". While it is true that the Congress and the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered the exile of Zelaya via the military, the description is somewhat misleading.

Zelaya was nearing the end of his eligibility to lead as president, as his second term would end in January of the following year. Seeking to rewrite the constitution, Zelaya sought a referendum on whether the electorate wanted to do so. A lower court ruled the referendum unlawful, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling. Zelaya, nevertheless, ordered his military to distribute the extra ballot boxes -- interestingly received from Venezuela -- in violation of the courts. His top general refused and was fired by Zelaya.

On June 28th, the country's Supreme Court ordered the detention of Zelaya and he was seized by the military. The Honduran constitutional crisis was underway. The military may have executed the deed, but a military coup, it was not. The military acted at the behest of a unanimous Supreme Court and an equally unanimous Congress. Hugo Chavez was livid, and demanded the immediate return of Zelaya as president.

Soul Mate Handshake?
What was truly odd then was the same demands being made by Barack Hussein Obama. The day after Zelaya's ouster, Obama said, "We are very clear about the fact that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president." Further lamenting what he called an "illegal action" by the government of Honduras, Obama said, "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past."

One would think that a U.S. President would applaud the obvious application of "democratic traditions" by a Honduran Congress actually defending its constitution. Not so with a president who has demonstrated his loathing of his own constitution.

END22 Screenshot
One more interesting note; there was a group of people who launched a website called on January 20th, 2009. The site has since disappeared, or been scrubbed, but it is curious that such a website would see its inception on the very same day as Obama's inauguration.

One might ask how such an organization could assume that Obama would even win a second term much less plan for a third. That would be a valid question to ponder, but consider this; Obama, by all standards, shouldn't even be where he is today. It is a feat virtually unprecedented in our history.

How does someone rise so fast from absolute obscurity to the presidency of the most powerful country on Earth? How does this same person enjoy such a level of immunity from the media afforded no other president before him? Is it Providence, or is it master planning? These are questions I'll leave to you, dear reader, to ponder. Mine is just to offer that which is to be pondered. Suffice it to say, there is much to see and hear, much we personally witness each day, and much that will be cavalierly dismissed by those who would seek to gain from deflecting the importance of them. So I leave you with this:
When our eyes are no longer our most trusted instruments, when we rely upon others to tell us a truth contrary to that which we plainly see, we are a lost people. 

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Fracking The Party

The reason for Mitt Romney's general unpopularity has recently been exposed, and in the process, so have a great many operatives working for his rise to the presidency. The sad thing is, this has caused a rift in the political family that may be difficult to work past.

For the past few days, the Drudge Report has been plastered with damning stories of Newt Gingrich's alleged infidelity, but not the marital type. Instead, Drudge has linked to story after story of reports from other conservative darlings coming out to figuratively stone Gingrich into oblivion, thereby paving a smoother path for Romney to the nomination.

Ann Coulter -- a huge Romney gal -- has all but Borked Newt, most recently and most shrilly claiming that a Gingrich nomination will reelect Obama. When our beloved Ann uses the scare tactics usually reserved for the "enemy", it is quite unsettling when she turns them on her fan base. Drudge joining in on the antics hasn't helped, either. It's one of my first online stops of the day, and I've been feeling quite glum in the past few. Even Tom Delay piled on, despite the solidarity he enjoyed from many of us just a few short years ago.

"What could be happening?", many of us thought. Since it seemed so unseemly that our former champions could turn on us in such dramatic fashion, I started to wonder early today if I had misjudged Newt Gingrich; I started to doubt my backing him.

Fortunately Red -- an organization to which I am more proud today than ever to be a contributor -- discovered something that both assuaged my  fears and confirmed my worst suspicions; the Republican Party had been fractured. To make matters worse, the very people and outlets I had counted on for truth had lied to me. Whether these are differences that will prove to be irreconcilable or not remain to be seen. I suppose it depends on the level of contrition of the offenders when the dust settles. Suffice it to say that for now, dear Ms. Coulter, I am very disappointed in you. (You're on my list, too, Matt!)

Red County posted an editorial with a a full response from the Gingrich team enclosed. It's an article from Legal Insurrection, written by former Reagan staffer William A. Jabobson, and it puts to rest the notion being spread all over the web by Romney-ites that Gingrich was less than an enthusiastic supporter of Reagan. This bolstered my spirits instantly, but my anger began to mount in unison with the good news when repeated trips back to Drudge failed to mention the breakthrough. That's when I was sure that Drudge was also in the tank for Romney.

Learning later today that Rush Limbaugh had discussed the strafing of Gingrich by his colleagues and railed against it helped to buoy my mood. Ronald Reagan's son Michael also came out to counter the lies being spread by the cabal against Gingrich, but the icing on the cake was seeing Drudge finally and -- I suspect -- grudgingly post this welcome news up on his aggregate.

Speaking to Newsmax, here's part of what Michael Reagan had to say today:
“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.
Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.
It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president."

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.
I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”
I'm gratified to learn that my allegiance to Newt is not unfounded, but I am deeply disturbed at the depths to which people I have trusted have sunk so as to achieve a goal of promoting a candidate clearly not desired by the choir to whom they preach.

I think the time has come for all of the angry electorate to unite behind the man they would most like to see face Obama in the general election in November. I would also love to see the TEA Party come out in full endorsement of Gingrich. That will teach the haughty among us that they are preferred pundits but not our true representatives.

We can work on the bitter betrayal somewhere down the road.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

At Long Last, the Awakening Masses

And the Scales Fell from Their Eyes
Here we are on the dawn of a new revolution, albeit one a bit tamer than the one of our inception, yet one no less dependent on the extraordinary courage of its participants. After all, this time the stakes just might be higher than 240 years ago, while the combatants include not only ideological enemies but allies gone somewhat awry.

Conservatives have been under attack for the past half century, and have only recently mounted an effective counter-insurgency in perhaps the last decade. Some of the key players in the climb back to respectability have been cult heroes such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, and others of their ilk. And while they deserve much credit for the arousal of the right, something happened to them along the way, something that seems to happen to leaders of all stripes at some point; a sense of self-adorned majesty apparently crept into their minds, one that refused to accept defiance.

We have had our favorite commentators since the Clinton presidency, and we have allowed ourselves to fall comfortably into the warm folds of their embraces, somewhat secure in the notion that they shared our core values. What we have seen in this primary season is not so much a betrayal of those shared values, but a sudden veering off the road to their achievement. We're now sharply at odds with the voices we not long ago cherished over the proper course to our nation's revival, and our alleged leader-pundits are not at all happy over our detour.

Ann Coulter -- who I love dearly -- has become apoplectic over the possibility that Newt Gingrich could become the republican nominee to face Obama. No, she warns, only Mitt Romney can save us! Once upon a time, many of us would have fallen into lockstep with Ann's decrees, but the times, they are a-changin'.

A Crowd of Motivated TEA Partiers
Thanks in part to the TEA Party, we are poised to see a record number of voters turn out for a presidential election. More importantly, however, is the fact that many more people are actually engaging early and making their wishes known, and clearly. Traditionally, perhaps half of the electorate hibernates throughout the primary process, relying on sound bites and campaign ads and emerging on Election Day like Punxsutawney Phil to cast their votes for -- or against -- whomever the eventual nominee may be.

Not so this time around. People are angry, frustrated, fed up with this failed president, and disgusted with the mainstream media for its malfeasance in  reporting accurately on it. To top it all off, we have learned to stand on principle rather than probability, making the voices of our side less crucial to the decision making process.

This is why Newt has done so well; we know of his foibles and frailties, and they are not that important now in the face of the task we must undertake. That is because we also know of Newt's strengths. We are no longer going to meekly offer up a candidate we are told can garner the most votes. We are prepared to put up the candidate we believe will be the most effective, and then we will vote for that candidate en masse.

Timidity is what gave us John McCain in 2008, and that was slightly more palatable than today because we had only a speculative notion of Barack Obama. Now that we have experienced three years of Obama's "leadership", the urgency to be rid of him has aided in our boldness.

It seems we are more than sufficiently motivated to grab the reins of our own destiny in this election year, even if it does cause some past heroes a bit of agita.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Gingrich Refuses to Bow

Gingrich Under Attack from
Liberal "Victims"
The fastest and easiest way to get what you want in current-day America is to be portrayed -- or portray yourself -- as a victim. Liberals love a victim as conservatives love apple pie, mom, and baseball. Or liberty.

Both ideological groups will defend what they love fiercely, albeit through vastly different methods. The latter group will defend with honor that which they hold dear simply because the affection is genuine. The former will use lies and misdirection not out of genuine concern for their charge, but rather the benefit to themselves for success in doing so.

To a vast many Americans, both the lives they have known and the stories of their ancestors' lives are something they wish to continue, and that which they see slowly slipping away. They have seen first hand or been told on a knee of the immigrants that have built this nation into what it is...or was until a few short years ago. Those immigrants have succeeded and become us without the alleged benefit of advocates shrieking on every corner about how they have been unjustly discriminated against.

So what has changed? Today, Democrats have built for themselves a cottage empire -- designed not to aid those they profess to champion, but rather to exploit for a continuance of power -- that vilifies anyone who dares to speak the truth. The targets of liberal accusations to this effect have themselves become overly sensitized to criticism, and have sacrificed principle for acceptance.

This week, Newt Gingrich has shown us what courage under such fire looks like.

During Monday night's Republican debate, moderator Juan Williams tried to get Gingrich to back-pedal on his recent criticism of President Obama. Gingrich has previously referred to Obama as the food stamp president, and Williams on Monday asked Gingrich if he was "seeking to belittle people" with such rhetoric. Rather than apologetically try to rephrase his criticisms, Gingrich firmly reiterated his meaning:
“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history ... I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.”
When Gingrich finished his answer, the audience was on its feet, roaring its approval. Part of the reason for this is that, despite making the most noise, liberals are not the majority in this country. Most people want someone who will finally stand up to the political correctness running amok in America, and Gingrich has demonstrated a willingness to do just that. He has also shone a spotlight on the suffocating effects of liberal coddling of minorities, keeping them dependent rather than freeing their entrepreneurial spirits.

What Gingrich showed on Monday night is that he will not be put on the defensive against Obama when the Divider-in-Chief whips out the race card, nor when he launches into his heart rending class warfare. Newt has shown a desire to thoughtfully articulate the conservative principle of a hand up rather than a hand out. With that ability, Obama will be forced into policy debates with Gingrich, where he will lose badly.

This is the reason that the media is pulling out all the stops in an attempt to rip Gingrich from the top of the Republican nominee list, and why they continue to promote Romney in yet another bid to "McCain" us like they did in 2008. While the rest of the field had their rising moments -- only to ultimately fall back down again -- Newt has risen, fallen, and risen again. The latest Rasmussen poll from South Carolina is expected to show Gingrich leading Romney by 2 percentage points, 33%-31%.

There is still a long way to go to the nomination, but the thought of a president who refuses to bow has a nice feel to it.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 14, 2012

The Scenic Route to Dystopia

Is This America's Future?
Despite the repeated calls by Barack Obama for the need for speed concerning key elements of his agenda, he is prudent enough to choose the scenic route to our eventual doom when expediency demands. After all, even he must realize the trauma to all those aboard his speeding "bus" should they witness, through the windows, the passing splendor of America  rapidly turning to despair and decay.

Having already accomplished an estimated ninety percent of Alinsky, Cloward and Piven's goals -- overloading the system to a point of near collapse in order to implement radical change under the guise of rescue -- Obama can now use subterfuge to seize control with no discernible resistance and even the tacit approval of a large portion of the electorate.

He's already tested the waters of apathy with success, first floating the notion that he'd prefer to bypass Congress in the form of a joke (yuk, yuk), and then proceeding to do that very thing with impunity. Obama recently made four "recess appointments" when Congress was not in recess. Three of them -- all to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), were only nominated by the president weeks before their appointments, yet Obama claimed that he "couldn't wait any longer". Therein is the evident need for speed.

But Obama's intent to bypass Congress began long before that, and while the Republicans raised barely a whimper in protest or outrage at these latest appointments, they had set a precedent of indifference from the inception of Obama's presidency, timidly watching Obama name a record number of czars. Democrats, for their part, exhibited a haughty enthusiasm and feckless surrender to the Executive Branch. Thus, a figurative prince was born and his ascension to the first "throne" of the United States was begun.

Just as our Constitution was the final affront to King George, so has it become the perpetual impediment to those who would once again institute a monarchy. When Obama declared, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America!", he wasn't kidding. And while many saw this statement as benign, and the intent as good, the rest of us knew what we've always known; anything transformed never resembles the original.

Obama and his administration have been busy in that transformation in the most incremental ways, such to the effect that most people don't even notice the cage being built around them, one wall at a time. In a speech to the Virginia Convention in 1788, James Madison had this to say:
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
Liberty's Demise
 One of those gradual and silent encroachments happened on the last day of 2011. On New Years Eve, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), giving him the arbitrary authority to have any U.S. citizen arrested by the United States military and detained indefinitely. American gulags, anyone?

And just as a child will test his parent's resolve slowly, Obama has pushed the limits of his executive powers inch by excruciating inch, each time finding little to no resistance from congress. Now, astutely finding a precedent in the Reorganization Act of 1939 -- which was allowed to expire in 1984 -- Obama wants Congress to grant him the authority to consolidate power agencies. At what point does that last inch complete the mile?

The plan has been deliberate and painstaking, but it seems to be working to perfection. Obama has been taking our economy down the chute very effectively. What this is doing is causing more and more unrest among the people, and it is only a matter of time before we can be legally branded as enemies of the state and removed from existence. Is this the change half of you voted for in 2008? Because there is no dispute that it is indeed a "fundamental transformation" of America.

Perhaps if one of the Republican candidates vowed to be more like George Washington, and indicated that as president, these powers would be removed from the books, there would be a chance to reverse this madness. Think long and hard about this, people. Do your own research, dig, get involved. If half of the electorate persists in relying solely on soundbites and campaign ads, I fear that the America I've long known will vanish into a desolate Dystopia.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Hateful Rhetoric and the Intolerance of the Tolerant

Is America Terminally Ill?
America, once the healthiest and most vibrant nation on the planet, has a disease, and I pray that it is not ultimately determined to be terminal. The people running the show today -- liberals -- seem to think that they are well on the way to curing the disease, but they are really the root cause of our ills, despite their rhetoric to the contrary.

Part of me clings to the hopeful belief that liberals truly consider their crusade to be noble, for I would mourn at the realization that theirs is a malicious quest. Why, I ask myself, would people so fortunate to live here wish to destroy the blessings we have? The other part of me sees nothing but malice in the hearts of liberals, simply because I cannot imagine such rude behavior as anything that could be construed as constructive.

Liberals today have the Midas touch, only in reverse; everything they touch that was once golden in America turns to rust, including our reputation on the world stage. For example, while our enemies' opinion of us hasn't really changed much over the years, their boldness in expressing their contempt of us has. Once there was a time when the likes of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Hugo Chavez wouldn't have dared display such mocking of America in public, yet today they do so with childlike glee, giggling and joking about something as serious as a nuclear bomb. 

Iran, in particular, rattles its sabre with regularity, never seeming to worry that they will be forced to match their words with actions. Similarly, the leaders of that country blatantly express the intention to annihilate an entire people, and formerly righteous nations dismiss the words as mere blather. We have seen such cavalier dismissal before in history, and it never ended well when rhetoric became reality too late for prevention.

While our enemies are no longer afraid, our friends -- those we have remaining -- are afraid. This is a symptom that can be relatively quickly rectified with the right leader, but what of the decay of our own people? That is not as easily treatable, sad to say.

Before the complete erosion of morals had taken place in America, our soldiers returning from Viet Nam were spat upon and called "baby killers", which was then considered a right proper insult, and for good reason. Who would want to be accused of killing such innocent creatures as babies, after all?  Today, the same people who loathed our military enough to hurl such vile insults themselves now fight like soldiers for the right to kill babies. Doesn't anyone see the irony in this? 

We would call the language of those protesting hippies (there, I said it) hateful rhetoric. They, however, referred to it as "speaking to truth". Herein lies irony number two: while some soldiers in Viet Nam may have killed babies, it is demonstrably false to suggest that they all did. Yet when conservatives condemn radical Islam, we are accused of hate speech. By extension, then, it was ok for 1960's liberals to spit indiscriminately on even those soldiers who had fought honorably, yet now we must treat even the most dangerous of Muslims among us as fine upstanding people. 

"Hateful rhetoric" has been the malignant tumor we have ignored in other facets of our society, as well. We have allowed ourselves to be cowed into accepting notions once alien to us, all out of a fear of being labelled by the left. (Funny how stigmatization only applies to honorable people these days). 

"Why do you hate..." has become the opening salvo of the liberal in any argument over right and wrong, to great effectiveness. For example, when a conservative demands that our borders and sovereignty be protected from invasion, he is asked by a Democrat, "Why do you hate Latinos"? Said conservative immediately is placed on the defensive when he has no reason to be, but the reaction is reflexive. We are reminded that this nation was built by immigrants, and that is true, but there has been a shift in the intentions of immigrants in the last few decades. 
Homogeneous No More

In the early 20th century, immigrants risked death to come to America in order that they might better their lives and those of their children. The object then was to immigrate here and become Americans. Today's immigrants want to come here -- in many cases illegally -- to carve out a piece of America in their home countries image, complete with language and culture. 

Conservatives don't hate immigrants, they just hate the idea that America is slowly being divided into a multilingual, multicultural patchwork rather than the melting pot it was intended to be, and special rights afforded to people who are not yet citizens can be infuriating at times. Worst of all, however, is the lack of humility exhibited by people -- especially those here in violation of the law -- when demanding rights and services. 

The same can be said of the gay community. Once gay people lived in fear of discovery for it would have not only been humiliating, but potentially dangerous if anyone found out. It was referred to as "living in the closet". Gradually, the idea of someone being gay was accepted and the danger was minimized, with the exception of a small segment of society that still thought it "fashionable" to assault gay people. 

Most people were willing to live in harmony with this newly exposed lifestyle until a portion of the group became militant, demanding that society accept increasingly offensive displays of the lifestyle. When people complained over the in-your-face attitude of some in the gay community, they were immediately labelled homophobes and intolerant neanderthals by the left. 

And finally, illustrating irony number three, we have David Silverman of American Atheists, who is upset over the existence of Tim Tebow. Claiming that Tebow is, "full of crap" for his public prayer and praise of Jesus, Silverman declares that Tebow should "pray in the closet". 

That pretty much sums up the hypocrisy of the allegedly tolerant left in America. Since there is so much room in all the closets now, we can start stuffing Christians into them. Wouldn't this be considered hateful rhetoric? Not if you asked a liberal.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Perhaps the Mayans Foresaw Obama

A Critical Time for America
We've torn yet another page off of the calender, and as we plunge into  perhaps the most important election year of our American lifetimes and hurtle toward November, there are issues that must be dredged up from the 2008 campaign, despite the efforts of the mainstream media to bury or ignore them, both then and now.

There are still the unanswered issues of Obama's past associations -- deftly deflected by a press hell bent on seeing our first president of color -- that must be revisited in this campaign season. Add to those the only track record we have of the man, despite a coordinated war on truth by a compliant media, and the case against the incumbent would appear to be ironclad. Sadly, the defense seems to hold all the cards and the favor of the figurative judge.

While the ultimate judge is ostensibly we, the people, the fact is that we are merely the jury, while the media sets the rules and allows only select testimony, a la the judge in a trial. The good news is that this is not a trial in the true sense of the word, and we are not sequestered as a proper jury. We have other avenues to the truth, and it is imperative that we navigate those avenues with a keen scrutiny.

I'll leave it to the professionals to wage the war of nostalgia against the incumbent with the solemn hope that they play this election season like an inspired team, a team on a mission; a team with its backs to the wall. For the rest of us -- we of the metaphorical choir who need no further convincing -- it is imperative that we bang loudly the drum of discernible transgressions committed by Obama. Far from a campaign booster for a particular candidate, this is a desperate plea to my countrymen to put a stop to the march of tyranny on display before us for all to see.

Barack Hussein Obama and the current Democrat class of Congress are waging an all out war on our Constitution even as they insist that the opposite is true, and when we protest too loudly, our media "watchdogs" do little more than bark at our trespasses and fetch water for their ideological masters. Couple that with Obama Czars such as Mark Lloyd, FCC "diversity chief", whose mission is to stifle Conservative broadcasting through the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and our survival as the nation we once knew is indeed in jeopardy.

This Democrat in the Oval Office no longer believes that he needs to have the patience to abide by the rules of the Founders, as evidenced by his recent non-recess-recess appointments of four new Directors who should have been subject to the advice and consent of the Legislative Branch. Obama went so far as to defend his actions with remarks that Mark Levin declared the "forthright statement of a dictator".

Leftist Democrats have long held the belief that we the people are but stupid livestock, too stupid to fend for ourselves and therefore in dire need of their care and guidance. History proves otherwise, for it is the spirit of free men and women that built this great nation into the grand empire it recently was, before the opulent decided to oppress through false compassion.

If the Republicans can't mount a serious challenge to Obama -- what with the available material just waiting to be compiled into ready-made ads -- it might as well be that the Mayan calender ended in anticipation of Barack Hussein Obama, at least where America is concerned. Still, to go down without a fight would be a sin. So it is incumbent upon all of us to come to the realization that the world we once knew is on the verge of extinction, and the climate has nothing to do with it.

It is our very liberty that needs saving.

Sphere: Related Content