As never before since World War II, America faces one of her darkest hours as the storm clouds gather from a myriad of sources intent on destroying the notion of a free, constitutional Republic.
The problem is that this time around, the threat is much worse.
During WW II the threat was from the
outside as totalitarian forces pressed against us from both the East and the West. Europe and Japan were a formidable foe, but Americans stood fast upon the principles of liberty.
Today, however, the threat is two-fold. The threat is both from the outside
and the inside.
At the same time that terrorism poses a significant threat to the stability and existence of the West, America is faced with the prospects of being forced to fight some of its own citizens who are infected with the single-headed notion of subverting the Constitution and declaring that no right is absolute or guaranteed.
Numerous free speech cases prove the point, as well as the current national debate on Second Amendment rights about which the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a decision this month.
As the nation fights for its survival on these crucial fronts, we are hit broadside simultaneously with a brazen attempt by Democrats in Congress to embark upon a course of action which we as a nation have always rejected outright as antithetical to freedom and human liberty--the attempt to nationalize the oil industry.
America was founded upon the principles of a free society. This means that markets and business and industrial enterprises are to be free. Government has never been viewed in this country as an acceptable proprietor. Rather, government has always been viewed as an impartial referee to private enterprise, making sure that all business interests play by the same rules.
Central to the concept of a free society is the importance of the limited role of government. Men and women through the centuries who sought liberty after having suffered from the cruel and inhuman oppression of powerful government insisted that the only legitimate role of government was to protect the liberties inherent to human beings--liberties that are God-given.
For government to become involved in the ownership and operation of what private enterprise can do on its own has always been considered illegitimate. When government gets into the business of proprietorship, human liberty always suffers in the end.
Yet some of the major leaders in the majority Party in Congress insist that this is precisely where they wish to take the country. They want government to get into the business of owning and operating business.
This overt socialistic notion is echoed by many in modern academia. In fact, this has been their goal since the 1960s when radicals decided that private enterprise is evil and government is good.
Not only that, but some voices within academia, in addition to a few major columnists that publish in the mainstream media, have openly called for limitations on free speech. As a member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in British Columbia said in the Mark Steyn trial, 'Freedom of speech is an American concept and thus, I have no interest in it.'
This was in Canada, true enough. But some Americans are echoing these sentiments by stating that perhaps our country is worse off because it allows freedom of speech, and thus, we would be much better off placing restrictions upon it, just as our Canadian and European neighbors are doing.
It is not mere chance that at the very same time we face these significant threats to our very way of life, along comes a political candidate with rock star status, the followers of whom often compare to a heaven-sent Messiah.
This candidate has embraced positions throughout his short career in Illinois and the U.S. Senate that fall perfectly in line with the various schemes launched by other members of his Party to restrict human liberty and downplay the significance and preeminence of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
It is not coincidental that Barack Obama is bankrolled by one George Soros, the atheistic billionaire and Democrat party operative. Soros is a one-man dark cloud machine in his own right, casting a long shadow of foreboding on all that he touches. He is anti-free markets, anti-liberty, anti-Constitution, anti-Christian and Jew, and anti-American.
And with regard to Obama, Soros is the power behind the throne.
If Obama is elected, Soros will have completed at least 75% of what he set out to do--control the Democratic Party, get one of his gophers elected to the Presidency, and make sure his foot soldiers in the American version of the Bolshevik Revolution stay in power in Congress.
At that point all he has left to do is to use his comrades in the government to ram through Congress the single largest shift in ideology and policy to take place in America since founding of the Republic. And he will have absolutely no opposition from the President or the minority Party since the GOP is expected to lose even more seats in both the House and Senate.
Alarmist nonsense, you say? Just wait until you see the next installment in this series which will examine Barack Obama's ties to George Soros and extremist Muslim Jihadists, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
