"Something of Historic Proportion is Happening"

Atlas has published a piece of commentary on the election and Barack Obama that is at once chilling and sobering. The piece was found in the comments section of a blog, but the words are most profound.

We may be facing something of historic proportion in America as a result of this election. Many of us can simply sense it. Others have been there before and survived it in places such as Germany, Poland, and Belgium.

They know what it smells like, what it tastes like, and what it feels like. They can pick up the stench of it in the air even before it happens.

And they believe America is in grave danger.

Read the commentary by clicking on the link above. It may change your perspective and your life.

I Make No Apologies

It seems I have taken some heat in certain circles of the blogosphere for saying that 'Barack Obama will never be my President.'

I make absolutely no apology for saying it, and I still adhere to that sentiment as much if not more today than before the election.

As far as I'm concerned, there can be no compromise with Socialists. That is my political line in the sand.

Socialists-Marxists-Communists-Fascists-Nazis are all part and parcel of the totalitarian movement that has witnessed not only the greatest governmental failures in the world but the the most heinous murders of innocent dissenting citizens in the history of mankind.

And this is why I maintain that the 'choice' of Barack Obama for President is illegitimate. There is absolutely no way that anyone with such blatant disdain and disregard for the Constitution could ever be a legitimate President, no matter what the electorate says.

As I was watching local television news earlier, a woman was interviewed who said it was time for all sides to 'put aside their differences and come together in unity for change.'

Unify behind WHAT? Change WHAT, exactly?

An economic program that will probably push the country over the precipice into another Great Depression? Nope!

A policy toward the War in Iraq that ignores the grave dangers Islamic terrorists in the region pose to the West? Nope!

An utter disdain for the U.S. Constitution that maintains that because it does not 'redistribute wealth' by robbing from the haves to give to the have-nots, it is thus flawed? Nope!

A tax program that uses the IRS as a welfare agency by giving 45 million Americans who pay no taxes at all a check from the government? Nope!

A healthcare proposal so drastic that it will overwhelm the system, forcing healthcare rationing on millions of our Senior adults so that 20 million illegal aliens can get medical care? Nope!

A disregard for human life that is so blatant that it withholds medical care from infants that survive botched abortion attempts by starving them to death in dark closets? HELL, no!

So tell me, what, exactly, can we 'unify' behind?

As far as I can tell there is nothing in the Obama plan that can be supported by ANY thinking, principled and ethical American citizen.

The woman in the television interview, by the way, stated that she didn't think people who voted for McCain would 'put their differences aside in order to strive for unity behind Obama.'

You bet your sweet patootie we won't, sister!

Count me as one of the loyal opposition from top to bottom. I will fight tooth and toenail the Obama-Democratic plan to ruin this country.

And frankly, if we had a better candidate at the top of the ticket, we would not be in this position on November 5.

Yes, I supported McCain, but reluctantly, as you will remember if you read this blog regularly. I felt that a vote for McCain gave us the best chance at keeping Obama out of the White House.

But that doesn't mean I was a big McCain supporter. My decision to endorse him and vote for him was purely tactical.

In fact, I have always been one of McCain's biggest critics. But, for better or for worse, I made my decision based upon the hope that Obama would lose.

We can only hope that in 2012 we get someone like Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal, who will carry on in the great conservative tradition of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Jr., and many more.

But until then, I am geared up and ready to fight the onslaught of massive government expansion and intrusion under Obama and the Democrats. And yes, I will fight McCain and other RINOS as well if they are intent on 'unifying' behind Obama.

Obama's Commie-Style Civilian Security Force

Barack Obama has stated repeatedly, though you would never hear it in the mainstream media, that he intends to begin a so-called 'Civilian Security Force' that would 'be just as powerful and just as well-funded as the military.'

Here is the video from part of an Obama speech on the subject.

Free societies based upon democratic principles have never had such civilian armies. The only regimes in the world that have implemented such measures are totalitarian ones, such as Cuba under Castro and Germany under Hitler, just to name two.

It is difficult to understand what, exactly, Obama would have this massive civilian police-state do unless it is to make sure his policies are implemented with minimal opposition from citizens.

When we look to other police states around the world, we gain some clues.

One can imagine neighbor spying on neighbor to make sure all of the peons in the citizenry 'cooperate' with the new Obama order. One can imagine gun confiscation.

In order to justify the huge expenditures that beginning such a mammoth program will entail, Obama would need a list of specific goals and objectives for this civilian police-state army.

Rest assured that with a civilian army the size Obama envisions, we can expect an avalanche of government intrusion into our daily lives. Big Brother will be watching every move. Citizen will be pitted against citizen. Former friends will become enemies...that is, unless we all get on board the Obama train to hell.

OBAMA PLAGIARIZES CUBAN COMMUNIST IDEAS

The nature of the term 'plagiarism' denotes the practice of passing off as one's own the ideas of someone else.

This being the case, Barack Obama has plagiarized the ideas of Cuban Communist Fidel Castro.

Two weeks ago the Illinois junior Senator and presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee rolled out his plan to implement a massive 'civilian security force' that would rival the U.S. military in scope, power, and authority.

Political observers in both Parties were taken aback by the proposal. But the concept is not new, nor is it original with Barack Obama.

A major political figure from the past made a similar proposal right here in our own hemisphere. One of the keys to the implementation of Cuban Communist totalitarianism under the Castro regime was the concept that each individual civilian would see himself/herself as a comrade in the massive 'army of the people' that would insure the success of the revolution in changing Cuban society from top to bottom.

Not only that, but civilians would be required to provide service in this massive security force, just as they are always forced to do in totalitarian regimes from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot.

And now here comes Barack Obama with the very same idea.

The thing that makes this proposal so frightening at this particular time is that there is already a move afoot in the Democrat-controlled Congress to implement the so-called 'National Service Act' that would require all citizens of a certain age to engage in service to the government.

When it was first suggested that Barack Obama finds some close kinship with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Fidel Castro, many charged that the notion was 'over the top.' Perhaps now the notion that Obama plans to unleash Marxist ideology on America is not so far-fetched.

At the very least, Obama needs to come clean with the American people about where he got the concept of the 'civilian security force.' America needs to know that Fidel Castro is one of Obama's ideological mentors.

For more information on this explosive story, click HERE.

The Chinese Show Their True Colors

The world is truly fortunate that the Chinese are hosting the Olympics. Never since Tienanmen Square have the true colors of the Communist regime been on full display for all to see.

Despite all of the so-called 'progress' made in China with the introduction of capitalism into its system (albeit with clear anti-capitalistic restrictions on speech and other human rights), the nation is still held firmly in the grip of totalitarianism along with all of its concomitant suppression of human rights.

No greater example of this can be found than China's present treatment of Tibet, the Buddhist monks, and its reaction to the nations participating in the Olympics that protest the regime's oppressive actions.

The problem is that the West routinely capitulates to Chinese demands. Google and Microsoft betrayed their country when, on condition of doing business in China, they agreed to the regime's demands that freedom of expression be suppressed.

And the most that the West can seem to muster in response to China's barbaric treatment of Tibet is a verbal slap on the wrist.

As usual, this is not enough.

George the First set the tone for this travesty when he refused to react forcefully to the manner in which the Chinese regime reacted to the brave students who protested Communism in Tienanmen Square nearly 20 years ago.

Our non-action was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

China is still home to thousands if not millions of citizens, many of them the most intellectually astute in the country, who detest the regime and believe that democratic ideals and human liberty are the height of human progress.

We owe it to these stalwart souls to give a clear signal that we are on their side.

Suspension of Disbelief

Novelists employ a common literary device known as 'suspension of disbelief' in order to draw the reader into the fictional world that the writer has created, in order to prevent the reader from objecting to the non-reality to the point that they cannot become emotionally involved in the story.

This is how good writers create a fictional world in which we, the readers, react as if we are in the middle of the story, although that story may be about creatures from outer space that like to use human bodies as incubators for their young.

Engage with me in suspension of disbelief for a moment. Suppose the reason our government and other governments around the world are engaging in a push to band together as a united entity because they know something we commoners don't know.

And suppose one of the things we don't know involves information held by only an elite few who head these various governments, and that this information has to do with extraterrestrials who have made contact someway and have hinted at our destruction.

Suppose, further, that these creatures are so highly advanced and intelligent that there is no way an individual nation on earth, not even the United States, could defeat them on its own, and that only by banding together with other nations in some sort of federation would give humanity one fighting chance at holding our new enemies at bay.

Granted, the concept is not new in fiction. These ideas form the foundation of some of our society's greatest and most recognizable science fiction, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, and others.

But the fact that these fictional concepts could become reality is the cutting edge, and this is where suspension of disbelief becomes essential.

It is to be remembered that cartoons from the 1930s and 40s depicted space ships that traveled to the moon. These fictional space ships bear a remarkable resemblance to the real thing that was developed in the 1950s and 60s. And we did actually go to the moon, when during the 1930s such an idea was fodder for laughter and frivolity--nothing more than a cartoon subject.

The question is, if we are headed for such a massive federation of nations on earth, where does liberty fit into the picture? Where is the demand that freedom be preserved? Do citizens maintain the right to keep and bear firearms? Do they have the right to self-defense?

In all of the hoop-la surrounding federations such as the EU and the proposed North American Union, never once have I heard prudent concerns being voiced about preserving the liberties of the people. The only concerns I have heard mentioned involve the issues of security and economics.

Security and economics--the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes that promise their constituencies greater security and better living. Only free societies place human liberty ahead of security and economics, though the latter two may be an important part of the mix.

When human liberty is not part of the mix, what you have is totalitarianism.

Now, come back with me to reality for a moment. Let's suppose that although there is NO such threat from extraterrestrials these governments manufacture a threat of some kind in order to scare their constituencies into submitting to giving up many of their liberties.

This manufactured threat could be just about anything, from economic collapse to terrorists holding us hostage to, well, extraterrestrials who are threatening to annihilate us. Governments are not above conjuring up such fiction, including employing the novelist's device of suspension of disbelief, in order to convince the citizens that only government officials hold the key to our survival.

The thing is, for many such a stark reality is more difficult to believe than the fiction of extraterrestrials threatening our destruction.

It is never a pleasant exercise to seriously consider the fact that people within your own government have everything but the citizens' best interests at heart, and that some of your favorite elected officials are actually engaging in a dark evil.

What is even more unpleasant is to seriously consider that some of your neighbors, fellow citizens, are aiding and abetting these dark and sinister subversives who wish to destroy liberty and turn America into something it was never envisioned to be.

The central question thus becomes, do you wish to remain as one of the uniformed masses who are being toyed with by the puppet-masters, or do you wish to be a fully informed and totally involved American citizen?

Of course, the easier of the two roads is to believe the fiction, fantastic and unbelievable though it may be. The hard thing to do is accept and deal with reality. But then, we are Americans. We've always done the hard jobs.

Dangers Inherent in 'Deliberative' Democracy

The term 'democracy' as it has come to be widely used and accepted in free societies is somewhat of a misnomer. No free society is a true democracy.

For example, if the U.S. were a pure democracy, the wishes of a simple majority of the electorate could obliterate every single liberty that free people cherish. 'Majority rule' is actually mob rule, as strong-armed, vocal, and intimidating mobs could potentially get a 51% plurality of voters, for example, to ban blue-eyed blond females from driving automobiles.

A better way to explain our form of government in American free society is 'constitutional republic,' which includes the notion of a 'representative democracy.'

Yet, even then, the representatives we elect are restricted in what they can do by an agreed-upon Constitution with a Bill of Rights that protects precious human liberty, including that of minorities that should never be subject to the mob mentality of 'majority rule.'

A growing movement in certain sectors of academia, however, takes the notion of representative democracy governed by a Constitution in a new and dangerous direction.

The movement has become known in academic and political circles as 'deliberative' or 'discursive' democracy.

The basic premise embraced by the proponents of this theory is that free societies should encourage greater cooperation between government and citizens, encouraging open discussion or deliberation concerning policy initiatives, the result of which would be a lower degree of opposition to policy decisions once they are initiated by government.

Civil libertarians and other academics who keep an eye on threats to liberty express deep concern about such a notion.

As one commentator pointed out, merely discussing freedom is not the same thing as actually being free.

Giving citizens the illusion that they are free and can influence government decision-making in developing public policy is a dirty trick of collectivists. Such a tactic satisfies the citizens' need to be heard and to feel important. But then, the elitists of government go ahead and do whatever they want anyway.

Are you now thinking to yourself as I am, that government in the U.S. is already under the creeping crawl of 'deliberative democracy'?

And this is precisely the core issue with regard to 'deliberative democracy.' At the heart of the movement is the desire to increase government power to control every aspect of human life.

Under normal conditions such a movement would be rejected outright as totalitarian, which is an accurate assessment. But what makes this movement so dangerous is that totalitarianism is disguised and made palatable by encouraging 'citizen participation' in government.

When citizens are allowed to deliberate proposed policy decisions effecting society, they are given the 'warm fuzzies' in that they feel their voices have been heard.

And then everyone can congratulate themselves over how wonderful it is to live in a land where average citizens can participate in their government.

The ominous, dark side of this plan, however, is that such an outcome among the electorate effectively diffuses and renders null and void any potential threat to the policies implemented by those in government.

In short, the plan is nothing but window-dressing.

Citizens are made to feel free without actually being free.

A perfect example of an adherent to deliberative democracy in politics today is John Edwards, Democratic candidate for President. As reported several weeks ago on The Liberty Sphere, when asked what he thinks are the most important basic, fundamental human rights, Edwards responded with things such as 'universal Internet access,' 'universal government healthcare coverage,' and the biggie, 'American citizenship.'

Never once did Edwards refer to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of self-defense as protected by the Second Amendment, or for that matter, ANY of the liberties delineated in the Bill of Rights.

In the brave new world of 'deliberative democracy,' there are many more important matters than guarding liberty. Apparently Edwards believes that allowing the entire world free citizenship in the U.S. is a good idea, along with all of the freebies offered to those he wants to import to the country in droves.

And it really doesn't matter if these new citizens know a thing about the Bill of Rights.

Collectivism as a political ideology has greatly matured since the days of the Cold War and Soviet Communism. Adherents are much more adept at hiding their true motives. The intent to expand government control to every single aspect of human life can be carefully framed and couched in the language of democracy and liberty.

And this, perhaps, is what makes the modern 21st century even more dangerous a time to live than during the Cold War. Not only do we contend with terrorists who wish to wipe us from the face of the earth, but we are now confronted with another enemy, and this one has a friendly face and nice-sounding words.

Knowledge and awareness are the number one enemies of these purveyors of government control in the name of democracy. It is vital that citizens become informed.

To help begin that process, we point you to two important links. The first is an excellent overview of the concept of deliberative democracy provided by Blogonomicon. It is well worth a careful consideration.

Next is a link to an organization that is fighting those promoting the concept of deliberative democracy--The Foundation for Economic Freedom. An excellent essay on the subject is provided there.

Blogonomicon:
http://blogonomicon.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/21/3109136.html

Foundation for Economic Freedom:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8070

Keep a Suspicious Eye on China

Washington, DC (TLS). The news out of Washington today is that the Bush Administration is increasingly concerned about China's long-range missile capability. And well they should be.

For years China has been quietly but steadily building its military, munitions and weapons arsenals, including the capability of launching nuclear missiles that can hit the U.S. mainland.

While the Chinese have been busy building up their capability of waging nuclear war against America, we Americans have largely ignored such ominous clouds on the horizon in lieu of establishing corporate and business liaisons with the Communist giant, not only to pad our pockets but to supposedly weaken the totalitarian resolve of the Chinese by expanding capitalistic ventures within their borders.

The problem is that under the present unfair trade practices in the name of 'free trade,' the Chinese have made billions at the expense of Americans--billions that have then been used to continue expanding their military and nuclear capability.

In short, the Chinese have been using our willingness to engage in capitalistic ventures with them against us.

The result is that China is on the brink of becoming a true, bona fide super-power in every sense of the word, not just militarily but economically.

Thus far, the only thing keeping China from dominating the world stage as a super-power has been its lack of economic progress under the stifling effects of Communism. That has changed drastically. And they have done it by being willing to adopt a limited capitalistic economic model while steadfastly maintaining their Communist totalitarian philosophy.

Thus, Google can do business and flourish as a capitalistic venture in China, but they must keep the Chinese population in the dark about certain strains of political thought that could incite the citizenry to an uprising similar to the Tienanmen Square display.

The ominous result of this course of events is that the capitalism that China allows to flourish within its borders is then used to bolster and strengthen its basic governmental philosophy that the general population cannot be trusted and that the liberties of the people must continue to be restricted.

Not only that, but the bounty produced by the capitalistic model is used to continue to build itself into the largest and most dangerous totalitarian army in the world.

Although China has seen the light that only capitalism can produce wealth and prosperity, it has failed to embrace the underlying principles of liberty from which capitalism draws most of its vitality.

The result, unfortunately, is a significantly strengthened--and dangerous--super-power.

In dealing with China we cannot for one moment forget that they are still Communists. And with their growing military power, we must always keep the suspicious eye on them, regardless of our business connections with them.

LIBERTY ALERT! School Slams Property Rights

Washington, DC (TLS). Rush Limbaugh reported on his radio program today that a school in Seattle, Washington used a 'Leggo' lesson to teach students to doubt private property rights. And, my friends, the culprit this time is not the public school system, which often does the very same thing, but a private school in the Seattle area.

Students in the school were building a Leggo community which supposedly was destroyed in some unnamed mishap. Rather than rebuild the community, the faculty decided to use the incident to teach students about so-called 'private property,' and that in actuality all property is community property, given that the notion of private property assumes a community composed of the 'haves' and 'have-nots.'

The inequities inherent in the notion of private property rights, according to the faculty, are unacceptable.

As we have reported several times previously on The Liberty Sphere, there is a concerted effort in America today to gradually introduce into our society the notion that there is no such thing as 'private property.' This concept is a capitalistic notion and is, therefore, evil. The goal is to raise a generation of Americans that accept the concept of 'community property held in common,' so that the 'inequities' in society can be corrected.

The Left is attempting to reach this goal by utilizing several avenues of attack.

First, school children must be indoctrinated. The government run public school system is a natural starting point. But, as we have seen in Seattle, private schools must be cajoled into getting on board with this indoctrination by gradually enforcing state standards that mandate certain programs in all school, public and private, and by gradually requiring private schools to hire only those teachers who have their credentials issued by the state...the same as public schools.

Second, environmental laws must be given priority over private property rights. For example, if you own a large tract of acreage, and a rare, blind, albino bug is discovered on your property, a bug that just happens to be on the endangered species list, then you will be prevented from developing your property because it will be deemed to be a 'natural habitat' for this rare, blind, albino bug. Yes, my friends, similar things have happened all over the country. This is no joke.

Third, government must increasingly utilize the concept of 'eminent domain' to rob the citizens of their property in order for it to be used in whatever fashion the government decides, even to help large corporations so that the tax base in a given area will expand.

This three-pronged approach to undermine the private property rights of American citizens is working. Thus, we hear of things such as Michael Moore stating outright, 'There is no such thing as private property.'

The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in the early 20th century may have ended in failure in the 1980s, but the ideas that formed the basis for that revolution live on in the environmentalist movement and the Leftwing. They may run from the words 'Communism' and 'Socialism' and protest to high heaven any attempt to label them with these terms, but their vision, objectives, and goals are one and the same with Communism and Socialism.

When the private property rights of citizens are removed, liberty is gone. If no one single citizen can own real property, that means the collective state owns it--meaning, of course, that totalitarianism has succeeded in smashing capitalism and the liberties that go with it.

More on the Ominous George Soros

Washington, DC (TLS). What does George Soros have in common with Adolf Hitler and Karl Marx? A new expose into the background of the atheist billionaire and Democrat operative reveals some ominous facts concerning his upbringing, his values, and his view of the world.

As The Liberty Sphere has reported in previous articles, Soros is a Jew who hates Jews, a trait he shares with Hitler and Marx. And, as in the case of the former two subversives, Soros expresses that hatred in a concerted effort to bring down the Jewish state and any nation that supports it. His political views mirror that of Hitler and Marx, who spoke of liberty in double-speak fashion but who sought to eliminate personal freedom in lieu of a totalitarian system where the 'common good' always trumps individual liberty.

Read this brilliant expose here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27119