Voice in the Wilderness

Never before has there been more evidence of outright contempt for our Constitution than under the current liberal hegemony presiding over the executive and legislative branches of our federal government.

The protagonist of this Leftist regime is, of course, Barack Hussein Obama, who promised his constituents, “This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time” [emphasis added].

Obama proclaimed, “Everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — to lay a new foundation for growth.”

In his inaugural speech, Obama declared, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works,” signaling his rejection of the old paradigm, which pitted the conservative position, “government is the problem,” against the liberal position, “government is the solution.”

FOR THE COMPLETE STORY FOLLOW THIS LINK

“The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )”

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the president, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers – that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get lifesaving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

FOR THE COMPLETE STORY FOLLOW THIS LINK

On Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2009, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., appeared opposite Ralph Nader on “The Ed Schultz Show.” When Nader questioned Frank’s far-left bona fides, Frank quickly responded, “We are trying on every front to increase the role of government.”

This is what today’s liberal movement has become. Stripped to its essentials, modern liberalism is now a nakedly ambitious power grab by corrupt officials, their union allies and faux-victimized purloiners of the taxpayer till. Its underlying premises – the ultimate goodness of government, the ultimate evil of the American population – are plainly inconsistent with the foundations of constitutional philosophy.

It was not always thus. Over the weekend, I had a chance to re-read one of my favorite authors, John Steinbeck. Steinbeck was considered for decades the leading authorial spokesman for the blue-collar left. “The Grapes of Wrath,” his most famous work, is undoubtedly a liberal tract – it condemns the harshness of unbridled capitalism and asks (literally) for the milk of human kindness.

Whereas today’s liberal spokespeople have been infected by a virulent anti-Americanism that sees all businessmen as profiteers and all public workers as saints, Steinbeck was a patriot. He worried about the lack of kindness he saw in his fellow men, particularly the willingness to cut corners to make a buck – but at the same time, he saw the virtue of freedom.

FOR THE COMPLETE STORY FOLLOW THIS LINK

It is impossible to overstate the importance of the climate-change treaty now being negotiated for adoption at the Copenhagen, Denmark, U.N. meeting in December. The Kyoto Protocol was bad enough. It required the United States to reduce its carbon emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. When fully implemented, the Kyoto target was supposed to reduce global carbon emissions by 5.2 percent. Thanks to George W. Bush, the U.S. did not participate in the Kyoto accord.

According to the World Bank, global emissions have risen by 19 percent since 1990. U.S. emissions have risen 20 percent since 1990. India’s and China’s emissions have risen by 88 percent and 73 percent respectively. Neither of these countries was bound by the Kyoto Protocol.

The new treaty now under negotiation seeks to impose an emissions reduction requirement on developed countries of as much as 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2017, and by as much as 95 percent by 2050. (Read paragraph 31 on page 16 of the 181-page negotiating text). These numbers are completely ridiculous; compliance would require a return to the Stone Age.

The ongoing negotiations include whether developing nations will be required to reduce emissions, and if so, by how much. China, a so-called developing nation, has now surpassed the United States as the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter.

Regardless of the final numbers the negotiators decide upon, it will make no difference to the climate. It will, however, make an enormous difference to people, especially the people who live in the United States and the other developed nations.

Read the truth about climate change in “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed”

This treaty will create an international bureaucracy with the authority to regulate energy use. This entity would, in fact, be a political institution with the power to govern. In other words, the treaty will create a world government to administer global governance.

FOR THE COMPLETE STORY FOLLOW THIS LINK

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
~ John Adams

The opening five words of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law,” represents the central tenets of what the Bill of Rights stands for: limits on government power to limit or compel religious beliefs, the right to hold political opinions and express them, protections for a free press, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to petition the government, through protest or the ballot, for a redress of political grievances.

Let’s take a look at how the First Amendment is viciously and relentlessly attacked in the Age of Obama:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
George Washington, perhaps the greatest figure of American history, once said, “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” John Adams, our second president said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Religion to the framers of the Constitution, not just any religion, but religion out of the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought, was indispensable to the success of America as well as to the continuing survival of our republic.

If Christianity is so important, why did Congress allow the Supreme Court, in the 1947 case of “Everson v. Board of Education,” to unilaterally remove funding to parochial schools through the judge-created doctrine “separation of church and state”? Such judicial tyranny as Everson over the past 62 years has denigrated American society and culture more than anything else.

FOR THE COMPLETE STORY FOLLOW THIS LINK

Let’s get this straight.
Congresscritters are going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a House and Senate that hasn’t read it and exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn’t read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

Barack Obama is like the opera singer vocalizing before a performance: Take a breath and sing … ‘me, me, me, me, me!’

Reports are that when Robert Gibbs woke him early Friday with the news that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize had his name on it, Obama was surprised.

And humbled, of course.

Of course.

It wouldn’t do for him to express pride in the award. With good reason: he’s done nothing to earn or deserve it.

Consider that any normal person would be bursting with pride after being named for that international honor. For a normal person, a Nobel Prize for peace or for any of the other categories of honorees, such as literature, medicine and science, would engender feeling excitement and happiness.

FOR THE COMPLETE STORY FOLLOW THIS LINK

Ever get really drunk and wake up the next morning with a truly scary president? I did, a couple of times. I mean, I didn’t wake up in bed with them, but you get the point. Mercifully, I didn’t know at the time how scary they’d actually wind up being – but I found out soon enough.

That’s similar to what happened on Jan. 21, 2009. This time, I hadn’t been drunk the night before, but I knew how scary the president would be right from the start.

Last week in this space, I evaluated some of President Obama’s milquetoasty rhetoric at the United Nations General Assembly. As the meeting progressed, it only got worse, with our president reviving 1970s namby-pamby overtures toward nuclear disarmament. If the issue didn’t have the potential to result in millions of incinerated human beings, I would have been doubled up on the ground, laughing uproariously.

FOR THE COMPLETE STORY FOLLOW THIS LINK

I hope all you folks who voted for “change” have learned your lesson.

I, too, was happy to see George W. Bush go. I was also happy we didn’t get another Clinton in the White House. And, it’s no secret I didn’t like John McCain.

But this guy, Barack Obama, is giving us all more than we bargained for in the way of craziness, chaos, radicalism, extremism and immorality on a scale that would possibly make even Bill Clinton blush. Well, maybe not that much.

We’ve got a homosexual activist by the name of Kevin Jennings as czar of “safe schools.” Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop! This guy is a disciple of Harry Hay, founder of Radical Faeries and a longtime advocate for the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Do you feel like your child is safe with him in charge of school safety?

FOR THE COMPLETE ARTICLE FOLLOW THIS LINK

Posted: October 07, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

I believe it’s time for the heads of left-wing agitation groups [ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, and MoveOn.org] who are using the courts to impose their will on the sheeple to be prosecuted under the federal RICO statutes.
~ Michael Savage, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” (2005)

The theme of this picture is whether men ought to be ruled by God’s law or whether they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictator.

~ Cecil B. DeMille, on his 1956 movie, “The Ten Commandments”

Prologue to a mental disorder

In 1615 the great scientist Galileo put his life on the line against the supreme political power in Italy and boldly told the Catholic Church that the earth was not the center of the universe (geocentrism), but that the earth and all the planets revolved around the sun (heliocentrism).

Einstein tolled for years in obscurity as a lowly patent clerk while working on his experiments from 1895-1905. He was marginalized by his professors as a “dreamer” and a “C student,” scorned by his fellow scientists as an oddity, yet his theory of relativity changed the world and ushered in the Nuclear Age.

What did these men have in common? Both were intellectual giants who dwelt among the legions of mental midgets of their day, yet they ignored the cacophony of lesser men with duplicitous agendas and fulfilled the transcendent calling of their singular genius.

FOR THE COMPLETE ARTICLE FOLLOW THIS LINK