I ran across this at
Politically Short, I had touched upon this in a prior post. I know that the stakes are really high and for this election...I said it back in 2012 that the United States could ill afford a second term of Barack Obama, but the GOPe ran the only candidate that could not defeat Obama, and after the voters pushed a Republican majority in 2012 and padded it in 2014, and the GOP just rolled over to get their bellies scratched and save their spot at the Public Trough, the voters got even more angry. This should have been the year of "Ted", as the "outsider" candidate but THE Donald jumped out there with the comments about immigration....and the race was on.
The Pics are from my stash
If those of us in the Republican party
cannot let go of the personal animosity that exists against each other
and unite against the Democratic party, then the 2016 election will be
the last election in American history. What I mean by this is if Hillary
Clinton becomes our next President then America will enter the longest
period of uninterrupted Democrat rule since the days of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. Meaning, as
Daniel Greenfield of
Front Page Mag
writes, “it will be the single greatest opportunity for the left to
transform America since the days of the New Deal”. Furthermore,
Greenfield notes that “even if the Democrats never manage to retake
Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And
with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have
near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own
terms without facing any real challenges. And they will use it. Your
life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only
accelerate”.
It is important to recall that under the
New Deal our government was fundamentally transformed in a way that has
been more than detrimental to not only the American people, but to the
Constitution itself as it gave credence to the notion that the
Constitution was outdated and irrelevant as its provisions needed to be
usurped in order to solve the crisis of the times. Of course in order to
solve the “crisis of the times”, the New Deal greatly expanded the
size, scope, and power of the federal government. It was this philosophy
based upon expanding the state through the creation of various
bureaucratic agencies outside the purview and control of the people
while eroding the basic framework of the Constitution in which the
policies of the New Deal lives on today.
So what would an America look like if a
Democrat, namely Hillary Clinton who has already been anointed wins the
presidency in 2017? For starters, if Hillary is elected, the baton will
have passed from one Alinskyite to another, as Obama will have had eight
years to fundamentally transform America, and Hillary will have another
four to eight to complete the job. As
Dinesh D’Souza wrote in his book
America: Imagine A World Without Her,
“together these two [Obama and Clinton] will have the opportunity to
undo the nations founding ideals. They will have had the power, and the
time, to unmake and then remake America. If Clinton becomes President of
the United States, then it will be their America, not ours, and we will
be a people bereft of a country, with no place to go.”
Remember that for Hillary, as for
Alinsky, politics is not a contest between friends who disagree about
the direction of the country; it is a form of warfare and the other side
made up of conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists, veterans,
and Christians, are an enemy to be vanquished and destroyed. Too many
have seen to have forgotten that Hillary’s own senior thesis written in
college was titled “
There is Only the Fight…An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”
This title was a trademark Alinsky phrase that appealed to Hillary
because it suggested a move from the politics of idealism to the
politics of pure power.
There is Only the Fight sums up that
the only way to get somewhere in politics is through power, working from
within the system by any means necessary to achieve it. This was a
break from Alinsky who believed the best way to achieve power was
outside the system. For Clinton, it has always been her stance that once
in power, the system can be used as a means to achieve her ends.
Thus, if Clinton is able to achieve the
presidency, she will use the full force and power of the government
against her enemies on the Right. She will terrorize them into
capitulation or silence using a litany of agencies from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, Environmental
Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human
Services, Department of Homeland Security, and every other alphabet soup
agency to go even further than Obama by extracting money and benefits
from the private sector and from the taxpayers on the right to fill her
and her donors coffers.
Supreme Court
To begin, a Hillary presidency will not
only expand the power of the federal government through the expansion of
the bureaucracy but will also fundamentally change the concept of our
Constitution via the packing of the Supreme Court with far-leftist
judges. As the late
Justice Antonin Scalia warned in his dissent from the Courts’ 5-4 decision in
Obergefell v. Hodges
which declared same sex marriage a right, the Court itself had “become a
threat to American democracy.” Scalia wrote that the Courts’ decree in
the
Obergefell v. Hodges “says that my Ruler, and the Rule of
320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the 9 lawyers on
the Supreme Court.” Scalia further wrote that:
“The opinion in these
cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one
can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that
the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice
of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always
accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the
People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern
themselves.”
The next President will be responsible
for not only picking Scalia’s replacement, but possibly 3 to 4 more
justices who will set the direction of the court for the next 30 to 40
years. If the court is stacked with liberal justices who view the
Constitution as an outdated and fluid document that can be interpreted
in whatever way they see fit, it will enshrine “abortion rights”, same
sex marriage, and every other conceivable “right” as the law of the land
while at the same time abolishing rights deemed insignificant. For
example, it will be no surprise to see the Court under a Hillary
presidency rule that the right to bear arms is unconstitutional as she
will fill the vacancy on the Court left by Scalia’s death with the
radical leftist Obama nominated
Judge Merrick Garland.
Garland, who has first appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court by non-other
than Bill Clinton in 1997, would undoubtedly vote to reverse the
monumental
D.C. v. Heller decision, which affirmed that the second amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
We know that Garland will in fact push
gun control if allowed to become a Supreme Court Justice given his prior
record on this issue. For instance, in 2007 Garland voted to undo a
D.C. Circuit Court decision striking down one of the most restrictive
gun laws in the nation that not only banned individual handgun
possession but even prohibited guns from being kept in one’s own house
for self-defense. Meaning, a 3 Judge panel struck down the ban, but
Garland wanted to reconsider the ruling by voting in favor for the D.C.
governments petition to rehear the case. If Garland had won the vote,
the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual
right to bear arms. Needless to say, with Hillary as President Merrick
Garland will be appointed and the Supreme Court will go from a 4-4 split
to as much as a 6-3 split in which the majority will rule strictly in
favor of liberal causes.
Immigration
Moving on from the Supreme Court, next is
Hillary’s stance on immigration in which she has promised to not only
“go even further” than Obama on executive actions in regards to “keeping
immigrant families together”; but has also vowed to “stand up against
any effort to deport Obama’s DREAMers” while “creating a pathway to
citizenship by enabling millions of workers to come out of the shadows.”
From her official campaign website
HillaryClinton.Com,
as President she has promised that she will further “fight for
comprehensive immigration reform legislation with a path to full and
equal citizenship.” Moreover, she will also push for parents and family
members of illegal immigrant “DREAMers” to be eligible for deferred
action and expand “access to Obamacare to all families — regardless of
immigration status.”
The cost of extending
healthcare to all illegal immigrants is enormous as
Neil Munro of
Breitbart
explains, “American taxpayers pay roughly $5,000 per year for each
person enrolled in Obamacare. The addition of only 10 million current
illegal immigrants to Obamacare would cost taxpayers at least $50
billion per year, or $500 billion over 10 years.” Also, as the
Heritage Foundation
noted in a 2012 report, amnesty alone for the administration’s
estimated 11 million illegal immigrants would cost Americans $6 trillion
over 50 years, including the cost of welfare and healthcare benefits.
While statistics vary in regards to how many illegal immigrants are in
fact living in the United States with estimates ranging from 10 million
to 25 million, the key takeaway here is that the pro-amnesty side only
has to win once and the country itself will be finished. Why? With
Clinton as President she will push executive amnesty to a point in which
the Democrat party will have a voting majority to keep them in power
for the next few decades. Simply put, Republicans will not win another
election for decades to come as every illegal immigrant granted amnesty
under a Hillary presidency will vote Democrat and Democrat only.
Gun Control
On gun control, just as immigration, Clinton has vowed to enact “
common sense gun reforms”
via executive action with or without any congressional input. For
example, Hillary will “repeal the gun industry’s immunity protection”
via executive order by repealing the so-called “Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arm’s Act.” This would essentially allow victims of gun
violence to hold gun manufacturers, not individuals, liable for the
actions of an inanimate object through a litany of lawsuits that will
bankrupt the gun industry. Furthermore, Clinton has set her sights on
targeting the “gun lobby” by specifically mentioning that she will go
after the National Rifle Association (NRA) as she believes the NRA is at
the root of impairing progress to solving America’s “gun problems.”
The types of restrictions she will impose
have already been outlined in her prior statements in which she has
supported a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms and endorsed an
Australian-style Confiscation
scheme for carrying out her vision. In 2014, Clinton vehemently stated
her opposition to the right-to-carry in a Q&A session with the
National Council for Behavioral Health, noting that “we’ve got to reign
in what has become an artificial of faith, that anyone can own and carry
a gun.” Lastly, and most disturbingly, Clinton made explicitly clear
during a private fundraiser in New York last September that the “
Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” in reference to the Courts’ landmark ruling in
D.C. v. Heller which found the handgun ban in D.C., unconstitutional
It is by no means an overstatement to say
that given Clinton’s past and current statements, she does not believe
that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
arms, regardless of what the Constitution and the Supreme Court may say.
It should be clear to all gun owners and advocates of the Second
Amendment that the day Clinton assumes office your rights will be
attacked with the full force of the federal government.
First Amendment
Hillary has never been one to take
criticism lightly, nor has she been one to respect the First Amendment.
To drive this point home, in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN a few
days ago Clinton explained how she would make it
illegal to criticize her. Clinton stated the following about the
Citizens United decision
in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government couldn’t
constitutionally bar a movie critical of Clinton, regardless of whether
an election was in progress. Clinton stated:
“I really respect the
important point of getting money out of politics. Remember, Citizens
United was an attack on me, so I take it very personally and even before
Senator Sanders got into the campaign way back in April of last year, I
said we are going to reverse Citizens United and if we can’t get the
Supreme Court to do what I think would be the right decision, then I
will lead a constitutional amendment.”
If the
Citizens United decision was to be overturned, as Hillary wants, it would result in the re-writing of the
First Amendment
as the federal government would make it illegal to criticize Mrs.
Clinton (or any other liberal politician) in a movie, book, pamphlet,
etc. To get an idea of how Clinton would go about criminalizing dissent
by censoring free speech, recall two incidents that happened back in
2012 to two different filmmakers, the first being
Joel Gilbert who made the controversial film called “
Dreams of My Real Father.” The film, which focused on key influences in the life of Barack Obama, lead to a complaint on behalf of the
Federal Election Commission
(FEC) by three of the six commissioners voting to demand that Gilbert
report who funded the project. In a case spotlighting how the regulation
of conservative media critical of the liberal agenda will be used under
a Clinton presidency, the three Democrats on the FEC alleged Gilbert
violated reporting rules when he mailed out DVDs of his movie during the
2012 election campaign. Luckily in this case the three Republicans on
the FEC blocked the fishing expedition which could have resulted in
Gilbert facing massive fines, restrictions, and even referral to the
Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
In an interview with
World Net Daily,
Gilbert warned that “if the make-up of the FEC is changed because a
Democrat wins the presidency and appoints one more Democrat than
Republican to the commission, we will face a dire future in which only
political speech favorable to the far-left agenda will be tolerated.”
This isn’t hyperbole either, it’s reality and if you believe Clinton
wouldn’t go so far as to punish an individuals First Amendment, remember
that she already has. This was the case during Clinton’s time as the
Secretary of State in which Clinton, along with President Obama and
Ambassador Susan Rice, blamed filmmaker
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for inciting the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi because of his film, “
Innocence of Muslims,”
that was critical of Islam. Nakoula, a resident of California, was soon
hauled off to jail for trumped up charges related to bank fraud days
after the spotlight fell upon him on September 11, 2012. Nakoula’s
underlying offense was that he exercised his First Amendment rights in
producing a video in opposition to Islam, a point that cannot be
underscored enough as it leads us to Hillary’s final position.
Islam
As
Rich Lowry of
Politico
notes, “Nakoula’s jail time appears indistinguishable from what the
56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, devoted to pushing
blasphemy laws around the world, calls deterrent punishment for
Islamophobia.” Nakoula’s punishment was in fact directly in line with
the blasphemy laws first pushed by the OIC and supported by then
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton back in 2011. In her remarks during
an OIC high-level meeting on “
combating religious intolerance”
in Istanbul, Clinton offered America’s willing support to OIC Secretary
General Ihsanoglu in order to help facilitate the implementation of the
OIC’s Ten-Year Programme through the ratification of the United Nations
Resolution 16/ 18. “In doing so, the United States committed its best
efforts to a foreign state actor, the OIC, to help ratify a United
Nations resolution that is antithetical to the First Amendment,” writes
Stephen Coughlin a leading expert on Islamic Doctrinal drivers of
Jihad. The process of passing and implementing the requirements of
Resolution 16/ 18 is called the Istanbul Process and in her speech in
Istanbul, Clinton committed to spearheading the 16/ 18 effort:
“For our part, I have
asked our Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook,
to spearhead our implementation efforts. And to build on the momentum
from today’s meeting, later this year the United States intends to
invite relevant experts from around the world to the first of what we
hope will be a series of meetings to discuss best practices, exchange
ideas, and keep us moving forward beyond the polarizing debates of the
past; to build those muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance that
the secretary general referenced. It is essential that we advance this
new consensus and strengthen it, both at the United Nations and beyond,
in order to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.”
Secretary Clinton then went on to say:
“Under this resolution,
the international community is taking a strong stand for freedom of
expression and worship, and against discrimination and violence based
upon religion or belief.”
To get a sense of how the OIC seeks to
enforce what Clinton called “a strong stand for freedom of expression,”
just days before meeting with Secretary Clinton, the OIC Secretary
General Ihsanoglu, made his thoughts known declaring that “
insults to Islam
and to the honored Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH), has
reached a stage that can no longer be tolerated under any pretext,
including freedom of speech.” Ihsanoglu’s view of freedom of expression
may trouble non-Muslims, but it conforms to authoritative Islamic law on
slander. Clearly aware of this, Clinton accepted this view on behalf of
all American citizens as she continued by noting her commitment to
“enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people
to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of
peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the
support to do what we abhor.”
As Coughlin explains, “When Clinton
committed to a foreign power ‘to use some old-fashioned techniques of
peer pressure and shaming’ against American citizens in order to
facilitate a foreign entities’ Programme of Action she seemed to
recognize that she lacked a constitutional basis to undertake such an
effort. Hence, the stated need to resort to extra-legal measures that
envision bringing the enormous coercive power of the state to bear
against its own citizens to silence them.” Think of what happened to the
California filmmaker Nakoula and then multiply that on a scale for an
idea of what is to come under a Clinton presidency that seeks to use
“peer pressure and shaming” against those who slander Islam in an
end-run around constitutional protections.
Given that these are only a handful of
examples in regards to what a Clinton presidency would mean to the
country, one doesn’t have to imagine how they are all interconnected.
For instance, with Clinton as President, how long do you think it would
it take until Supreme Court Justice Merrick Garland decides that a
Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not
protected by the Constitution? What happens when your Second Amendment
right is deemed unconstitutional as an Australian-style gun confiscation
scheme is implemented? How long will it be before a Republican wins the
White House after Hillary grants amnesty and voting rights to tens of
millions of illegal immigrants who will become dependent on Democrat
policies?
These questions will be answered under a
Hillary presidency and if you do not fall in line with the Democrat
party you will be made to. That isn’t a threat it’s a guarantee. So
today as many Republicans turn on each other in what has become a
circular firing squad during this primary, never forget what is truly at
stake in this election. Obama was given two terms to fundamentally
transform the United States of America. It will take Hillary only one to
destroy it.
