Punishing His Enemies: It’s What Tyrannical Dictators Do

In 2010, Obama told a Latino audience:  “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”  We, in the conservative blogosphere were horrified.  This sounded Nixonian, it sounded banana republic unethical.  Yes, the president sounded petty and self-important, but he was also proud in a bizarre way–as if, punishing enemies and rewarding friends was something that was not beneath him, as we might expect from someone in a position of such power, but was instead something that he actually relished.  It was mind-boggling, really, to think that the president’s political “enemies” (not “opponents,” not “loyal opposition,” but “enemies”!) were going to be labeled by the head of state as essentially “‘enemies’ of the state.”

Even those of us who heard it and understood the implications didn’t know how, exactly, these punishments would be doled out, what form they would take.  Perhaps, we hoped, he’d just keep calling us names, mocking and deriding us, sneering down at us from his Styrofoam pedestal.  Maybe he’d lie about us more than usual, urge his sheeple in the tabloid media and regressive groups to attack and attempt to discredit us more often.  Maybe he’d set up another version of “Flag the Fishy” and “Attack Watch” to get our fellow citizens to turn us into the state . . . for some reason, to locate all the “enemies” he has?  And to what end?  After all, this is America, you can’t “punish” Americans for political dissent or on the whim of a president.

You can’t, right?


This president has taken punishing his enemies (and often simultaneously rewarding his friends) and elevated it to an art form that would make history’s worst tyrants and dictators drool with envy:

His DOJ: in addition to suing Arizona for violating federal immigration laws (while ignoring violations of immigration law in “sanctuary” states and cities, of course–after all, what petty tyrant doesn’t pick and choose which laws he likes best?), also has a well-known policy of never prosecuting blacks for crimes against whites.  0’s DOJ also went after Gibson guitar on bogus “wood” crime allegations.

His TSA: in addition to gross abuses of power and zero ability to actually detect an actual terrorist, the TSA considers anyone who “opts out” of their porn scans and gate rapes to be “domestic extremists.”

His DHS: in addition to the unprecedented (and frankly bizarre) stock-piling of ammunition about which they decline to comment, issued a memo in April 2009 telling various law enforcement agencies across the country to be on the lookout for dastardly “. . .. groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority [i.e. that pesky 10th Amendment which protects citizens and states from a too-powerful central government]. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ the warning says.” I.e. conservatives, TEA Party groups, patriots.

His military: in addition to forcing its pastors to perform gay “marriages,” has also targeted Christians in a special effort to silence their free speech.  And the army has been told not to consider actual terrorists (Nidal Hissan, for example) as terrorists, but instead to focus on Christians, Jews, and Islamaphobes.

His press secretary: tried to exclude the “enemy” network Fox News from an interview.  Yes, it was one interview, but if they had succeeded, it would have been the end of Fox in the WH press pool.  It was a baby step to see how far they could go in ending the freedom of the press.

His NLRB: targeted Boeing in a bogus lawsuit in an attempt to bully them into opening a new plant where the administration (and its union thug friends) wanted it.

His DOE joined with his DOJ to effectively revoke the First Amendment on all college campuses receiving federal funding (the majority of them, in other words).

His IRS: the recent revelations that the IRS was intentionally and methodically targeting TEA Party, “patriot,” and those groups or individuals “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” has created deep concern on the right–leftists, not being the targets this time, are perfectly happy to see this gross abuse of power to intimidate and silence opposition.  This isn’t that surprising; after all, if we’ve learned nothing else over the past four years, we’ve learned that leftists are perfectly happy with tyranny and oppression . . .  as long as they are the tyrants and oppressors.  Too bad for them that totalitarian takeovers historically end badly (very very badly) for the regime’s early supporters and apologists.

Not only are we, justly, concerned that political dissent will make us a target of IRS (or FBI, CIA, FDA, DOJ, or any other executive branch agency–keep in mind that the videographer 0 falsely blamed for Benghazi is still in prison.  Sure, he did something unrelated to the video wrong, but odd how he was only picked up after the attack in Benghazi when the president and secretary of state needed a scapegoat.  And believe me, every single person out there is guilty of some crime or violation of some regulation–there are so many that we don’t even know about. You could be harassed for collecting rain water, for growing vegetables or herbs on your porch, for who knows what else. So we are not only concerned about the IRS targeting us as taxpayers), but we also are concerned about what this means with the new role that the IRS has as the 0Care enforcers.  They now have, granted by the 0Care monstrosity, access to our personal bank accounts (actual access, not the power to freeze them–they’ve had that for ages), free reign to monitor our purchases and income, access to our personal medical files, and a list of other means by which to “enforce” the 0Care mandate.  These things could all be used to intimidate, bully, silence, even imprison any person “guilty” of political dissent.

And now we know, for a fact, that 0 is not only willing but actually relishes wielding the power of the presidency to “punish” his “enemies” (no, I won’t rant about his insistence that he can use drones to kill American citizens on American soil because he thinks them an “enemy,” but . . . well, not so tinfoil hatty now, huh?).  We, that is anyone who opposes this administration, are 0’s “enemies,” and no abuse of power, no strong-arm tactics, no bullying thuggery is beneath him.

These are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls.  Luckily, we are Americans, and this tyrant wannabe will not intimidate, cow, or silence us.  We are not Germans defeated in spirit and nation, we are not Russian or Chinese peasants–isolated and disarmed, we are not, in other words, easy pickings.  And for that, I am forever grateful.

Removing Crosses from National War Memorials: Separation of Church and State?

I wrote this article on July 6, 2006. It’s rather emotional, but I decided not to edit it.

I just read on Liberty 4’s blog that the ACLU has been trying to get the cross at the Mount Soledad National War Memorial in San Diego removed because some atheist sued on the grounds of separation of church and state. I am outraged! What’s next? Remove all the crosses from every national cemetary and war memorial across the nation? Arlington National Cemetary? This is probably no surprise to anyone, but I am outraged!

Separation of church and state is not mentioned in—let alone directed by—the Constitution, and all that the First Amendment says on the topic of religion and government is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (from the U. S. Constitution online). We do not live in a theocracy (though some people may incorrectly argue otherwise), and we do not have a state church. What we do have is a history of a Christian belief in God and a sense that we should be free from religious tyranny—one of the main reasons that our forefathers and mothers left England in the first place, remember? Separating church and state is indeed a muddy issue, one that’s been debated for centuries and in all sorts of countries and civilizations. Here in the U. S. I believe that the founding fathers were trying to protect us from a government mandated religion or from the banning of any religion. Yet the way this has been interpreted seems to be that we must all become atheists, or at least practicing atheists, whether we like it or not, because ANY expression of religious belief is an infringement on SOMEONE’s religion, unless there is “no” religion, “no” God: i.e. atheism.

“Under God,” “In God We Trust,” and an assortment of religious expression including but not limited to the display on public property of a nativity scene at Christmas are all being curtailed in the name of “separation of church and state.” Religion, I think, is already separate from both church and state in the sense that we used to have freedom of religion, a religion or any religion that is not state run. The state cannot dictate which religion I adhere to and it cannot treat me differently because of my religious beliefs. Separating church and state means that a church cannot establish laws, the state can. So in this interpretation, I can murder someone, and the church can do nothing. I can murder someone, and the state can arrest, try, judge, and sentence me. I can murder someone, and according to my religious beliefs, I will go to hell. A fine line? I really don’t think so.

There have been Christian clubs banned from public schools, yet if we tried to ban a Moslem club, all hell would break loose, and I’m not saying we can or should ban a Moslem club or any other religious club . . . including a Christian one. School prayer has been abolished, including the “moment of silence” during which anyone of any religion could have prayed silently, disturbing no one. Christianity is not something you “catch” by hearing someone pray or by seeing a cross or crucifix, just as I’m not going suddenly to become Jewish because I see a Star of David or a menorah or upon hearing a Hebrew prayer. But someone realized that a moment of silence would give people the “chance” to pray to a Christian God, and we can’t have that, now can we? And we certainly can’t have a cross, symbol of Christianity, cluttering up a war memorial and conveying the impression that veterans believe in a Christian God or that we as a nation do so. No, that is just reprehensible . . . to atheists.

Why do atheists care? I mean, if you don’t believe in God, you surely don’t believe in Christ and the sacrifice He made for us, so why bother about the symbol of it? The atheists I’ve had the misfortune of talking to generally seem to feel quite superior to those of us who “blindly” believe in God and have religious faith, and while they wail about their right to have a God free existence, it doesn’t seem to occur to them (or to anyone else passing these laws) that granting that right means that my right to God filled existence is violated. Now, I know that the atheists are not trying to turn us into atheists: just as no Moslem prayer will turn me Moslem, the absence of symbols of God will not turn me atheist. But my freedom of religion is severely impaired, and that should mean something, shouldn’t it? In fact, everyone’s freedom of every religion is severely impaired when no expression is permitted. And what about the veterans who fought and died for their country as one nation “under God”? Should we really rip out the crosses from all national war memorials in an effort to appease the atheists and the ACLU?

For stories about this case: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23579 and http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23563 and http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50761 (this article provide a series of further links)

For the Soledad National Cemetary site: http://savesoledad.com/

For information about and links to further information about the separation of church and state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state