Obama & Liberals Unspoken Goal; Government Domination

Admin, Education, Politics, Terrorism, Violence

“It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” … Philosopher David Hume

Thomas Sowell, one the great minds of our times, wrote a thought provoking article exploring some ways a society loses freedoms. Mr. Sowell noted, “The most politically effective totalitarian systems have gotten people to give up their own freedom in order to vent their resentment or hatred at other people– under Communism, the capitalists; under Nazis, the Jews.” A profound comment that critical thinkers will appreciate; and unfortunately, too many liberals will not understand.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/02/16/playing_freedom_cheap

For several decades our freedoms have been incrementally usurped by government. Not only have the people have allowed this to have happened, too many don’t realize it or care. Public education and academia controlled by entrenched liberals subscribing to the ideology of Marxism have indoctrinated and dumbed-down a significant segment of the population. They have created a mentally challenged citizen that flocks to the Democrat Party. During periods of power these anti-liberty zealots have incrementally taken away freedoms and continue to attack traditions that have made America great for over 200 years.

There are a plethora of examples that prove American traditions and freedom are under attack by Marxist Liberals, often with assistance of the courts because a majority of Americans rebuke the liberal agenda. Their attack on religion escalated with the Supreme Court decision in Murray vs. Curlett (1963), which banned organized school prayers. Since then liberals have been committed to eliminate Christmas symbols and other religious symbols in public places, or caroling in public schools, the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance or the use of God in any government communication. The lie used to promote this agenda is the non-existent “Separation of Church and State” clause in the U.S. Constitution. It’s a liberal myth! A provision created by an overreaching liberal activist Supreme Court.

Take something as benign smoking tobacco. The freedom to choose to consume a legal product has been taken away incrementally. It started in the 1960’s with restrictions to smoking in sections of airplanes, then airports, restaurants, places of employment and parks. This was followed by confiscatory taxes on tobacco products and multibillion-dollar suits against tobacco companies, then prohibition of smoking in individual cars and homes. Other Constitutional freedoms and property rights are being taken away in the same manner.

The most egregious Liberal attack on liberty is the assault on freedom of speech and thought. Tyrants and politicians supporting totalitarian systems know that to control the population you must control speech and thought. To this end liberals have passed “Hate Crimes” legislation, one of the most egregious violations of the U.S. Constitution ever passed by Congress and upheld by a Supreme Court. What a person is thinking when committing a crime against another person is not of consequence. The act alone should be judged and punished.

Freedom of speech and thought, along with property rights, are of the most cherished freedoms of any free society. Once government controls freedom of speech and thought they can dictate “appropriate” language, which liberals have done with so called “Political Correctness”. By controlling the use of words such as retard, queer, nigger, spic, kike, etc., governments can control the people. The 1st Amendment was adopted to protect the most insensitive speech and with out it there is no freedom. Think of the absurdity of rewriting great literary works of bye gone eras, like those of Mark Twain, because of the use of “incentive” words as defined by liberal elitist.

Team Obama and Democrats are shinning examples of the Marxist Liberal agenda to control the people. They use lofty rhetoric like economic and social justice, which does not sow justice but only spreads misery and poverty. They are master midway carnival barkers and political magicians using slight of hand, out right lies, misinformation, and distortion of empirical data, rewritten history, hate and class warfare to advance the agenda. Liberals posting on this blog is proof positive. Liberal icons are able to convince indoctrinated minions lacking critical thinking skills to give up their freedoms with bumper sticker slogans and sound bites that allow liberal naval gazers to feel good about their lofty self perceptions while being led into tyranny like a flock of sheep.

George A. Torres, Jr George Torres

39 Comments

  1. Doug Indeap  •  Mar 3, 2010 @6:08 am

    The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and later learned they were mistaken. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

    Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Indeed, it was only after reaching its conclusion based on a detailed discussion of the historical events leading to the First Amendment that the Court mentioned the letter. The metaphor “separation of church and state” was but a handy catch phrase to describe the upshot of its conclusion. The Court’s reading of the First Amendment in this regard was unanimous; all nine Justices agreed on that much, but split 5-4 on whether the Amendment precludes states from paying for transportation of students to religious schools.

    Perhaps even more than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

    The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

    Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state. I commend it to you. http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf

  2. Melissa  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:30 pm

    George wrote, “To this end liberals have passed “Hate Crimes” legislation, one of the most egregious violations of the U.S. Constitution ever passed by Congress and upheld by a Supreme Court.”

    George, I am a Republican, and do not have a problem with the Hate Crimes Legislation, whether it was written by Republicans or Democrats. We have evolved and if we have to pass laws to maintain civility, then government MUST pass the laws to do such. How much it has eroded our liberty, I do not know, but what I do know, is calling a challenged child a “retard” or a black woman “nigger”, is so archaic and belongs to the industrialized era. As a white woman, I do not want to have someone call me “honky”, whether they have the right to or not. Just my five and ten cents to your blog.

    Melissa
    Oregon

  3. Jerry Saxz  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:35 pm

    George, you guys are so full of it. A few weeks ago, you and Eric were calling for Harry Reid’s head on a plate for a statement he made about President Obama. Remember? Now, you are saying that we have a right to say what we want, when we want. Man, you can’t have you cake and eat it too. Do you see why you and Eric as well as your Vonfrederick Group folks have no credibility?

    Jerry Saxz
    Ohio

  4. Jane Littleton  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:40 pm

    George, President Obama is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document. Is this what you are speaking of about government taking over the “people?”

    Jane Littleton

  5. Jim  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:45 pm

    George, I do not mind the government looking out for me. For example, the Insurance industry should be heavily regulated, because they are run by greedy crooks. What about that?

    Jim

  6. Sandy Mendoza  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:46 pm

    Hmmmmmm – smells like socialism to me, George.

    Sandy Mendoza
    Miami

  7. Dave Hart  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:48 pm

    Obama wants complete government take over of any thing and every thing. A few days ago started the new credit card rules and once again those of us who pay our bills will be paying the consequences for those who don’t. Enough is enough already, get the goverment out of my home and quit picking my pocket for my last dime.

    Dave Hart

  8. Ladi Diva  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:52 pm

    I’m glad the President is removing that deal that was given to that traitor bill nelson of nebraska. that loser has been part of the problem and not helping his party secure a health care bill he shouldn’t get any perks. I cannot wait to hear about that new bill, I hope the President don’t let the repubicians change his plans on passing this.

    Ladi Diva

  9. Mercedez  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:56 pm

    George, you are lost in a daze. Anytime the American people are a “captive audience” for Big Business – whether it’s utility rates, insurance profits, or gasoline prices – the federal government is needed to “level the playing field”. Let you and the Republicans scream socialism all they want; they think their job is to ensure corporate profits. I want government to protect Americans from exploitation by the rich and powerful.

    Mercedez
    Palo Alto, CA

  10. Daniel Herbert  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:57 pm

    There’s some “socialism” that everyone except insurance company executives has got to love!

    Daniel Herbert

  11. Fiojsi  •  Mar 3, 2010 @4:58 pm

    Will Obama put a cap on the cost of doing business as well? How about auto insurance? Those rates go up from time to time. Is he going to cap that? How about the cost of cable? Comcast needs to be capped as well as Direct TV. Cell phone companies seem to have excessive rate increases….let’s get them too.

    The only thing Obama should be blocking is excessive government spending and tax.

    Fiojsi

  12. Ben Garland  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:00 pm

    Yes Mr. President! U know what is best for the rest of us even when we don’t want it!! Keep ramming legislations down our throats inspite of our objections. While u are at it, help pack the bags of you caucus because they will be gone after November and u will be next 2012!

    Ben Garland

  13. Eric Montalban  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:02 pm

    It is time for the REVOLUTION! Let health care pass in spite of George and the rest of the Republicans who sell their souls to block it.. Crush the GOP and may they rot in hell withouth health care forever! Viva la Revolucion! Go OBAMA-BIDEN in 2012!

    Eric Montalban
    Miami, Florida

  14. Lee Bird  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:04 pm

    Why not Gorge? The republicans want the banks and wall street to have free reign over the populace. Free to cheat, swindle, and allow bloated bonuses to be paid to the people at the top. Why shouldn’t the people at the common citizen level, such as Obama get a break once in a while?

    Lee Bird

  15. Bruce Handel  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:06 pm

    Congress has sold out to special interests, pure and simple. Obama has too, as he has so often demonstrated.

    Bruce Handel
    Brooklyn

  16. Deborah  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:08 pm

    George, why is Obama so insistant on this so called affordable healthcare plan when people are scrambling to get jobs and trying to keep the ones they have. Lets get the economy growing again and then have a healthcare plan. People have cut down seeing their doc’s. for routine physicals because they are afraid something will be wrong and they can’t afford to lose their job. They are telling their Doctors I rather drop dead and leave my family something then not be employed and them have nothing.

    Deborah

  17. Jay Witherspoon  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:10 pm

    Obama will push his agenda against the will of the people. If this is not socialism than what would you call it? The government doesn’t always know best and Obama, if he follows through with this plan of reconciliation, will definitely be a one term president.

    Jay Witherspoon

  18. Megan  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:11 pm

    Way to go Mr. President.

    I am feeling better already even if it is a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will try their silly do nothing, waste time strategy and attempt then to blame the administration for being too “whatever”.

    Megan
    San Fran

  19. Tally Morris  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:12 pm

    Yes, Yes, Yes…. All the President’s doings seem to be very sensible and reasonable, therefore the Republicans will disagree with all of them. The party of NO?

    Tally Morris

  20. Carlos Roman  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:14 pm

    George, when will Obama cool down his arrogant and Marxist ideas of himself as supreme leader of the US? He wants to run everything from his desk with the help of Twitter and Facebook? What a jerk! He’s out of there as soon as we can. All of you who voted for him are responsible for this and remember, I told you so…..

    Carlos Roman

  21. Harold  •  Mar 3, 2010 @5:17 pm

    The president is trying to help all the people all the time but the party of NO and all their rhetoric and scare tactics scare people into thinking the opposite. To bad people don’t realize that our problems started more than eight years ago now. I am so tired of the right wing have not gotten it yet, people don’t care about taxes, taxes help us to get our infrastructure and our wars and our help to other countries going. Its the cost of health care and fuel and colleges that have hurt us through the last eight years, that needs to be addressed and the president is trying without the help of the right and with little help from the left…people open your eyes and start writing your senators and congressmen to stop going down the same path that has not worked for the last eight years. Give this president a chance to change what has not worked for something better for us all.

    Harold
    Oklahoma

  22. Jay Peterson  •  Mar 7, 2010 @12:44 pm

    George, I am amazed by the crickets chirping on the left side of the fence. It was only a year ago when we heard the supposed liberal/Democrat protectors of civil rights lambaste the Bush administration for a litany of charges. Bush violating civil liberties? How interesting. Dick Cheney shredding the Constitution? Wow.

    Now let’s turn to Earth, where the current administration is, by its own admission, tossing aside the Constitution. In fact, this week President Golden Calf has stuffed the Constitution down the toilet and flushed it, while like a mob boss he goes from business to business for the purpose of taking them over.

    I don’t know about you, but I can’t find in my copy of the Constitution where it says the President of the United States is authorized to take over any company he wishes like some kind of mob boss. Yet, that’s what he’s doing.

    Jay Peterson

  23. Megan Faith  •  Mar 7, 2010 @12:48 pm

    Doug Indeap is like a breath of fresh air. Either you are a college professor or a barrister. I do not know your Constitution, but from what I read from your posting, you have me believing in the separation of church and state.

    Megan Faith
    London, England

  24. Christopher  •  Mar 7, 2010 @12:53 pm

    George/Doug, “The Great One” Mark Levin—whose book Liberty and Tyranny was #1 on the NY Times bestseller list, but no one in the liberal mainstream media has bothered to acknowledge it—discussed this federal governmental overreac, starting with this quote from philosopher C. S. Lewis:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    You think we should all wake up, or continue sleeping? Ya think?

    Christopher

  25. Lizzy  •  Mar 7, 2010 @12:56 pm

    We have government healthcare in England, and we love it. In fact, it’s one of the reasons we’ve stayed over here and not moved back to the US — last time we lived there, we were constantly filling in insurance claims that were then denied — gets so frustrating. Here, if anything is wrong, you call your dr’s office, get seen that day if it’s an emergency and no bill or insurance claims to fool with afterwards. All my prescriptions are free too (I know, I pay for it in taxes but it’s good value as I pay the same rate in the US and don’t get healthcare thrown in).

    Lizzy

  26. Kelly Walters  •  Mar 7, 2010 @12:59 pm

    I disagree with you George! where were the commercials about how much invading Iraq would cost when we were going to war? Where was the outrage? We were like sheep then but now when Obama try to reform the government and healthcare (really, don’t those town hallers care about the millions of people in the US going without medical care?), everyone turns activist.

    Kelly Walters

  27. Stanley Cordova  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:04 pm

    George…the question becomes, ‘Is the president a socialist?’ Remember, the definition of socialism is that the government controls private property and commerce. Does Mr. Obama want to seize your house? I say no. Too bad, you have not proved your point.

    Stanley Cordova

  28. Beth Bulock  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:06 pm

    But Stanley, there’s no question the president wants income redistribution and more government control over things like health care. What do you call that?

    Beth Bullock
    Seattle

  29. Sandra Caine  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:11 pm

    Doug Indeap, in your attempt to address George’s analysis, you simply must know that in his quest to appear objective, fair, and balanced, George OFTEN creates, and argues issues in a most incoherent manner. His ability at name calling and his speaking on issues that he has little or no knowledge of, represents the often presented vacuity of the discussions…

    Sandra Caine
    San Francisco

  30. Joe  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:15 pm

    My money is private property, just like house ,land, possesions. the goverment works for me I am his/her boss! I just had my city taxes increased by 20 dollars a month on a property that has been devalued by market conditions! Goverment should cut its overpaid union wages before hiking taxes! They have been infultrated by big labor and must be stopped, go tea party. houston we really do have a problem! Hey libs! most jobs go overseas because thier running from uncle sam!!!!

    Joe

  31. Lisa Starr  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:16 pm

    Barack Hussein Obama built a clear trajectory among radiacal leftist. Liberal, progressive, what difference does it make when the damage that he and his minions are doing to America will change us forever? Sadly, it’s not the first time in History that a great country is destroyed from within. The man hates America and he has an destructive socialist agenda.

    Lisa Starr

  32. Doug Stone  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:17 pm

    George and Doug: Socialism doesn’t work anywhere…ever, there is ample evidence of this.

    What bothers me the most is how Obama and his administration are trashing the constitution.

    Three more years.

    Doug Stone

  33. Rass  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:18 pm

    Omaba is a hate-whitey, hate-America affirmative-action nothing , who never ran anything but his mouth. We’ll be lucky he doesn’t get us all killed.

    Rass

  34. Michael Douglas  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:19 pm

    Is Obama a socialist? Is Van Jones a commie!

    Michael Douglas

  35. Lavender Blue  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:21 pm

    Obama stated in his books that he associated and felt more comfortable with the Marxist professors and student organizations. I believe him. Wait, Obama actually told the truth on this one. Obama has a singular target, the U.S. Constitution. This is the great stumbling block to the creation of the social and economic utopia promised through perfected Marxism.The enactment of crushing social programs are the tools being used to disassemble our system of laws and justice.What concerns me the most, is to what extent will he go to to force a marxist society on us.

    Lavender Blue

  36. George Christopher  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:23 pm

    Lavender wins the prize !

    Someone has finally come up with an example of BHO opening his mouth and NOT lying! Well done darlin…(if you are a woman).

    BHO’s contempt for the Constitution is so obvious, that I say he deserves to be impeached for his first big lie as president… Remember his inauguration ? When asked if he swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” he said: I DO !

    He hasn’t stopped lying yet !

    George Christopher

  37. Jeane Papa  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:25 pm

    I disagree with the author only on one point; it’s important to get the right label because Progressivism (Obama’s actual philosophy) is so much more dangerous than mere socialism (bad as that is).

    Socialists are openly hostile to freedom and capitalism. A progressive strives to create the appearance being in favor of a market economy and a free society, but continually works to undermine it, using ambiguous language and arguments.

    That difference allows them to be much more successful in gradually enslaving the populace, as the history of the past century shows.

    Calling Obama a socialist is not only inaccurate, but it actually helps his cause – by making those who make the claim appear to be radical right-wing loonies. But calling him a Progressive – which he himself has said he was – is both accurate and allows the public to learn just how that philosophy has corrupted the culture in every area.

    Jeanne Papa

  38. Amanda Friend  •  Mar 7, 2010 @1:35 pm

    Doug, in 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

    The election of Jefferson – America’s first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

    Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

    “Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.”

    Amanda Friend

  39. Enigma  •  Mar 7, 2010 @2:11 pm

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>