- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Some people don’t seem to be getting what they expected in President Obama and the new administration.
A week prior to the anti-spending tea parties (as opposed to anti-government or anti-Obama, as characterized in the press) that took place on April 15, Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security released a report addressing (among other things, as it turned out) the involvement of “right-wing extremists.” No doubt this was a pre-emptive move made in concert with the press and intended to sour the taste of the tea parties on America’s palate prior to their even occurring. These dangerous people were said (by the DHS) to include pro-life advocates, proponents of immigration law enforcement and military veterans, among others.
Napolitano, an apparent incarnation of Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno, somehow couldn’t keep her foot out of her mouth on this subject. There was, of course, lots of talk at the tea parties regarding the DHS report and Napolitano’s comments on it. This seems to have – at least initially – added fuel to the “far-right boogeyman” fire.
In the days that followed, Napolitano also commented on an aspect of this report which stated that veterans returning from on-duty service were being targeted by right-wing extremist recruiters to commit acts of domestic terrorism. This, in the wake of some truly disgusting commentary concerning the tea parties on the part of our lovely establishment press, caused Napolitano to find herself in hot water, or hot tea, if you prefer. The alternative press and factions among those grass-roots groups that had attended the rallies were mortified that they and veterans in particular had been targeted as either being right-wing extremists or being ripe for recruitment by same. Still, Napolitano’s deportment was only grudgingly conciliatory on the point of having disrespected so many mainstream Americans.
The so-called DHS report was nothing more than a manipulation – if not an outright fabrication – of data by Napolitano and her crew within the DHS. In my view, it remains suspect if DHS even has any indications that far-right groups are desirous of access to returning vets. One factor that gives rise to this suspicion is the speed and timeliness with which this report was released.
As far left as the current administration is, one probably doesn’t have to be too far to the right at all to be considered a threat. Narrowing the criteria as to what is considered “acceptable” and widening the criteria as to what is considered “threatening” is what Marxists are all about.
One would think that any administration would exercise caution concerning who they defined as “extremists” of any political stripe. Not so with this one. Anyone right of center, whether or not they might be inclined to violence, is likely considered an enemy of the Obama administration. In the case of the tea parties, they tacitly refuse to acknowledge that anyone other than conservative Republicans and the far right might have been involved.
Inasmuch as this administration is shot through with nefarious characters and neo-Marxists, it is reasonable to assume that they are not above conducting a witch hunt – clandestine or otherwise – against anyone who is not aligned with them ideologically. The more vocal, the more potentially dangerous they would be considered.
So, those who harbor concern as regards this administration’s posture on the Second Amendment have probably been labeled as extremists. So have those who are opposed to a bloating, spendthrift federal government. The list obviously doesn’t end there. Yet, we’ll never hear from those who squealed about the Patriot Act, believing that its widening of wiretap laws (in the course of combating terrorism) would somehow violate their privacy.
What, then, will be done about these “extremists”? That, it would seem, is the real question, because, plainly, it speaks to what constitutional protections may be violated in the process. We already know that there are those in this administration who hold more reverence for Karl Marx than they do Thomas Jefferson.
One might raise the question as to why someone like Napolitano – or anyone within the administration – would be party to such a frightening perversion of the Constitution and the aforementioned widening of criteria as to what is acceptable vis-à-vis thought and speech. As I’ve said previously, and as has been played out in Marxist regimes time and again: As individuals, Marxists never believe that they will be rendered expendable in the new People’s Paradise. They will never catch a bullet in the head. They will remain among the unassailable elite. It will always be the enemy, the opposition, the other guy; what they fail to understand is that as the criteria for acceptable thought and speech narrows, they become the other guy.
The delusion that it will never happen to them is simply narcissism, a quality Marxists possess in spades.