On Oct. 25, the Washington Times reported that on Aug. 6, Maryland State Police and federal agents used a search warrant in an unrelated criminal investigation to seize the private files of Audrey Hudson, a former investigative journalist for the Washington Times. Earlier, Hudson had exposed problems in the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Air Marshals Service.

Arriving at 4:30 a.m. in full body armor, agents confiscated several small arms during the raid, although no charges were filed in connection with them. These were seized pursuant to a warrant issued for unregistered firearms supposedly belonging to Hudson’s husband, although he was not charged with a crime. The Washington Times is in the process of preparing legal action against the government.

While this raid was obviously a blatant violation of the First and Fourth Amendments as applied to a free press and unlawful search and seizure respectively, the Times also pointed out that this action raises concerns over one of the seizing agencies having been a target of the reporter’s investigations. Ms. Hudson said that the identities of some of her confidential sources were now in the very hands of those people from whom she was attempting to protect said sources.

All of this is but more escalation in the process of the Obama administration exercising increasingly more tyrannical measures. In addition to illegally neutralizing a threat, they sent a message to journalists and their potential sources alike: There is no longer any safety, protection, nor expectation of privacy under the law for members of the press, their confidential informants, or government whistleblowers.

While the Obama administration increasingly runs roughshod over our liberties, we are nevertheless subject to pointed object lessons on an almost daily basis relative to the left committing the very amoral and occasionally illegal actions of which they accuse the political right, Americans who harbor traditional values and Christians in particular. For example, they’ve been accusing the right of favoring a police state for decades.

On Oct. 19, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen called tea-party congressmen “domestic enemies” against whom he had taken his oath to defend the country. Hyperbole, yes, but far more dangerous than that; this sort of top-down rhetoric serves to dehumanize those against whom the left holds antipathy.

On Oct. 21, actor Sean Penn – who is actually taken as a serious activist by a lot of people – told CNN’s Piers Morgan that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and other tea-party lawmakers serving in Congress should be committed to mental institutions via executive order. If the reader recalls, this is precisely how the Soviet Union used to handle some of its political dissidents. If one was crazy enough to speak out against such a brutal and effective totalitarian regime, they obviously needed to be committed, right?

In this vein, leftists apparently don’t even realize they are (perhaps subconsciously) revealing their methods and guilt of conscience. On Oct. 16, MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts asked Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., “When it comes to Obamacare, do you hate Obamacare more than you love your country?” Very cute, but it’s interesting how quick liberals are in taking offense when their patriotism is questioned despite the fact that liberal policies have done nothing but debase this nation on every conceivable level. Yet they are the first to accuse their opponents of hating the country – indeed, of hating in general. I find the perennial liberal claim of loving America akin to that of the domestic abuser who claims to love his wife, but beats the crap out of her on a daily basis.

Then we have the mantra of eternal persecution. Regardless of the subgroup (liberals have spawned many in their quest to culturally balkanize us), leftists have developed a positive genius for claiming that their political opponents are somehow persecuting them in standing by their convictions, or for merely having an opinion.

Take the gay lobby, for example. In this case, “persecution” of homosexuals has come to mean refusal to capitulate to any and every demand they make. Acceptance of their lifestyle, which they claimed to desire, apparently was not enough. Now, anyone who does not raise their hand and swear a solemn oath as to the equivalency of same-sex unions to opposite-sex unions, the “normalcy” of homosexuality and the right of militant homosexuals to have just as much input into the development of grade-school curricula as anyone else falls prey to the ire of the gay lobby.

How, I wonder, did homosexuals become such a powerfully vocal, potent and disproportionately affluent minority while they were being so terribly persecuted?

The answer is that they weren’t, and they aren’t. Their current quest for the right to “marry” is about controlling thought and persecuting those with whom they do not agree. Once again, it’s projection. Ironically, this agenda isn’t being driven by the gay guy you work with; it’s being driven by the same leftist machine that exploits blacks and other groups with the orthodoxy of victimization.

So while these rhetorical slings and arrows emanating from the political left are indeed intended to intimidate and silence us, they are also a useful indicator of their tendencies and potential deportment. This is of course a cause for concern in itself.

In the meantime, I fear for the individual or family whose home is next illegally targeted by Obama’s jack-booted thugs. Some Americans don’t take kindly to having their front doors kicked in at 4:30 in the morning; I shudder to think what will occur when Joe Homeowner draws down on the home invaders and finds himself in a room full of body-armored, well-armed testosterone junkies who believe they have every right to be there, and who already think he may be a terrorist or dangerous criminal.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.