The fine line between politics, subversion

Do you think a political party that seeks to dismantle, ignore or discard a nation's constitution should be permitted to participate in the electoral process?

It is a question that has been asked before in other countries and is still being asked today.

When communist parties, sworn to revolutionary change, competed in elections around the world in previous decades, there were often real fears that upon taking power they would do away with future elections.

The same fear has abounded in elections in nations where radical Islam is on the ascendancy.

And today in Germany the federal office in charge of protecting the nation's constitution is keeping leaders of the so-called "Left Party" under surveillance – a decision affirmed this week by the courts.

TRENDING: Biden's choice: The anatomy of a cover-up

The court found that the far-left party included people with "unconstitutional intentions." Germany's domestic intelligence service issued a report saying "there are still many indicators for left-wing extremism in the party. Those are in particular the unclear stance toward left-wing extremist violence and the open acceptance of extremist alliances among its own members."

The extremist alliances referred to are the "Communist Platform" and the "Marxist Forum" within the Left Party.

All of this raises an interesting question in my mind: Is it time for Americans to consider such alliances and allegiances within the Democratic Party?

If you think this question is not relevant here, you probably haven't read the New York Times best-seller "Manchurian President."

Increasingly in recent years, the Democrats have embraced Marxist positions, Communist allies, extremist support and anti-constitutional policies. If now is not the time for such a debate, when will that time be?

Let's be honest: Democrats talk openly today about the Constitution being a living document – subject to completely new interpretations based on nothing more substantive than their own imaginations.

In Massachusetts this month, legislators voted to override the U.S. Constitution's provision for the Electoral College to choose the president of the United States in favor of a popular vote. You can argue, of course, that there are legal provisions for amending the Constitution, but you can't argue that the founders weren't dead-set against direct democracy and that the Electoral College provision was an intentional barrier to it.

State attorneys general across the country are preparing challenges to Obamacare because they can't find any constitutional justification for it – not a hint. The notion of constitutionally limited government is practically unknown to the ruling party in both the House and Senate – and certainly to Barack Obama.

Elena Kagan, a Supreme Court nominee, lied flagrantly in Senate confirmation hearings about her own role in shaping Bill Clinton's policies on partial-birth abortion procedures. Specifically, in advising Clinton on his veto of a partial-birth abortion ban in 1997, Kagan issued a memo citing a key American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement as "the most reliable opinion" on the medical necessity of partial-birth abortion. That same statement was relied upon by both the president and the Supreme Court in justifying opposition to the partial-birth abortion ban. When asked during her confirmation hearings about any possible, undue influence over the content of the organization statement, Kagan testified that "there was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with (the College) … to get it to change its medical views on the question." Far from not "intervening," however, the released memos and other evidence show Kagan directly rewrote a critical portion of its statement to contradict the organization's expert panel and shape its findings.

Meanwhile, Obama's associations – from Bill Ayers to Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones and dozens of others – make the links of Germany's Left Party leaders look like Boy Scouts by comparison.

There are some 80 members of the House of Representatives who are current or former members of the Progressive Caucus, formerly the euphemism for the Democratic Socialists of America caucus. They include Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House. I once dubbed this group Congress' Red Army Caucus because of its flair for emulating their friends in the Soviet Union.

When I first exposed this caucus and its connections with the Democratic Socialists of America in 1998, I excerpted some songs from the latter's website: They included "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of Communism and socialism, and "Red Revolution," sung to the tune of "Red Robin." Here are the lyrics for that little ditty: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Then there was the memorable old ballad, "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" Never heard that one? You haven't been in the congressional Progressive Caucus, lately, I guess: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie." Not surprisingly, shortly after I wrote about this, the song list vanished. But did the intent of those involved change?

Has the Democratic Party crossed the line from politics to subversion?

Is there any loyalty standard left in American politics?

Should all candidates running for federal office be required to swear allegiance to the Constitution as a minimal standard?

Does America need a politically independent security agency to keep tabs on enemies of the state trying to take over the state?