Government Zero: No Borders, No Language, No Culture (2 page)

Instead, the Court trampled on the Constitution, the will of the people, and basic logic in its two landmark decisions in June. It decided it could rewrite legislation in upholding Obamacare,
⁹
just ignoring the very intentional stipulation that subsidies for health insurance premiums be paid only to recipients who purchased their insurance from an exchange “established by the state.” Thirty-six states had refused to establish such exchanges. The Court ruled the subsidies should be paid in those states anyway.

Don’t let the media convince you this was all over a simple legislative oversight. That’s a lie. The designers of Obamacare intentionally put that stipulation in to coerce the states into setting up the exchanges.
¹⁰
They believed the states could be bought off with the subsidies. They were wrong.

Refusing to establish exchanges was a clear rejection of Obamacare by the overwhelming majority of state governments. That was their only recourse in rejecting a terrible law that had passed Congress without a single Republican vote.

So Justice Roberts was not defending democracy when he threw the rule of law and basic logic out the window in upholding the Obamacare subsidies in states that had intentionally rejected them. It was just more of the same Government Zero we get from the president and Congress.

Just a day later, the Court ruled state laws prohibiting gay marriage were unconstitutional, again overriding the wishes of the people and trampling upon the principle of constitutional government. Justice Kennedy issued what Justice Scalia called in dissent “an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”
¹¹
Somehow, Kennedy imagined the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extended equal protection of the law to homosexuals seeking to get married, even though homosexuality was illegal in every state at the time.

This is where we are. We have three branches of government that are not only supposed to check each other with their separate powers, but limit themselves to the powers delegated to them in the Constitution. They do neither. Instead, they join together in looting our wealth, trampling our liberty, and destroying our culture at the behests of special interests and their lobbyists.

Progressives have long waged a war on religion as part of their Marxist agenda for an atheist, socialist state. To get there, they believe they have to tear down and destroy everything that defines Western Civilization as it is. They share that vision with the unlikeliest of conceivable allies: the radical Islamists.

What is happening in America right now can only be described as a Progressive-Islamist takeover. It may be hard for most people to imagine how committed atheists could possibly be working with committed religious fanatics. Both groups would mercilessly exterminate the other under the right circumstances. We’ve seen how communist countries have treated
religious people in the past, and we can see how the Islamofascists treat the subgroups who make up the progressive movement today. Those who don’t swear allegiance to their brand of extremist Islam are killed or exiled. Homosexuals are thrown off rooftops. Opponents are beheaded or burned alive.

Yet, everywhere we look, we see American progressives defending Islam. They make excuses for radical Islam’s atrocities while branding anyone who criticizes them as bigots. They hold conferences on terrorism and exclude anyone who might talk about the threat of radical Islamist sleeper cells within our borders, while focusing on the “threat” from American Christians, conservatives, and patriots instead.

They support Obama in bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslims as refugees with no way of screening them as potential members of ISIS or al-Qaeda, even as those groups boast of infiltrating us in this very manner.

I’m not talking about a conscious conspiracy between the two groups, per se. They are more like kindred spirits. They may not have the same vision for what society should look like when they’re finished with it, but they share the belief that American society as it is today must be destroyed. That’s the linkage. Remember, the driving principle of the 1960s radicals was, “Bring it all down, man!”

Both groups also believe in absolute, autocratic rule over the people. They both want to run every aspect of your life. The progressives may be atheists and the Islamofascists religious fanatics, but they both want to take away your
freedom
of religion. They also want to take away your economic freedom. If you haven’t noticed, every Islamic nation has a socialist economy. That’s because socialism and autocracy are one and the same.

If a Progressive-Islamic takeover sounds unbelievable to you, I’m not surprised. The media continues to bend over backward to support a president who will not even say the word “Islamic” when he talks about the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They call themselves Islamic, but the president says they aren’t.

The progressives claim the president avoids saying “Islamic” so as not to offend his Muslim allies in fighting the extremists. That’s very convenient. It also just happens to obscure the truth in every public statement he makes about what the Islamofascists are doing. Those not keenly aware of what is going on would never suspect that we are fighting maniacs who commit their atrocities in the name of Islam.

The president’s newspeak fits neatly into a much larger pattern. In every conceivable space, from immigration policy, to law enforcement, to education, to social policy, to the military, Islam is accommodated and defended.

Left-wing magazines print completely false stories about university campus rapes, while ISIS forces eight-year-old girls to marry if they’re Muslim and become sex slaves if they aren’t. Where is the feminist outrage over these atrocities? Why aren’t gay activists marching in the streets over ISIS throwing homosexuals off rooftops?

They’re too busy trying to put Christian bakeries and pizzerias out of business for not wanting to participate in their weddings.

President Obama has refused to curb illegal immigration through our southern border or to deport illegals once they’re caught, in violation of his oath of office. But illegal immigrants from Central and South America are not the biggest immigration threat facing us. Much more dangerous are the hundreds
of thousands of Muslims this administration has brought in through its refugee program from war-torn Muslim countries like Somalia and Syria.

What possible reason could there be for admitting more Muslim refugees than Christian, when Christians are being slaughtered by the thousands in the new Holocaust in the Middle East and elsewhere? Why bring in people among whom are those sworn to kill us and leave those being killed to fend for themselves?

One reason nothing is being done about this new Holocaust is that the government-media complex won’t admit it exists. Time and again, the president has ignored or downplayed the atrocities committed by the Islamofascists, referring to them as “zealots” adhering to some unknown ideology. The media virtually never calls him on this, but they are quick to yell “Islamophobia” the minute anyone criticizes even the most brutal violence perpetrated in the name of that religion.

At the same time, the president has pursued a disastrous deal with Iran that both Israel and our traditional Sunni Arab allies have condemned. When Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu heroically spoke out against it to the U.S. Congress, Obama snubbed his visit under the pretense of neutrality toward the Israeli elections, while sending hundreds of operatives to Israel to try to thwart Netanyahu’s reelection.

The administration not only claims it is committed to defeating ISIS, but that its alliance with Iranian-backed Shiite militias is winning the war and has the Islamic State contained and on the defensive. Yet, the day after the administration tried to intimidate the media into reporting more favorably about the war, ISIS captured the strategically important city of Ramadi. After the vermin in ISIS blew up portions of the
magnificent ancient temples of Palmyra, what happened? Did you ever read about this atrocity against world civilization?

Just a few days after that, the president gave a commencement speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut, during which he told them the greatest security threat they’ll face is climate change!
¹²

Is it all coincidence? I’ll let you be the judge of that. All I can do is present the facts and the most objective interpretation of them I can give you. But I’m going to challenge you to look a little deeper than the talking points Obama’s sorority or the Republican nonopposition leadership throw at you. What might have seemed like isolated news events the first time you heard them form an unmistakable pattern.

Samuel Adams once wrote, “If ever the Time should come, when vain & aspiring Men shall possess the highest Seats in Government, our Country will stand in Need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its Ruin.”
¹³

I believe that time has come. We are going to need every patriot taking a stand to stop the relentless attack on our nation, both from within and without.

Recent polls show a leftward shift in America,
¹⁴
with more people identifying as liberal. Why is this happening? Because not a single Establishment Republican has articulated what a nationalist is and why a nationalist movement is necessary to save our identity as a nation. Those moving leftward are following George Orwell’s satirical adage, “Freedom is Slavery.”

As soon as anyone says the word
nationalism
, people immediately think of Adolf Hitler. That’s because nationalism has been successfully denigrated by the left since the end of World War II. If you are a nationalist, you must be a Nazi, as far as the left is concerned. A lot of well-meaning people believe them.

What the progressives conveniently fail to mention is that the Nazis weren’t just nationalists, they were socialists, too. The word “Nazi” is merely a shortened version of their party name: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National-
Socialist
German Workers’ Party. The party sought to implement socialism within a nationalist framework, meaning it put the needs of the nation before any international socialist movement.

Their nationalism made them fierce rivals of the internationalist communists, but they were
socialists
all the same. Before the Holocaust got under way, Hitler became internationally famous for his implementation of a command economy. Hitler allowed private business owners to retain titles to their businesses, but he regulated them so heavily that decisions on what to produce and how much were really made by the state. They were state-owned enterprises in all but name.

At one point, Hitler’s control over the economy was so authoritarian that people were forbidden from quitting their jobs.

Hitler even got the government into the automobile business, just like another dictator we know. You may not know this yourself, but the Volkswagen, literally “the people’s car,”
was originally produced by a state-owned factory and marketed to people who would purchase with a strange, government savings plan that never had a chance of solvency.

In short, it wasn’t nationalism that made the Nazis so horrible, it was Hitler’s brand of socialism. Socialism is by nature an authoritarian political system. The state seizes forcible command of the means of production and the fruits of each individual’s labor. That’s the definition of the word
socialism
.

Hitler’s gross abuse of civil liberties was the natural result of his dictatorial command of the economy. The former were necessitated by the latter, just as civil liberties are being attacked here in support of Obama’s policies. Had I told you ten years ago that someday soon you could face legal penalties for not buying a product from a private company, would you have believed me? That’s just what Obamacare legally requires you to do. This is the true nature of socialism.

The nationalism I propose is obviously not national socialism. We want a strong military that projects power but is used only in defense of American interests, not to conquer the world. We wish to preserve our borders, language, and culture because they are the foundation of our liberty, not because we believe we belong to any “master race.” We promote truly free markets within a regulatory structure that seeks to preserve a free and fair environment, not institute a command economy. We insist upon tariffs on goods manufactured in countries where tariffs are imposed on imported American goods or where their currency is manipulated to rig the import-export scales.

I have the intellectual honesty to grant that Obama is not an absolute dictator. However, you’ll see he is an authoritarian
when you look at the similarities between his authoritarian policies and those of other dictatorial regimes.

These are all the natural outgrowths of socialism, a political and economic system that assigns too much power to the government. It is impossible to separate absolute economic power and absolute power over all aspects of life, as every nation which has experimented with socialism has learned.