If those of us in the Republican party cannot let go of the personal animosity that exists against each other and unite against the Democratic party, then the 2016 election will be the last election in American history. What I mean by this is if Hillary Clinton becomes our next President then America will enter the longest period of uninterrupted Democrat rule since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Meaning, as Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Mag writes, “it will be the single greatest opportunity for the left to transform America since the days of the New Deal”. Furthermore, Greenfield notes that “even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges. And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate”.
It is important to recall that under the New Deal our government was fundamentally transformed in a way that has been more than detrimental to not only the American people, but to the Constitution itself as it gave credence to the notion that the Constitution was outdated and irrelevant as its provisions needed to be usurped in order to solve the crisis of the times. Of course in order to solve the “crisis of the times”, the New Deal greatly expanded the size, scope, and power of the federal government. It was this philosophy based upon expanding the state through the creation of various bureaucratic agencies outside the purview and control of the people while eroding the basic framework of the Constitution in which the policies of the New Deal lives on today.
So what would an America look like if a Democrat, namely Hillary Clinton who has already been anointed wins the presidency in 2017? For starters, if Hillary is elected, the baton will have passed from one Alinskyite to another, as Obama will have had eight years to fundamentally transform America, and Hillary will have another four to eight to complete the job. As Dinesh D’Souza wrote in his book America: Imagine A World Without Her, “together these two [Obama and Clinton] will have the opportunity to undo the nations founding ideals. They will have had the power, and the time, to unmake and then remake America. If Clinton becomes President of the United States, then it will be their America, not ours, and we will be a people bereft of a country, with no place to go.”
Remember that for Hillary, as for Alinsky, politics is not a contest between friends who disagree about the direction of the country; it is a form of warfare and the other side made up of conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists, veterans, and Christians, are an enemy to be vanquished and destroyed. Too many have seem to have forgotten that Hillary’s own senior thesis written in college was titled “There is Only the Fight…An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” This title was a trademark Alinsky phrase that appealed to Hillary because it suggested a move from the politics of idealism to the politics of pure power. There is Only the Fight sums up that the only way to get somewhere in politics is through power, working from within the system by any means necessary to achieve it. This was a break from Alinsky who believed the best way to achieve power was outside the system. For Clinton, it has always been her stance that once in power, the system can be used as a means to achieve her ends.
Thus, if Clinton is able to achieve the presidency, she will use the full force and power of the government against her enemies on the Right. She will terrorize them into capitulation or silence using a litany of agencies from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and every other alphabet soup agency to go even further than Obama by extracting money and benefits from the private sector and from the taxpayers on the right to fill her and her donors coffers.
To begin, a Hillary presidency will not only expand the power of the federal government through the expansion of the bureaucracy but will also fundamentally change the concept of our Constitution via the packing of the Supreme Court with far-leftist judges. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia warned in his dissent from the Courts’ 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges which declared same sex marriage a right, the Court itself had “become a threat to American democracy.” Scalia wrote that the Courts’ decree in the Obergefell v. Hodges “says that my Ruler, and the Rule of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the 9 lawyers on the Supreme Court.” Scalia further wrote that:
“The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
The next President will be responsible for not only picking Scalia’s replacement, but possibly 3 to 4 more justices who will set the direction of the court for the next 30 to 40 years. If the court is stacked with liberal justices who view the Constitution as an outdated and fluid document that can be interpreted in whatever way they see fit, it will enshrine “abortion rights”, same sex marriage, and every other conceivable “right” as the law of the land while at the same time abolishing rights deemed insignificant. For example, it will be no surprise to see the Court under a Hillary presidency rule that the right to bear arms is unconstitutional as she will fill the vacancy on the Court left by Scalia’s death with the radical leftist Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland. Garland, who has first appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court by non-other than Bill Clinton in 1997, would undoubtedly vote to reverse the monumental D.C. v. Heller decision, which affirmed that the second amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
We know that Garland will in fact push gun control if allowed to become a Supreme Court Justice given his prior record on this issue. For instance, in 2007 Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit Court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation that not only banned individual handgun possession but even prohibited guns from being kept in one’s own house for self-defense. Meaning, a 3 Judge panel struck down the ban, but Garland wanted to reconsider the ruling by voting in favor for the D.C. governments petition to rehear the case. If Garland had won the vote, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms. Needless to say, with Hillary as President Merrick Garland will be appointed and the Supreme Court will go from a 4-4 split to as much as a 6-3 split in which the majority will rule strictly in favor of liberal causes.
Moving on from the Supreme Court, next is Hillary’s stance on immigration in which she has promised to not only “go even further” than Obama on executive actions in regards to “keeping immigrant families together”; but has also vowed to “stand up against any effort to deport Obama’s DREAMers” while “creating a pathway to citizenship by enabling millions of workers to come out of the shadows.” From her official campaign website HillaryClinton.Com, as President she has promised that she will further “fight for comprehensive immigration reform legislation with a path to full and equal citizenship.” Moreover, she will also push for parents and family members of illegal immigrant “DREAMers” to be eligible for deferred action and expand “access to Obamacare to all families — regardless of immigration status.”
The cost of extending healthcare to all illegal immigrants is enormous as Neil Munro of Breitbart explains, “American taxpayers pay roughly $5,000 per year for each person enrolled in Obamacare. The addition of only 10 million current illegal immigrants to Obamacare would cost taxpayers at least $50 billion per year, or $500 billion over 10 years.” Also, as the Heritage Foundation noted in a 2012 report, amnesty alone for the administration’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants would cost Americans $6 trillion over 50 years, including the cost of welfare and healthcare benefits. While statistics vary in regards to how many illegal immigrants are in fact living in the United States with estimates ranging from 10 million to 25 million, the key takeaway here is that the pro-amnesty side only has to win once and the country itself will be finished. Why? With Clinton as President she will push executive amnesty to a point in which the Democrat party will have a voting majority to keep them in power for the next few decades. Simply put, Republicans will not win another election for decades to come as every illegal immigrant granted amnesty under a Hillary presidency will vote Democrat and Democrat only.
On gun control, just as immigration, Clinton has vowed to enact “common sense gun reforms” via executive action with or without any congressional input. For example, Hillary will “repeal the gun industry’s immunity protection” via executive order by repealing the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arm’s Act.” This would essentially allow victims of gun violence to hold gun manufacturers, not individuals, liable for the actions of an inanimate object through a litany of lawsuits that will bankrupt the gun industry. Furthermore, Clinton has set her sights on targeting the “gun lobby” by specifically mentioning that she will go after the National Rifle Association (NRA) as she believes the NRA is at the root of impairing progress to solving America’s “gun problems.”
The types of restrictions she will impose have already been outlined in her prior statements in which she has supported a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms and endorsed an Australian-style Confiscation scheme for carrying out her vision. In 2014, Clinton vehemently stated her opposition to the right-to-carry in a Q&A session with the National Council for Behavioral Health, noting that “we’ve got to reign in what has become an artificial of faith, that anyone can own and carry a gun.” Lastly, and most disturbingly, Clinton made explicitly clear during a private fundraiser in New York last September that the “Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” in reference to the Courts’ landmark ruling in D.C. v. Heller which found the handgun ban in D.C., unconstitutional
It is by no means an overstatement to say that given Clinton’s past and current statements, she does not believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution and the Supreme Court may say. It should be clear to all gun owners and advocates of the Second Amendment that the day Clinton assumes office your rights will be attacked with the full force of the federal government.
Hillary has never been one to take criticism lightly, nor has she been one to respect the First Amendment. To drive this point home, in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN a few days ago Clinton explained how she would make it illegal to criticize her. Clinton stated the following about the Citizens United decision in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government couldn’t constitutionally bar a movie critical of Clinton, regardless of whether an election was in progress. Clinton stated:
“I really respect the important point of getting money out of politics. Remember, Citizens United was an attack on me, so I take it very personally and even before Senator Sanders got into the campaign way back in April of last year, I said we are going to reverse Citizens United and if we can’t get the Supreme Court to do what I think would be the right decision, then I will lead a constitutional amendment.”
If the Citizens United decision was to be overturned, as Hillary wants, it would result in the re-writing of the First Amendment as the federal government would make it illegal to criticize Mrs. Clinton (or any other liberal politician) in a movie, book, pamphlet, etc. To get an idea of how Clinton would go about criminalizing dissent by censoring free speech, recall two incidents that happened back in 2012 to two different filmmakers, the first being Joel Gilbert who made the controversial film called “Dreams of My Real Father.” The film, which focused on key influences in the life of Barack Obama, lead to a complaint on behalf of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by three of the six commissioners voting to demand that Gilbert report who funded the project. In a case spotlighting how the regulation of conservative media critical of the liberal agenda will be used under a Clinton presidency, the three Democrats on the FEC alleged Gilbert violated reporting rules when he mailed out DVDs of his movie during the 2012 election campaign. Luckily in this case the three Republicans on the FEC blocked the fishing expedition which could have resulted in Gilbert facing massive fines, restrictions, and even referral to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
In an interview with World Net Daily, Gilbert warned that “if the make-up of the FEC is changed because a Democrat wins the presidency and appoints one more Democrat than Republican to the commission, we will face a dire future in which only political speech favorable to the far-left agenda will be tolerated.” This isn’t hyperbole either, it’s reality and if you believe Clinton wouldn’t go so far as to punish an individuals First Amendment, remember that she already has. This was the case during Clinton’s time as the Secretary of State in which Clinton, along with President Obama and Ambassador Susan Rice, blamed filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for inciting the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi because of his film, “Innocence of Muslims,” that was critical of Islam. Nakoula, a resident of California, was soon hauled off to jail for trumped up charges related to bank fraud days after the spotlight fell upon him on September 11, 2012. Nakoula’s underlying offense was that he exercised his First Amendment rights in producing a video in opposition to Islam, a point that cannot be underscored enough as it leads us to Hillary’s final position.
As Rich Lowry of Politico notes, “Nakoula’s jail time appears indistinguishable from what the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, devoted to pushing blasphemy laws around the world, calls deterrent punishment for Islamophobia.” Nakoula’s punishment was in fact directly in line with the blasphemy laws first pushed by the OIC and supported by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton back in 2011. In her remarks during an OIC high-level meeting on “combating religious intolerance” in Istanbul, Clinton offered America’s willing support to OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu in order to help facilitate the implementation of the OIC’s Ten-Year Programme through the ratification of the United Nations Resolution 16/ 18. “In doing so, the United States committed its best efforts to a foreign state actor, the OIC, to help ratify a United Nations resolution that is antithetical to the First Amendment,” writes Stephen Coughlin a leading expert on Islamic Doctrinal drivers of Jihad. The process of passing and implementing the requirements of Resolution 16/ 18 is called the Istanbul Process and in her speech in Istanbul, Clinton committed to spearheading the 16/ 18 effort:
“For our part, I have asked our Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, to spearhead our implementation efforts. And to build on the momentum from today’s meeting, later this year the United States intends to invite relevant experts from around the world to the first of what we hope will be a series of meetings to discuss best practices, exchange ideas, and keep us moving forward beyond the polarizing debates of the past; to build those muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance that the secretary general referenced. It is essential that we advance this new consensus and strengthen it, both at the United Nations and beyond, in order to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.”
Secretary Clinton then went on to say:
“Under this resolution, the international community is taking a strong stand for freedom of expression and worship, and against discrimination and violence based upon religion or belief.”
To get a sense of how the OIC seeks to enforce what Clinton called “a strong stand for freedom of expression,” just days before meeting with Secretary Clinton, the OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu, made his thoughts known declaring that “insults to Islam and to the honored Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH), has reached a stage that can no longer be tolerated under any pretext, including freedom of speech.” Ihsanoglu’s view of freedom of expression may trouble non-Muslims, but it conforms to authoritative Islamic law on slander. Clearly aware of this, Clinton accepted this view on behalf of all American citizens as she continued by noting her commitment to “enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”
As Coughlin explains, “When Clinton committed to a foreign power ‘to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming’ against American citizens in order to facilitate a foreign entities’ Programme of Action she seemed to recognize that she lacked a constitutional basis to undertake such an effort. Hence, the stated need to resort to extra-legal measures that envision bringing the enormous coercive power of the state to bear against its own citizens to silence them.” Think of what happened to the California filmmaker Nakoula and then multiply that on a scale for an idea of what is to come under a Clinton presidency that seeks to use “peer pressure and shaming” against those who slander Islam in an end-run around constitutional protections.
Given that these are only a handful of examples in regards to what a Clinton presidency would mean to the country, one doesn’t have to imagine how they are all interconnected. For instance, with Clinton as President, how long do you think it would it take until Supreme Court Justice Merrick Garland decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution? What happens when your Second Amendment right is deemed unconstitutional as an Australian-style gun confiscation scheme is implemented? How long will it be before a Republican wins the White House after Hillary grants amnesty and voting rights to tens of millions of illegal immigrants who will become dependent on Democrat policies?
These questions will be answered under a Hillary presidency and if you do not fall in line with the Democrat party you will be made to. That isn’t a threat it’s a guarantee. So today as many Republicans turn on each other in what has become a circular firing squad during this primary, never forget what is truly at stake in this election. Obama was given two terms to fundamentally transform the United States of America. It will take Hillary only one to destroy it.