Friday, June 7, 2013

The Enemies List: Why the Obama Administration is at War with the Constitution

The scandals just keep pouring in.  First we learned that the IRS really was targeting all of those tea party groups who kept insisting last summer that they were being harassed because of their political views.  Then we learned that the Administration was spying on the AP.  Next we discovered that Fox News journalist James Rosen was the subject of an investigation after he was identified as a possible co-conspirator involved in activities against the federal government.  Then this week we learned that the NSA has been reviewing the phone records of approximately 100 million Americans, and yesterday we learned about PRISM--a federal surveillance program through which the government is tracking the on-line activity of all us via 9 Internet companies including Facebook, Google, Youtube and Microsoft. 

This massive surveillance of all U.S. citizens, combined with the use of federal agencies to punish dissenters, is once again leading to speculation about Obama's "enemies list".  After all, Valerie Jarrett did promise that after the 2012 election, the Administration would get even with those who had opposed them.  In light of everything that is happening now, it is easy to say that this is about simply tracking down dissenters and punishing them.  But I think that the "enemies list" is a bigger issue than specific individuals or groups of individuals.

To understand what is happening in our country today, it is essential to understand that Obama is the global president.  He is the president who campaigned in Europe as well as in the U.S.  He is the president who bowed to the rulers of Saudi Arabia.  As part of his commitment to the global good, he is also the climate change president--the candidate who promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to bring the earth back into harmony.  As the global climate change president, he is entrenched in the goals of the modern global climate change movement.

Most of us here in the U.S. think that the goal of the global environmental movement is to get us to recycle our plastics and plant trees.  Those are diversionary tactics--they have nothing to do with the real goals of environmentalism. The U.N. has expressed its goals for a global environmental utopia through its policy documents--Agenda 21--which demands the three E's--equity or social equality, environmental justice and economy.  The social equality "E" demands wealth redistribution on a massive scale.  Most of the people who voted for Obama both the first and the second time did so because they believed that he stood for wealth redistribution within the United States--some massive program of restructuring that would take from the super rich and elevate the standard of living of everyone currently below the poverty level.  But that is not at all what wealth redistribution means to a globalist.  To a globalist, wealth redistribution means lowering the standards of living in the West, and specifically the U.S., to the levels of third world countries--think Nigeria or Kenya or Indonesia.  (Anyone who saw Dinesh d'Souza's excellent film Obama 2016 can appreciate what this means since he goes to Indonesia and Kenya for his documentary.)  

The environmental justice piece demands that the needs of the earth be treated equally with the needs of humans.  So we see the EPA regulating businesses out of business; we are burdened with expensive light bulbs, and we are hearing about new regulations from the USDA that will limit what crops farmers can grow.  We see overreaching policies such as the EPA's failed attempt to classify storm water as a pollutant.  Environmental justice is an excuse to destroy all business, industry and private property in the U.S. under the guise of "protecting the environment."

Finally, there is the economy piece.  The basic premise of all global environmentalism is that Americans have too much, consume too much and produce too much and that our standard of living inspires other countries to want to emulate us.  At the Women Deliver Conference held in Kuala Lampur last week, globalists once again vented not only about population growth but about the wealth and "unsustainable" consumption of the West.  Babtunde Osotimehin, a Nigerian doctor who is serving as the executive director of the UNFPA, restated globalist goals to restrict consumption and production by the wealthy nations of the world.  "A homeless person in Denmark actually consumes more than a family of six in Tanzania,"  he explained, adding that the problem, "is that every young person who grows up in Tanzania wants to drive an SUV."

The solution to this to reduce Westerners, and especially Americans, rights and consumption patterns--to restrict our food, our housing, our ability to have children.  Kavita Ramdas, an Indian representative of the Ford Foundation who attended the Women Deliver Conference, stated plainly, "If Americans consume more than Africans, they should be forced into a one child policy."  When asked how to make that work in practical terms, she added, "You force it; you can force women to have less children, you can force people to consume less."

Unfortunately for Ramdas, in a democracy, you can't force it.  The U.N. is pretty mum on this point, but other advocates of the global environmental movement, such as the Club of Rome, are much more direct.  Democracy and the global sustainable movement cannot work in sync with each other because people will deprive themselves only up to a point and then they tend to vote out politicians who attempt to force unpopular agendas.  So the only way to actually produce a global dystopia is to change the government.

And that brings me back to the "enemies list."  The Administration does in fact have an enemies list.  This list is not exclusive to the Obama Administration--it is shared by all proponents of global environmentalism in both parties. This is not an exhaustive list, but it includes the top ten major enemies of the global environmental movement. Without annihilation of these threats to globalism, the climate change movement cannot move forward:

10.  Freedom.  From a free society flows all of the benefits that globalists despise.  Freedom produces thought, innovation, action, hope and prosperity.  But it is this very innovation and prosperity that globalists blame for destroying the world.  So freedom has to go.

9. Prosperity.  American patterns of consumption and production are repeatedly blamed for all of the world's ills.  Not only do we use too much, eat too much, own too much, have too much and produce too much, but we inspire people in other nations to want to do the same.  Our prosperity must be destroyed--both to stop our production and consumption and to show other nations that in the new global order, no system that fosters prosperity will be tolerated.

8. Free Markets.  Our prosperity has been produced in large part by free markets that reward innovation and function on supply and demand principles.  If we run out of something, we make more.  If there is a market for a particular item, we invent it.  These processes lead to the high levels of consumption and production which must be destroyed for global environmentalism to prevail.

7. Democratic processes.  As I stated earlier, in their candid moments, climate change advocates will admit that democracy does not lead to the kind of central planning and control over population, food sources, housing, transportation and energy, that are needed to produce the world called for by globalists for the primary reason that the people generally choose programs which benefit themselves.  Therefore, for global environmentalism to work, democracy has to fail.

6. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are necessarily enemies for a number of reasons.  First, the Constitution defines our nation.  National sovereignty is a threat to globalism which must be destroyed.  Likewise, a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual freedoms is a dangerous obstacle to a central planning system where the people exist only for the greater good.  Therefore, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have to be attacked and shredded completely until either the public understands that they no longer have any practical value or until the public is ready to submit to a new more authoritarian type of control.

5. Patriotism.  Patriotism is part of the national sovereignty issue.  Patriotism is a dangerous quality--it makes a person loyal to the traditions and customs of their own country and culture.  The goal of globalism is to make everyone part of a world community where our lives are decided for us and any rewards are doled out by the government.

4. Personal initiative.  Personal initiative and the desire for a better life are as dangerous to globalism as patriotism.  The individual who believes that he can improve his life through his own actions and efforts is on the road to prosperity and affluence, which is the enemy of globalism.  For a global system to work, individuals need to believe that they are unable to do anything on their own--that they are completely dependent on the great machine of government.  

3. Personal safety.  Every attack on our freedom--whether it is the result of a terrorist like Tsarnaev setting bombs at the Boston Marathon, or a surveillance plan from the NSA--serves to make us feel less safe and secure.  This is critical to globalism.  If we perceive that we are safe or that we have the ability to protect ourselves, we are less likely to fall in line for global control.

2. Individual access to guns.  Let's face it--in the U.S. we guarantee our personal safety and that of our family members with guns.  Taking the guns away from the population is vital.  Not only does disarming the population create the levels of fear and personal insecurity that are a necessary part of greater government control, but it also makes it much easier to enforce the other aspects of globalism, such as confiscation of private property, food rationing and population control.

1. Christianity.  A May 3, 2013, headline in the Huffington Post declared, Climate Change Study: Religious Belief in the Second Coming of Christ Could Slow Global Warming Action.  According to the study, released May 1, 56% of Americans believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and this belief makes them less likely to embrace climate change legislation.

Christianity is the enemy for so many reasons.  It teaches the existence of a personal God who loves us individually, who grants us spiritual freedom (freedom), who watches over us and protects us (personal safety) who has tasks for each of us to complete and expects us to fulfill them with His help (personal initiative), who cares about injustice and judges the lives of all men and expects us to treat each other fairly (individual rights).  From this concept of a loving God who cares for us and wants us to care for each other--both Christians and non Christians--flows the idea of freedom for all people, and from that freedom flows prosperity and abundance that are so hated by globalists. That makes Christians the most dangerous enemy of all to any Administration bent on furthering the goals of a new world order.

Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen and several other books. Her novel, The Planner, about an out of control, environmentally-driven federal government implementing Agenda 21, is available on Kindle and in paperback. For more information, visit her website at


No comments:

Post a Comment