Obama goes to a primary school to talk to the kids. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand, and Obama asks him his name. “Walter,” responds the little boy. Obama says, “And what is your question, Walter?” Walter asks, “Why did you say that we could keep our health insurance and our doctor if you knew that we couldn’t?” Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess. When they resume, Obama says: “OK, where were we? Oh, that’s right, it’s question time. Who has a question?” Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points him out and asks him his name. “Steve,” he responds. Obama says, “And what is your question, Steve?” Steve says, “Actually, I have two questions: First, why did the recess bell ring 20 minutes early? Second, what happened to Walter?”
Is it possible that sincere policy disagreements or questions could land those who disagree with the administration in jail? Perhaps this is not as farfetched as it may sound. Last week the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the National Defense Authorization Act which allows for indefinite detention without charge or trial of American citizens on U.S. soil. Forget the constitutional presumption of innocence! The administration insists that the provision is needed to combat terrorism and does not apply to American citizens.
But numerous legal scholars, including constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, disagree. They see a real danger that the law could be applied to Americans, saying that there is nothing specifically in the law to prevent such application. In fact, the original trial court judge ruled just so in the suit brought by Pulitzer prize winning reporter Chris Hedges of the New York Times. Unfortunately the lower court was overturned by the appeal court and now the Supreme Court has refused appeal. Remember, Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, or having a tea party bumper sticker as potential indicators of domestic terrorism.
Should we trust an administration with a Justice Department that chooses not to prosecute Black Panther militias for gross voter intimidation with slam dunk video evidence? Should we trust an Attorney General who oversees a gun smuggling operation resulting in the death of Border Patrol agents (Fast and Furious) simply to score political points in their assault on the second amendment; and then lies about it to cover their tracks? Should we trust an Attorney General who holds the people’s elected representatives in contempt? Should we trust an administration that uses the IRS to harass its political opponents? Should we trust a President who supports the Muslim Brotherhood and has refused to answer why he lied to the American people about Benghazi?
All totalitarian states remove freedoms of speech and guns to squelch opposition. And then they lock up their opponents without a trial. But, that would never happen here, would it….? We are experiencing rapidly expanding executive power in this land and Congress and the courts are ignoring it. Even liberal constitutional attorney Jonathan Turley warns that we are headed toward tyranny. Be careful what you say, Walter.
Image: Courtesy of: http://www.blacklistednews.com/DICTATOR_2.0/32108/0/38/38/Y/M. html