[Originally published in The American Thinker.]
In whatever form it takes, authoritarianism is often identified by the unrelenting desire on the part of a leader to eliminate his or her adversaries. And while Iran and Obama purport to have two very different worldviews, both are religious in fervor when dealing with those who deviate from the faith.
In Iran there are mullahs who safeguard Islam’s sacred law, in America there is a president who thinks he is a law unto himself. Iran wants to nuke Israel and the U.S., and Obama is nuking the Constitution.
That’s why the news that Attorney General Loretta Lynch reviewed the possibility of pursuing civil action against climate change skeptics (“deniers”) was as disturbing as the report that Iran recently tested two ballistic missiles.
Most would agree that it is easy to identify what motivates the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran.
For starters, Iran is zealous in its hatred for America, the country led by a Muslim-sympathizing president that agreed to help the genocidal terrorist state acquire an atomic bomb. The $150 billion check Obama dropped in the mail to Tehran ensures that, in the future, our mortal enemy will possess the means to repay our generosity by turning a third of the earth’s water into Wormwood.
In the meantime, because of the Islamic belief that, on the delicate wings of a mushroom cloud, chaos will usher in the 12th Imām, Mohamed al- Mahdī, Iranian leaders remain primarily fixated on how to annihilate their ancient enemy Israel.
Until that great and terrible day arrives, the Islamic theocracy continues to deal harshly with capital offenders who Iran’s leaders believe “spread corruption.”
The type of depravity that the Iranian government views as a threat to social and political wellbeing include criticism of the regime, offending the Prophet and defying Islamic standards with speech or printed material.
Funny, some of those violations sound similar to the American sin of critiquing prescient Obama, and exercising the right to free speech.
Sometimes, at first, Iranian government goon squads called “religious police” monitor suspected blasphemers. Other times, offenders immediately endure persecution and/or spend extended time in a jail cell. But, more often than not, those who “spread corruption” are tortured and executed.
Put simply, if a citizen dares to disagree with the theocratic ruler of Iran, the punishment that follows is severe and unforgiving.
At any rate, although Washington D.C. is 6,300 miles away from Iran, after being led for eight years by a Supreme Leader whose favorite pastime is issuing infallible decrees, the seat of American government is beginning to resemble an Iranian theocracy.
For instance, when differing opinions arise that contradict the sacred text concerning gun control, abortion, and climate change, although the president doesn’t respond by beheading anyone in a public square, he does find a way to overtly impugn the credibility of those whom he feels spread corruption.
Now, judging from what Attorney General Loretta Lynch had to say at a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations, Obama’s future method of response may become more official.
Apparently, Obama’s Justice Department is in the process of deciding whether or not to take civil action against beliefs held by those Iran would call “gross offenders of the moral order.” Lynch had this to say about how climate “deniers” in the fossil fuel industry could possibly face lawsuits:
“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.”
Based on the Attorney General’s remarks, it’s hard to believe that what was once a Constitutional right to individual thought and belief, may now be one step closer to an Iranian-style regulation overseen by a hierarchy of American mullahs.
Then again, the president has already admonished those who contradict his beliefs concerning climate change by warning them if they don’t agree with him “[They]’ll be pretty lonely.” What Obama didn’t expound upon was whether or not a climate change skeptic ends up lonely inside or outside a courtroom.
Either way, the problem that remains for America is that our president truly does believe with a mullah-like fervor that the emission of greenhouse gas is more menacing an activity than massacring an unborn child.
Now, the man who commends those who make a living harvesting and selling dead babies for profit is leaning toward making the sale of fossil fuel grounds for litigation.
So, for the rest of us, the question that arises is whether an administration that doesn’t consider an undocumented felon a criminal will actually target a global warming skeptic who refuses to believe that a polar bear floating on a chunk of ice substantiates man-caused climate change?
Moreover, one can’t help put wonder whether Loretta and Barry may also be secretly plotting to “take action” against anyone who has a firearm, or who sides with the investigative journalists indicted for exposing that Planned Parenthood sells baby body parts for money to buy Lamborghinis?
In America today, it seems … Keep Reading the rest @: Barack Goes Ballistic