Thus, where blacks are concerned, Americans at large (and black Americans themselves) have been conditioned by politicos, activists and the media to overlook and even expect such things as high rates of poverty and crime, misfeasance in high places, nefarious tendencies, illegitimacy, and elements of general social instability and poor character. These expectations have been so thoroughly ingrained into our worldview that most Americans are not even cognizant of the fact that they have been so conditioned.

Given this prevailing perverted worldview amongst Americans, it is no surprise that one Barack Hussein Obama (or whatever his name truly is), having attained the office of president of the United States of America, expected to enjoy more latitude than his predecessors with regard to his actions. This was intensified by the fact that as the first black president, he immediately became an historic figure. Add to that the cult of inordinate deference and adulation promoted by various forms of media, and we had an individual with whom practically no one actually wanted to find fault.

So, in pursuing his diabolical Marxist agenda, Obama knew that he would be able to gain far more ground than a white individual with the same plan. He may not have known precisely how dedicated and effective the press would be, or how long Americans would remain asleep, but he and his Cabinet had a pretty good idea of how far they could go.

Or so one would think …

This year’s summer blockbuster — a guide for Congress to draw up articles of impeachment — Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office”

Obama’s political opponents – the GOP leadership – also knew that their more confrontational or controversial interactions with Obama would have to be handled with extra diplomacy for the reasons listed above. In analyzing Republican leaders’ deportment with regard to this president, we must ask ourselves: How much of their reticence in holding Obama accountable was due to fear of political fallout? How much was due to their low expectations of Obama as a politician and a human being? How much may have been due to their approval of aspects of his agenda?

The impudence and tyranny of the Obama administration is indeed precedent-setting, as is the outrageousness and magnitude of the falsehoods it is willing to offer in defense of same. Claims that the Internal Revenue Service’s singling out of conservative groups for inordinate scrutiny is not politically based is almost laughable, and akin to arguing that Jim Crow laws were not racially based. Singling out a political group because of its politics is politically based by definition. Press Secretary Jay Carney’s charges that the Benghazi scandal is a Republican contrivance, and his comparison of the Associated Press leak investigation to “birther” conspiracy theories is just plain desperate.

It is the desperation of criminals.

The administration’s ideology, though odious, is still not on trial – but its actions are. As a result of the inquiries focused on Benghazi, the IRS and the Associated Press, their abject criminality is what elements of the press and many Americans are beginning to perceive, even if they are late in so doing. These issues deepen and reveal more untoward goings-on daily; as I write this, evidence for at least three other potentially serious scandals has just broken the surface in the press.

Circumstances have indeed changed – but to what degree? Some recent polls demonstrate a startling percentage of people who believe Obama should be impeached, and it is safe to say that no past president would have survived the current spate of public indignities. Still, the final disposition comes down to this: Who in Congress wants to be known as having brought down America’s first black president?

Suddenly, Obama’s removal looks a lot less likely, yes?

Governing against the will of the people has been an increasing proclivity of lawmakers in Washington, regardless of party. So it is altogether possible that Congress will avoid initiating regime change for shallow and dangerous political reasons, even if a majority of Americans are clamoring for Obama’s impeachment.

Our federal government has clearly grown increasingly corrupt, but this administration is one for the books. In the operative sense, ethnicity is irrelevant to Barack Obama having betrayed the trust of the American people. It is no consolation to me personally that I knew he would, and that the solemn responsibility of stewardship over this great nation was a joke to him from the start.

The question is: What are we going to do about it? Contrary to Marxists’ rhetorical glorification of “the masses” (utilized only to manipulate them, naturally), historically the masses have never done anything. It is the inspiration and motivation of visionaries, whether individuals or small groups thereof, that initiates change in the world.

Evidently we need leaders, and they must be unifying ones. Though they will have to be followed with judicious discretion, we still have to identify them first – and we are running out of time.

I’ll tell you what happens: I refuse to do it, job or no job, and I go to the press.

I can say this because I have left jobs due to moral conflicts, although I realize it may be difficult for some to criticize an individual who chooses their livelihood in such an instance.

On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he would recuse himself from an investigation into the Department of Justice having secretly obtained the phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, ostensibly in an effort to discover who in the DOJ had previously leaked confidential information to the AP. Holder initially claimed that this involved an issue of national security. Both the stated purpose and the methods appear dubious on their face and have raised serious questions of legality.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the White House had no knowledge of the investigation.

Which is convenient, if not even remotely believable.

No doubt that at this point, many are fielding mental images of Sgt. Schultz from the “Hogan’s Heroes” television series, and his signature claim of “I know nothing! I see nothing!” It also bears mentioning that President Ronald Reagan’s failure to recall one contentious exchange is still legendary amongst liberals, while such utterances have practically become a mantra with this administration.

The depth and breadth of this president’s professed ignorance has long since surpassed implausibility. Americans may dismiss this sort of thing as evasive political maneuvering once or twice, but given recent crises and the ensuing scandals, even the most disengaged citizens are naturally asking themselves what use a president who has no idea what his State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, Treasury and Justice Department are doing at any given time might conceivably be.

The power of the cult of Obama cannot be underestimated; indeed, many Americans and even members of the press are still wedded to the messianic fantasy character sold to us in 2008. Unfortunately for Obama, he may have made more enemies than he can effectively handle. Whether it was ideology or narcissistic audacity, Obama has now alienated both the intelligence community via Benghazi and the press via the AP debacle. He also stands to lose the trust of potentially millions of Americans via the emerging IRS scandal.

Right now, since the press has been instrumental in shielding this president, important questions linger with regard to the AP leak phenomenon in particular. Were members of the press simply as naïve and conceited as Jack Reed (who somehow believed that he would be exempt from the heavy hand of the Bolsheviks) and are receiving their long-overdue wake-up call? Will they buy the DOJ spin and forgive Obama if something resembling contrition is demonstrated? While some journalists are cutting Jay Carney a quite a bit less slack than, say, a week ago, it is still too early to determine what their long-term deportment will be.

On May 5, Obama urged an audience to “reject these voices” that warn against government tyranny. Yet in February, Rep. Maxine Waters declared in a televised interview that “the president has put in place an organization” with “information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before.” Earlier this month, a former FBI counterterrorism agent claimed on CNN that Americans can be reasonably certain that all electronic communications, public and private, are being monitored by the Obama administration.

If you factor in the IRS, AP and Benghazi controversies, rejecting voices that warn against government tyranny becomes a damn tall order.

Apparently playing to those still mired in gullibility and delusion, Obama continues to express the same feigned outrage over each emerging scandal that he demonstrated on Sept. 12, 2012. Concerning Benghazi alone, lies told by members of the administration that have been revealed as such are literally innumerable. The White House continues to downplay the Benghazi hearings, however, and contends that they are politically motivated; this week, Obama called them a “sideshow.” As the damning evidence comes to light with regard to the IRS and AP investigations, no doubt he will lend circus appellations to these as well.

Although I take it as given that Obama is a committed Marxist and a dangerous megalomaniac, and believe it is an imperative that we either remove him or find a way to hold his administration in abeyance for the next three years, let us be fair. Liberties taken by the previous administration that expanded presidential powers were of great concern to observers and experts across the political spectrum. Why? Because people of conscience who understood our form of governance knew that such expansions were inherently dangerous. The overall expansion of government has been insidious and incremental; Obama is just a symptom of the greater malady.

None of the Obama administration’s abuses happened in a vacuum, and we aren’t simply dealing with a handful of government employees who chose to stay silent and keep their jobs. It is a well-established culture of cavalier elitism and bureaucracy that facilitated these activities. While many of the power players here are dedicated leftists, this culture of accepting the cultivation of megalithic, paternalistic government transcends party.

It also transcends the crimes of the Obama administration, because without this culture in place, the Obama White House would never have been able to operate.

Hume is quite right, of course; however, there is another requisite for definitive results to develop with regard to Benghazi, and that is the willingness of Congress to see the process through to a just conclusion.

And what would be a just conclusion?

I suppose that depends on two things: One, what is revealed in the hearings, and two, whom one asks. I have always leaned in the direction of the administration having orchestrated the attack for reasons of its own – given his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and legendary understanding of all things Islamic, it is possible that President Obama could even have arranged for the assault on the compound without the foreknowledge of his Cabinet.

A bold charge, to be sure, but I am operating with such questions as the unresolved Trinity United murders before me. Then there are the possibilities that the tragedy came about as the result of less grave criminal action or a series of irresponsible and craven decisions.

The burning question at present (and which may remain so for some time) is why efforts were not made to rescue the beleaguered staff at the facility and whether or not a stand-down order was given to military personnel in the area. If the latter becomes the case, then obviously we want to know who issued the order. Depending on the outcome, measures might be as severe as charges filed against Cabinet officials or the impeachment of Obama himself. While this president reasonably deserves to be occupying a cell in some federal penitentiary anyway, impeachment presents many troublesome aspects.

A major reason Obama has skated for so long – and particularly with Republican leaders – is that no one wishes his or her legacy to include having brought down America’s first black president. There is the very real concern that such action might ignite civil unrest. The latter is a realistic concern, since both activists and the administration might catalyze said unrest as a “push back” to impeachment.

On May 7, radio host Rush Limbaugh suggested a difficult-to-believe but entirely possible reason for many Democrats (both rank-and-file and politicians) and the press having stood by Obama for so long. Limbaugh put this down to their naïveté; they simply bought into Obama’s PR. I would go further by saying that as a result of this, they could not see how dangerous he truly is. If the abject criminality of this administration becomes apparent to enough Americans, however, and if enough Democratic lawmakers abandon the president, impeachment may become a risk Congress is willing to take.

We must remember that this administration is about as slick an operation that has ever slithered into the corridors of power in Washington – slicker than the Clinton administration, if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s present embarrassment is any indication. While the astute remain aware that she is still the Democratic leadership’s heir apparent, this may not preclude Obama and his closest co-conspirators’ attempting to sling her under the bus.

These being the case, we are still reliant upon the GOP leadership and any Democrats who perceive that public opinion weighs in favor of their flipping on Obama. That may take a lot, but it is actually an increasing possibility. This administration has been very successful in shielding its internal weaknesses from the public; part of this has been due to press complicity, but this could change if too many Democratic leaders start bailing on the president, and some are already distancing themselves from him.

The fact that the establishment press has begun to cover the Benghazi hearings is extremely significant. The dire economic impact of Obamacare and the universal economic hardship in the offing is becoming apparent to Americans, and this is also gaining press coverage as its implementation draws near. The specter of what amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants will do to our toxic economy is a major concern, and there is widespread distrust of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on this issue. The most recent Rasmussen poll showed the president’s disapproval rating at 51 percent.

All in all, it appears that Americans are not happy with Obama.

This week should be telling, not only as to the direction the investigation into Benghazi will take, but whether it is the beginning of the end for the Obama administration.

But if Congress allows Benghazi to be put down to a mere lapse of leadership skills – whether former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary Clinton or Obama himself are blameworthy – then we can expect an increase in the administration’s impudence, because they will have gotten away with yet another crime. The press will play it off as an unfortunate learning experience. I’m sorry … I dropped the baby. I swear it won’t happen again. …

Then, Benghazi will go the way of Obama’s eligibility and identity fraud, Fast and Furious, military action in Libya sans congressional approval, millions in illegal foreign contributions during the 2012 campaign, the multi-billion-dollar bailout of teachers’ unions using money from food stamp programs, widespread voter fraud during the Democratic primaries in 2008, the attempted bribery of Rep. Joe Sestak, the Department of Justice’s race-based prosecution (or non-prosecution) policies, illegal contributions (of taxpayer money) to foreign political campaigns, voter fraud during the 2012 election and so much more.

Nations – unless they have lost their collective mind – always act in their own self-interest. I am not here to act as an apologist for American foreign policy; as a society directed by human beings, we have probably made as many mistakes in our foreign policy as we have in our domestic policy. Suffice it to say that the United States of America has done far more to contribute to the liberty and tranquility of other nations than we have to harm them, especially when compared to history and our contemporaries of equivalent power and influence. Indictments to the contrary are simply well-crafted propaganda I have personally resolved not to dignify with argument any longer.

Since the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, several contentious issues have concurrently come to the fore. Immigration, national security and the Second Amendment all came into play with regard to the bombing, manhunt and standoffs that ultimately ended with one bomber dead and one in custody. The Obama administration’s alleged transparency is also a factor, as they continue to obstruct justice and obfuscate pertaining to the narrative.

And then we have the problem of Islam itself. The obvious antipathy Muslims hold for America, the actions of jihadis and the divided opinion of Americans (brought about by the efforts of radicals, Muslim activists, the press and the Obama administration itself) have conspired to bring about a dangerous level of tension.

I’ve had a crash course in this phenomenon, so to speak, having made a controversial comment online concerning Muslims on the day the bombing occurred. Muslims and many sympathetic (read “deluded”) Americans took great offense. What I find interesting is the fact that out of the tens of thousands of death threats, hate tweets, emails and so forth, not one person wrote to tell me that they were Muslim, but love America, and condemn Islamist terrorism.

Not one.

A lot of Muslims have informed me that I need to “learn about Islam” (what they think I’ve been doing over the last 12 years, I’m not quite sure). They say that Islam is all about peace, love and coexistence. When pressed, however, it eventually comes back around to America having bullied and murdered Muslims all around the world, and that Muslims have good reason to hate us. Pressed further, and once again they’re calling for death to America and Israel, and expressing a desire to murder me in some unnatural manner.

So it appears that while many of these people are willing to engage in taqiyya (the practice of deceiving infidels in order to defend the faith), openly condemning another Muslim (no matter his character or actions) or swearing allegiance to America somehow offends their sensibilities.

The dirty little secret is that Christians in the Muslim world are suffering exponentially more than any Muslim in the West suffers. One doesn’t have to look very far to find some of the most horrible atrocities imaginable being perpetrated against Christians by Muslims in the Third World – but one does have to look, since the dhimmified Islamophiliac press won’t touch it.

In general, Islamic activism appears to be undergoing yet another resurgence, of which I believe the Boston Bombing was a part. The cries of Islamophobia following the Boston bombing are, I believe, in part a distraction from this very fact.

In Egypt, where lawlessness and Christian persecution rule the day, there has been an upsurge in the practice of Hiraba, a form of Islamic vigilantism that is practically satanic in its dark barbarity. In these instances, gangs of low-rent Dr. Mengeles ritualistically torture some perceived offender (for being a Christian, or having had a beer or something) prior to publicly executing him.

Recently, a few news services have carried the story of Indonesian Muslims accused of beheading three Christian girls a few years ago. The most recent piece focused on the fact that one of the murderers was acquitted.

I have no wish to persecute Muslims, and I would certainly rather we had not arrived at this juncture, but they have alienated themselves from Americans, not the reverse. Denying that Islam is the problem, rather than “Islamic extremism” or some such designation, is simply denying the ways of the world and human nature – something at which those on the political left excel.

“Muslim” has become the new “N-word,” and one can scarcely say it these days without being accused of bigotry. This is but a precursor to Europe’s insane social policies, which have culturally emasculated native populations.

I don’t know what kind of psychology it takes to condone armies of angry primitives howling across your country and calling for your death, but I for one intend to have no part of it.

“Please don’t be a Muslim” even graced the title of one Washington Post article – but we’ll address that brand of insanity in a bit.

When the suspects were finally identified as Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the press immediately pronounced them “white.” A collective “A-HA!” of vindication rose on the airwaves and in cyberspace, as though all of America had somehow been certain that “brown people did it.”

Although the brothers Tsarnaev are technically “Caucasian” in the sense that their home country, Chechnya, lies in the North Caucasus mountains of Russia, they aren’t what has been considered “white” in the Western world for centuries. Generally speaking, people who fall into that category are those descended from forebears in Northern and Western Europe, Scandinavia and the British Isles, inasmuch as Southern Europeans, some Eastern Europeans, Eurasians and even the Irish have historically suffered discrimination under the former in the West.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are Eurasian. Well, Tamerlan was Eurasian; his surviving brother Dzhokhar remains so.

George Zimmerman (who stands accused of shooting Trayvon Martin, a black youth, on Feb. 26, 2012) isn’t white either – but that didn’t stop the left from promoting and persecuting him as such because it suited their agenda. They and opportunistic black career activists whipped the public into near-rioting frenzy in the weeks following the shooting, which Zimmerman claims was self-defense. Yet the incident remains a “hate crime” in the eyes of the public, even though it has been long since revealed that Zimmerman is of Peruvian, black, as well as German ancestry, and his mixed lineage is visibly evident.

Once again, however, as I’ve indicated regarding many high-profile phenomena ostensibly centered around race, this is actually not the issue. In the case of Zimmerman-Martin, the issue of ethnicity was exploited to foment ethnic tensions and public discord. In the case of the Boston bombers, even prior to their identification, it was also used to foment tension; since then, it has been employed to promote the inordinate and dangerous deference toward Muslims liberals have been cultivating since 2002. Despite the fact that most Americans were more than duly conscientious with regard to not condemning the entirety of Islam for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, liberals subsequently crafted a narrative of Muslims having been persecuted ever since.

Stay with me on this one: So, even though the brothers Tsarnaev are “white,” the fact that they are Muslims qualifies them for the same victimhood status as the majority of the world’s Muslims, who are “brown.”

Brain hurt yet?

If it hasn’t become evident by now: This race and religion-baiting is a pretext, a component of the left’s design to destabilize America. Americans are being – and in many instances have been – conditioned either to ignore radical Islam, or to sympathize with Islamists. The result can be observed (as I indicated last week in this space) in several European nations, where the citizenry, beleaguered by hordes of radical, disruptive and economically parasitic Muslims, nevertheless vociferously defend them. The unwitting natives remain unaware that it has always been the Islamists’ goal to displace them into dhimmitude.

A person cannot know that President Obama is thick as thieves with radical Islamist factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist-affiliated Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and claim surprise that we are now beginning to live out the European nightmare vis-à-vis Islam. Young American fools who rush to the defense of Muslim radicals and their silent “peaceful” brethren obviously don’t recall the innumerable news reports of café bombings that came out of European nations during the 1970s, and the radical Muslim groups that claimed responsibility for each and every one.

The fact is that we have far more human garbage in this country than we ever ought to have tolerated, and this has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion; it has to do with what is in people’s hearts and minds. What we haven’t imported, the left has created. Liberals and radical Marxism in particular have inculcated a sense that we somehow deserve the antipathy of those around the world (and by extension, émigrés from Third World toilets) and so should endure it. The ongoing complaint of Muslims (radical and otherwise) is very much in this vein.

It is proper that Americans scrutinize the ethics of our leaders’ foreign policy; it is part of our civic duty. Would that we had done so more scrupulously in past years, or we might have more readily recognized the scope of our government’s corruption. This boilerplate Vietnam-era Marxist-inspired cynicism, however, has taken us from “my country, right or wrong” to “my country, always wrong,” which is just as immoral a stance as the former.

The enormity of the crimes being perpetrated by our government relative to this subject and countless others is of dizzying proportion, and the degree of brazen deception on the part of the Obama administrations is positively surreal. Thus, the magnitude of the lies that liberal and insufficiently engaged Americans are buying into is greater than any ever foisted upon a nation. That the government and the press are succeeding at this in an age of such ready information is as impressive as it is horrifying.

Immediately after the bombings at the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 15, public speculation began as to the cause. Although it was – and remains – more than a tad irritating, the conjecture by members of the establishment press as to the possibility of the culprit being the tea party or a tax protest group ought not have been unexpected.

Circumstances being what they have been in recent years, many on my side of the political fence considered the possibility of Islamists having carried out another attack. After all, bombing does fall within the modus operandi of jihadists, who continue to call for “death to America” across the globe, whereas neither the tea party nor tax protest groups have blown up anything.

In addition to that, there is the abysmal foreign policy and national security record of the Obama administration and its clandestine ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, last month, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and subcommittee members were moved to inquire of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as to why DHS had extended a trusted traveler program to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This program allows “expedited clearance for pre-approved, low-risk travelers upon arrival in the United States.”

One would think that such a measure might be appropriate for travelers from Japan or Great Britain – but Saudi Arabia? Obviously, this seemed somewhat untoward, given that 15 of the 19 men who hijacked American planes on Sept. 11, 2001, were from Saudi Arabia. In the weeks before the Boston attack, many expressed concern that such action might lead to our increased vulnerability.

In the hours after the bombing, an irate tweet (on Twitter, obviously) complaining of my “already blaming Muslims” resulted in a sarcastic response on my part that we should kill all Muslims (because that’s typically their favored disposition toward Americans).

Well, the dhimmi world went wild on Twitter, let me tell you. (For the uninitiated: Dhimmi is an Arabic term that refers to a non-Islamic population that lives within lands conquered by Islam.) Hours of some of the foulest and most threatening tweets ensued. Attempts to compromise my Twitter account and hack my website were made.

“Right Wing Watch,” the “Huffington Post” and other left-wing outfits carried the story of my online utterance, most leaving out the fact that it was sarcasm. This led to even more outbursts of unbridled liberal dhimmitude, as well as attacks from people identifying themselves as Muslims. Late in the afternoon, an attempt was made to SWAT me. This involves an anonymous telephone caller placing a bogus 911 call to local law enforcement and relating some dangerous scenario, usually involving firearms, in order to get a SWAT team to respond and harass the target (or worse). Due to circumstances I’m not at liberty to get into yet, this essentially backfired.

I suppose this raises the valid question of whether I might have “known better” than to say such a thing even sarcastically, knowing that there are people who get paid to sit around in their skivvies all day, scouring cyberspace and the airwaves to see if anyone such as myself happens to say anything that might be used to discredit them.

All in all, I’d have to say that the answer is “no.” The Pandora’s Box of irrationality was opened long ago; the sentiments exist, Islam is on the march, and these are far more dangerous than any of my sarcasm.

Here, the lesson learned is that, in the short span of time since the 9/11 attacks, the left has inculcated an almost religious deference and solidarity toward Islam amongst a substantial segment of Americans. Their zealotry now resembles that of many radical Islamists themselves and requires that any discussion of Islam or America’s difficulties therewith be handled oh-so-delicately, lest these people lose their damn minds. Consequently, with the suitable opportunity present, the left is able to marshal legions of mindless dhimmis to dedicatedly defend those who wish to subjugate us.

I am certain that most of these people don’t even know what a dhimmi is, or how they’ve been intellectually compromised. So they are naturally unaware that this process is being quietly celebrated among those “peaceful Muslims” who reap the benefits brought about by their more enthusiastic brethren. The information they receive is cherry-picked by the same agencies that intend to render us as many of the Europeans who joined in on the Twitter fun this week: unarmed and cowering in their homes while radical Muslims run roughshod over their countries, yet defending Islam at every turn.

To hell with that, I say.

It is important that we know the extent to which many of our fellow citizens have been indoctrinated into this suicidal worldview. Despite the interpretations of my words and liberals’ tiresome claims that the right is prone to violence, we know that with very few exceptions, violence is the way of the left (as well as Islamists). This also gives rise to curiosity as to what evil deeds large numbers of these dhimmis might be willing to do if properly motivated. As we have seen relative to the Occupy movement, violence – whether throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails, or engaging in recreational rape – is a natural progression.

In the end, of course, this is just another case of the words of someone on our side (as it were) being manipulated to malign and discredit, whereas our enemies and those on the left – whether in the press, politics, entertainment, or elsewhere – are allowed to say whatever dangerous, irresponsible, malicious, slanderous things they like with impunity.

For the record, I still maintain that Islam is, by its nature, wholly incompatible with Western society. I analogize liberalism, which is promoting this dhimmitude, to Stage 3 cancer in America’s body politic. For the record: While killing people is definitely undesirable, that is what war tends to be about.

And we are at war – just study the history of Islam, or ask any Islamist.

This concept is unvarnished communism (hence the fuming), but apparently progressives have determined that having gotten away with the societal subversion they have managed to date, now is as good a time as any to advance this notion more aggressively. Cleaving children from their parents has been standard operating procedure in communist regimes for 100 years and has been part of American communists’ strategy for decades. This has also been well-documented.

In keeping with the incrementalism of the radical left, we were exposed to this concept fairly recently, in the book “It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us,” which was published in 1996 and authored by then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton – who also wants to be president of the United States. This book, whose name was ripped off from an African proverb, also toyed with the collective responsibility of society for its children in no small way.

For my part, at least as alarming as the Harris-Perry promotion itself is the knowledge that altogether too few Americans even realize from whence this philosophy comes. In their ignorance (which has been encouraged), they do not know that this is Marxism, so they certainly do not see how they have been subtly but intentionally shepherded to this very point.

Starting in the last century, taxation began to siphon more and more capital from both businesses and families. Government overregulation hampered business to the degree that it became difficult to pay people what they’re worth, so two-parent earning families came into being. The glorious feminism-inspired entry of women into the workforce from the 1970s on has long since been proven to have been a matter of necessity, not a desire for equality.

At the same time, the inculcation of secular ideas and practices led to an increasing incidence of broken families, leaving single-earner homes with one parent who wound up working twice as much. These conditions conspired to produce directionless, dysfunctional children who now challenge these parents to get them to adulthood without becoming drug addicts, inmates, or parents themselves.

Thus, many American parents will likely look upon the opportunity to get “help” with children whom they can barely manage or afford as a godsend (though the reality will be quite the opposite). They may even jump for joy when the multi-billion dollar programs promising to aid parents and communities with their children are finally proposed – and believe me, they will be. Look for something along the lines of “The American Supplementary Education and Mentoring Act.”

Once upon a time in America, people with views such as Harris-Perry’s were loath to espouse them publicly for fear of getting their heads caved in. And so it should have been; those who advocate for the evils of communism have no more right to civilized discourse or consideration than those who advocate pedophilia (here, many a reader will note that these, too, are being eased into the fold of “normalcy” by the left at present – incrementally, of course).

All the while, those of us who do know from whence these ideas spring are left practically dumbfounded at the increasing brazenness and audacity of stealth communists operating in plain sight. It is as though they are wolves in wolves’ clothing, but the sheep have become too addled to notice what is ambling around amongst them.

This week, The Blaze reported the case of a Colorado undersheriff, Ron Trowbridge, who is alleging that the Department of Homeland Security trained police to look at evangelical Christians with undue scrutiny and suspicion. According to Trowbridge, on April 1 he attended a training, hosted by the Colorado State Patrol, that contained data from DHS sources. These listed Christians “who believe America was founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and ‘fundamentalists’” among subversive groups, right alongside outlaw biker gangs.

More incremental demonizing of Christians: On April 5, Fox News’ Todd Starnes reported that U.S. Army Reserve training materials now list “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” as examples of religious extremism along with al-Qaida and Hamas. Upon questioning, an Army spokesman claimed that the materials reflecting this were not condoned by the U.S. Army and represent an “isolated incident.”

Despite the mounting evidence for an emerging tyrannical regime, when someone such as myself cautions against it, whether addressing gun control or the aforementioned examples, I am accused of employing “fringe thinking” by those in the press – even by those once considered “reasonable” for liberals.

So it is indeed becoming more dangerous out there in the pasture – and not just for Christians.

Wolves, you know …

Although Carson identifies himself as apolitical, as a result of his speech and the dozens of press appearances he has since made, the liberal press began to engage in its characteristic black-conservative bashing. At first, it was tentative, probably because Carson doesn’t appear to have a discernible agenda. Black members of the press were the ones who finally came out in earnest in an attempt to demonize Carson, most notably MSNBC’s resident black hack Touré Neblett. Last week Neblett (who sounds at least as adolescent as he looks) leveled incredibly feeble charges against Carson and white conservatives in general, alleging that the doctor was being employed in order to somehow assuage white guilt (don’t ask me to explain the rationale; I have yet to make sense out of it).

The conservative press hit the ground running this week, enervated by the sermon given on Easter Sunday by Rev. Luis Leon, pastor of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. President Obama and his family were in attendance as Leon launched into a divisive, blatantly racist, as well as wholly inaccurate rant calculated to engender antipathy toward white Christian conservatives and Republicans.

In 2007, I introduced America to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was Obama’s pastor at the time. The controversy over the then-senator’s association with this anti-American, racist radical was one of the more troublesome hurdles Obama faced toward winning the 2008 election. Rev. Leon’s apostate tirade was at least as inflammatory as anything Wright ever said, yet Obama was happy to remain to hear it, and of course the establishment press had nothing to say.

The unconcealed contempt this president has for America’s founding principles and the Constitution has now been matched by his evident indifference to the racism of his political allies. Yet this is in keeping with the increasing audacity he, his administration and Democratic politicians across America are now displaying. Tyrannical measures – whether involving health care, gun control, taxes, or soft drinks – are proposed, purportedly endorsed by “a majority of the American people” and made manifest almost overnight. Whether via executive order, recess appointment, back-room deals attendant to controversial legislation, or outright decree, progressives are getting their way again and again. The token resistance of Republican leaders and their perfunctory protests after the fact have been beyond pathetic.

As early as mid-2009, Americans were beginning to wonder how race relations had inexplicably grown worse, even in light of our having elected our post-racial first black president. I offered in this space that the reason for this stemmed from the fact that despite Obama having been sold as a centrist, radicals of varying stripes knew he was ideologically kindred and took his election as license to operate more overtly than they had in the past. These included black militants, career activists and sundry fringe agitators. Since his election, radical elements in the press, both black and otherwise, have also taken advantage of Obama’s sympathies to up their game.

Racial tension, odious and vexing though it may be, is nonetheless merely a device being used by this administration and its surrogates to foment anger and resentment; indeed, there are many other fronts whereupon similar tactics are being implemented. A number of interwoven plans are coming to fruition at present, and the reason we are seeing displays such as Rev. Leon’s is because they are Obama-sanctioned, or are perceived to be.

In other words, if it isn’t coming from White House operatives, it at least has the implicit approval of the president.

When the catalyst for widespread civil unrest – probably an economic one – materializes, it will be essential for maximum effect that anyone with an ax to grind is prepared to go for the throat of their perceived enemy. This will aid in facilitating the “unavoidable” action of government in exercising authority, influence and resources that once brandished, will never go back into the proverbial box.

Despite the radical element in America being a distinct minority, it behooves us to remember that a minority representing 10 percent of the population in South Africa was able to suppress the 90 percent majority for nearly 100 years, due only to the actions they were prepared to take in order to retain their power. At this point, I hope that I have made it clear who the enemies of the American people are, and what actions they are prepared to take to attain the same.

 – George Washington, First Inaugural Address

There is an order to things. For thousands of years, human beings have been pair bonding, male to female, for the purpose of procreation and societal cohesiveness. Through this union, the family became the primary social unit. There have been varying degrees of religious significance placed upon this union, but it has typically been recognized as sacrosanct and inviolate. The union, which came to be called “marriage,” has many analogues in nature, as well as human philosophy, myth, legend and literature. It also appears to have been a cultural inevitability based on our biology, given its universal application across millennia and the globe.

In most societies, marriage has retained that religious or spiritual significance, since spirituality is more of a nominal human condition than non-spirituality. In Judeo-Christian culture, marriage is generally accepted as having been ordained by God. Historically, as the strength and significance of marriage falters, the family unit follows, and society as a whole is never far behind.

In recent years, some of those in the West who practice homosexuality have come to demand that society grant the same significance to committed same-sex unions as it does to marriage. Essentially, this amounts to a wholesale change of consensus, or a summary redefinition of “marriage” according to the whim of this faction.

I find it quite surreal that as I write this, the most learned legal minds in the country are being compelled to debate an issue that is wholly specious on its face. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments against the State of California voters’ right to have banned “same-sex marriage,” but all that ban amounts to in a practical sense is an agreement that the semantic argument not be broached. Do California voters have a right to do so? Certainly – but they no more have a right to bar homosexuals from marrying than they do conferring upon them the right to marry.

Thus, my ongoing contention that we as a society have neither the power nor the ability to change the definition of “marriage,” nor can we confer the “right” to marry upon those who do not possess an a priori qualification to be married. I can petition a college sorority to accept me as a sister, and they might even do so after a fashion; but I will never be a “sorority sister,” because I am a man. Similarly, same-sex couples will never occupy a state of matrimony, no matter what laws we pass or semantic gymnastics we manage to execute.

The very nature of the argument for “same-sex marriage” illustrates that the political left has sufficiently muddied the waters that even Supreme Court justices do not possess a cogent concept of what marriage is.

Which was precisely the idea.

The quest for “same-sex marriage” (which, as has been established, doesn’t exist) is not about the civil rights of homosexuals or the well-worn catch phrase “marriage equality.” Like everything championed by the political left, it is about weakening America’s cultural and societal foundation; it is but one component in the anti-theistic, Christophobic design of the radical left.

In fact, outside of a handful of the whopping 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as homosexual, most of those who are advancing this offensive are not homosexual, nor do they care in the least about the civil rights of homosexuals. They are the power brokers of the left, the same people who continually strive to alienate ethnic minorities, women, the poor and whomever else they can from societal convention.

Apart from those types, the people who advocate most vociferously for “marriage equality” are militant homosexuals and the most rabid leftists. The majority of those with whom I interact on a frequent basis are young and ill-informed, but they all share the same venomous hatred for everything smacking of Christianity, employing the same tiresome charges relative to those holding traditional values being intolerant and hateful.

As we know, a great deal of misrepresentation, propaganda and outright lies have been used throughout this discussion. First, it was necessary to establish that homosexuality was a matter of nature rather than a choice, so that homosexuals could not be faulted for their lifestyle; this, the left managed to do despite having no empirical evidence to support the claim. Advocates for “same-sex marriage” maintain that a preponderance of Americans support it, which has by no means been established, either. They assert that the children of homosexual couples are at least as well-adjusted as those of married couples. This has also not been proven, although there is emerging evidence to the contrary. They also draw irrelevant parallels between interracial marriage and “gay marriage.” All the while, they vigorously articulate the charge that homosexuals are somehow being persecuted if society does not confer upon their unions the same honor as they do married couples.

If all this were a matter of equitable health insurance coverage, taxation or inheritance, civil unions would be the way to go. It is quite true, as many of our libertarian friends contend, that the state should never have gotten involved in the business of marriage to start with. For civil purposes, certificates of some sort of recognition might have been instituted for married couples, such as when someone changes their name. This way, if two homosexuals wanted to play house, they could have whatever familial parameters they desired formally registered and recognized in the same manner.

But civil unions are not good enough. In order for the left to achieve their objective, the political left must compel all of America to capitulate, to embrace and honor homosexual unions as “marriage.” It is only in this way that the requisite societal dissolution may progress.

Among the many reasons I left New York (where I grew up) was my disgust with the intrusive level of government. The state of New York is essentially ruled by an oligarchy of liberal elites who’ve never gotten out of Manhattan, so to speak. Now, politicians in Colorado (where I have lived for more than 20 years) have made a quantum leap toward the same manner of “governance,” spearheading the effort through new laws pertaining to firearms. The pretext is that Colorado was the venue for two of the nation’s most infamous spree killings (the Columbine massacre in 1999 and the Aurora theater shootings last year), but what is effectively occurring is liberal elites (with either little knowledge of or regard for the Constitution and America’s founding principles) ruling by fiat.

Nationwide, the big picture is worse: Democratic politicians and even some Republicans at the state level have become rubber stamps for the Obama administration’s agenda. With regard to firearms, this is in complete sync with the proposed United Nations Small Arms Treaty, which will essentially negate the Second Amendment.

Now, we know that this agenda encompasses far more than gun control; the infringements upon Americans’ rights and impediments to economic recovery in Obamacare alone are legion. This week, Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., suggested that the Department of Homeland Security should be compelled to explain the purchase of an estimated 1.5 billion rounds of military-grade ammunition, thousands of AR-15 rifles and 2,700 armored vehicles over the last year.

Also this week, WND reported on U.S. intelligence agencies being given access to Americans’ financial transactions. And last week, The Blaze TV’s Laurie Dhue filed a report on how the National Security Agency has become a veritable Big Brother since 2001, establishing the infrastructure to spy on U.S. citizens; this includes a massive new facility being built in Utah.

In the meantime, the demonstrably ignorant, sickeningly imperious Sen. Dianne Feinstein is furiously advancing sweeping gun-control legislation, and there have been reports of shakeups among top military brass concerning “litmus tests” pertaining to their willingness to order attacks on civilians.

Coupled with such things as California Rep. Maxine Waters’ recent admission that “The president has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” what are Americans supposed to think?

One of the few – and heretofore unsung – heroes standing up to this obscenity are America’s firearms manufacturers. A growing list of these have stated that they will no longer do business with the federal government, states, or localities that pass legislation further infringing on Americans’ rights under the Second Amendment.

Though appreciated, this may appear a mere token or self-serving gesture on their part – but is it?

Well, how likely does it seem that millions of Americans would have spontaneously lapsed into a state of unfathomable, baseless paranoia with regard to their government and its motives? Quite unlikely, of course. Equally unlikely that well over a hundred manufacturers and large retailers would summarily take such action against the government. After all, with the feds purchasing so much in the way of firearms, ammunition and accessories, the gun makers aren’t going broke. Why should they care where the money comes from?

The reason is this: They are in an even better position to determine the motives of the government than the millions of Americans who have come to believe we are in peril from the government. America’s firearms manufacturers have access to the patriots among our top military people, thus they are well aware that the Obama administration is indeed working toward wholesale gun confiscation as a precursor to their coup de grâce of the Constitution (no pun intended). Whether civil unrest comes as a result of our resistance to gun control or other factors, the government is determined to get the guns.

Unfortunately for Obama, financial pressure and bullying was not enough to ensure the manufacturers’ cooperation, as it has been in so many other instances. The gun makers know that in the long run, they are in the government’s crosshairs too, so they’re not too keen on helping the government kill off their clientele, the only barrier between them and the government.

So, at risk to themselves as an industry, American firearms manufacturers have opted to stand in between this administration and us. They actually believe in the Second Amendment, and not just because it provides them a living. Right now, they are the biggest and best advocate the American people and the Constitution have.