Why the U.S. Executive Branch Is a Clear and Present Danger to Our Democracy

Strange, isn’t it, that as Southern heritage is increasingly demonized (the largest front in the regime’s war against traditional America) and small-government libertarianism is also vilified, the dangers of centralized big government that both camps have warned about are being proven true. This article by Fred Branfman explains why the breezy assurances that potential abuses of federal power will be prevented by elections are empty:

Edward Snowden’s revelations have illuminated the most critical political issue facing America today: how an authoritarian U.S. Executive Branch which has focused on war abroad for the last 50 years now devotes increasing resources to surveillance, information management, and population control at home, posing a far greater threat to Americans’ liberties than any conceivable foreign foe.

Snowden’s view of the basic issue is [5] that “I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship,is recorded. That’s not something I’m willing to live under.”

From Lincoln to Wilson to Nixon, and on to the special example of Obama, the Chief Executive has amassed a frightening amount of unaccountable, arbitrary power. The Neocon-Leftist alliance that now defines what’s permissible to say and think is firmly behind protecting and expanding that power. How much tyranny can we endure? I don’t know how much people can tolerate. One thing’s for sure, though: Sooner or later, something’s gotta give. The current hysteria from the ruling elite and its defenders in reaction to dissent rises from their realization that their rotten system is crumbling.

Know hope.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

19 thoughts on “Why the U.S. Executive Branch Is a Clear and Present Danger to Our Democracy

  1. Augustinian

    Harrison,

    Know hope, indeed. We must never give in, never give up. The Neocon-leftist alliance* want us–nay, EXPECT us–to be supine sheeple, waiting around for our next meal and attractions.

    How much different would it have been if Romney-Ryan had won? Huh? Not much, I reckon.

    Don’t despair; they want us to despair. Dorothy Sayers’s description of despair nails it: “[It] believes in nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”

    “Stand, men of the West!” (and South) …

    *Oh, yes, don’t forget the Banksters.

  2. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    Augustinian,

    I’m with you. No matter what happens, I’m not giving in to the SOBs by despairing. Every generation has its battle, and this one is ours to fight and win.

  3. Feltan

    I can certainly agree that the Executive branch is on a roll, and gaining unwarranted power — mostly due to the capitulation of the legislature and judiciary. The unchecked use of “executive orders” is but one example; deciding unilaterally not to implement parts of Obamacare is another. We are certainly in an era the founding fathers warned against, and there doesn’t seem to be a clear path back to the straight and narrow concept of enumerated and limited powers.

    I would take exception to the opening sentence. I haven’t read of Southern heritage being demonized; rather, the barbs have been directed at the League of the South, the organization, rather than the broader concept of Southern heritage. I do not see the LOS and Southern heritage as equivalent concepts or terms.

    Regards,
    Feltan

  4. Weaver

    I’m not saying that in despair…, the South isn’t dead until every last one of us is; but to say we’re not under attack sounds strange to me, with all due respect.

  5. thaddeus

    I do not see the LOS and Southern heritage as equivalent concepts or terms.

    Sure they are, in that what the LOS fights for is the worthwhile part of Southern heritage. The kind of South that the Cultural Marxists would not attack is a reconfigured left-wing South — which would be a South devoid of its heritage (which is what the Synagogue wants).

  6. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    Feltan,

    Check out Michael Gerson’s slam against Jack Hunter – nary a word about the League of the South, but plenty of venom against the South and the Southern tradition:

    But Hunter’s offenses were committed as an adult. They included defending a regime founded on slavery, comparing Abraham Lincoln to Saddam Hussein and raising (in Hunter’s words) a “personal toast every May 10 to celebrate John Wilkes Booth’s birthday.” This was not a single, ideological puff but rather a decade spent mainlining moonlight and magnolias in the ruins of Tara.

  7. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    Thaddeus,

    “The kind of South that the Cultural Marxists would not attack is a reconfigured left-wing South”

    That’s their goal. As Cultural Marxists, they want to alienate us from our traditions and turn us into rootless raw material for their own purposes.

  8. Feltan

    Guys I am going to have to disagree with you on this.

    I really think the League of the South has a significant PR problem that is fueled by several key people making poor comments over the years. The MSM has latched on to these comments, and personalities, and the results are predictable.

    When reporters are covering the LOS, it isn’t even up for debate that it is a troubled organization. The reporting is very one sided; so much so that any message is lost. Southern heritage is not helped by the League, rather it is ignored or harmed.

    In my opinion, Jack Hunter may have survived his recent troubles if he had not been associated with this organization.

    Regards,
    Feltan

  9. Weaver

    A Southern historical publication that I was given a subscription to came in recently. It’s mainstream, so it’s little surprise that one of the articles is on how Sherman really wasn’t such a bad guy, just part of the “Lost Cause myth” which really is all bunk, according to the publication…

    Right…, so Sherman didn’t really burn Atlanta and Columbia.

    I’ll find it and post the name, later. It’s from Charleston I want to say.

  10. Weaver

    Reg. the quotes on the original article, I see none that are actually bad. I’m certain that, in context, Dr. Hill has not and will never call for violence. It’s like death and taxes, a certainty: Dr. Hill would never call for that.

    Black crime is indeed a problem. Slavery in the US was not as bad as elsewhere. You are inevitably going to get Southerners who comment favourably on it without actually wanting it back. Dr. Wilson is one of these. That’s just part of a Southerner organsation: You’re going to have that.

    What those outside the South don’t realise is these same Southerners will back works that help blacks. Real people who care about real locals hold such views. The quotes just show me the LotS is real. Whether blacks want to face it or not, their organisations often just use them as political pawns. This latest amnesty is further evidence of this.

    Those outside the South usually believe in silly PC notions about the South and what could be done. It’s similar to those who thought democracy would be perfect for Iraq…

    “One of its key activists for a time was a convicted “Aryan” terrorist”

    I assume he was expelled.

    -

    I would personally make a terrible representative of the LotS. If ever I joined and a news microphone were given me, I’d start running, lol.

    Otherwise I’d say something not exactly correct. Defending the South is like running through a minefield, at night.

    I like to criticise positions taken, but I don’t myself have all the answers yet. So, I at least am deeply grateful the LotS exists. It’s imperfect, but I couldn’t do any better. Unsung heroes imo.

  11. thaddeus

    I really think the League of the South has a significant PR problem that is fueled by several key people making poor comments over the years. The MSM has latched on to these comments, and personalities, and the results are predictable.

    When reporters are covering the LOS, it isn’t even up for debate that it is a troubled organization. The reporting is very one sided; so much so that any message is lost. Southern heritage is not helped by the League, rather it is ignored or harmed.

    I’m sorry, Feltan, but as I’ve felt more than once about your posts, this sounds like concern trolling. I assume it’s not, but what, I ask you, would be the difference between concern trolling and what you’ve written here?

    What exactly are the “poor comments” that the LOS has made? Are you implying that the LOS should be more politically correct? Why? We already have more faux-conservative publications and organizations than we need. What would be the good of yet one more?

    How could Southern heritage be helped if the LOS were more politically correct? Rather, if the LOS kowtowed to the Cultural Marxists, then it would be just another useless faux-conservative organization “distancing itself” from Southern heritage.

    How does an organization support Southern heritage by joining in the criticism of it?

    Rather, I see the LOS as heroic precisely because it resists the anti-Southern narrative of today’s Synagogue-controlled media culture.

    Again, I ask you sincerely: what specifically do you claim that the LOS has said or done that is counter-productive? And what could it have done better, that would not demand remaining silent on the Cultural-Marxist media’s trashing of Southern heritage (let alone echoing it)?

  12. Weaver

    thaddeus,

    Feltan likely read the first link in the original article.

    It’s easier to datamine a past LotS hit piece than to dig through Hunter’s writings. So, the author just hit Hunter with those.

    As you say: The world does not need more PC! At one time a friend and I found so many “Rainbow Confederate” pieces that we started compiling unPC comments by Southern heroes, lol. Perhaps someone older will find that a waste of time, but if you pass on Marxist values, readers will embrace those and then simply reject the South after discovering the warts. The values matter. You might win public acceptance, might get Lee and Jefferson’s more PC sayings widely read again; but you’ve ruined your own children.

    And… specifically the values I mean most here are that older Southerners held unPC views towards race and weren’t libertarian. Note, that doesn’t mean racial obsession. And it doesn’t mean hate, obviously.

  13. Weaver

    They’ve done the same with the Founders. How to destroy a people:

    Step 1: Teach destructive values as supported by their heroes (e.g. Jefferson).
    Step 2: Import foreigners, saying this what the very spirit of the society calls for.
    Step 3: Point out how the original heroes held different values. Designate new heroes. Mock the old fools who fell for Steps 1 and 2.

    Really, we’d be better off praising Lincoln and teaching how he held values we like than teaching poor values as ours. It’s the values that matter; The symbol is only a vehicle.

  14. thaddeus

    Well, any calls for violence are obviously wrong, and the brown-shirt comparison is self-defeating, as it simply plays into a Leftist narrative.

    But some of the other criticisms, such as the Jacobin nature of the “human-right” industry, are valid.

    And IMO, undermining the absurd Lincoln cult can only be a good thing. I’m not even a Southerner, but there’s no question that Lincoln is presented to the U.S. as a secular saint, as someone who “commendably” waged war against whites on behalf of Leftist aims. The screenwriter who penned Spielberg’s appalling propaganda film, “Lincoln,” last year even praised Lincoln’s thinking as (and I kid you not, this is an exact quote): “Talmudic.”

    So a critical reassessment of Lincoln and an undoing of his hagiography and the Lincoln cult is well warranted and long overdue.

  15. SoCal Patriot

    @ Weaver 22 Jul 2013 at 8:10 P.M.,

    “…Sherman…’Lost Cause myth’… burn Atlanta and Columbia.”…

    I think you should write an article (or a book) that sets the historical record straight about Sherman’s March to the Sea.You can give it the following title, which perfectly describes the object of your righteous contention:

    The Devil Went Down To Georgia!!!

  16. roho

    Putin now has “Barry’s” balls in a vice grip………Their is NO WAY to not reveal conspiracy theories to be reality with that much wiretapping?

    Putin now OWN’s the facts regarding “FALSE FLAG” events, and I find it very funny!……..Ha-Ha!…….;)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>