In spite of popular objections, the socialists in the administration and
Congress managed to pass the health care legislation, the first and
most crucial mandate in the implementation of socialism and
totalitarianism in the United States. In the meantime, the socialist
octopus continues to quietly spread its tentacles under the auspices of
the liberal mainstream media and the growing opposition and anger of the
American people.

What big step is next in the socialist agenda waits to be seen,
but already there is ample evidence that behind the
scenes they are moving in many fronts.These moves seem unrelated and
isolated actions or comments, but when the dots are connected, pictures
begin to emerge, some of them quite frightening.

One dot in this picture appeared in April 2009 when Janet Napolitano, Obama’s Secretary
for Homeland Security, announced a report that suggested returning war
veterans could become home-grown terrorists. Ironically, this report
appeared soon after the Tea Party movement made its debut as an
organized opposition to the Obama administration. Later, the left wing
press lost no time in labeling the Tea Party members as angry right wing
radicals, racists, and anti-statists, and has sustained these attacks
while at the same time denying movement activities or spokespersons air
time.

It is significant that the leftist commentators focused on terms such as anti-statists
that date back to one of the darkest hours
in American freedom of political speech, when the Federalist Party, the
predecessor of our current Democrat Party, passed the Sedition Act of
1798, which made it illegal for any one to speak against the
government. Many anti-Federalists were imprisoned or fined for speaking
their minds under this act. The Sedition Act was repealed in 1800 when
Thomas Jefferson became president; unfortunately, the act was never
challenged in court and to this date its constitutionality is not
established. Thus, although improbable, it is still possible for a
political party in power to try similar legislation to suppress the
opposition.

Another dot in this Gestalt is the recent focus on Americans associated
with foreign terrorist groups. Although since
the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan we have known of Americans
involved with these groups, recently we are reminded more regularly of
their presence and of the potential for an attack by these individuals.
No one has offered a link between these groups and current political
dissenters, but the constant reminders of home-grown terrorists help
maintain a tense, divisional atmosphere.

On the other hand, after the passage of the health care bill there were reported threats
against some congressmen, and the media speculated that these were the
result of Republican inflammatory rhetoric. Which brings us to the real
dangerous threat that the administration may be trying to develop
against those who oppose them: the doctrine of clear and present danger.

From the original Supreme Court case of Schenck v.
United States in 1919 under Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.to
the last case heard on this issue in Brandenburg v.Ohio,
the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently
ruled against the defendants and in favor of governmental control of
free speech. Interestingly, all of the Supreme Court cases heard
involved Communist or Socialist agitators; however, the rule of law is
universal and now we could conceivably in a fateful twist see socialists
using it against freedom-loving Americans.