I left “Soviet Russia” with my family at the first opportunity, for we felt that the creeping “half-dictatorship” under which we lived was a precursor of the full-blown, cruel dictatorship it used to be during Stalin’s times.
We lived through those horrible forebodings, and felt unbelievably lucky to have escaped from that hell and into the paradise of the United States.
But after living in this country for forty years, we cannot escape the feeling that even in this unique democracy such as the United States, President Obama’s dictatorial tendencies reveal themselves in a slow, step-by-step process of chipping away the people’s inalienable rights granted to them by the United States Constitution.
For example, Obama is out to abolish the right of American citizens to own guns, which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In Russia, before Putin came to power a month ago, mass pro-democracy forces came out to protest against the government’s fraud favoring Putin’s party victory. The prevailing criticism of the Russian people in the West was that the Russian protesters were weak, indecisive, disunited, and could not fight for their freedom. Others were saying that they now have enough freedom — they can travel all over the world, open their businesses, and trade with foreign countries. More than that — they enjoy freedom of speech, can criticize the government, and can form political parties.
There was only one thing not mentioned — the Russian people are unarmed. They have no right to bear arms to defend themselves and fight for their democratic rights. How can they fight against Putin’s heavily armed militia and the army? With kitchen knives? Even that would be considered a crime! Not a single Western country came to support their fight, like they did in support of some other countries fighting against dictatorship.
I am saying this in connection with Obama’s latest unconstitutional move to take away American citizens’ rights to own guns. That probably will be the first thing on his agenda — to institute gun control — if he gets re-elected — to disarm the country. If he succeeds, will his dictatorial appetite be satisfied?
I doubt it. Obama once said he wouldn’t mind being a one-term president. Now, in his recent television interview, he said he desperately needs to be elected to the second term.
During his recent trip to South Korea, Obama found foreign support from Medvedev, his new Russian “friend,” who promised to help Obama get re-elected in exchange for American technology Russia needs.
Unable to suppress his dictatorial ambitions, President Obama issued stern language to the independent judicial body that is the Supreme Court of the United States regarding his health care law, expressing confidence that his “Obamacare” — considered unconstitutional by many legal authorities — would not be overturned by the nation’s highest court.
On Monday, April 2, at a White House press conference, Obama said: “I am confident this [law] will be upheld because it should be upheld” [a familiar threat used by the erstwhile Soviet press: you’d better do or else!]. Obama went on to say that overturning the law that he had signed will be an “unprecedented and extraordinary step” and compared the court’s possible rejection of the law to “judicial activism.” President Obama reminded all those present [presumably legally incompetent?] that the Supreme Court judges were “unelected,” while the law was passed by a democratically elected Congress.
It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on the matter. The ruling is bound to have significant impact on Obama’s chances of re-election.
Lev Navrozov can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org