Severe Language

Recently, I wrote derisively about Obama administration actions to remove certain severe language from the public lexicon. Terrorism is no longer terrorism. The “War on Terror” no longer exists. It would appear that Obama wants to “soften” the image of America as viewed by the outside world. We are called upon to redress grievances held by others in the world against our nation. Our appetite for drugs causes problems for our neighbor, Mexico. Our attitude of national pride and our recognition of our nation’s accomplishments causes resentment by our ally, France. Our desire for the preservation of our way of life, including freedom of religion and speech, causes consternation among our Islamic friends and masters. Our desire to remove destructive influences from our home hemisphere causes conflict with our “peace-loving” friends in Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia.
Where is that conciliatory attitude when dealing with Americans who voice their dissent with domestic policies? Those who oppose current government actions are now identified as extremists. We now know that the Department of Homeland Security considers returning veterans as a potential threat to the security of the nation which they volunteered to risk their lives to defend. Whether one agrees with the rectitude of entering into the armed conflicts which these folks joined the armed forces to wage, their service is cause to exalt them, not to suspect them of, as yet , unspecified subversion. When these kind of sentiments are voiced by our government, who in their right minds would ever volunteer to serve? What about all of those folks who opposed the policies and practices of the Bush administration and subsequently voted for Obama? Who amongst us has never voiced opposition or disapproval of our government? WHAT NEXT?
As I put on my soothsayer’s hat, I can see a day in the, not so distant, future when dissent will be illegal. Will it also be illegal to belong to the Republican Party? How about opposing incumbents? I am afraid that, in the “eyes” of our government, it is more acceptable to hold jihadist beliefs than to voice political opposition to Democrats, or to be a returning veteran with a voice of political dissent. Which of our founding fathers ever said that freedom of speech was destructive or that dissent should be suspect or be made illegal? JOSEF STALIN!
Notice how many questions I have posed. I have no answers. Our nation is poised on the precipice of tyranny. I wonder what, on earth, we can do to drag her back. I will, however refrain from using severe language to describe those who wish to disable the Constitution and establish the dictatorship of incumbency. Such talk may offend.