Friday, December 25, 2015

The Civil Conflict Principle and Regime Change
A method of Marxist Science
By Jon Bodenet

The world is at war. It is a war unleashed on humanity. It is a complex war of politics and human suffering brought on by the Marxist agenda to prepare all human resources to be organized into a collective under the authority of a powerful Global State.  It is not for the benefit of the people but for the benefit of the State. The ambition of the Marxists is the same today as it was in the nineteenth century.  But today there are even more advanced techniques for Marxists to manipulate human behavior than at any prior time. Power and control over the masses; the productive systems and the economic resources by an elite wealthy and powerful cadre of tyrants is still the focus of the Marxist sociopolitical and socioeconomic agendas.

People ask; “who are the Marxists?” That is because people are better able to comprehend the name of a person enemy than they are an enemy as a complex, abstract ideology.  Marxism is an ideological enemy of the American people, organized to destroy the foundations of the American political system.  That enemy was not present at the founding of America.  America was founded as a nation of free individuals operating in harmony together based on a moral ethos upon which a constitution of ideals and a moral system of jurisprudence was predicated.  That system of ideals and jurisprudence was intended to safeguard the freedom and promote harmonious sociopolitical and sociocultural order to the extent that such social harmony is possible.  The Constitution of the United States does not espouse or allude to a government utopia on earth.  But the constitution is more than a system of laws.  The constitution is an ideal of humanity.  The political Left will continue to obscure that understanding of the Constitution of the United States in order to pursue the Left political objectives.   

The Marxists represent a complex, abstract ideological premise upon which the Marxist political actions and agendas posit a utopia on earth by the collectivization of economic and productive resources supported by a “worker force” which reinforces the State mandates. There is no political utopia on earth possible. That is only an ideological abstraction of the Political Left. 

Before 1846 there was no Political Left in America. It was not in any way a consideration in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  In 1851 Joseph Weydemeyer was dispatched from Germany to New York by Karl Marx to bring the political Left to America. Weydemeyer opened The Office of the Revolution in New York City in order to unseat the Constitution and usher in communism purported to be a utopia based on government.

The ideal embedded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, however, is more than law it is an ideal of humanity; a humane government resting on the Judeo-Christian foundations of moral and ethical society. It is not a proposition of some utopia on earth.  The founders recognized and understood that the sin nature of man persists.  Utopia on earth is not possible. The Constitution represents a society in which the government is the people rather than a cadre of a political and financial elite ruling the people under a political oligarchy.  Utopia is the paradigm of the Left but it is a utopia of control. The political appointments under the Constitution are the express will of the people, unlike the political abstract of the Left where the people are organized and directed by the ruling elites in order to obey the will of the state. 
The political Left is essentially diametrically opposed to the Constitutional edifice of American sociopolitical and sociocultural order. The sociopolitical and sociocultural order in America is inseparable and unified in the Constitution.

The power and control of Marxism was at a peak during the Cold War.  The Cold War was the political expression of the conflict between the American ideals and the Marxist global efforts to establish a global collective. It was a war between the political Left and the American constitutional ideal.  That war is still raging today on American soil. It was also raging when under British oversight the Shah was established in Iran.  It was a well-considered important component not only of Middle-East stability but of global affairs. By the Nixon Administration (1969-1974) the United States had responded to the Shah’s call for friendship with the US. This was perhaps one of the most important geo-strategic international arrangements the United States had ever concluded.   The US coordinated with Shah Pahlavi to keep the humanitarian ideal alive in Iran despite the presence of communists and radical Muslims opposing the Shah. The opportunity to create a stabilizing element in that geostrategic nation was of global significance.  With the help of America the Shah was improving the domestic economy, the quality of life and the spirit of equality among citizens in Iran.  Women could attend the University, they could drive an automobile, they could work, they could dress in fashion as they chose and they had rights as western women. But the Iran-American entente was anathema to the Soviet Union. The Soviets applied pressure to force the Shah out of power through the communists who operated in the political system of Iran.  Marxist propaganda machines went into full operation against the Shah.  The Iranian Revolution came at a political time when efforts of the United States under the Carter Administration were influenced by the actions of Marxist agendas and propaganda in the US.   

President James Earl Carter was inclined to force the deposition of Shah Pahlavi due to the successful Marxist acts and propaganda which was intended to influence the US actions against the Shah and Iranian government.   The      
 Accusations made against the Shah led unfortunately to acts of Carter based entirely on his own ignorance.

Above are Jimmy Carter and the Shah of Iran with his wife before the Iranian Revolution.  It was a period in which the fomenting of civil strife was used by Marxists for regime change.

It was a clever Soviet Marxist agenda to justify intervention in Iran. The Shah believed that he was mandated with the task of bringing Iran into the modern age and creating a humane environment for all Iranians including women. Opportunities for women were apparent. Women could choose to work and to study at the University, to drive automobiles, to dress like western women and have the kind of universal respect as western women had. The economy was also improving, thanks in part to US cooperation, Iranian oil and the foreign investments in Iran. In General the quality of life was improving and a sentiment of accomplishment was settling among the people across the nation. In the northwest corner of Iran a corridor through Azerbaijan leads to Russia. Heavy Soviet troops refused to vacate the area. The friendly US relations with Iran was seen by the Soviets as a major geostrategic threat. It was the height of the Cold War. The spread of capitalism in Iran further threatened Soviet ideology.

President Richard Nixon and Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran are depicted at the Left. Nixon was endowed with an understanding of foreign affairs.  Nixon recognized that the value of the Shah and Iran to the free world stability could hardly be overstated.  The unfortunate consequences of the demise of the Shah by President Jimmy Carter, is altogether obvious in the postmodern world.

The US had installed Listening Posts in Iran to electronically listen to signals and information transmitted in Russia.  The Soviets were compelled to act against that. It was no secret that the Ayatollah Khomeini was opposed to the westernization of Iran.  Women being educated and having the rights of men was completely beyond the Ayatollah’s ability to accept or comprehend in terms of enlightened social order.  For the Ayatollah there was only one social order. The mediaeval model was for him immutable. Although there was a small population of adherents who followed the Ayatollah the Marxist propaganda magnified that population beyond its real magnitude. Iran was of course bound to experience the “growing pains” of social change with even a small population of radical Muslims even though it had occurred relatively gradually. The radical Muslims could not accept the change under any circumstances and the Soviet Marxists took the opportunity to depose the Shah by the Marxist Civil Conflict Principle. The greater population supported the Shah but the media coverage in the USA only focused principally on the Marxist propaganda that the Shah was a tyrant. It was a false narrative; but effective. 

This was serendipity for the Soviets; an ideal opportunity for the Soviets to intrigue in the demise of Shah’s authority and to gain control over the US listening posts.  Furthermore, it was a methodology to remove American influence without the appearance of a conspicuously Soviet Marxist effort.  The propaganda would deflect the Soviet Marxist purpose of removing the Shah as a political action against the United States. The Soviets thus fomented an uprising by the small number of advocates of the Ayatollah.  It was an exercise of the Marxist Civil Conflict Principle, which of course forced the Shah into the necessity of social control for peace and domestic security as well as economic stability.  The anti-Shah propaganda which the Soviet Marxists also produced was brilliant and spread across the media like a fire.  The Soviet target was not only the Shah but America. 
The Shah was accused of using secret police against the people.  The Shah was forced to maintain as low a public image of conflict as possible.  But the Soviets were notorious for using secret police. Despite the Shah’s approval by the great majority of Iranians the Ayatollah minority was supported by the media and unfortunately by the Carter Administration. Carter supported the Ayatollah and ushered in the Iranian Revolution. Carter’s Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, resigned in 1980 in protest of the hostage rescue plan to recover the hostages which Iran had taken during the Iranian Revolution.  The rescue attempt by the Carter Administration was a total and embarrassing failure that cost the lives of some rescuers and set the world in terrorism. 

The Iran of today is radically different from the Iran of the Shah. The photos represent the Iran under the Shah.
 (Photos from the internet)

These photos do not indicate the oppression attributed to the Shah by the Marxist media and the Marxist propaganda.

The photos above are not Iran after the Revolution but before the Revolution. These photos are the Iran under Shah Pahlavi.  Marxists propaganda called the Shah oppressive.[1] 

[1] President Carter force the Shah to bring peace under the Ayatollah Khomeini

Today in Iran every woman as shown above would be beheaded or stoned.  But not without first torturing them and raping them and creating public fear.  Machiavelli rightly said that a brutal dictator must never let up his harsh punishment or he would lose control over his subjects.[1]  The fear of punishment is worse than the punishment itself. That is the routine of relentless and punitive practices under Sharia Law.

[1] The Prince, Machiavelli

Photos from the internet                

The swift actions of the Muslim radicals under the Ayatollah were early enough that it appears as though they fully expected the outcome, and were prepared to take advantage of the victory. There can be no doubt of their coordination with the Soviet Marxists. Murders and punishments tramped across the country like an army of demons.  In fact, it was that army of demons who captured and still wield the power in Iran. 

The Shah’s generals, shown above in the morgue, were executed only days after the collapse of the monarchy.  That collapse was engineered by the Soviet Marxists and in large part with the cooperation of Jimmy Carter. It was the Carter Administration who ushered in the Ayatollah and the Iranian Revolution and but the Soviets operated in the background for that purpose.

[1] President Carter force the Shah to bring peace under the Ayatollah Khomeini
[1] The Prince, Machiavelli

Yet today the media still obscures those facts.  It does not require much of an imagination to see the Marxist success in manipulating the Carter Administration. The regime change was accomplished by the Soviet Marxist Civil Conflict Principle. 

That principle was developed in the nineteenth century and has been refined and utilized in many instances for various reasons in the modern-postmodern world.  A component of that technique is displacement, sometimes known as “False Flag” operation. Just as the Soviet Marxists deflected the origin of the Civil Conflict in Iran to the Muslims wherein the Soviet Marxists were separated from the Principle, the United States was implicated in the negotiation to force the abdication of the Shah and the rise of the Ayatollah. In this, the Soviet Marxists placed the Iranian Revolution with the American flag.  This is known as a False Flag operation. The Carter Administration was duped into following the Soviet agenda to collapse the government.

The Marxist Civil Conflict Principle was also applied at a later time to the propaganda term “Arab Spring” in the “civil conflicts” in Libya, Egypt and Syria.  These conflicts were fomented and organized politically according to the Marxist Civil Conflict Principle as applied in the Iranian Revolution.  There was never such a phenomenon as the “Arab Spring.”  It was simply the Marxist Civil Conflict Principle in action. It was the same as the civil conflict in Iran, which resulted in regime change and for the same purpose. The Marxist Civil Conflict Principle is the oldest and most prolific sociopolitical transformative action to organize and effect regime change.  The catastrophic situation in the Benghazi of 2012 was the direct result of the same civil conflict principle technique that ushered in the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.  It was also a method to achieve regime change.

The sad, disappointing facts are that the Carter Administration (1977-1981) had inherited a modern Iran which was not only an important friend to America but indeed a critical component of world peace, and a stabilizing a balance of Muslin Brotherhood aggression. The Shah could have been saved had the US a capable Administration not controlled by the political Left. The Carter Administration acted to undermine the Shah in a move of extraordinary political ignorance; aided by the diplomatic confusion of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s foreign policy advisor.[1] Carter’s understanding of the international community of affairs in any region of the world was entirely lacking.  His demise of the Shah and his installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution testify not only to his great ignorance but to his incredible hubris. Carter changed the world dramatically for the worse and caused millions of deaths and immeasurable human suffering that continues today.  We see now as then how the demise of the Shah impacted the entire world. 

The lesson of the planned and organized civil conflict is clear.  As in the prerevolutionary Iran the effectiveness of Civil Conflict is politically powerful and violent.  The Marxist scientists had developed the Civil Conflict Principle to the level of a science over many decades.  Marxists have applied the technique of class war and open hostile conflict successfully in the USA as well as in other nations.  The Ayatollah was so successful with the Marxist assistance that he expected to annex Iraq, as well through the Civil Conflict Principle.

[1] Henry Kissinger under the Nixon Administration had failed to understand the geostrategic and fundamental importance of world order with a close US-Iranian alliance.  Kissinger was influenced by his hopes to establish détente with the Soviet Union for personal recognition.  Weighed in the balance I was equally wrong.   

[1] Henry Kissinger under the Nixon Administration had failed to understand the geostrategic and fundamental importance of world order with a close US-Iranian alliance.  Kissinger was influenced by his hopes to establish détente with the Soviet Union for personal recognition.  Weighed in the balance I was equally wrong.    

While still exiled in Paris the Ayatollah encouraged and directed the Muslim demands and violence in Iran. At the same time he also intrigued in Iraq to foment Civil Conflict there with the help of Soviet Marxists. But Saddam Hussein simply executed the subversive agents of Iran.   The Soviets had an interest in Iraq as well. Both Iran and the Soviet Union would strengthen their strategic and military operations if Iraq was annexed to Iran.  But Saddam Hussein objected to the takeover of Iraq by the Iranians.  Hussein therefore declared war on Iran.  The Soviet Marxists had weaved webs of influence and control throughout the US government and media, and had gained significant political influence.   

All US international embroilments are tied to Marxism in one way or another.   Both the Soviets and the Iranian revolutionaries coveted the Iraqi territory.  But by the Iran-Iraq War the US leadership was no longer held by President Carter.  The Regan Administration had acquired power and was politically and diplomatically more astute than the Carter Administration and not under Left influence of Marxists.  Looking ahead, the Regan Administration recognized that in order to prevent a major power advance to both the Soviets and the Iranian regime, the US must aid Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War; a war which resulted from the Carter Administration’s deposition of the Shah. Due only to numbers, the population of Iran exceeded the population of Iraq significantly. The reality that loomed ahead was that Iraq might be defeated. The US had to assure that would not happen and thus aided the Iraqi war effort. 

That same powerful and effective Civil Conflict Principle continues to thrive in the postmodern world.  It is a powerful proven Marxist political action agenda not entirely unrelated to the Marxist theory of revolution. It has been successfully implemented for regime change in Libya, Egypt and Syria, under the Obama Administration.  It was attempted in Russia and Israel also by the Obama Administration.  Attempts to create Civil Conflict in Russia and Israel were funded and organized by the Obama Administration for the purpose of regime change in both nations.

With regards to Crimea the False Flag operation to impute to Russia some nefarious actions regarding the airliner crash over Crimea, failed miserably to build a plausible case. The West failed completely to demonstrate that Russia had any complicity regarding the Indonesian flight that was shot down over Crimea.  The circumstances of that flight, moreover, are somewhat dubious to begin with. It was in airspace it should not have been.  Furthermore, the Civil Conflict in Crimea was fomented by political dissidents in the same way that the civil conflict was fomented in Iran, Libya, Syria and Egypt but in order to prevent Crimea from joining the Russian Federation.  Since Putin was unwilling to take part in the One World Order agenda and had abandoned communism for capitalism and autonomous nationalism for globalism he became an impediment to the powerful One World Order political efforts.  The Civil Conflict in Ukraine over Crimea therefore was issued against him and efforts to either assassinate or replace him were seriously pursued. 

All of the so-called Arab Spring conflicts are not entirely different from the conflict in Crimea. The Arab Spring is nothing more than the Marxist Civil Conflict Principle for the purpose of regime change to bring the Muslim Brotherhood into power. The Crimean Civil Conflict Principle is not very different.

There is a strong political alliance between the Marxists and the Muslims, which was established long prior to the Iranian Revolution. The Marxists and the Muslim Brotherhood are allied for a common purpose including sociopolitical control. The Muslim Brotherhood is an action arm of the Marxist agenda to prepare the world for a central governing authority.  The Muslim Brotherhood is organized to establish a global Caliphate for total sociopolitical control.  ISIS has well demonstrated that punitive measures of control under Sharia Law, is effective pseudo jurisprudence.

The invasion of Libya by the Obama Administration was entirely based on the Civil Conflict Principle; it was intended to facilitate regime change.  Gaddafi was executed in order to establish the Muslim Brotherhood in control of the nation of Libya.  Once the nation was under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, Arms could be shipped to ISIS from Libya through Turkey without interference. The coordination between the Marxists and the Muslim Brotherhood thus proceeded. The Obama State Department followed the organized agenda for the support of ISIS.  The US troops were withdrawn from Iraq leaving behind an entire army supply of vehicles and weapons.  No troops remained in Iraq to interfere with ISIS operations.  ISIS then had a free opportunity to slaughter Christians and also Muslims who were not of the ISIS persuasion.  All facets of ISIS expansion of power and control were already established by the withdrawal of US troops and for that purpose.   

The importance of ISIS is threefold; (1) the extinction of Christians, Jews and incompatible Muslims; (2) establishment of the global Caliphate and (3) the elimination of capitalism.  Only the one sect of Islam which is practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood can be allowed to stand without competition as a one world religion. A one world government requires a single and uncontested State Religion that is directly tied to the state system of jurisprudence without exception.  That would be Sharia Law notwithstanding that Sharia cannot actually qualify as jurisprudence. The Fact that it is State Law is all that matters. 

The so-called Arab Spring in Syria was also the product of the Marxist Civil Conflict Principle.  It was organized and executed by the Muslim Brotherhood for the purpose of regime change that would establish Muslim Brotherhood power and control in Syria. The Obama Administration contributed extensively to the Civil Conflict Principle in Syria specifically to aid the Muslim Brotherhood.  There were no moderate Muslim fighters as the Obama Administration well knew. The so-called moderates were trained by the US to assassinate Assad and prepare the way for ISIS to take Syria so that it did not appear as a US operation and create conflict with Russia.  The Obama Administration could claim dissociation with ISIS to the UN but Putin knows better. 

The Obama Administration also resorted to the Marxist Civil Conflict Principle in Egypt, also for the purpose of regime change.  The Obama Administration engineered the removal of Hosni Mubarak and the installation of Mohammad Morsi to lead the Muslim Brotherhood control of Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood was very active in organizing the demands to remove Mubarak and install Morsi. But there developed a violent reaction to the Muslim Brotherhood by Egyptians.  Millions of demonstrators demanded Morsi be removed. The violent protests left many dead and injured. The military took control of the riots and civil conflict and imprisoned Morsi.  The Egyptian government filed legal complaints against Obama for his intervention in Egyptian political affairs and attempts to install the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.

The magnitude of the opposition to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is illustrated in the photos below.  The numbers of protestors are huge.
Photos taken from internet

The sea of people below is indicative of a changing era.


The power and effectiveness of the Marxist Civil Conflict Principle is also illustrated from the history of events especially with regards to regime change and acquisition of power.  The so-called refugees from Syria and Iraq were purposely displaced by ISIS in order to repopulate them across the European continent and the United States.  

Establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law in the USA will not be as easy as in the EU.  The Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia politically in the various nations by virtue of the large populations of Muslims alone may not be sufficient to fundamentally transform America without the Marxist Civil Conflict Principle fully engaged. The Obama Administration arranged a “Right to Protect Interest” with the United Nations as a justification to invade Libya and assassinate Gaddafi, due to the Civil Conflict harming the people. But the Civil Conflict was organized for that very reason. Creating a civil conflict in any region thus invites foreign intervention through the United Nations in the so-called interest of security of the people. 

However, the Obama Administration did lose control of the civil conflict in Syria due to the alliance between Syria and the Russian Federation.  Putin is unwilling to allow regime change and the assassination of Assad and the loss of a strategic warm port and military base.  Furthermore, establishing the nation as a Muslim Brotherhood political entity like in Libya is repugnant to Russian interests.  Obama would have to risk military conflict with Russia in Syria if he decides to continue pursuing Assad.

The notion that Putin would turn his back on Assad and freely relinquish his strategic military operations in Syria because of Obama’s political designs for Muslim Brotherhood control is laughable. The Obama Administration’s attempt at regime change in Russia, moreover, was not altogether unrelated to the military action against Putin but also installation of the Muslim Brotherhood power in Syria.  Putin remains an impediment to that agenda. But it is also important to understand that those who say that Putin is another Soviet Marxist and that the Russian Federation is a copy of the imperial Soviet ideology are totally misinformed.  Putin’s popularity in Russia rests on his break with Marxism and communism and his move to capitalism and nationalism.  To be sure there are residual communist interests in Russia that are willing to work with the US and the EU.  The problem for the Obama Administration and the EU is that Putin has rejected the One World Order, the Global Union, in favor of a consortium of autonomous nations. 

The massive dump of US petroleum reserves on the international market was specifically intended to drive down the Russian economy and create civil conflict that could result in assassination of Putin or regime change for a communist leader to pull together the communists remaining in Russia to return Russia to the One World ambition.              

In the nineteen seventies the “right to protect” was by invitation. The Shah asked Jimmy Carter for help.  The Shah expected Carter to negotiate with the Muslims and the communists in order to reach a satisfactory compromise solution for everyone.  But Carter followed the advice of Brzezinski which led to a global catastrophe.  In the postmodern world “right to protect” is no longer a matter of invitation it is a matter of intervention.  The Civil Conflict Principle is still a common action agenda of the Left. It is a category of war, but an invaded nation has the right and the responsibility to defend itself. Thus, Assad has defended Syria from the Civil Conflict fomented and aggravated by the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood. The basic principle is to create civil conflict and propagandize it and to exaggerate the circumstances to favor the Left.  Then the intervention in moral language obscures the real politick. 

Why does the Civil Conflict Principle work? Civil Conflict works where the people or the representatives of the people allow it to work.  When no action is taken then the default action is taken. Those who take no action have no control over the default. For example, the Shah came to Carter for help to stand up against the civil conflict but Carter did nothing.  Carter acted irresponsibly. 

The world is at war.  Humane government is under threat of extinction. The war is exterminating freedom, liberty, equality and prosperity.  Christians, Jews, Muslims, journalists, contractors, women and children are being tortured and slaughtered in great numbers. Like Carter, Obama acts seemingly irresponsibly while this evil war is raging.[1]  The American people need to make a decision; protect America or give it up. They need to exercise the moral responsibility to protect nations and their people where they are and without repopulating people if we are to survive as a culture and a people.  We do not need to shift people under different flags. To make no decision is to make the default decision; to do nothing is still to do something. 
The Civil Conflict Principle has been unleashed in America in an effort to effect a regime change in America in the sense of removing the US Constitution and establishing a new government by coup d’état or revolution. This is not a new political agenda. It began with the intrigue of the European Left which commissioned Karl Marx in order to present a façade of humane purpose.  That façade has been an efficacious agenda and politically effective over more than a century.  The Civil Conflict in America has now progressed from the political exploitation of Black people and race issues, gender issues, mora issues, religious issues and such to the importation of terrorism as a means of intervention in a Civil Conflict under the “Right to Protect” principle which the Obama Administration established with the United Nations. 

Nothing in political intrigue is coincidence. The Strong Cities Initiative coordinated with the United Nations by the Obama Administration and announced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch has equipped police departments for a Civil Conflict to rival the US Civil War (1861-1865).  The massive immigration of Muslims into America serves two major purposes; to foment Muslim-American violent conflict as witnessed in San Bernardino, California and establish a solid majority Muslim voting base.  The political Coup d’état could be attempted by political means but will likely fail and the Strong Cities Initiative military could be deployed on American citizens. The importance of a secure and unrigged election for 2016 is a possible temporary deterrent to a major US Civil Conflict. It remains to be seen, however, if the election will take place and if it will be free of political molestation by the left in order to affect a desired outcome.       

The Obama Administration is the political Left Revolution Administration. It is the purpose of the original European political Left ushered into America in the nineteenth century when Karl Marx was financed by the Communist League to dispatch Joseph Weydemeyer to NYC to create the Office of the Revolution. There is an alliance between the political Left and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood has been engaged to unleash Civil Conflict and power and regime change to favor Left interests. The 2016 US election is a critical event which will determine the extent to which the Left Revolution will succeed.

There has been a gradual shift in political power to the Left.  Some sober questions have been raised The Left has invested mega millions and countless hours and extensive media coverage and propaganda to prevent any vetting of Obama not only for Senator but for President. At no time in American History has a presidential candidate been allowed to avoid the constitutional validation for qualifications for public office. No other president in American History has been so protected by the media while pursuing policies contrary to US interests.  The political power of the Left is demonstrated by this alone.

Americans also need to understand that the political Left is European; it is not American.  The purpose of the political clearly Left is to rescind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Americans who support the political Left; socialism, communism, fascism or statism of any manifestation are supporting the removal of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are supporting the demise of America and the end of American freedom, opportunity and equality.  Most Americans do not know that because the media and the press represent the political Left.  The Left is America’s enemy within. Until that enemy is defeated the war will destroy America as a free nation. 

[1] But there are voices that point to evidence that Obama is acting according to his allegiance to Islam and his Marxist ideals rather than in the interests of the American people.