By: Christopher G. Adamo

 

America's future is increasingly in doubt, as indicated by three shocking events of the past several days. The fact that none of them likely come immediately to mind is, in itself, further indication of the dire straits in which the nation finds itself. Had similar events transpired only a few decades back, every one of them would have made national headline news.

 

On October 20, Kansas City was in a very real sense, attacked by a seditious and hostile foreign entity whose sinister designs towards America only differ from the threats of militant Islam by degree.

 

The pro-Mexican insurgency known as "La Raza" (which translates as "The Race") announced a reversal of its decision of Kansas City as the sight of its annual convention since Mayor Mark Funkhouser had appointed Frances Semler as a member of the city park board. Semler belongs to the citizens border security advocacy group known as the "Minutemen."

 

Had any traditionally American group attempted to similarly intimidate and protest against a city government on the basis that one of its members ascribed to a contrasting set of beliefs, that group would have been loudly and universally castigated as an example of "hate and intolerance." Yet hardly a word of criticism against La Raza has been uttered across the land.

 

If anything, the general response seems to be one of defensiveness, presuming the malignant organization to be well within legal bounds, but also exhibiting commensurate disgust with the Kansas City government and its ostensibly wayward member. Thus has an entity representing the objectives of a foreign interest exerted its hostile influence on the character and actions of a domestic governing body that was originally instituted to be of, by, and for the American people.

 

Furthermore, the comparative passivity of the City Council of Kansas City is itself a very telling sign of just how cowed and morally ambiguous many in this nation have become in the face of such assaults. In another time, when Americans had no doubts as to which country's flag would be waved in their public parades of patriotism and national solidarity, the City Council's reaction to the likes of La Raza and its menacing agenda would never have been in doubt.

 

Some version of "Take your racist and seditious conference somewhere else. You are not welcome here!" would have been its speedy and predictable reply to the organization. But that was back before an organization such as the "Minutemen" was even necessary, since the government was upholding its responsibility to secure the border.

 

Now, President Bush derides the Minutemen as "vigilantes," while La Raza was given an official role in crafting last summer's despicable amnesty bill. So, in modern "politically correct" America, Kansas City plays a mild defense, if it plays at all.

 

Of course a city and its leaders simply cannot engage in such overt hostility towards a private group based on that group's belief system. Or can it?

 

Consider Philadelphia, where the city government has essentially fined the Boy Scouts $200,000 for holding to "politically incorrect" albeit traditionally American views on morality, and in particular for not succumbing to the homosexual agenda. Having previously been allowed to rent a city facility for one dollar, the Boy Scouts have been summarily told to get out, unless they can pay the new "fee" which was levied against them not on the basis of the real costs involved, but as a statement against them.

 

To what depths has the nation sunk, when an organization of the merit and virtue of the Boy Scouts is openly attacked and derided by public institutions for having the audacity to adhere to the concepts of right and wrong that were once in the "mainstream," and on which our society was founded?

 

Every decent citizen of this country who has been horrified by nightly news accounts of school shootings or who has ever been dismayed when observing the bands of aimless young derelicts wandering through the local mall, ought to remember the "lesson" Philadelphia is attempting to teach these most upright members of the next generation.

 

No doubt cities like Philadelphia would defend themselves on the basis that they cannot support one belief system over another, but must give equal credence to all. This was, for a time, the excuse offered by the counterculture as it sought, in a warped and perverted interpretation of the First Amendment, to establish moral and philosophical "equality" for the relevance and worth of all creeds and ideas, no matter how creditable or twisted they may be.

 

Yet the events in Bloomington Indiana, unfolding concurrently with these previous episodes, belie such a notion, and instead demonstrate the intention of the anti-Christian (and by definition, anti-American) forces that increasingly assert dominance in the American culture.

 

The Bloomington City Council is only too happy to engage in government promoted religion, as long as it is compatible with the Buddhist beliefs of the Dalai Lama, who is soon to visit that city. The city government was just fine with glowing depictions of Buddha on public property, the "spiritual" significance of which was in no way minimized.

 

However, Bloomington officials were quick to react when a group of Christians attempted to include a sculpture of the Ten Commandments in the display. This, they were informed, is a violation of the First Amendment. The Ten Commandments sculpture was immediately removed.

 

The entire episode has, not surprisingly, descended into the typical tangle of arguments of what public exhibitions constitute "art" and what is representative of "religion." Even more predictably, the Bloomington government revealed its end game, which will be to define the boundaries in whatever manner necessary as to allow for Buddhist religious imagery while prohibiting anything Christian.

 

How much further can the forces of the modern counterculture be expected push their dark agenda while still wrapping themselves in a bogus mantle of Constitutionality? The answer is as it always has been. They will press forward, trampling real rights and freedoms under the repugnant auspices of "political correctness," (which in truth is merely their anti-religious canon) until real America fights back.

 

The War on Terror is real, and no option exists for America except to seize the realm of the terrorists, decisively fight the war, and win it. Yet with each passing day, it becomes increasingly obvious that the insurgency of militant Islamists is only one battlefront of the war against America.

 

Only when real America stops attempting to live according to the rules dictated to it by the liberal establishment, reasserts its constitutional rights and responsibilities as they truly are, and acts on them with resolve and determination can the enemy's "fifth column" here on the home front be identified and driven back. Until then, the country's future is no more secure than if the Islamists are given free reign in our midst.