Even now, we have a man in the White House about whom we know almost nothing other than that he has been surrounded by anti-liberal radicals his entire life, and brought many of them to Washington with him.
Whenever I see people mock those who question the fundamentally Liberal character of modern left wing intellectuals and policy makers, I always like to link this piece here, as it puts their views in their own words: http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1588/article_detail.asp
We were told just this week something to the effect that people who are asking for actual science from the global warming crowd are nuts. Consider in that regard this quote, chosen more or less at random:
[l]iberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most
extreme case, the U.S.A., unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many
of the collective needs of the citizens…. There must be open minds to
look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption
of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties.
We have to understand that these academics and think tank leaders–and the people who bankroll them, like the Rockefeller Foundation and George Soros–have been wanting to more or less erode democracy in favor of something like the fascist economic and political system China has evolved for something more than 50 years. None of this is new.
Thus, whose sanity should we question, when we have thousands of people in positions of influence openly advocating for an end to the primacy of Constitutional law in the governance of our republic, and who act consistently in support of that aim, as Obama has since the day he hit office?
Taking people at their word is not paranoia. Ignoring them: THAT is lunacy. Turns out Hitler was quite sincere, and so was Van Jones early in his career, before he learned the Fabian principles of gradualism, appearing respectable, and persistent conscious deception about their actual end goals.