The first step is to recognize that there is a war on for America's soul

Mark Tapson of Truth Revolt interviewed Monica Crowley and she spoke plainly. She spelled out the crux of post-America's dilemma with unsparing candor:

We are in a war. It is a war for America – for the very nature of what America is and what it should be. It is not a war that we have sought, but like it or not, it is a war that has been brought to us by the Left. For decades, the Left has been waging a war for the future of the country. Their war is waged against the Constitution, free market economics, our social fabric and values – and they fight 24/7. They never rest. They never falter. And they rarely fail – and when they do fail, they pick up where they left off and begin the fight anew. 

Their objective is – as then-candidate Barack Obama called it in 2008 – the "fundamental transformation of the nation." We now have seven years of evidence as to what he meant: moving America away from a nation built on individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and economic freedom, and toward a European-style socialist state sapped of superpower strength and influence. Mr. Obama and the Left have largely succeeded in accomplishing that transition. They are winning the war – and the Republicans aren't even in the battle. Most of them simply don't get it.

With a few exceptions, such as Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and House members like Louis Gohmert, most Republicans simply don't understand what they’re up against. They don't understand – or they don't want to understand – that the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the past. Mr. Obama is not John Kennedy or Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter. They were liberals in the classic sense – and mainstream Democrats. Mr. Obama is not a Democrat in that traditional sense. He is a leftist revolutionary. A completely different ball of wax – with a completely different set of objectives for the country. Objectives that involve uprooting our foundational principles and replacing them with socialist policies that will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to reverse. This is their war. And most Republicans, certainly the Republican leadership, don't see it. And if they don't see it, they cannot wage an effective counteroffensive. That's why the Left continues to win elections and policy battles: because most conservatives and Republicans are playing the game by the traditional rules, and the Democrats are playing by a radically different set of rules – and they have their fellow leftists in the mainstream media serving as their wingmen. The two sides are aren't even on the same playing field.

Longtime LITD readers know that this understanding that the Democrat party hates freedom and America and is the enemy is a core tenet of the worldview through which this site analyzes the affairs of the day. LITD is often taken to task for it, accused of hyperbole of the most vitriolic kind.

Well, let us offer a couple of fresh bits of substantiation for our position: two articles from today's edition of The Hill. The common theme of both is the Most Equal Comrade's contempt for the Constitution:

Ian Smith reports on the post-American regime's assault on the immigration front:

A newly leaked internal DHS memorandum produced for an off-the-record agency conclave reveals that the Obama administration is actively planning to circumvent a federal court injunction that suspended part of last November’s deferral-based amnesty initiative. The document, apparently prepared as follow-up from a DHS “Regulations Retreat” last summer, appears sure to re-ignite concerns in Congress as well as federal judges in the Fifth Circuit. The Administration has already been criticized from the bench for handing out work permits to hundreds of thousands of deferred action beneficiaries, in direct violation of a district court’s order. With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deciding any day now whether to deny the Administration’s request to reverse that injunction, this public leak has come at a critical juncture for U.S. enforcement policy. 

Last June, four months after Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen’s order to freeze President’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs—disclosure: the Immigration Reform Law Institute has filed briefs in these cases—DHS’s immigration policy makers apparently held a “Regulations Retreat” to discuss “different options” for “open market Employment Authorization Document (EAD) regulatory changes.” EAD is the statutory term for work permits. From a memo recording these discussions, we now know that the Obama DHS has, rather than pausing to allow the courts to assess the constitutionality of its enforcement nullification initiatives, been gearing up to roll out one or more of four plans drawn up at the meeting, each one designed to provide EADs to millions of nonimmigrants, including those lawfully present and visa overstayers, crippling the actual employment-based visa system on the federal statute-book.

[snip]

Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016. According to the authors, one negative factor for granting EADs to illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, etc., is that they’ll still “face difficulties in pursuing permanent residence due to ineligibility or being subject to unlawful presence inadmissibility for which a waiver is required.” This is in reference to the reality that an EAD isn’t a green card and that eventually the EAD-beneficiaries are supposed to apply to ‘adjust their status,’ which cannot be done without showing evidence of lawful status. But this might change, they write. The DHS “macro-level policy goal”, we’re told, is to assist individuals to stay “until they are ready and able to become immigrants.” This would seem to say that DHS, the largest federal law enforcement agency in the nation, is banking on awarding those who’ve broken our laws and violated our national sovereignty.

Timothy Cama on the regime's intention to circumvent Congress with regard to the complete fiction that the global climate is in some kind of trouble and post-America needs to change its basic nature to address it:

Republican senators accused President Obama Tuesday of deliberately circumventing Congress in his attempt to reach a broad U.N. deal on climate change.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of a Foreign Relations Committee subpanel, said at a Tuesday hearing that any deal negotiators reach at the talks in Paris in December needs to go through Senate ratification.

“Just like the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations framework convention on climate change, any agreement that commits our nation to targets or timetables must go through the process established by the founders in our Constitution. It must be submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent,” Barrasso told Todd Stern, the State Department’s top negotiator for the deal.

“The president has made clear that he doesn’t see it that way, as was the case with the Iranian nuclear deal,” he said.

Barrasso was the only Republican at the hearing, which was dominated by Democrats who thanked Stern for his work.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who wanted to have a joint hearing on the talks with the Environment and Public Works Committee, which he chairs, said in a statement that the deal should go through the Senate.

“While we can certainly disagree on the underlying policies, I believe we, as the Senate, should support basic oversight responsibilities, especially when they are consistent with past practice."

“President Obama and his administrative officials are going out of their way to circumvent the role of the U.S. Senate in this negotiating process and I am disappointed that the minority would enable such behavior,” he said.

This is where we are. There is not a front - Constitutional, economic, cultural, or pertaining to national security - in which the Freedom-Haters do not march forward without relent or even pause.

The question is whether the damage inflicted thus far is reversible.