|
Those who would promote evil means to achieve a good goal, will never be successful in their quest. Those who would use the means of destruction to achieve a good goal, will never be successful in their quest. Only those who would use good means and seek to build have any hope of achieving a good goal.
It is this truth that made the United States of America a unique nation and led to it being the desired destination of so many for so long, those ideas that all of our natural rights and liberties come from our Creator and are not and never should be under the control of man nor government to limit or to abolish any of these natural rights and liberties for one, for some, or for all. Whenever man or government assume the role of controller of natural rights or liberties, the means of limiting natural rights and liberties for one, for some, or for all under the guise of advancing the greater good, always ends in the destruction of the society. This is what is happening in the United States today. Thomas Jefferson borrowed from John Locke when he penned perhaps not only the most famous, but the most essential principle upon which our nation was founded when he wrote into the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The United States was thus founded on promoting good means to achieve a good goal. We must than ask ourselves, why is the United States in the position of such contention and strive where many in our nation now say what is good is evil and what is evil is good. John Locke gave us some incredible insight as to why this could happen when he explained, “As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. And this is making use of the power anyone has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.” ― John Locke, Second Treatise of Government When men, through the mechanism of government, seek to control the natural rights given to man by the Creator, they in fact bring about a distortion in the relationships between people, it also brings about a distortion in the relationship between man and the Creator. For instance, man, through the mechanism of government has taken upon itself to redefine the natural right of life, a natural right given by the Creator to man. Under the guise of good, using the contorted reasoning that taking the life of someone who is deemed to be a nuisance or inconvenience, should be designated as choice rather than murder, has brought tremendous conflict and strife to society and has been a major contributor to the destruction of the core family unit. Another example of man creating chaos and restricting liberty resulting in strive and conflict, is groups of people limiting what is an essential freedom to a free society, that is the freedom of speech. In the United States today, only speech that promotes what is deemed to be politically correct is now considered to be acceptable to society. Any speech that is deemed to not be politically correct is limited by ostracizing and demeaning. This is tyranny. Freedom can only exist when a free and unfettered flow of ideas is protected and indeed encouraged. Tyranny requires conformity to one set of ideas and is threatened when individuals openly and freely exchange ideas. The result of such a breakdown in the protection of all-natural rights and liberties for all, has resulted in the limitation, and in some cases such as in the case of the unborn, the total elimination of their natural rights and liberties. All societies who have accepted such means, no matter how good was the expressed intent, have experienced that the end result of these actions is the evil of tyranny with the requirement that all forsake their individuality and conform to the thoughts and ideas required by the controlling few.
0 Comments
All Caucasian males are bad.
If you are a Black but do not support the Marxist movement, you are bad. If you are Hispanic but do not support the Marxist movement, you are bad. If you are a conservative woman, you are bad. If you are Asian and aspire to excel, you are bad. If you are alive and aspire to excel, you are bad. If you disagree with the conformist movement of the left, you are bad. If you believe in the God of the Bible, you are bad. If you disagree with intimidation and bullying, you are bad. If you believe that ending the life of a child is murder and not choice, you are bad. If you believe it is wrong to riot, steal, destroy, and murder, you are bad. If you believe the individual should have the right to make their own decisions, you are bad. If you believe the Constitution of the United States should be followed, you are bad. If you believe the family unit should be promoted and protected, you are bad. If you believe in self-respect and self-responsibility, you are bad. If you believe government should serve and not dictate, you are bad. If you believe you have a right to pursue happiness, you are bad. If you believe you have a right to disagree and voice your disagreement, you are bad. WHO THAN IS GOOD ACCORDING TO THE LEFT If you believe all must conform to the dictates of a Marxist totalitarian state, you are good. If you believe the totalitarian Marxist state is the supreme power of all, you are good. If you believe forsaking your individualism for the good of the collective, you are good. If you believe the United States is evil and the cause of all bad in the world, you are good. The core believe is that all that is individual is bad and all that is collective is good. We have witnessed the protection of the abuser while the real victim is prosecuted. People who protect their property from the threat of mobs, have been declared to be the criminal while the aggressor is defended by the left.
Governor Ron DeSantis has said this should not be the case in the State of Florida. If you are at a restaurant enjoying a meal and you are harassed and bullied by others, you are not the aggressor, but the victim, if people decide to burn your business or loot your business you are not the aggressor, but the victim, and if you are driving on a street and stopped by rioters, you are not the aggressor but the victim. Individuals and groups, for whatever cause, do not have the right to break the law, to bully, or to destroy for their purposes. Florida is saying, despite what the left condones, encourages, and promotes in other States like Oregon, Washington, California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, or so many other Democrat run States, it will not happen in Florida. The bill states among other things that the Combatting Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act -- would impose stiff criminal penalties for actions such as blocking roadways, disrupting restaurants, or toppling monuments. "You see videos of these innocent people eating dinner and you have these crazed lunatics just screaming at them and intimidating them on a public accommodation," DeSantis said. "You aren't going to do that in state of Florida." Another provision would shield drivers from liability “for injury and death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.” If you are surrounded by mobsters who are destroying you property or threatening your person, you have the right to drive away and are not held responsible for those who would stand in front of your car. Of course, the left is stating that if passed, this law would be unconstitutional. I am not sure where the constitution protects the criminal and thug while punishing the law-abiding citizen. If you see in the Constitution where the purposeful destruction of the property of another or the purposeful intimidation or harm of another is protected, please show it to me. It is true that Justice Ginsburg developed a cult following. She was a strong advocate for legislating from the bench and not adhering to the Untied States Constitutional requirement that the court simply review and give opinions. Ginsburg believed like do so many of the left, that opinion means law.
Justices are required to take two oaths of office, unlike for instance the President of the United States who only takes one. The oaths taken by the Justices are as follows: The first oath is, "I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." The second oath is, "I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." In the second oath the justice specifically agrees to adhere to the constitution and laws of the United States. Justice Ginsburg stated several times that she believed our constitution was inadequate and that a Justice must use foreign influence and documents when reaching a decision. Ginsburg claimed foreign and international law is appropriate for constitutional adjudication when she said: “Judges in the United States, after all, are free to consult all manner of commentary — Restatements, Treatises, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews, and, in the internet age, any number of legal blogs. If we can consult those sources, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained, for example, in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?” Ginsburg also showed her disdain for the United States Constitution when she advised a foreign country that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as a model for Egypt’s new government. The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested and you should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.” This explains why so many of Ginsburg’s opinions seemed to be contrary to the United States Constitution like her upholding consistently Roe v Wade. She consistently violated her oath of office to adhere to the constitution and laws of the United States and applied laws from many different places including in some instances from outer space. She is an icon to those who also hold the United States Constitution and our laws in disdain. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The American left hates our Constitution because it was written for a moral and religious people. The American left, including Justice Ginsburg, have embraced the doctrine of Karl Marx and his belief that a nation must abolish all long-standing principles (the Constitution), all morality, and all religion. I understand that Justice Ginsburg was a friend of Justice Scalia. I understand that Justice Ginsburg was a witty and wonderful dinner guest to many. I understand that Justice Ginsburg was revered by such hypocritical movements as the Feminist and Me-Too movements. This does in no way change the fact that Justice Ginsburg violated her oath of office and tremendously damaged our Constitution. People are rioting (those on the left, but really what is new) and arguing over a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. For many, the Supreme Court appointment is more consequential than who wins the presidency. This just proves how far we have moved from the Constitutional powers of the different branches of government.
Hamilton, in Federalist # 78 said that the judicial branch of government was by far the weakest of the three branches. It did not, he said, have the "sword" of the executive, who is commander in chief of the nation's armed forces, nor the "purse" of the legislature, which approves all the tax and spending measures of the national government. It had, according to Hamilton, "neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." Merely judgement does not include the authority to make law. The only branch of government that was given the power to legislate under the United States Constitution was the legislative branch. Today the executive branch and the judicial branch have also assumed the power to legislate or make law. Please notice that I stated the executive branch and the judicial branch and did not limit this to the President and the Supreme Court. That is because low level bureaucrats and district judges have totally ignored the United States Constitution and have assumed the role of the legislature. The branch of government that was intended to be by far the weakest branch of government has come to be by far the most powerful branch of government. This has come about because the judicial branch has usurped power and elevated itself over time to that position. This began with the infamous ruling in Marbury v Madison where the court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, declared that the role of the court was the final authority because the Court could declare what is or is not constitutional. Over the years the judicial branch has unchecked continued to usurp authority to the point that even district judges assume they have the authority to overturn any law or declaration nationally, and their basis can be anything they deem appropriate including their political “feelings.” In addition, the Supreme Court has assumed the role of unilaterally declaring any policy on which they can get five votes to be the law of the land. Constitutionally, these declarations such as legalizing murder as the Supreme Court did in their “ruling” of Roe v Wade, are not laws but simply an opinion of five individuals. This has come about, not only because of the members of the Supreme Court unilaterally declaring their powers extend beyond those given to them under the Constitution, but also because member of congress have seen they can protect their seats in congress by not having to vote on controversial issues, and can implement their controversial issues through the politized judicial branch. Thomas Jefferson was very prophetic when after the Marbury v Madison ruling he stated, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." The United States is today under the despotism of an oligarchy called the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is now the chief political arm of the left and their preferred manner of directing or governing. The right is not innocent, but mostly the guilt of the right lies in their accepting the usurpation of total authority by the judicial branch of our government. The judicial branch has not only moved from by far the weakest branch of government to by far the most powerful branch of government, but to by far the greatest threat to the God given natural rights and liberties to the people as stated in the Declaration of Independence when Thomas Jefferson stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If we were honoring the Constitution as intended, a nominee to the Supreme Court would be important, but only in the context as to their understanding of the Constitution, and their ability to separate any and all personal and political influences or prejudices from their ruling, basing their opinion only on the words within the Constitution itself. The left today demands exactly the opposite. It is imperative that this nominee and appointed individual, and all future, be nominated and appointed because they have exhibited that they will adhere to the Constitutional role of a Supreme Court Justice. The freedom and liberty of each citizen of the United States depends on it. President Trump is a capitalist. Obama is a communist which means he believes in a socialist economy. A capitalist is an individualist who believes in a government as described by Thomas Jefferson when he said, “A wise and frugal government will leave men free to regulate their own industry and improvement and will not take from the bread of labor the bread it has earned, this is the sum of good government.”
President Trump and Thomas Jefferson believe that individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness, less government regulation is best, and low taxes are essential. These are the policies President Trump pursued from day one of his administration, as he immediately started to get rid of stifling government regulations and set about to cut taxes on individuals and corporations. Comrade Obama is a committed communist as was Vladimir Lenin. Lenin said, “No Marxist will deny the interest of socialism is higher than the right of a nation to self-determination. It is the role of government to implement socialism.” This is exactly what Comrade Obama did as he increased government regulations on individuals and businesses while raising taxes, fees, and fines. Biden supported everything Obama did except the killing of Osama bin Laden. Today, Biden does not know who or where he is, even when he reads what is written on his teleprompter. The result of capitalism versus socialism is always the same. Capitalism always raises incomes, it always reduces poverty, and it always narrows the income gap. These are facts just as are the sun always rises in the East and sets in the West and gravity always pulls back to earth. The more government regulates and taxes the slower is economic growth which puts less in the pockets of individuals and increase poverty, misery, and crime. These are numbers recently released from the latest census numbers which once again prove the maxims above. American households saw their best economic gains in half a century according to a report this week from the Census Bureau. Median household income grew by a stunning $4,400 in 2019, resulting in an all-time record of $68,700. This 6.8 percent one-year increase is the largest gain on record for median income growth. The poverty rate plunged to an all-time low of 10.5 percent, as well. Between 2018 and 2019 alone, over 4 million Americans were lifted out of poverty, and the child poverty rate fell to a nearly 50-year low in 2019. When we follow capitalism as described by Thomas Jefferson and practiced by Donald Trump, you will always have results like the above. If you prefer poverty, misery, and crime, follow the polices of Comrades Obama, Lenin, and those professed by the Democrat party. At the heart of so many movements in the United States today is the call to centralize all power in the federal government. Yes, this is a critical difference between a society based on collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressivism, the Democrat party – all virtually the same) and a society based on individualism (philosophy on which our nation was founded). Collectivism seeks to control all aspects of society with all people dependent and accountable to the elite of the central government, while individualism stresses the importance of the self-reliant and responsible individual who strives to reach their dreams and aspirations.
A part of the control necessary in a collectivist society is that the state or elite be able to control the daily lives and activities of the individual citizen. This can only be done with federal officials and police who are responsible for smaller or local areas like counties and cities, being totally accountable to the central government and totally responsive to the demands of the central government. The defund the police movement is an extension of the program to nationalize all law enforcement that was begun by Globalist and Communist, Comrade Obama. His unconstitutional and internal efforts to accomplish this goal were interrupted with the election of President Donald Trump, but the collectivist movement is very resourceful and has declared war, literally and figuratively, on our local police. The Obama regime and its “Task Force on 21st Century Policing” unveiled an unconstitutional plot to impose federal “standards” on state and local police forces, with the goal to nationalize and federalize law enforcement. The plan outlined dozens of “recommendations” to be foisted on state and local law-enforcement agencies using federal tax dollars as bribes. The program called for national standards for police a few months after United Nations boss Ban Ki Moon called for American police to obey “international standards.” The efforts to further nationalize and federalize law enforcement, were also in line with Obama’s campaign rhetoric about building a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. Such an effort corresponds to a Communist effort to nationalize American police forces that goes back decades. Comrade Obama celebrated the scheme to bring law enforcement further under the control of the central government. He also argued that it must be done quickly. “I’m going to be asking Eric Holder and the Justice Department and his successor to go through all of these recommendations so that we can start implementing them,” Obama explained. “I know one area that’s going to be of great interest is whether we can expand the [DOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)] program that in the past has been very effective, continues to be effective, but is largely underfunded.” These steps to exercise and take control over police departments should raise a red flag to anyone who understands the history of national police forces. The history behind efforts to nationalize police forces should spark alarm. It is worth recalling that Communist efforts to nationalize local police forces across the United States date back to at least the 1960s. Toward that end, communist agitators, along with their front groups and useful idiots, have long created problems or exploited existing ones to drum up hatred and violence against police. As we have noticed in recent anti-police marches, communist-made signs and slogans were visible everywhere. But it is hardly a new development. It has long been a strategy of all collectivist sponsored movements that a crisis be created so the people will call upon the central government to solve the problem. The collectivist solution is always more power in the hands of the elite running the central government and more controls and restrictions on the people. If only you supporters of these collectivist strategies would understand that once the United States government is under total collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat, - all virtually the same) control, your rights and liberties will be suspended using the same force, draconian, and demonic methods that you are using to suspend my rights and liberties. You have been warned. Two of our institutions that have failed the American experiment that was and is unique to the world are our press and our educational system. Ironically, these two elements of our society, along with the entertainment industry, were the three targets set by Lenin to fundamentally transform the United States into a Marxist totalitarian state. The communists have always understood that for them to control the United States they would have to do this through transformation. Marx specifically stated this. Marx also said that the views of all children cannot be the views of the parents or the church, but must be the views of the state. He went on to say that to accomplish this end, all children, from the time they can leave the care of their mother, must be in state institutions.
Lenin understood that if the goal of transforming the United States was to be accomplished through the indoctrination of the youth, than the institutions of education must be changed to be institutions of indoctrination, and the only way this could be accomplished would be if the teachers no longer taught but instead indoctrinated. This has been accomplished. You can learn the details in my book “The Road to Tyranny.” The Teachers Unions have become instruments of the Marxist movement, becoming far more consumed with political goals than with educational goals. We have witnessed this blatant call for indoctrination of our children in stated reasons why our schools can not open, in attempts to restrict parents from viewing on line classes, in classroom propaganda for the Marxist movement called BLM, and against our founders, our flag, our Constitution, and our police. Why the Marxist movement opposes any schooling apart from public schools is also now laid bare for all to see, they cannot guarantee that the children will be indoctrinated in the Marxist doctrine unless they are in the public-school system. The way we can minimize this evil is to strongly support school choice with dollars following the student and not the institution. This will enable all parents to have a choice as to whether their child will be educated or indoctrinated. Choices any parent should have would be charter schools, private schools, mini schools, and home schooling. What we know is the public-school system will not be corrected until Teachers Unions are eliminated so that good teachers who wish to educate and not indoctrinate can do so without the threats and demands of the Marxist movement. A free and independent press is essential to a free society. The press must be the informer to the public of what those in government are doing. We know that when those in government know their actions will not be reported to the public, evil will be the result. A totally transparent government is essential. Lenin also recognized that a totally free press is the enemy of the Marxist totalitarian state. The Marxist movement in the United States recognizes the same. Lenin stated, “The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” The press in Russia became the propaganda tool for the Bolsheviks and forsook any independence. It only published the party line, and abandoned any sense of fairness or truth. Our mainstream press today has become a tool of the Marxist transformation movement. There is no independence or even attempts to be fair and unbiased. The public must be dedicated to searching if it wants to understand the truth. The headlines are printed with incorrect and corruptible headlines, and then days, weeks, or months later some attempt to tell the facts is printed at times and in areas where the propagandists understand the public will pay no attention. If you value a free press and want the facts of the story and not a slanted story, your only choice is to be diligent and seek many different sources. When you find that a source always gives a slanted and even an incorrect view purposefully, you must totally abandon that source. When enough people have done this, that source will be gone forever or will be forced to change its ways. We the public still have some control. Yes, we can still choose where and how our children will be educated. We can still choose how we get our news. Remember, only a society with a predominant population that chooses to be informed, interested, and involved can remain free. So yes, we have a choice as to whether or not we will remain free. Have you noticed how only the true nectar drinkers like a lady I know in Nevada named Loren are buying into this ridiculousness we are witnessing from the left.
President Trump was prevented by Nevada Governor Sisolak from holding outdoor rallies at airports in Nevada near Reno and Las Vegas, so President Trump went outdoors to Minden and indoors in Henderson. Sisolak allows Casinos to be open at supposedly 50 per cent capacity while keeping much of the state completely closed including draconian limits on church services. Like all closed states, we see inconsistencies, favoritism, and ridiculous orders. These closed states have proven China Virus restrictions have nothing to do with a virus and everything to do with an election. Regarding the Trump Rally held in Henderson, this is the hysteria of the left: Jonathan Reiner, a professor of medicine and surgery at George Washington University and medical analyst for CNN, said on Sunday that President Trump's indoor rally in Nevada is "negligent homicide." "What else could you call an act that because of its negligence results in the death of others?" he said. "If you have a mass gathering now in the United States in a place like Nevada or just about any other place with hundreds of thousands of people, people will get infected and some of those people will die." We heard the same hysteria about the Wisconsin elections, the Sturgis, South Dakota Biker Rally, and different church services to name a few. We never hear this hysteria regarding riots being conducted in different cities that are supposedly for the purpose of promoting “social justice” and hurting the campaign of President Trump and thus supporting the campaign of Biden. The claims made about all the deaths is absolute hysteria. These stories are completely forgotten the day after the story is published and filed with the many other stories in the file of “Claims made that never happened.” What these people seem to not understand or refuse to understand because of their hatred for a President who has kept his promises including his promise to drain the swamp, of which they are a part, is that once in a while they have to publish a story with some truth. After hundreds of stories published that time proves to be totally false, you have lost your relevancy. If you do not believe me, ask Tony Fauci. There is much happening in the United States today that is the direct result of what has been happening in the United States for over a century. The collectivist movement to fundamentally transform the United States as stated by Obama on October 30, 2008, began over a century ago is what is happening. What did I just say and what does it mean?
To understand what I just said we have to first of all understand the differences between the two forces that have raged since the founding of the United States of America. These two forces are referred to as individualism and collectivism. Collectivism is some sort of group rather than an individual who is at the center of all social, political, and economic concerns, and issues. Those who are proponents of this ideology say that the interests and claims of groups like the state, supersede those of individuals. Individualists believe that society is there, but it is ultimately made up of individuals who choose and act. The foundation of individualism lies in one’s moral right, to pursue one’s own happiness. Marxism, communism, socialism, progressives, and all autocratic states are forms of collectivism. The state has the authority to dictate to all people within the collective who and what they will be. Collectivism dominated the world until the formation of the United States of America. In our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson stated and the delegates to the Continental Congress accepted the idea of individualism that had been talked about philosophically for centuries but stated so clearly and emphatically by John Locke, that each individual is endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, including but not limited to life, liberty, and property, or as Jefferson said the pursuit of happiness. This concept of each individual having the rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the very concept that went on to propel the United States to become the benevolent power it became. It is this very concept that is now at the heart of so many Americans despising our nation and as Obama stated, to fundamentally transform the United States of America. What Obama did not say on October 30, 2008, but stated in his policies and statements prior and after, was that the United States of America would be fundamentally transformed from a nation founded on the principles of individualism to a nation based on the principles of collectivism, or that the United States of America would be transformed into a Marxist totalitarian state. This was happening and supported by the Democrat party and the Republicans In Name Only as they supported more and more government controls over the lives of the individual citizens, over their life, liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness. This group, the Democrat party and the RHINO’s were now saying that it is government who can control the life by allowing the murder of unborn children, by regulating the liberties of speech, religion, assembly, right to bear arms to name a few, and the right to pursue our own happiness, with the caveat that the government has a right to share in our monetary rewards and to control our pursuits so as not to harm the egos of others or exceed declared limits by the state. This is what is happening in the United States today, will we be fundamentally transformed. Will we remain a nation adhering to the liberal and radical concept proclaimed by our founders that we individuals will retain our rights given to us by the Creator, or that we will alienate those rights to government who will alter their role from protector to controller of all rights including those given to us by the Creator. The collectivist movement has become a dominant force in the Untied States by indoctrinating people that their rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are best served when they adhere to the dictates of the collective, subjugating their personal desires and wishes to the control of the state. This has been accomplished primarily through the efforts of those adhering to the demands of Vladimir Lenin when he demanded through the control of the Communist International over the member of the United States Communist party that they concentrate on gaining control of education, news outlets, and entertainment outlets in the Untied States. This was done and enabled by the Democrat party which became a tool for the Communists under Franklin Roosevelt, and became the Communist Party of the United States under Obama despite maintaining the name Democrat Party. The question every American is facing today is do I agree that I am an individual and my rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God given with the government’s only role as protector, or do I agree that all my rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are under the control of the state, and it is my duty and obligation to live as a loyal and subservient member of the state, understanding I owe my all to the state. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
September 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed