What we have learned over the last century is that the Democrat party opposes the United States Constitution and our Republic. This is a statement based on their own statements.
“Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission-in an era when 'development,' 'evolution,' is the scientific word-to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.” Woodrow Wilson
“The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” Franklin D. Roosevelt “
“It [the Constitution] didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted.”
“Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism.” Barack Obama
The way the Democrats have viewed the Constitution is that because they say it is Darwinian, elastic, and living, it can mean whatever you want it to mean at any point of time. Once something can mean anything you want it to mean at any point in time, it has no meaning at all.
Facts and rules have not applied to collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat, - all virtually the same) agendas. The axiom for the collectivist is and always has been, “The ends always justify the means.” Is there a point to which Democrats, who claim to be Americans, will say that which is being stated is beyond what they can accept? It seems not.
Chelsie Handler, who has made some pretty outlandish comments, just called for the elimination of the Sixth amendment or the right of a person charged with a criminal offense to have a jury trial. Handler tweeted, “So pathetic that there is a trial to prove that Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd when there is video of him doing so.” Are there any of you Democrats who understand why it is so critical to have trial by jury protected? Are there any of you Democrats who understand why it is so critical we have the legal principle that the state must prove guilt as opposed to the defendant proving innocence. If you agree with Handler, you agree with supremacy of the state, or dictatorship.
CNN, in support of the transgender (whatever that is) agenda, said chromosomes and genitalia to not determine the sex of the newborn baby. The issue being argued now is should males be able to compete in women’s sports because the individual who was born a male decides he wants to be a female.
“Though the two executive orders signed by Noem do not explicitly mention transgender athletes, they reference the supposed harms of the participation of "males" in women's athletics -- an echo of the transphobic claim, cited in other similar legislative initiatives, that transgender women are not women. The orders also reference "biological sex," a disputed term that refers to the sex as listed on students' original birth certificates.
It's not possible to know a person's gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth,” said CNN
Are there any of you Democrats who believe in science? Are there any of you Democrats who understand the absurdity of the above statement? Are there any Democrats who will say that there has to be some standards and rules by which society exists, such as law and order, and science? Is your desire to bring about a communist society so great that you accept even these ridiculous statements?
It is critical that each individual determine who they are, what they believe. When people sit on the fence, it is collectivism that wins. This has been proven time after time throughout history. To protect the rights of the individual from those who wish to control, takes positive action. Our founders understood this and took the positive action of forming us as a Constitutional Republic. The constitution part was to define that sovereignty lies with the people and not government. The republic part was to protect the rights of the individual from the forces of an irrational and reactional majority.
This is the essence of what the difference is between individualism and collectivism. The United States of America was founded on the principles of individualism. Forces in the United States, specifically what is known as the progressives or the Democrats, have been transforming the United States from an individualist nation to a collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat, all virtually the same) nation.
Individualism is an ideology, the core of which upholds the virtue of self. It advocates that an individual can value his own ambitions, over those of the group that he belongs to. It sets an individual as the standard of discussion and comparison. It values an individual’s independence, and the fulfillment of his aspiration and desires. Thus, in a nutshell, it can be concluded that the concept of individualism doesn’t believe in the norm that a majority can superimpose their opinions on that of the minority.
Collectivism is based on the philosophy that an individual has to limit himself in the framework set up by the group, or in larger terms, the society or the country. He can be contributing significantly towards his group or country, only when his actions reflect the betterment of his group. It focuses on collective ‘good’, rather than the ‘good’ of the individual, who actually forms the group. It promotes loyalty of an individual towards the group that he belongs to.
Individualism is not the idea that individuals should live like isolated hermits, nor the idea that they should never get help from others, nor the idea that an individual never owes anything to other people. Individualism is the idea that the fundamental unit of the human species that thinks, lives, and acts toward goals is the individual. This means that the adult individual can form his own independent judgments, act on his own thoughts, and disagree with others. He is not telepathically linked to other people as part of a “hive-mind” that does the thinking for him, nor is he inexorably governed in his thinking by economic or linguistic factors in his society. Each adult individual has the ability to consider what is in his own best interests. Each can act on his own private motivations and values, and can judge other people as good people to form relationships with, or as bad people to be avoided. Each can decide whether or not to cooperate with others to solve problems. Each can choose to think for himself about the conclusions that the majority of others in a group come to, accepting, or rejecting their conclusions as indicated by his own thought.
Collectivism is the idea that the fundamental unit of the human species that thinks, lives, and acts toward goals is not the individual, but some group. In different variants, this group may be the family, the city, the “economic class,” the society, the nation, the race, or the whole human species. The group exists as a “super-organism” separate from individuals: It makes its own decisions, acts apart from the actions of individuals, and has its own interests apart from those of the individuals that compose it. Under collectivism, individuals are analogous to worker honeybees in a beehive. The individual bees don’t have minds of their own, and generally can’t “disagree” with the hive. Any bee that acts in a way contrary to the interests of the hive is a malfunctioning bee. If it permanently leaves the hive, it will be entirely unable to support itself and will surely die in short order. If the malfunctioning bee stays in the hive, then it will either be a drain on the hive or a threat to it, and it is entirely appropriate for the other bees to attack and kill it.
A free nation can only exist if it adheres to individualism. A dictatorship can only exist if it adheres to collectivism. Individualism honors independent thinkers. Collectivism demands conformity. Individualism promotes an economic and socially mobile society. Collectivism has a strict class system of elites and the masses. Individualism is always a more prosperous society with the living standard for all increasing while reducing poverty, misery, and crime. Collectivism has a declining standard of living for the masses with rising poverty, misery, and crime.
The left in the United Sates has promised to transform the United States from an individualist nation to a collectivist nation. You must decide who you are and what you want. If you believe in collectivism, you can be active politically or sit on the fence and the result will be the same. If you believe in individualism, you must be an active participant in the fight for freedom. If you are a fence sitter, you will also be a useful idiot for the collectivist movement.
A free nation that protects the individual liberties and rights of each citizen can only exist as a free nation if it adheres to “rule of law”. A dictatorship of any sort can only remain a dictatorship if it exists as a nation adhering to arbitrary law.
More than two hundred years ago, our Founders created and signed the Constitution of the United States. This codified, written constitution established that ours would be a nation governed by the rule of law.
The concepts embodied in the phrase “rule of law” are both simple and complex. Its simplicity derives from the fact that the underlying notion is clear: all persons, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, economic or social status, or other group or individual characteristic, are equal in the eyes of the law. The concept, however, also requires that a complex web of laws and governmental actions come together to assure the protection of the rule of law for all.
Elements that are necessary for rule of law are:
1.Laws must exist, and those laws should be obeyed by all, including government officials.
2.Laws must be published.
3.Laws must be prospective in nature so that the effect of the law may only take place after the law has been passed. For example, the court cannot convict a person of a crime committed before a criminal statute prohibiting the conduct was passed.
4.Laws should be written with reasonable clarity to avoid unfair enforcement.
5.Law must avoid contradictions.
6.Law must not command the impossible.
7.Law must stay constant through time to allow the formalization of rules; however, law also must allow for timely revision when the underlying social and political circumstances have changed.
8.Official action should be consistent with the declared rule.
Arbitrary law refers to "the rule of a person or a group of persons who arrogate to themselves and monopolize power in the state, exercising it without restraint... and which does not circumscribe either the scope or the duration of dictatorial power."
What is declared is considered to be the law. It does not have to be published or understood. There need be no consistency, but law can be declared for a specific purpose one day and ignored the next. Arbitrary law can be retrospective, or an individual can be declared guilty of an infraction that was legal at the time the individual committed the act.
The purpose of rule of law is to protect the people from the tyranny of government. The purpose of arbitrary law is to institute tyranny and require adherence to the arbitrary dictates of the state.
Our government, both the central government and the state governments, have instituted arbitrary law using the China Virus as their justification. We are also experiencing arbitrary law every time an executive order is declared. We are experiencing arbitrary law every time a court renders an opinion, and it becomes the law.
A free nation protecting the individual liberties and rights of each individual can only exist if it strictly adheres to rule of law.
A dictatorial government protecting the sovereignty of the state, can only exit if it adheres to arbitrary law.
People say they love their kids, their siblings, their friends, and people in general, but do they really? Perhaps that depends upon what we mean by love. When people say they love, do they mean they are glad that these people are alive and they can get together and laugh together talking about past gone times, and they will miss that interaction when the other is gone? Or perhaps love is deeper than that and it means that the other person is someone with whom we can share things that are causing us frustration and even hurt.
Love has been defined many different ways. The definition for love I will use is love means willing to lay down your life, it is self-sacrificing, generous, unending, not a temporary feeling or attraction, and it is also undeserving and often unreciprocated. We use the term love, so we each must understand what we mean when we use it, but I would hope all would mean at a minimum, a strong feeling of goodwill toward and concern for the person or persons we say we love.
Despite people saying how much they love, I so often hear these same people who are claiming love for individuals or humanity in general, say that they cannot discuss the two issues that will have the greatest impact on them. The first topic that cannot be discussed is politics. Parents are saying they cannot discuss politics with their kids because it always ends in arguments. They cannot discuss politics with family or friends because it causes enemies. If we refrain from discussing politics with these people we say we love, and with people who are supporting policies that are destined to enslave them and all others to the tyranny of government, really how much do you love them?
The philosophy being taught to our children and influencing others, is a philosophy of enslavement. The left, the Democrats, but really the Communist Party of the United States (which includes the two previously mentioned groups) is a philosophy that can only end the same way it always has and always must end, and that is with a few elites living with unquestioned power and wealth, and all others living in poverty and misery. This has been proven by history. Communism is based on the idea that basic human nature will change. History has proven that although the speed by which we can get from place to place and the speed of us communicating has changed, human nature has not. There are “good” people and there are “bad” people today, just as there always has been. No political philosophy, no matter how good they say their intentions are, has been able to change that fact.
By us refusing to interact with these misguided people is to doom them and all others to a life of slavery. However, do not argue with them. You must learn how to go about “Setting Brushfires of Freedom” and you never do this by arguing or demanding. You do this by engaging. That means you refuse to argue. You converse, you ask question, you listen, you show an interest. You must lead the other person so they can conclude on their own that what they believe can only lead to enslavement. This is what Samuel Adams taught us. If you love these people you say you love, you will want to keep them from living under the enslavement of communism. I wrote “Setting Brushfires of Freedom” for this very purpose. It has helped many people to engage and not argue, and it might be the answer for you as well.
The second topic is even more serious than the topic of politics because it involves eternity. I cannot imagine that you would want anybody, much less somebody you claim you love to spend eternity in Hell. We are told we should never discuss religion with others. Frankly, with this I agree. Religion is an extremely divisive and meaningless topic. Religion is man conceived and man-made rules that are filled with misleading and false promises. However, if we refuse to discuss Jesus Christ, his crucifixion, and his resurrection with those we say we love, we are condemning them to an eternity in Hell. If we fall into the Satin induced practice of arguing about the deity of Jesus Christ, it would have been better if we had not discussed at all. The Bible does not call on us to save people. We cannot save people. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. We are called on to spread the Gospel. How do we do this? We can converse, we can ask questions, we can listen, and we can show an interest. We can be the vessel that the Holy Spirit uses to plant the seed, to water the seed, or to do the weeding so the Holy Spirit can do the harvesting.
This can be done by making the appropriate comment that exhibits the love of Christ, by a life lived that exhibits the love of Christ, and by not shying away from answering the question from the searching soul are ways the Holy Spirit can, will, and does use us. Be sure you are available, ready, and grateful when the Holy Spirit calls on you, so the Holy Spirit can do the necessary work to present Christ to the person you say you love. It could be the difference between and an eternity in Heaven or an eternity in Hell for that person.
“I’m doing things having to do with putting our own platform out there that you’ll be hearing about soon,” Trump said in an interview for Fox News contributor Lisa Boothe’s initial podcast “The Truth” released on Monday. “I’ll be telling you pretty soon.”
What a great idea. Of course, the left is telling us why this is certain to fail and cannot work. Trump has been told that many times, and yet he has found ways to make his ideas work.
My suggestion to President Trump is to start a news station as well. However, make it a totally different type of news station from what we now have.
The Trump News should be just that news. That would be all stories would be accurate, fair, and balanced with the intent to inform and not influence, the source would be revealed, and the reader would never now if the reporter has an opinion on the topic.
There would be no panel discussions. Contributors would only be those having specific and documented expertise and information in the field of interest being reported.
Opinions of others, including newscasters, commentators, comics, celebrities, athletes, and so forth would not be reported unless these people were the specific topic of the story. That means no comments from the likes of Don Lemon or the ladies of the View would ever be mentioned. Athletes would only be quoted if the story was about their sport and they were involved.
The Trump News would devote far more than token time to world news. Topics covered would include political and economic happenings outside the borders of the United States. Happenings worldwide would be reported, including topics like the suppression of opposition in Russia and Belarus, the killings of Christians by Muslims in Africa and elsewhere, and the assault on human rights in China, North Korea, Iran, are examples.
The Trump News outlet would have as its only goal to inform, not influence, people across the globe about political and economic news. Oh, okay, a cute or feel-good story could end each hourly broadcast.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
Engels believed that marriage in modern capitalist societies is intrinsically oppressive much as capitalism is intrinsically oppressive in the marketplace. As a communist, Engels recognized that capitalism cannot be made egalitarian. It must be overthrown and replaced by socialism. This is the case for marriage as well.
Destroy the family, you destroy the nation.
We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.
Mao saw the clan and the family as institutions that kept the peasants oppressed so he issued several policies to break down the family structure. Families were made to eat in cafeterias, which meant no home needed a kitchen, children were raised in daycare centers instead of being looked after by relatives, parents were cremated instead of buried, and the ancestor tablets (family records) and ancestral halls were destroyed in the Cultural Revolution.
“Communist Goals for taking over America”:
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting.pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
The very core tenet of Marxism and its two versions called socialism and communism is to actually replace the family structure. In Russian communism, Stalin was paranoid about any possible resistance. Children were taught that the state was their parent instead of their biological parents, and if those creatures spoke anything against the state then the children should report them.
The United States today:
The Massachusetts city of Cambridge has put in place a measure that recognizes domestic partnerships of more than two people, euphemistically referred to a polyamorous “families,”
Polygamy and polyamory are now acceptable. This return to pagan sexuality began with a rejection of God and His word. Unfortunately for the people of this nation––paganism leads to barbarism.
A question that has often been asked and has now been answered is who is in charge of the regime in power. It is clear that the person making the decisions is not Biden. That he is incapable has been clearly evident since the primaries began. When the Democrats chose Kamala Harris to be his vice-presidential running mate, it was evident that they had no intent of her being in charge. She has proven them to be correct. Her giggling and often blame everybody else approach is in no way even close to exhibiting leadership. Nobody from the squad has emerged. Sanders has been shunned along with Pelosi and Schumer. So, the question is, who is truly running the show that is opening our border again to all who wish to enter, to spending vast amounts of money we do not have, to opposing Israel and embracing Iran and encouraging their Islamic Jihadist terrorist activities, the accommodating policies toward Communist China, and primarily to destroy American values and traditions and replace them with Communist policies?
The answer to that question has been revealed and it is the worst of all possibilities. Comrade Barack Obama is in charge as revealed the other day. “Joe Biden keeps in regular contact with Barack Obama to canvass his opinion on a range of issues,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated. “They consult and talk about a range of issues and I would expect that continues through the course of Biden’s presidency,” Psaki said.
Obama has made clear that his goal is to transform the United States from a Constitutional Republic built on the premise of individualism, which has at its core that all individual liberties and rights come from God and not government, to a Marxist totalitarian state where the lives of people, including their thoughts, are controlled by the collective or the state. Obama has been a strong proponent and an instigator of the three legs of the communist control stool, which are indoctrination, propaganda, and intimidation.
Biden is facing both physical and mental degeneration problems. Not only is it more and more difficult for him to speak coherently, but he is less and less capable physically. It would be an educated guess to say that Obama will want Biden to retain the presidency for as long as possible. Obama knows he can and will be the de facto president. Harris, over the years has shown herself to be self-serving, she will do whatever to gain power. Her only consistent characteristic is that she is consistently inconsistent. Her answers to questions are what she believes to be the necessary answer at the time. She might have said as a condition to being offered the vice presidency, that she is agreeable to be controlled by Obama, but even Obama would have to say that because she said so does mean that she will.
Perhaps, Biden will survive four more years. My guess is Obama will do everything he can to make that happen.
So, we learn that the corrupt election of 2020 was not stolen to put Biden in office, but was corrupted and stolen so Obama could resume the power of the presidency, if not the title. It is the power he needed to complete his promised transformation.
The policies of the left today are questionable. They denounce the teachings of the Bible as being outdated and encourage sexual immorality among the youth of America. They say they want freedom through democracy yet centralize power and control within the federal government. They would have us believe they favor a strong economy yet advocate for economic disaster by punishing achievers and rewarding non-achievers. They would have us believe they want law and order yet encourage rioting and disorder and promote all aspects of criminality by justifying these actions and refusing any enforcement against such disorder and criminality. They argue for a total breakdown in the family by demanding a takeover of all parenting responsibilities. They are registering all firearms in a not-so-subtle movement to confiscate them.
This has been their agenda for the last 100 plus years. Each year it becomes more and more direct and less veiled. Anything that resembles wholesome is denounced as racist, while promotion of immorality, anti-American beliefs, and criminality are supported under the guise of promoting social justice and equality.
Any observant individual would have to conclude that this strategy is a deliberately destructive strategy with the intent of destroying our society. The inquisitive individual would naturally wonder what the intent behind this strategy is. Is it for the purpose of destroying our American society based on the concept of individualism with our foundation being Judaeo-Christian principles or the Bible?
A closer study can only lead us to the conclusion that yes, that is the intent. That the Democrat party is now the Communist Party of the United States is beyond question. The principles and strategies of the party are founded in the teachings of Marx and Engels and are based on the strategies set forth for all Communists by Lenin, Mao, and Castro. It was Lenin who stated how Western Civilization could and would be destroyed. This is his direction that has been used by communists and is being used by the Democrat party in the United States today.
“Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Encourage their interest in sex. Make them superficial by encouraging their interest in sports, sensual entertainment, and trivialities. Always preach true democracies, but seize power as fast and ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government extravagance, destroy its credit. Produce fear with rising prices, inflation, and general discontent. Encourage disorders and foster a lenient attitude toward disorder. By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral and virtues, honesty, sobriety, and self-restraint. Cause registration of firearms to leave the population defenseless,” Vladimir Lenin, 1921.
The United States was founded on that principle that our rights and our liberties come from God and not from man nor government. This gives the individual the freedom to make choices and mostly to think for themselves. My rights to freedom and my liberties end when I take your rights to freedom and your liberties from you. I can not take from you your right to life through murder even when I use a euphemism such as choice. I can noy take from you your right to express yourself through speaking, writing, or assembly even if I declare it to be improper. I do not have the right to destroy or take your property even when I justify these actions because I declare they advance some meaningless and flexible term such as social justice or equality.
A tyrannical or collectivist state believes all rights and liberties are under the control of the government and thus the government has the right to declare who can live, what people can or cannot think or say, and which people are entitled to the property of others for whatever reason the state declares is proper.
In the United States we now state that murder is legal and proper when it comes under the definition of abortion. In the United States we now say that the right to freedom of expression must be censored or eliminated if the expression is deemed to be “hate expression.” In the United States we now stipulate that it is legal and proper to destroy and steal other’s property when it is done to advance “social justice.”
The left is now telling us that our laws and statutes must become flexible so the left can investigate whatever they deem to be a “hate action”. Understand that both hate and action must be loosely interpreted so the left has complete flexibility in controlling any actions or thoughts with which they disagree.
New York City Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio is recommending police officers confront anyone who is behaving in a way that is deemed "hurtful," even if the actions didn't break any laws. "Even if something is not a criminal case, a perpetrator being confronted by the city, whether it's NYPD or another agency, and being told that what they've done was very hurtful to another person and could have ever repeated lead to criminal charges, that's another important piece of the puzzle," de Blasio said.
This moves the United States over that threshold of being a nation that adheres to rule of law to a nation adhering to arbitrary law. Under rule of law, the laws must be written, easy to understand, and equally applied to all. Under arbitrary law, the laws can and are whatever the tyrant declares, and they are applied on a selective and arbitrary basis. We are seeing the “applied on a selective basis” used by the federal authorities as they have determined that rioting and looting in different cities in the name of social justice is not a crime, while being in a group that openly opposed a corrupt election is criminal.
The United States has moved from a nation under rule of law to a nation under arbitrary law in the promise to transform the United States from an individualist nation to a collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat, - all virtually the same) nation.
On Wednesday evening Andrea Kaye asked me to join her on her radio show which airs each evening at 6 PST. You can easily find the program by using any search engine and simply search the Andrea Kaye Radio Show. She discusses current topics and refuses to be politically correct, but is very direct.
This particular evening, we discussed an interview that was conducted in 1984 when G. Edward Griffin interviewed a KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov, who had defected and went to Canada. Bezmenov explained the Soviet strategy of Ideological Subversion, which was the Soviets way of brainwashing people in other countries. He explained that 85% of this brainwashing is done in the open. After a time, for instance in the United States, the “brainwashing” would be done by Americans on Americans. What is happening in the United States verifies his claim.
After a time, Bezmenov stressed, “exposure to true information no longer matters. A person is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, he will refuse to believe until a military boot crushes him.”
There are four steps in this process of Ideological Subversion, according to Bezmonov. They are demoralizing (brainwashing), destabilization (what Marx called the destruction of society), crisis (where the control of the state can be greatly extended), and normalization (where the restrictions on freedom during the crisis period become a normal part of society).
What Bezmenov described has taken place and is taking place in the United States. This is what Obama referred to when he called for the transformation of the United States of America. Marx had stated in the 19th century that the United States would not become a communist nation by the means of a revolution but through a transformation.
Lenin began a concerted effort to transform the United States through this process of Ideological Subversion when he instituted the Communist International. Lenin said it was imperative that communists infiltrate and control education, the media, and the entertainment industry in the United States. This has been accomplished.
The Frankfurt school reinforced this transformation when it moved from Germany to Columbia University in the US in 1934. Its purpose was to undermine any aspect of Western culture that encourages personal independence so that, eventually, all citizens must be dependent on and obedient to the state. Communism was the goal but not by that name. Generally, this strategy is known as Cultural Marxism. It is also referred to today as social justice, equality, people’s rights, and critical race theory to name a few of the politically correct terms imposed on the American people by the Communist Party of the United States (Democrats).
This is real and it is happening every day. Bezmenov ended the interview by saying that people in the United States might think they are living in peace, but they are in fact in a state of war; an undeclared, total war against its basic principles and foundations.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.