EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL WAS ABOUT SAVING IRAN'S GOVERNMENT, SO THEY COULD CONTINUE TO AID TERRORISTSRead Now
What we now know is that the Obama regime schemed and lied to get approval on their Iran deal. The Obama regime claimed the Iran deal was good for the United States because they said the deal would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the next 10 years. That of course was a lie because the agreement did not provide a way to check on Iran and their nuclear activity, even though the Obama regime claimed before congress that it did.
Obama went above and beyond even what Iran had requested to secure the terrorist aiding Iranian government, including flying cash in the dead of night to them. We now know the reason Obama was so desperate to get the Iran deal done was to aid the Iranian terrorist sympathizers. The sanctions that had been imposed on Iran were working. Obama, being the dedicated communist and Islamic Jihadist sympathizer that he is, could not have that happen. If Iran had collapsed, the Islamic Jihadist movement to control the world and impose the Sharia law Obama apparently favors, would have been dealt a crippling blow.
We are seeing the results of the Trump administration’s actions in leaving the Iran deal and imposing new sanctions on the Iranian terrorist aiding government. The Iranian economy is plummeting, protests have been mounting against the government in full force. “The Iranian rial plunged to a record low against the U.S. dollar on the unofficial market on Sunday, continuing its slide amid fears of returning U.S. sanctions after President Donald Trump in May withdrew from a deal on the Tehran nuclear program,” Reuters reported.
“The dollar was being offered for as much as 87,000 rials, compared to around 75,500 on Thursday, the last trading day before Iran’s weekend, according to foreign exchange website Bonbast.com, which tracks the unofficial market.” According to NPR, this week’s protests in Tehran against the government were the biggest in years.
Now Trump must show support for the protestors, he must not let up on sanctions but instead add even more, and he must appeal to the few rational leaders in Europe to support him.
It is great to see ObamaCare coming apart. It is great to see massive socialist regulations and taxes reversed, it is great to see the United States removing itself from Globalist agreements like the Paris fiasco and the TPP fiasco, but to put the Iranian government in this precarious position is critical not only to the future of the United States and Europe, but also to the future of the world.
Comrade and Islamic Jihadist promoter Obama must be furious. My Freedom Loving American friends, the defeat of the useful idiot, Hillary Clinton, has renewed the call for freedom and liberty in the United States. Now is not the time to shrink from the battle. Now is the time to be emboldened in your dedicated and tireless efforts to set brush fires of freedom in the minds of men.
HEADLINE: Supreme Court Rules Public Sector Unions Can No Longer Extort Union Dues From Workers
REASONING AND IMPACT: The Supreme Court handed down it’s ruling in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, aka Janus.
STORY: The decision was 5-4, along familiar lines, with Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority.
The State’s extraction of agency fees from non-consenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled.
(a) Abood’s holding is inconsistent with standard First Amendment principles.
(1) Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns.
3. For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay
This is not a narrow decision. It means that virtually all attempts to mandate union membership or “agency fees” for non-members are now illegal. It means that, based on what we saw in Wisconsin, once coercion is removed, public sector unions wither. This is bad news for the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) machine and great news for freedom.
MY THOUGHTS: The decision was not a surprise given the addition of Gorsuch who has read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and understands them. The decision will have the same positive affect fighting for freedom and liberty that the Abood case had in advancing the Marxist/Progressive agenda.
My real question is how would an impartial and educated person whose duty and responsibility is to rule on what is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ever cast a vote in the minority in this case. The same question can be asked regarding the travel ban. The Constitution and the law in both cases is very clear.
The answer to my question is that the Marxist/Progressives believe that the ends justify the means. Their goal is take away all individual liberties and force conformity to their collectivist ideas. The minority in this case believes it is just for them to advance their agenda against the freedom of the individual regardless of what the Constitution and the law state. This is what is meant by a living document. The words are ignored, and the personal bias of the individual judge is substituted. The founders intended that the Judicial Branch of government be the weakest branch with the Legislative Branch being the strongest. The Legislative Branch has abdicated their role as strongest branch and only law-making branch while the Judicial Brand has usurped the power of the Legislative Branch and has become the primary law maker in the country. Consequently, the United States is abandoning the core principle of freedom, rule of law, and adopting the core rule of totalitarianism, arbitrary law.
Our founders warned us that our form of government would cease to exist when any branch of government began to exercise the duties and responsibilities of another. Shame on you SCOTUS minority for assisting in the totalitarian movement. Thank you majority and especially Justice Gorsuch for adhering to your Constitutional duties of adhering to the Constitution, including the Bill or Rights, in your rulings. Perhaps rule of law will be restored.
Because the United States has not built a wall on its southern border, the illegal immigration situation is about to get much worse. On July 1 Mexico is holding its elections and Communist Lopez Obrador is a clear favorite to win the race for President of Mexico. Obrador has been campaigning for President for many years. With the drug wars in Mexico and the corruption that is getting worse and worse, Obrador has gained in popularity and is the odds-on favorite to win.
About a year ago, Lopez Obrador told reporters at the National Press Club in Washington that poor distribution of income and bad tax policies, not immigrants, are the cause of economic distress.
"President Trump's approach of blaming migrants for the problems of the United States has been excessive. We will not allow that, you can't implement a campaign of hate against Mexicans because that is neofascism," he said.
Lopez Obrador warned that the Trump administration must change its tune on migrants. "I have no doubt that it was an inhuman campaign and politicking. Since it worked in the last election, they think with that propaganda they will consolidate and achieve reelection. I think they are making a mistake, and it is something that cannot be allowed," he said referring to the United States election of 2017.
Lopez Obrador, in denouncing the current immigration policies of the Untied States and the long overdo building of a wall to control illegal immigration into the United States but said nothing about opening Mexico’s southern border to any and all who want to enter and stay in Mexico.
Illegal immigration is a problem worldwide. George Soros , the hierarchy of the European Union, and the array of other Globalists have been promoting open borders throughout the world. The position of the Globalists is now being rejected in many European countries with the most recent to be Italy electing a closed border government. Even more surprising is that the government of Angela Merkel in Germany is about to collapse because of Merkel’s hard line stance on open borders.
With the almost certainty of a Communist open border advocate being elected in Mexico in July, the result in the United States could be an ever faster growing demand for a secure southern border. This could and should cause a disastrous result for the Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrat) in the United States in the November midterms. The most favorable result would be a strong gain in the house of conservatives, so a true conservative could be elected Speaker and an overwhelming win in the Senate that would give the Republicans a 63-seat majority. It is necessary to have a couple extra votes in the Senate because of the number of useful idiots that sit in the Senate and call themselves Conservative.
Since 1977 Unions have been able to collect fees from workers and use those fees to contribute to Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) candidates who would support the ideals set forth by Karl Marx; domination by the state and the minimization of the individual with the collective supporting the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” This is consistent with all Marx said, especially since Marx viewed the union as the core of his dictatorship.
SCOTUS is expected to release its ruling on a case known as Janus vs AFSCME. Mark Janus sued the union saying he should not have to pay union dues because he does not support the union nor its political views. SCOTUS is expected to rule in favor of Janus. If they do it is expected that the unions, especially public employee unions will have a dramatic drop in dues.
In Wisconsin, union membership has plummeted in the in the wake of the Act 10 and the right-to-work reforms led by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled Legislature. The most recent data show union membership statewide has declined from 354,882 members in 2010 to 218,233 in 2016, a decline of 38.5 percent. Act 10, passed and signed in 2011, broadly limited the power of public sector unions, returning control to the taxpayer. It also gave public sector employees the right to decide whether they wanted to continue to pay the union dues that they had so long been forced to contribute, or whether they wanted to remain in the union at all.
As a double whammy, if SCOTUS rules as it should, that is against the unions, the unions will be facing Class-action lawsuits that have been filed targeting unions in seven states ahead of the SCOTUS decision release. Public-sector workers are aiming to recoup back wages they paid to labor unions.
The lawsuits targeting eight unions have been filed in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Maryland, California, and Washington.
Former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell filed each of the suits. "Janus" is the most serious threat yet to unions given the likelihood that the Supreme Court will overturn its own 1977 "Abood" decision that mandatory "fair share" fees are constitutional even if workers decided against joining the union.
The unions will lose current revenue and could be forced to reimburse. This should greatly curtail the funds that Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) candidates receive. As you will notice, each of the states facing the class action law suits are dominated by Marxist policies. Hopefully we will be able to say “Thank you Janus” and thank you SCOTUS for ruling for freedom and liberty.
PROPAGANDA DOES WORKRead Now
Propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Diversion is often used in conjunction with propaganda. Diversion is that which draws the attention and force of an enemy from the point of the principal operation. We have seen the skillful use of both propaganda and diversion by the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) machine this week.
The IG report was released, and any logical reading of the IG report exposes how both the DOJ and the FBI have been transformed from purveyors of justice to political arms of the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) in their effort to transform the United States from a free and independent people to serfs and servants of a Marxist totalitarian state. In addition, we learned that Susan Rice stopped, for political purposes, the work on exposing Russian interference in the election.
Instead, all of the United States was focused on issues that defined propaganda and successfully diverted discussion form real matters that undermine the very basic of a free society, rule of law. Yes friends, you are included in those who enabled themselves to be diverted if you discussed the fabricated family separation crisis at the border, Melanie Trump’s jacket, Kirstjen Nielsen or Sarah Sanders experiences at different restaurants, or some comment made by some celebrity who has never read much less understands the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, of The Federalist Papers.
This is an article from Red State which is well worth your reading as it exposes propaganda and diversion while reporting on critical information that every American should know and probably less than 10 per cent have seen.
The left certainly outdid themselves last week. From activists chanting “shame, shame, shame” at DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in a DC restaurant and Time Magazine’s deceitful cover, to former Sex and the City actress and current New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon calling ICE a “terrorist organization,” liberals really went into overdrive. Were they trying to call attention away from what should have been a bigger story?
Nearly lost in the cacophony was the testimony of former Obama administration cyber security coordinator Michael Daniel before the Senate Intelligence Committee, confirming that he was told by Susan Rice to “stand down” in his efforts to thwart Russian meddling in our 2016 election.
The FBI had recently begun their counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s possible collusion with the Russians. If administration officials were so worried about Russian influence, why would they issue such an order?
Although Hillary had a significant lead in the polls at that time, they still needed to lay the groundwork for what FBI official Peter Strzok referred to as their “insurance” policy. Considered in this context, the order starts to make sense.
Strzok sent the following text to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, his paramour, in August 2016.
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.
“Andy” refers to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who denied participating in such a discussion when questioned by Inspector General Michael Horowitz (IG). Strzok claims McCabe was there.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wants to know which one is lying and asked the IG, as he testified before Congress last week, to “hand over” the pertinent documents, saying:
I believe it would be of grave consequence if the Deputy Director of the FBI met with the lead investigator of the Clinton Email and Russia investigations to talk about ‘an insurance policy’ against Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. That would show bias and inappropriate behavior at the highest levels of the FBI.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) also questioned the IG about the insurance policy.
Mr. Inspector General, that is two weeks into an investigation, and he is talking about taking out an insurance policy because he can’t fathom the target of his investigation possibly becoming the president.
Finally, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked the IG about it. I think a lot of regular folks would interpret that as more than just casting a cloud on what the FBI ultimately did. I mean, it’s one thing to say, ‘Trump’s an idiot’; it’s another thing to say, ‘We’ve got an insurance policy.’
Journalists Michael Isikoff and David Corn co-authored a book entitled “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump. The book made the claim that Susan Rice, obviously acting on Obama’s behalf, issued the stand down order in August 2016, shortly after the Obama FBI had opened their investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russians, and at the same time Strzok was texting Page about the insurance policy. Excerpts from The Daily Caller’s report follow:
Daniel was developing strategies to respond to Russian cyber-attacks on U.S. companies and political campaigns. He proposed using what’s known as denial of service attacks to take down Russian propaganda news sites and to attack Russian intelligence agencies.
Another idea was to announce a bogus “cyber exercise” against a Eurasian country. The goal was to put the Kremlin on notice that it’s infrastructure could easily be targeted by the U.S.
Rice opposed the proposals, according to “Russian Roulette.”
“Don’t get ahead of us,” she told Daniel in a meeting in August 2016, according to the book.
Daniel informed his staff of the order, much to their frustration.
“I was incredulous and in disbelief,” Daniel Prieto, who worked under Daniel, is quoted saying in “Russian Roulette.”
“Why the hell are we standing down? Michael, can you help us understand?” Prieto asked.
Daniel confirmed the exchange on Wednesday, during a round of questions from Idaho Sen. Jim Risch.
“That is an accurate rendering of the conversation at the staff meeting,” he testified.
“You were told to stand down, is that correct?” Risch, a Republican, asked Daniel.
“Those actions were put on the back burner, yes. That was not the focus of our activity during that time period,” Daniel replied.
He noted the White House cybersecurity team did continue working to respond to Russia, but with a smaller staff and a less aggressive approach.
“It’s not accurate to say that all activity ceased at that point,” he said, declining to describe the activities in an unclassified hearing.
Coincidence? Every step ever taken by the Obama administration was calculated and deliberate.
AND NO OUTRAGERead Now
Our government is under siege. We the people can no longer trust our law enforcement agencies, our legislative branch, and our judicial branch. It does appear that other department and agencies of our executive branch have also been infiltrated, but the Trump administration is exposing those who would subvert “rule of law”.
The question is: Did FBI Officials Tamper With Documents, Withhold Information and Fail to Collect Evidence That Might Incriminate Hillary?
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded in his report that, although many FBI officials involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation harbored intense anti-Trump bias, he found no “evidence” that it affected their key decisions in the case. The abundant circumstantial evidence cited in the report as well as his testimony before Congress this week, point to the opposite conclusion.
One Senator brought up one incident after another of unethical, improper behavior on the part of FBI officials during Monday’s hearing, he asked the IG, “How did you feel about that?” Horowitz continually responded with, “We were very concerned.” Finally, the Senator said, “Eventually ‘very concerned’ gets to be ‘enough already.’”
We now learn that there was also an exchange of information between a Clinton staff worker and Loretta Lynch that cannot be revealed because it is highly classified. The implication can only be that the information would incriminate individuals that the FBI and DOJ were protecting as well as high officials within the FBI and DOJ.
The pattern that has been formed over the years is that members of a political party in the legislative branch will block any honest investigation that will damage their aspirations to gain or keep political power and will be quietly dropped into the swamp even though it subverts “rule of law” and undermines our constitution. The political party will be helped but the freedoms of the American people will again greatly suffer. The legislative branch, like our law enforcement agencies within the executive branch, will once again place the good of a political agenda over the Constitution of the United States.
If one party feels they might not be able to “cover up” damaging evidence, they go will to some district judge who, for political purposes will issue some order way beyond their constitutional duty to protect a political ideology.
What is now routine within the United States is the practice of “arbitrary law.” This is the practice that is consistent with dictatorial regimes. That would imply the United States is becoming a dictatorial regime and not a free and independent people. Unlike the conclusion drawn by the IG, his conclusion was drawn to protect the subversive actions of individuals, my conclusion is logical and just.
We the people have justifiably lost confidence in our government. The only way that confidence can be restored is if a committee of We the People is appointed to investigate in totality our government. The individuals of the We the People committee could not now or ever have any attachment to what has become a deep and vile swamp that is Washington DC. The sooner this can be accomplished the better are the chances that our Constitution, which was adopted for the sole purpose of protecting the people’s rights, will be restored.
We are in the throes of a revolution. Those who abhor the very principles upon which our nation was founded are waging a full scale and constant attack on the very foundation of our nation. The core principles of individualism, rule of law, limited government, divided government, and sovereignty of the people, essential to a free society, cannot exist under the desired society of the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) and their allies the useful idiots so prevalent within the Republican establishment. We constantly and consistently see attacks on individual freedoms essential to freedom, such as attacks on free speech, free assembly, ownership and control of private property, freedom to worship the God of the Bible, and freedom to control your own life by making your own decisions.
This is not some haphazard attack occurring. It is a very orchestrated attack by people who are extremely adept at manipulating public opinion. The very core of our society is being destroyed. Devoted Communists such as Obama, Jarrett, Holder, and many of the Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrats) understand this is a necessity. They are following the directive of Marx by destroying current society, so they can rebuild society as a Communist society or as Marx said a Classless society.
To accomplish their end, they are skillfully employing the principles outlined by Marx as well as the manipulation methods of Alinsky. Marx stated that borders between nations must be abolished and all must be able to cross any boundary if that enables them to find their happiness. Alinsky taught Obama, who was designated by Alinsky’s son as the best pupil the school ever had, how to manipulate public opinion to enable the elimination of national borders.
Marx also said that it is essential to abolish all long-standing principles, morality, and God based religion. The principles of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, must be rendered meaningless. The Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrats) are accomplishing this mandate by telling us these documents are living documents and can mean anything we want them to mean. The result is these documents no longer have any meaning. The moral structure of right and wrong that had guided our society is no longer a guide since the Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrats) have us believing there is no right or wrong since all is relative and dependent on what makes one feel good. God and believers are openly under attack by the government, by society, and by churches. We are becoming that atheist society Marx said was essential for his Classless society.
We are in the throes of a revolution through the very transformation outlined by Marx and promised by Comrade Obama. Those who would proclaim their adamant opposition to Marxism and Communism are helping and enabling this transformation to a Marxist society. Those who would proclaim their adamant opposition to this transformation are willingly enabling this movement by succumbing to the Alinsky tactic of demonizing and shaming any that would support and demand the continued adherence to the principles that made the United States the envy of the world; individualism, rule of law, limited government, divided government, and sovereignty by the people.
Do not be used as a “useful idiot” by this clever and dangerous movement that wishes to destroy our society, so they can rebuild it in the failed ways of those others who have tried to bring about Marx’s Classless society in the recent past. My experience is that those who claim to oppose this transformation called for by Obama, only understand this devastating movement based on a “bumper sticker” mentality. This understanding is wholly inadequate. Every day we witness further erosion of our fundamental freedoms given to us by our Creator but being usurped by man and our government. Those in opposition to the Marxist philosophy do not recognize this erosion and in many situations voice support of that erosion.
History would show that only one of two things can happen; the erosion will continue until we are completely transformed to that Marxist totalitarian state as prophesied and desired by Comrade Obama, or those who proclaim to be lovers of freedom will educate themselves to understand the constant erosion of their freedoms and take the same stand as did our founders; “give me liberty or give me death.” We must understand when that awakening occurs that the odds are also against our success just as the odds were against the American Rebels. Those odds did not deter the American Rebel in their quest for freedom. Let us also be American Rebels and demand that America returns to the Freedoms for which those Rebels paid such a high price.
In his farewell address, President Washington cautioned against three interrelated dangers that threatened to destroy the Union: regionalism, partisanship, and foreign entanglements. He warned his countrymen not to let regional loyalties overwhelm national attachments: “The name of American…must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” At this time, many Americans primarily identified with their state or region, but Washington reminded the citizenry not to allow such attachments to divide them, lest “designing men” convince them that differing local interests made the Union unworkable or unnecessary.
In particular, Washington feared that geographic identities would serve as the foundation for the development of political parties. Indeed, this process had already begun with the emergence of the New England Federalists and Southern Democratic-Republicans. While we currently view partisanship as inseparable from the American political process, in the early republic, most condemned parties as divisive, disruptive, and the tools of demagogues seeking power. “Factionalism,” as contemporaries called it, encouraged the electorate to vote based on party loyalty rather than the common good. Washington feared that partisanship would lead to a “spirit of revenge” in which party men would not govern for the good of the people, but only to obtain and maintain their grip on power. As a result, he warned Americans to guard against would-be despots who would use parties as “potent engines…to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.”
This statement, while we currently view partisanship as inseparable from the American political process, in the early republic, most condemned parties as divisive, disruptive, and the tools of demagogues seeking power, is once again happening on Capitol Hill. I have had some time to listen to the IG Report hearings taking place. It is so apparent these hearings, as have others in the past, have nothing to do with the topic at hand but are used to push partisanship and political agendas. The topic of the IG Report is about the bias of the hierarchy in the FBI, not whether it existed or not, but did it have an influence on the conduct during the investigation of Clinton and the conclusions drawn.
In the House hearing, Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Cummings gave his opening remarks and did not mention the report or the conduct of the FBI officials who conducted the Clinton investigation, but instead condemned the Trump administration for alleged wrong doing in what appears to be a manufactured crisis on the Southern border. Cummings had no interest in learning why the IG found what he found. Cummings only interest was in scoring political points and castigating the current administration which is of the opposite political party.
In today’s environment, there is nothing we American citizens can do that does not have political overtones, politics stretches into every facet of our lives. The conversation is never centered on whether or not the action or lack thereof is in the best interest of the United States, but is instead centered on whether this is good for the political party. Cummings is and always been an advocate for the advancement of his political agenda as opposed to learning facts and drawing reasonable conclusions. He is the extreme. His extremism would be mitigated if he was not placed in powerful positions and if others would not follow his lead but instead insist on placing the interests of the United States above the advancement of political ideology.
But then, we must remember that there is a political party in the United States who wants to see the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights rendered meaningless. A logical conclusion can be reached from their actions that they wish to see the fundamental transformation called for by Comrade Obama, that is a transformation from a free and independent nation to a Marxist totalitarian state, completed.
Here is an excerpt of a panel discussion recently. Jason Chavetz and Ann Coulter were on the panel. This is what they had to say:
“You see that with the left and the elite conservatives in the Republican Party that don’t want an honest dialogue about the successes of this president,” said Chaffetz. “Instead of joining together and moving forward with specific goals to restore getting wins in the midterms, they are being disruptive in a haphazard way.”
Coulter took her disdain to a deeper level.
“I completely agree with you that we need to disband the official Republican Party. That was the point you were making, and I completely agree. I’m sorry Representative,” Coulter said, turning to Chaffetz.
I was stunned the other day when I heard Kevin McCarthy call himself a conservative. But then, I should not have been since people like Ryan, McConnell, and McCain have also referred to themselves as conservative.
The media and most of America would have us believe that the Republican Party is a party for the conservative and the Democrat party is a party for the liberal. Both assertions are incorrect. The Democrat Party has become a party that supports the doctrines of Karl Marx and the implementations of said doctrines. The Republican Party has become a party of useful idiots that would profess they oppose Marxist doctrine but will willing compromise what they claim to believe so they are not viewed derogatorily be the politically correct forces. That defines the Republican establishment members like McCarthy, Ryan, McConnell, and McCain as “useful idiots” by the left and liars by conservatives.
An Individualist (Conservative) and Collectivist (Democrat, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, and Liberal) can be differentiated by how they view the rights and responsibilities of the individual and how they view the powers and limitations of government.
The Conservative views the development of the individual as not being something that can be directed by outside forces. Every individual, for their own good and for the good of society, is responsible for their own development. The choices that govern their life are choices they must make; they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collective of human beings such as government. The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals within the confines of a social order.
The Collectivist views the federal government as the whole people organized to do what must be done. The useful idiot says that if a job must be done to meet the need of the whole people, then it is the proper function of the federal government to meet that need. As you can see, there is not much difference between the two. As you can also see, neither of these falls under the definition of limited government nor do they adhere to the limitations of government in the United States Constitution.
The Constitution was drafted for the sole purpose of limiting the role of government and protecting the freedom of the individual. Government, throughout history has always been the single biggest threat to the freedom. The Conservative will always place the freedom of the individual above the mandates of government. He who supports the growth of government, both financially and in scope, is not an Individualist or a Conservative.
The Republican Establishment now advocates for the growth of government financially and in scope. We Conservatives, if we are to adhere to our belief in the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, we must denounce the Republican Establishment and promote a Republican Party that adheres to that overwhelming principle that our freedoms are from our Creator and not from man; the role of government is to protect those freedoms and not to infringe upon them or to totally nullify them.
This is what I believe both Chavetz and Coulter were advocating.
Rule of Law is as essential to a free society as is freedom of speech and assembly. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have openly stated their opposition to freedom of speech with their support for organizations like BLM and Antifa. Both organizations use despotic tactics to enforce the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) and tyrannical doctrine of total conformity. Marx explained that in the fundamental transformation called for by Comrade Obama, despotic means would have to be used to bring about the Marxist totalitarian state which mandates total conformity. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are being good soldiers.
Freedom of speech, thought, assembly, and the legal right to investigate and arrive at your own conclusions is essential to a free society. Those on the right have learned it is essential to protect the freedoms of all, including those who disagree with them. Freedom Loving Americans understand that to maintain freedom means the protection of our God given rights for all.
Now we find the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) supporting the total and complete breakdown of another essential principle to freedom, rule of law. The recently released IG report clearly shows that members of both the DOJ and the FBI ignored the law and showed bias that “greatly influenced” their findings and subsequent proceedings for the sole purpose of protecting an individual who they believed would continue the transformation of the United States to a Marxist totalitarian state that was so greatly enhanced by Comrade Obama. This is the exact opposite of what the law enforcement agencies of a free nation should do.
If these law enforcement agencies were protectors of and advocates for rule of law, they would have ignored the name and position of the person connected with the crime they were investigating. The political prejudices of the hierarchy of these law enforcement agencies are contributing to the destruction of freedom as much as are BLM and Antifa.
The members of the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are openly advocating for the elimination of rule of law and implementing the totalitarian mandated principle of arbitrary law. Arbitrary law is the principle of using law in an arbitrary manner to gain the results you desire and not the results as mandated by impartially applying the law.
The IG’s report uses hard evidence to show the bias and partiality applied by members of both the DOJ and the FBI. An individual who loves freedom would draw a conclusion from the hard evidence. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have instead chosen to ignore the hard evidence, as did the OJ jury, as did Comey, and arrived at a conclusion, ignoring evidence and facts, that protects their transformation movement.
The IG said that he found no documentary evidence that stated imperially the DOJ or FBI stated they were arriving at their decision because, even though the evidence clearly points to guilt, they do not want the person to be found guilty because of their position and influence. This is the same as the OJ jury saying that OJ could not be guilty because he did not specifically say, “I killed those two people," even though the evidence clearly pointed to his guilt.
The IG came to a conclusion based on his imperial evidence. He did not have a recording or a written document that stated the DOJ or FBI would ignore the facts and arrive at a conclusion that promoted their personal prejudices, even though they openly stated their political prejudices.
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) by twisting the stated conclusion of the IG, are openly advocating for the breakdown of rule of law just as they are openly advocating for the elimination of freedom of speech. A reasonable conclusion from these facts would be that the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are openly advocating for the elimination of freedom and the implementation of a Marxist totalitarian state where all conform to their way of thinking.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.