American Justice? Maybe

 

American Justice?  Maybe.

by Mustang

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” —Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

John Locke

 

The roots of such thinking was John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, wherein he argued that political society existed for the sake of protecting property, which is to say, life, liberty, and estate.  He also argued that a magistrate’s power must be limited to preserving an individual’s civil interests, which he reiterated as life, “liberty, health, and indolency of body and the passage of outward things.”

So the phrasing of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence relied upon this thinking to proclaim these goals on behalf of British colonists demanding (well, at least a third of them) their independence from the British Crown.

Through the years, Americans conclude that we are, therefore, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … happiness being to acquire and maintain property, which was back then, the source of all material wealth.

There ae no absolutes, however.  We may be entitled to pursue happiness, but the government has the power to take away our happiness for its own purposes.  In law,eminent domain is the power of government (local, state, federal) to seize private property while offering the landowner fair compensation —the word fair meaning “according to the government’s determination.”

This right of eminent domain may be delegated to private corporations when they are able to argue that their use of our property fulfills a public good—which also means “economic development” because it is assumed that land development is good for the public.  This may, in fact, be true … but should economic development usurp the inalienable right of citizens to their property?

Bush the Younger said no … he signed an executive order limiting federal seizures to public-use arguments, but his order has no effect on what states and local municipalities may do.  A state, country, city, or town may seize private property for their own purposes and pay the unwilling owner of the property a fair market value for that property.  Then they may turn around and sell that seized property to a developer, who then makes a fortune on land that he was never entitled to.

Pursuit of happiness?  Really?  Whose happiness?

This discussion fits nicely into the question of whether a citizen may sue the government.  The answer is, no … a citizen may not sue the federal or a state government without that government’s permission.  And the government may seize our private property, which is done more often than the average citizen may think.

You own a recreational vehicle and for ten months of the year, you lease it to others.  One of these renters is stopped for speeding along Interstate 10.  During the stop, police alert to the odor of marijuana.  A lawful search is conducted and not only do the police determine the presence of marijuana residue, they also find some quantity of another illegal substance.  Sorry Charlie … you just lost your motor home.  Federal, state, or local police seized it.  It will be auctioned off and you’ll continue making monthly payments.  Police can do the same thing to a house you’ve rented out to others.

Is this fair treatment, or does it fly in the face of our inherent right to happiness?

What does the good book tell us about justice?  “Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you.”  — Deuteronomy 16:20.

 

Mustang has other great reads over at his two blogs – Thoughts from Afar

with Old West Tales and Fix Bayonets

Advertisements

Congressional Dishonesty

 

Congressional Dishonesty

by Mustang

Whenever someone violates an oath or a vow, either by swearing to what is untrue, or through omission (concealing truth), intentional or otherwise, or to fail to do what has been promised under oath, they are guilty of false swearing.  In our judicial system, we call this perjury.

 

 

It is a felony, punishable by fines or imprisonment.  We’ve even seen where high-ranking officials have been sent to jail for lying to federal law enforcement officers.  As an aside, the prefix per– in Latin means “harmful,” so whenever someone perjures themselves, they do harm to the truth.  Not all lying is perjury —only lying under oath or lying to a member of the FBI.  Now, of course, a person may avoid perjury by refusing to make an oath, or in law enforcement or judicial matters (including testimony in congress) by claiming his or her right against self-incrimination.

What brought me to this discussion was the post of a few days back about the recently elected and seated member of Congress, Rashida Tlaib.  The oath she took reads as follows:

“I, (State your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

This oath, by the way, is required:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” — U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3

Not everyone back then agreed.  During the Constitutional Convention, the question arose, should an oath be required at all in a free country?  James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, said that oaths only provided “left-handed security.”  A good government, he argued, did not need an oath, and a bad government ought not be supported at all.  Noah Webster agreed with Wilson when he said that oaths were instruments of slavery and a badge of folly.

People would be naturally inclined to support just government, so oaths were unnecessary.  Wilson served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, so I suppose to a man who committed treason against his king may not be inclined to offer an oath of allegiance.  The Supreme Court finally got around to addressing this issue in 1833, when Justice Joseph Story opined that requiring officials to take an oath “would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it.”

All of this happened before there were Moslems in America working to undermine Republican Democracy.  A politically incorrect person, such as I, might observe that these Moslems are really no more than wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.

In any case, researching back to the Clinton administration, I could find only one member of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch convicted of perjury.  Judge Thomas Porteous (D) (a Clinton appointee) for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas was convicted of perjury in 2010.

Now a quick word about Taqiyya (spelled in several ways).  It is a practice emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their true religious purposes to avoid persecution, prosecution, or compulsion.  It has been politically legitimized among Moslems in order to maintain unity and fraternity among Moslems of all sects.  One Moslem scholar (teaching at Columbia) explained, “Taqiyya is an Islamic judicial term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Moslem is allowed, under Sharia Law, to lie.  It is a concept whose meaning has varied significantly among Islamic sects, scholars, countries, and political regimes, and it has become a key term used by anti-Moslem polemicists.”  Imagine a judicial system that allows dishonesty …

We could all agree that whenever a member of Congress takes the oath of office and then violates that oath, then that person has committed perjury.  They lied.  They either lied overtly or through omission, and for intentions that act against the interests of the United States Constitution and the citizens of the United States.

Yet, over the past three decades, people in power routinely ignore the lies told by others —especially within their own party or administration, because who wants to admit publicly that they support telling lies, or misstatements, or concealing the truth?  Where we are today is in a land called word-play.  Lying has become “mis-speaking,” or “spin.”  But a lie is a lie, and concealing the truth is a lie.  A lie is unacceptable under any scenario, but apparently, only if one is actually able to utter the word, “lie.”  If not, then “spin” is perfectly acceptable —to people who lie.

Rashida Tlaib at the Islamic Society of North America

Now to the issue of Rashida Tlaib: she took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (not defend it, of course).  No sooner had she taken that oath, she turned around and threatened an innocent man with congressional impeachment, adding in a bit of profanity unacceptable under any circumstances, and in so doing, given her position as a member of Congress, assumed the guilt of a man who under the law of the land is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

None of this may matter, though … since even if we had an honest and forthright House of Representatives, there are no real punishments for lying to Congress if you happen to be a member of Congress.  The only sanctions offered by the House Ethics Committee are censure, reprimand, and expulsion.  In the entire history of the Congress, only five members have been expelled, all of whom were Democrats: three were expelled during the Civil War for violating their oaths to the US Constitution by joining the Confederacy, and two after being convicted of bribery during judicial proceedings (1980, 2002).  This is not to say that members haven’t been “reprimanded,” but nothing more drastic as punishment than having to write an essay and pay back the money you stole.

I’m not happy with people, particularly Moslems, who become members of our government and then begin to work against the interests of the American people.  They take oaths, then violate them, and no one ever holds them to account.  Since there are no real punishment for lying in Congress, it is no surprise to find so much dishonesty in that body.  No wonder the American people have such disdain for the Congress of the United States.  They’re liars.

 

Just who is Rashida Tlaib – of the vulgar impeachment remark fame?

 

By now most of us have heard of Rashida Tlaib, famous for her vulgar impeachment screed made recently. But just who is this piece of work? No surprise really. A Soros sponsored anti-Semitic Muslim for Congress gal. Let’s take a quick look. No doubt just a beginning.

Congresswoman-elect Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) did not disclose the name of the source of funds for a fellowship that was paid by liberal billionaire George Soros—as required by the House ethics committee—and also disclosed a lesser amount than she received, according to a review of tax and financial disclosure forms. (She of course will get a pass.)

The Washington Free Beacon obtained the most recent copies of tax forms for a number of Soros’s organizations, including the Open Society Institute, the legal name for the Open Society Foundations, the entity in which Soros pushes millions in funding to a number of liberal causes and organizations.

An expenditure of $85,307 to Rashida Tlaib in Detroit, Mich., from 2017 is shown on page 97 of the 321-page report to “increase involvement of disenfranchised urban communities of color with their local governance process by creating a community benefits strategy for equitable development and creating a leadership training for impacted residents focused on negotiation skills and identifying leverage at the local level.”

Tlaib did not report any income in the amount of $85,307 on financial disclosure forms submitted as she was running for office, which identified the names of the sources that provided her income in three of four cases.

However, the fourth reported source of earned income is marked as a “Leadership in Government Fellowship,” but does not identify who provided the payment.

A press release from 2016 shows that Tlaib was chosen for a “leadership in government” fellowship by Soros’s Open Society Foundations along with seven other individuals.

Tlaib was paid $139,873 by Soros’s group in 2016, tax forms show. Between 2016 and 2017, Tlaib received a total of $225,180

More at Free Beacon

This just tops off the story.

Supreme Court Endorses Political Corruption

 

High Court Endorses Political Corruption

By Mustang

Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts was underwhelming in his acceptance of the so-called Obama Healthcare Plan. It is a tax, he said, and the federal government is permitted under the Constitution to tax the bejesus out of the American people. Well, no conservative he, and I personally think he was stretching a bit to find that the ACA was constitutional. It was, after all, far more than a tax. I conclude that Judge Roberts, like everyone in congress who voted for it, never read the law before he made his decision. Well, what did we expect? He was a Bush appointee.

But Roberts really outdid himself in the McDonnell Decision.

One may recall that while serving as Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell solicited a fifty-thousand-dollar loan from Jonnie R. Williams. He then texted an aide about making damn sure that Williams got the meetings he wanted with Virginia state officials. McDonnell didn’t stop there. He also accepted as a gift a Rolex watch, a $20,000 loan, and the payment for the catering bill for his daughter’s wedding. Mrs. McDonnell (Virginia’s first lady) was the individual who suggested to Williams that her husband needed a new watch —and, presumably, a Timex wouldn’t do. Well, and while she was at it,

Maureen could use a new wardrobe totaling $20,000. Considering all of Mr. Williams’ gifts, the McDonnell’s accepted $175,000.00. Most of us would conclude that there may not be a clearer case of political corruption: facilitating access to state officials in return for a very large chunk of change and a few trinkets. It sounds corrupt to me.

But this isn’t how Chief Justice Roberts viewed it.

The court ruled that the Virginia jury was wrong to think that Governor McDonnell’s actions constituted “official corruption.” The McDonnell conviction was overturned —and in the process, the Supreme Court established a new standard for determining the government corruption —a standard so narrow that it will, in the future, be difficult to convict any but the most incompetent of our politicians.

While an official act can still be illegal, the definition of that term has been excessively broad. Something as commonplace as an executive turning to an aide and telling him or her to make something happen or accepting a check and then having a quiet word with government regulators, or even a suggestion to subordinates that a door ought to be opened for an influence-buyer does not, in and of itself, represent an official act.

No, of course not.

Chief Justice Roberts opined that an official act “must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee.”

What?

Right —in the absence of a gavel, there is no bribery or corruption. I’ll call this the smoking gavel rule. Roberts said that bribery is “the kind of thing that can be put on an agenda, tracked for progress, and then checked off as complete.”

Well, I suppose the court is at least consistent. In the Citizens-United case, the court allowed rich people to purchase politicians. Now they are able to purchase office-holders as well. One pundit suggested that the high court was worried that if the McDonnell conviction was upheld, all of our politicians would begin to live in a state of fear (as opposed, to say, strutting around like the arrogant asses they are), sure that almost anyone could go to prison for being corrupt. God forbid that should ever happen.

Justice Roberts wrote, “Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time.” If McDonnell’s conviction was upheld, it would “cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships.” He added, “officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse.”

Has America’s high court come to accept the premise that corrupt politics is simply how politics is done? It is certainly true that trading cash, favors, trips to Europe, expensive gifts and gifts of underage prostitutes is a common occurrence in our government today. Interestingly, during the court’s deliberations, it accepted a number of amicus briefs from White House lawyers who argued that the business of politics, as we know it, would be disturbed if the McDonnell decision were upheld. What White House lawyers? I don’t know their names, but it was during the Obama administration.

Bottom line: influence peddling as a form of corruption has been upheld by the highest court in the land. To everyone imagining that the Supreme Court was our last hope for a just America —think again.

The Goal of Socialism is……..?

 

The Goal of Socialism…..

 

by Mustang

… is communism.  We know this because Vladimir Lenin told us so.  After all, if anyone should know, it would be the man who first implemented the inane notions of Karl Marx and Frederick Ingles.  If we fast forward through the next 100 years, we’ll find the result of communism has been somewhere on the order of one-hundred-million deaths.  I suspect that a socialist might argue, “Well, if you wanted to avoid 100-million deaths, all you had to do was sit down, shut up, and do what you’re told.”

The facts about socialism and communism are sufficiently dismal to make me wonder why any American would wish to pursue a socialist agenda.

I was reading a commentary at AOW’s blog the other day.  Writer “Silverfiddle” reminded us that the Democratic Party is home to leftwing mob violence.  He’s right about that, and so too is a commenter named Sam, who wrote:

Marxist/leftist theory is only the tip of the iceberg.  What follows theory is the leftist program, which defines the aims of the movement, provides a strategy to implement the program, and offers the tactics to set civil unrest and discord into motion.  This is not something new, and it is not new inside the borders of the United States.  It’s been going on for quite a while.

It is also quite complex, involving main and auxiliary organizations.  If we pull back the cover of leftist activism, we will find that there are differences in tactics that depend upon the social group that is intended to implement them: one set for disaffected blacks, another for illegal aliens, another for slow-thinking college students, another for unions, and so on.

Tactics may also include regional differences.  But we can say for certain there is a method to the leftist madness—and there are no shortages of examples where the communist left has provoked civil unrest all the way back to the late 19th Century.

In the modern sense, the underlying strategy is one of terror, which places the American communist left in the same camp as Islamic radicals.  As Silverfiddle has said, disagree with any mind-numbing leftist contention and you run the risk of being assaulted.

I’ve asked this question before (admittedly a rhetorical one): why would any thinking American EVER vote for a Democrat?  The answer is that a thinking American wouldn’t —but we don’t have a plethora of these sitting around waiting to vote patriotism, do we?

I have no crystal ball, so I think the upcoming mid-term elections will be instructive to all of us.  The worst thing that could happen is that conservatives will stay home on election day.  If that happens, the communists will reclaim the House of Representatives.  I wish I had more confidence in the American electorate, but I don’t.  What is it?  Only 42% of registered voters even bother to vote?  If the statistic is true, we should worry about the upcoming election.  Maybe I will develop more confidence if conservative Americans are able to maintain its control of the Congress.

Will you vote in the mid-terms?

Life —it’s all about them

 

Gwyneth Paltrow

By Mustang

It’s pretty amazing when you think about it … how rich and arrogant leftists are, how they will do anything to enrich themselves further, all the while pretending that they give a damn about “the people.”  I read this example of financial greed a week or so ago … thought I’d share.

The actress Gwyneth Paltrow (a leftist-weirdo if ever there was one) wasn’t content to rake in millions in the film industry, so she started a company called Goop.  No, really —that’s what she calls it.  The company sells “healthful” products to help the little people. She calls it her lifestyle brand.  Some examples of her products include GTOX 5-salt detox body scrub, Martini Emotional Detox Bath Soak, Replenishing Night Crème, and Revitalizing Day Moisturizer.  She calls one wellness product He Shou Wu rejuvenation tonic; it’s a supplement selling for about $73.00.  You can get a charcoal stick for just under $30 —but I’m not quite sure what you’re supposed to do with it.

A British newspaper recently described the Paltrow products as Gobbledy-Goop and they’ve called her out on some of her ridiculous claims.  Ignoring these criticisms, she actually appeared on BBC to defend her brand, even claiming that the company hires its own scientists to help develop quality products.

Perhaps Gwyneth misspoke; perhaps she meant to say that her company hires its own pseudoscientists.  Real scientists are telling BBC that Paltrow’s claims are only this: fraudulent.  Dr. Edzard Ernst, who is an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Exeter said, “The only evidence her products are supported is that they render Mrs. Paltrow richer and her gullible customers a little poorer.”  Dr. Les Rose, a retired medical researcher added, “This subculture of alternative health is actually very harmful.”

Well, no matter … Paltrow won’t be dissuaded.  “We really believe there are healing modalities that have existed for thousands of years and they challenge maybe a conventional western doctor that might not believe necessarily in the healing powers of essential oils or any variety of acupuncture —things that have been tried and tested for hundreds of years … and we find that they are very helpful to people and that there is an incredible power in the human body to heal itself.”

Here’s a sample of her healing modalities (raucous laughter is authorized):

She sells Jade Eggs.  The company ran a televised interview with a beauty guru who advocated that women should put jade eggs inside their vaginas to increase their sexual energy.

The company also recommends Vaginal Steaming to clean the female insides.  This is where a client sits on a mini-throne and a combination of infrared and mugwort steam cleans the uterus.  Paltrow wrote, “It is an energetic release that balances female hormones.”  One [real] doctor opined: “It is probably not a good for the vagina.  Herbal steam is no better and possibly worse.  Mugwort, when steamed, either vaginally or on the vulva, can’t possibly balance any reproductive hormones, regulate menstrual cycles, treat depression, or cure infertility. Most definitely never do that,” he said, “as there are risks of burns at a place where you don’t want any.”

Goop recommends that women never wear tight bras because it can increase the risk of breast cancer.  Now this is a topic that scares most women.  Experts, on the other hand, say that the claim is “bad, unscientific, and maddening.”  Why would Paltrow do such a thing?

Finally, Paltrow’s company sells Moon Dust.  Yep.  It’s a range of powdered herbal remedies said to work synergistically at the deepest levels to enhance one’s beauty, brains, body, sexual energy, sleep, and spirit.  Paltrow herself is said to sprinkle moon dust in her morning smoothie.  On the other hand, bona fide nutritionists say that its ingredients are a mixture of Chinese herbs and medicines and there is no evidence that it has any value to human health.

Paltrow had to pay out nearly $150,000 for making the false Jade Egg claim, but she remains undeterred.  She and fellow nut bag Demi Moore toasted ten successful years selling their snake-oil modalities to people who are dumber than they are.

I suppose it all comes down to this: either Gwyneth Paltrow seeks to enrich herself by taking advantage of mentally fragile people, which is typical of most leftists here in America as well, or if she truly does believe in the healing power of Vaginal Steaming, she ought not be allowed to walk around without the supervision of an adult caretaker.

Who’s Coming to Dinner?

By Mustang

Ted Bundy (1946-1989) was a serial killer, kidnapper, rapist, necrophile, and thief.He was convicted of assaulting and murdering numerous young women and girls during the 1960s and 1070s and just before his death, he admitted to having murdered 30 people in seven states.Now then, given what we know about Ted Bundy, would any sane or rational person invite that scum to dinner?

No.

In 1963, US Representative Syd Herlong stood in the U. S. House of Representatives and said, “Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of Deland, Florida is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the Deland Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from The Naked Communist, by Cleon Skousen.”

I won’t provide the entire list, but here are a few that you may find particularinteresting and remember, this is from a book published in 1958:

4.Argue for free trade between all nations regardless of communist affiliation and without regard of whether or not trade items could be used for war.

6.Urge American foreign aid to all nations, regardless of communist domination.

7.Insist upon recognition of Red China and it’s admission to the UN[1].

11.Promote the UN as a globalist organization and the only hope for mankind.

13.Demand an end to oaths of loyalty to the government of the United States or any state thereof[2].

15.Capture one or both of the political parties in the US[3].

16.Weaken the US Constitution to weaken basic American Institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights[4].

17.Get control of public schools; use them as transmission belts for socialism and communist propaganda.Soften curriculum.Get control of teachers’ unions.Put the party line in textbooks.

19.Organize and foment public and student unrest against programs or organizations that oppose Marxist movements.

20.Infiltrate the press.

21.Gain control of key positions in radio, television, and motion pictures.

23.Gain influence over artists, art critics, and museum curators.

24.Convince jurists to rule against obscenity laws by arguing that they violate free speech, freedom of expression, and a free press.

25.Promote pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, films, radio, and television.

26.Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as being normal, natural, and healthy.

27.Infiltrate churches and replace revealed religion with social and moral relativism.

28.Eliminate prayer in schools.

29.Discredit the US Constitution by labeling it inadequate, old fashioned, and out of step with the demands of a modern society.

34.Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities[5].

39.Infiltrate the psychiatric profession with a view toward labeling anyone opposed to communism as intolerant, bigoted, fanatical, and xenophobic, and narrow-minded.

40.Discredit the family as an institution; encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41.Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of their parents[6].

42.Insist that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of America’s tradition: incite students, anarchists, and special interest groups to demonstrate against economic, political, and social policies.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal[7].

One might criticize Dr. Skousen as a Bircher[8] and/or for his be institutions (including religion), 
and policies of the federal government.Before we roll our eyes and judge the man too harshly,
we ought to consider another eye-opening effort.
Anthony Napoleon, PhD and Yevgeni Yevtushenkov authored 
A Look Inside the Playbook: How Marxists Plan to Destroy America.

The foreword to this manual for Marxists includes the following:

“We have transformed America’s press into agencies that would put to shame our Izvestia and Pravda of our golden years back in the USSR. Our enemy’s children have been “turned” and now represent one of our core demographics. We have successfully fractured America into competing groups; each estranged from the country that is their home.”

“Our once powerful enemy is unsure and insecure about its history and traditions. We have inculcated shame and promoted ignorance into America’s children such that by the time they become adults they are ashamed of their country while having little or no insight or knowledge about the ways of the world. And they don’t even know what has happened to them.”

The reader may be interested in the Amazon (dot com) summary of this book: “Imagine if you could study the operations manual of a master American Marxist trainer, someone who teaches American communist operatives the strategies and tactics they must use to subvert the citizens of the United States of America.Well, now you can.A Look Inside the Playbook: How Marxists Plan to Destroy Americais THE Bible of American communist subversion strategies and tactics.In this training manual you will learn Marxist’s methods, their thinking, strategies and inside secrets that have been used so successfully against the people of the United States of America. The authors provide readers with a tell-all exposé on the dangerously sophisticated subversive techniques being used by collectivist revolutionaries intent upon subverting American principles and values and replacing them with communist inspired tyranny.”For more about this book, see following notes[9].

Now I will include a short excerpt from Chapter One:

“From this moment forward we are no longer Marxists, Communists, Collectivists or Socialists. We are Progressives or simply Liberals. After all, to not be Progressive is to be regressive and that is what our enemies are: Regressive and backward.

“From this moment forward we shall not look or behave like those who came before us. Our grandfathers and mothers made the mistake of identifying themselves honestly in all manner and style.”

“You will come to trust the fact that we can hide in plain view. We have spent decades blurring the difference between image and substance. You can count on our victim’s inability to see past our facade. Be filled with joy, fellow comrade, with the confidence that comes from knowing that you can hide in plain sight!”

Now then, given what we know about the communist-centered Democratic Part
y —that Democrats have been working with international communists for
 decades to subvert American culture, destabilize America’s unique 
institutions, and overwhelm the US government with Marxist infiltrators
 who despise the US Constitution and the liberties enjoyed by the American people
— why would any rational patriot ever vote for a Democrat?

 


Notes:

[1] Accomplished by President Carter in 1979.

[2] Since the 1960s, loyalty oaths have been repeatedly challenged on grounds that they violated the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of association. The US Supreme Court avoided addressing these problems during the McCarthy Era.During the 1960s, it began striking down such oaths on the basis of vagueness and undue breadth. On 16 October 1961 Cramp v. Board of Education was argued and in 1962, the Court struck down the Florida requirement that teachers swear “I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist party”. This decision was followed in 1964 by its lack of support for two oaths, one of which required teachers to promote respect for the flag, reverence for law and order, and loyalty to the institutions of the United States and the State of Washington.Arizona and New York teacher oaths affirming lack of association with subversive organizations were struck down in 1966 and 1967.

[3] In his book “Reagan’s War,” Peter Schweitzer demonstrated the astonishing degree to which communists and communist sympathizers have penetrated the Democratic Party.Some may find alarming the leftward movement of conservative politicians.

[4] This provision was seized by Moslems in the 1990s and 9/11 hijackers were instructed to use the US Constitution to help destroy the United States.One might conclude that Moslems and American communists share a common goal.

[5] Abolished in 1975

[6]It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us is a book published in 1996 by Hillary Clinton (ghost written by Barbara Feinman, uncredited).In it, Clinton presents her vision for the children of America—focusing on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child’s well-being.Clinton advocates a society which meets all of a child’s needs.

[7]Democratic President Jimmy Carter relinquished control of the Canal in 1977.

[8]The John Birch Society is private organization founded in the US on 9 December 1958 by Robert H. W. Welch, Jr. (1899–1985).The purpose of JBS is to confront communism in the United States while promoting conservative causes. The name derives from John Birch, an American Baptist missionary and U.S. Army intelligence officer who was killed by Chinese communists on 25 August 1945.The JBS argues that Birch was the first casualty of the Cold War. 

[9] “I want to know how this information became public? I worked as a behavioral scientist in the former Soviet Union on subversion research. Moscow University, through Serbsky Center, employed the top psychologists and psychiatrists in our country. We even had on staff American ex-pats with PhD’s who were Marxist inspired. Our work somehow made it out of our top-secret labs into this book. I was personally responsible for the “indoctrination unit.” This unit funded American writers and public-school unions along with top celebrity plants and politicians who secretly promoted our revolutionary goals. What happened is that our revolution failed in the USSR, as it will ultimately fail in America, but not until it destroys America just like it destroyed mother Russia.”

“I write this review because today my fellow Russians tore down a prominent statue of Lenin. In America your “Progressive” politicians and subversives, including your White House, are busy metaphorically erecting statues of Lenin all over the USA. You are making the same mistake we made. Perhaps no one is reading this book by looking at the numbers (ranking), but you must ask yourself why in God’s name would you not read that which we protected with lethal force because it was so important? I personally know the answer to that question because that was my area of expertise: The forces that control the media in your country are our agents. They belong to us. Your media has only one option when it comes to this expose, hit the ignore button. What fools you all are. You are well on your way to killing your once great country. God help you, you will need it.”—Vladimir Ulanov

%d bloggers like this: