When President Donald Trump sent out a Tweet railing against the NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem at the beginning of football games, fellow conservatives complained about it. They claimed it was an embarrassment that he was, as President of the United States, verbalizing his discontent about a privately owned corporation, and that his language of calling them S.O.B.s was unacceptable. Personally, I loved the Tweet, not because of the language used, but because of the result we ultimately saw because of the firm slam of the presidential Twitter account’s blitz. The liberal left whined, and then they cried, and then they doubled down on their hate of the National Anthem, and patriotism in general. In short, President Trump played an important part in revealing how anti-American the liberal left progressive Democrats truly are.
While they are very good at hiding it, the hard-core Democrats are socialists, and authoritarians, who despise the American System, and view the Constitution as an old, antiquated obstacle to the universalized aims they are shooting for.
The ends justify the means, according to these people, and they are willing to do anything to regain their power, keep their power, and turn America into a one-party oligarchical state … including dismantling the rule of law, and the structure of government we have as a republic under the construction of the U.S. Constitution.
If something is an obstacle to their authoritarianism, they will twist and mangle it as much as possible, and eliminate it, if necessary. Only their agenda matters. The truth, common sense, and the American Way pose as roadblocks that they are willing to destroy so as to achieve their utopian collectivistic agenda.
During the Senatorial confirmation hearing for Justice Brett Kavanaugh we witnessed the liberal left, be it the politicians, media, or the protesters, all call for the end of the rule of law as established by these United States. According to the liberal left the presumption of innocence no longer exists. If you stand against their agenda, you are guilty by accusation, even if there is absolutely no evidence to support the hearsay claim being presented. The accuser’s testimony is believed solely on how sincere she sounds, or where her political beliefs lie. In the case of Christine Blasey Ford, we have been told by the liberal left that she should be believed because of the horrific nature of the allegation. To not believe her, despite the lack of evidence, is to believe that sexual harassment doesn’t exist, and it means you must not believe anyone who claims to ever have been sexually assaulted, molested, or mistreated.
However, the women who accused President Bill Clinton, Representative Keith Ellison, and a growing list of Democrats who have been accused of assault against women should not believed, mainly because there is not enough evidence … or, at least that is what we are being told.
So, thanks to the Democrat Party reaction during the Kavanaugh hearing, the Democrats have doubled down on their hate of the Rule of Law.
The Kavanaugh hearing has also revealed other things the liberal left hates.
The appointment and swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court was yet another political defeat for the liberal left Democrats, and it was the U.S. Senate who voted to confirm him, therefore, reasons the more radical crazies of the liberal left, the Senate must be abolished.
If they don’t get their way, they will rage and scream until either they do, or the thing that was in the way is gone. They claim their reasoning is that whatever stood in their way is not democratic enough.
Abolish the Senate.
— Ken Norton (@kennethn) October 6, 2018
“Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans,” read a headline by The Washington Post’s Philip Bump, who wrote that the Senate violates the concept that “all men are created equal.”
I heard somewhere else where a Democrat Party talking head was complaining how in the Senate the State of North Dakota has as big a voice as New York.
That was the point. The republic was established to protect the voice of the minority. The Electoral College and U.S. Senate exists specifically to ensure that that larger, heavily populated cities do not dictate to the rural areas how they are supposed to run their lives.
The Democrats refuse to recognize the fact that the principles of federalism, which were designed to preserve our republic and enable it to stand the test of time, are the reason the United States has risen to the prominence it has on the world stage. The Founders designed the American System to be exceptional, an exception to the rule, as unlike Europe and the rest of the world as possible, on purpose. In a pure democracy the smaller States would be under the thumb of the larger States, and would be forced to succumb to the interests of the larger States. The population centers would overwhelm the rural areas. To protect against that, we have a republic, not a democracy.
Tyranny always rises out of population centers, and that is why the Democrats desire pure democracy. They realize that democracy is the road to socialism, and whether they tell you or not, socialism is their aim.
With Brett Kavanaugh securing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, and a growing likelihood that Trump will have the opportunity to fill Breyer’s and Ginsburg’s empty seats should the Lord call them to go wherever they are going to spend eternity in the next six years, the liberal left Democrats are also beginning to consider that maybe the United States Supreme Court needs to be done away with, too.
The conservative majority on the court has the Democrats saying that the high court has been delegitimized, and if the Democrats can’t use the court to overturn laws they don’t like, what good is it?
Now that the majority of justices agree with that idea, rather than using the court to shape Americanism into a utopian collective hive, the Democrats are not fond of the court, and some actually would like to see it go bye bye.
The Framers originally intended that there is a separation of powers. Only the Congress can legislate. If the court believes a law to be unconstitutional for any reason, that belief is only supposed to be considered an opinion of the court and it is not supposed to have any impact on the validity of the law. The legislature, however, may then review the law, and respond to the court with their decision. Either, they could say, “Gosh, you’re right, we’ll make the appropriate changes” or “we’ll repeal the unconstitutional law as per your recommendation,” or the legislature could simply say ” we understand our concerns, but we disagree, and the law will stay in place.”
As for State laws on issues not authorized to the federal government by the Constitution in the first place, the federal court system shouldn’t even be hearing those cases. That list includes issues like abortion, health care, marriage, and firearms. There is no constitutional authorization granted to the federal government on any of those issues, and per the Tenth Amendment, if those issues are not prohibited to the States, they are up to the States to decide, not the federal government, and especially not by a bunch of black robed federal judges.