KKK Then and Now

 

For those obsessed with identity politics, their ignorance or self-imposed amnesia of their own heritage is so profound that few honest historians dare correct the record, less they become ostracized from the towers of higher learning. The void created by this lack of integrity requires that those not attached or bound to the anti-intellectual centers of propaganda education must carry the message to others who have an open mind and a sincere desire to know the truth. While Democratic factions adopted during the reconstruction era may seem harsh to the culturally deprived, but compared to the ostentation of self-proclaimed champions for diversity, becomes pale by contrast. Their hypocrisy is not new, but the extent of their neurosis approaches clinical insanity.

The background of the Ku Klux Klan has been distorted to such a degree that the impact of Abraham Lincoln’s war is lost to most Americans. The myth that slavery was the cause of the conflict is amiss. The carpetbaggers were more egregious than the plantation landlords. Thus far the tale of separate societies neglects to face up to the reality of the era. Some aspects were a natural response to the oppression from the victor, while others were an overreach to maintain an economic system that ran its course.

Truth Wiki provides some seldom cited Historical facts most Americans don’t know about the KKK.

• The Democratic Party fought to maintain and expand slavery.


• The Democrats founded the KKK as an arm of the Southern Democratic Party


• Democrats invented the term “Radical Republicans” to describe people who wanted to end slavery and give those people citizenship and equal rights.


• The 14th Amendment that gave full citizenship to freed slaves was passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support but 0% Democratic support from Congress.


• The 15th Amendment that gave freed slaves the right to vote in 1870 was supported by 100% of the Republicans in Congress and 0% of the Democrats.


• The Democratic Party’s KKK mission was to terrorize freed slaves and any Republicans who sympathized with them.


• The Democratic Party has never switched stances on racism, but rather subverted the enslavement of blacks by promoting their absolute dependence on Big Government to secure their votes. Anyone who now opposes this subversion is labeled racist.

Now before one draws a false conclusion, the Republican Party was never the advocate of equality that many would like you to believe. By supporting Amendments to the Constitution the GOP intended to bury the South with the ballot box, while stripping the assets from the vanquished.

The diversion of race baiting has been a stable ever since.

The Democratic Party’s Long History of Racism that appeared in the American Thinker cites Charlie Martin of PJ Tatler, who factually exposes the Democrats as the real racists.

A few examples:

Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.

It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.

It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.

This background is off limits in the swamp of political warfare that is covered by a mass media and pushes the narrative that descendants of bondage are entitled to reparations for past enslavement. It would be even more horrendous to mention that Since White people are routinely condemned for 200 years of slavery in America, why are Jews not condemned for their leading role in slave trade over the last 2000 years? Add to the insult that David Duke presents the factual evidence to this sordid history and you are automatically labeled a hater.

The timid and phony “so called” conservatives are far too scared to mention this subject in their political discourse. Many of the next items need to become part of the dialogue.

Back in 2015 an article Why Not Just Ban Democratic Party For Its Links to Racism?, cites the following: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white,” noted historian Eric Foner wrote in his book Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution.

The inference is that “The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category,” Tavis Smiley, a black radio host, said. “On that regard, the president ought to be held responsible.”

Even that proclaimed liberal enlightened publication, The Atlantic acknowledges How Barack Obama Failed Black Americans. Shocking that such a megastar boy of Frank Marshall Davis could neglect his race.

But before one forgets the rapid destruction of the black community, one needs to admit HOW THE LIBERAL WELFARE STATE DESTROYED BLACK AMERICA. LBJ shackled the gullible into believing that the Great Society was a step forward. More black lives were destroyed by liberal legislation than by any KKK lynching.

America needs to grow up and face reality.  Charles Hunt of the Washington Times has it correct when reporting on the ugly career of Nancy Pelosi, Democrats decry the KKK while forgetting legacy of one of their own.

“There is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

After, apparently, 30 years of herself celebrating “violent bigotry.”

In this land of dishonest race hucksters, it is always important to remember that small lies never win. They always go for the BIG LIE.

Remind me, again, who was behind all the “violent bigotry” of the Civil War? Oh, yeah, it was Democrats. And who was behind all the vestiges of it over the last century? Democrats.

Mrs. Pelosi knows this, of course, because she worked shoulder-to-shoulder for 23 years beside a retired member of the Ku Klux Klan. That would, of course, be the “great senator” from the “great state” of West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd, a lifelong Democrat.

As the “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK, Mr. Byrd recruited more than 100 people to join his chapter and warned in a letter against America becoming “degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

Modern-day Democrats denounced Byrd in 1989 by naming the suite of offices in the U.S. Capitol that house Democrat leadership the “Robert C. Byrd Rooms.”

Since you were not shocked by the hidden family ties of Barry Soetoro, maybe the discriminating sentiments of Senator Byrd might strike a chord of horse sense for those who reject the “political correctness” of the multicultural asylum.

The current diversified egalitarian culture is based upon a foundation of rigid orthodoxy. By adopting the Abraham Lincoln illusion as The Great Emancipator, he was almost the Great Colonizer. This intention is conveniently ignored as the guilt ridden apologists sink into a state of delusion.

In the book, Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves the shocking account is discussed.

“Just after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Lincoln authorized plans to pursue a freedmen’s settlement in present-day Belize and another in Guyana, both colonial possessions of Great Britain at the time, said Phillip W. Magness, one of the researchers who uncovered the new documents.”

The legacy of the KKK must not be defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center. J D Heyes cites the Family Research Council in the article, The Southern Poverty Law Center Is A Dangerous, Demented Hate Group That Incites Murder Against Christians And Conservatives.

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell, published an open letter to the news media explaining why they should cease referencing the leftist SPLC’s biased propaganda in their reporting. 

“The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a ‘hate group’ label of its own invention and application that is not only false and defamatory, but that also endangers the lives of those targeted with it,” the letter stated.

In the toxic political environment of this new century, the role of the top haters is unquestionably achieved by the progressive extremists that seek to destroy all symbols and remnants of traditional heritage. The lunatic left project on the public continuous diatribes of slime, deception and literal hate.

Demanding the purity of censorship does not mean they wear white sheets or hoods. The radicals who captured the Democratic Party are the modern day mob of venom that can trace their roots to the Saul Alinsky School of chaos.

For the masses of the underclass, who are duped into believing that the Trump Nation patriots are their enemy; wake up and gaze into the eyes of the progressives who have been deceiving you for generations. The tech billionaires are committed to the suppression of the truth. Their claims that they favor your advancement are a sham. So just who are the real facilitators of a free society?

The post KKK Then and Now appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

“But between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

—John Marshall, Life of Washington (1805)

“At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, have the American people ever proclaimed the United States to be a democracy.”      

—Charles and Mary Beard, America in Midpassage (1939)

Republics and Democracies

At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia walked up to Dr. Franklin to get the inside scoop on what the Convention had finally produced.  “Well, Doctor,” she asked, “what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”  Without a blink, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”  A republic, he said.  Not a democracy.

The word republic comes from two Latin words:  res publica—literally, the “things public.”  That doesn’t tell us much on the surface.  It isn’t as descriptive as democracy, which means “the rule of the people.”  But in the history of the West, and especially in political history … republics and the republican tradition have been associated with the way Rome governed itself for a period of time on the way to empire.  The Roman republic operated in terms of political representation, and it assumed the existence of some moral and legal standards that every citizen was supposed to assume and acknowledge.

Democracies, on the other hand, have their prototypes in ancient Greece, particularly Athens, during those brief times when tyrants weren’t in charge.  Democracies involve the direct political participation of all the citizens.  (In Athens, this was usually less than 15 percent of the population and was usually adult males.)  All the citizens come together in one place, debate the issues at hand, and then vote.  Anything over 50 percent supposedly settled the matter.

Turn Drive Time Into Fun-Filled, History Time With Your Kids!

Our Founding Fathers, however, understood political democracy and opposed it fiercely.  For example, James Madison wrote that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” (Federalist #10).

In the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton said, “The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact.  The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”  In a letter to John Taylor in 1814, John Adams wrote, “Remember democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

And then there’s Edmund Randolph, in describing his vision for a senate, said that this house of Congress ought “to provide a cure for the evils under which the U. S. labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy. . . .”

Finally, Fisher Ames, Federalism’s most eloquent spokesmen, wrote: “Liberty has never yet lasted long in a democracy; nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism.” Without question, the Founders believed that to hand “the majority” political sovereignty was to invite legalized theft, chaos and ultimately tyranny.

Safe for Democracy?

And yet today, most Americans think this nation is a democracy.  What happened?  When did this shift come, and why?

It’s much easier to narrow down the when than to prove the why.  The when lies mostly in the first two decades of the 20^th Century.  Though the words democracy and democratic had certainly been tossed about before and after the Civil War … no one with any political authority ever labeled the new republic …  a democracy. Nope.

Heirloom Audio: Putting God Back Into History!

The first blatant attempt to slap that label on the United States came from President Woodrow Wilson in his call for a declaration of war against Imperial Germany (April 2, 1917).  In arguing his case before the Senate, Wilson gave us the immortal words, “The world must be made safe for democracy.”  And as he moved toward the conclusion of his speech, he said further, “And we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts … for democracy … and for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments.” Wilson seems to give “democracy” an even warmer meaning than the Greeks did, but he also rewrote American history and tradition in the process.

But there’s more.  In the middle of his speech, Wilson makes reference to Russia, a faithful ally of Great Britain and France in prosecuting the War:

Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia?

What was happening was a murderous revolution that had led to the abdication of the czar.  The Provisional Government (that’s what it was called) was clearly less imperial, but it was heavily influenced by Marxist factions.  Wilson goes on:

Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude toward life. The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace.

Seriously? In this speech, Wilson completely reinvents the psyche, character, and history of the Russian people.  He also lied about what was happening in Russia in 1917.  And he had every reason to know the truth.  A few days before his call for war, Wilson had authorized an American passport for the Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky.  It’s true: Wilson signed off on Trotsky’s plan to return to Russia and turn the Provisional Government into a Marxist dictatorship.  So much for democracy. So much for Wilson.

The War Department on Democracy

Another snapshot of an attempt to shape America into a democracy comes from documents published by the War Department.  In 1928, the War Department’s U. S. Army Training Manual defined democracy like this:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct expression.” Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

But within a few years, there was a call in the Senate to change the manual completely. In fact, by 1952 the U.S. Army was pushing new definitions and a new philosophy of government.  Field Manual 21-13, “The Soldier’s Guide,” says:

Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run – and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.

Conclusion

The move to the Left was rapid, less than 25 years, at least on paper.  And it was accomplished with intention and malice aforethought.  Next time we’ll consider why.

For Further Reading:

Gary DeMar, God and Government, A Biblical and Historical Study, Vol. 1 (Atlanta, GA:  American Vision, Inc., 1997).

John F. McManus, “A Republic, if You Can Keep It,” The New American, 6 Nov 2000.

True or False: The 2016 Election Was an Undemocratic Process

By Michael S. Rozeff

April 4, 2017

In their attempt to remove Trump from office, his critics charge that the 2016 election process was undemocratic, the implication being that Trump is holding office illegitimately and should resign or be removed. Is this charge true or false? The question to be raised and examined here is this: Was this election any different from any other election of an American president? Was it any more or less of a democratic process than any other such election? Is this election so tainted by undemocratic offenses that it should be ruled out of order? Or does this election share with its predecessors a similar measure of peccadilloes and “noise” that commonly accompany the process? By “noise”, I mean hype, rumors, exaggerations, misinformation, inaccurate ideas, inaccurate articles and editorials, biased statements, and so on.

Merely to raise these questions explicitly helps to place in proper context the gulf that separates what Trump critics are charging from the reality of the election we have just experienced. Anyone with almost any power to observe cannot, if they can set their biases, fears and hatreds aside, help but conclude that this election has observed just as much of a democratic process as any other such American election. In fact, this one was more decisive on electoral votes than the Bush-Gore contest that involved the Florida recount, and, on that account, relied less on arbitrary Supreme Court judgment. It was more clear-cut than the Kennedy-Nixon contest in which Mayor Daley swung the election to Kennedy by voting “irregularities” in Cook County; and, on that account, did not rely on Nixon’s gesture of conceding to Kennedy for the good of the country.

A democratic process is defined on the internet as having practices that are of the people, by the people and for the people. It is explained that “The ‘for the people bit happens when the government does what is required to keep the public informed on important matters.”

Was the public informed on important matters by the two candidates? The campaigns were lengthy, 576 days for Clinton as a candidate and 512 days for Trump as a candidate. Each candidate traveled about 200,000 miles to meet the public. Each made about 300 speeches and rallies. Each candidate had about 2 dozen press conferences. Clinton hit 37 states and Trump made it to 45. Hillary Clinton was already extremely well-known. The thoughts, ideas, and plans of Donald Trump, an outspoken and blunt man, certainly were made known. The proposals of both candidates were fully aired and subjected to withering criticism from opponents of all kinds, including the media. There was an ample number of debates. Each candidate spent a lot of money campaigning. “Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion…” Trump raised and spent over $600 million.

I conclude this far from exhaustive survey by saying that, if we judge by the resources and efforts devoted to the dissemination of information, we have to say that in no significant way was this election subnormal as compared to other presidential elections in terms of information streaming to the public by these two candidates and their campaigns. Voters may be ill-informed in an absolute sense or influenced by voices we deplore, but in a relative sense compared to other elections, the two campaigns more than amply reached the electorate with their messages. They dominated the airwaves. If there was any Russian influence, it has yet to be identified much less measured as something significant such that we can say that it corrupted the election process and made it undemocratic along the dimension of “for the people”. Russian influence, if any, is completely submerged within the ample noise that permeates elections along with the signals being flashed and disseminated.

“The ‘by the people’ happens when people are allowed to elect suitable candidates.”

As Russian people do not vote in American elections unless they are registered here as voters, this election was certainly by the people. Voter turnout was at a two-decade low, but this doesn’t affect whether or not the process was democratic. The latter depends upon the opportunity to vote. The voting process is far from being ideal. There are always many criticisms of it, but the question is whether or not this election was so much worse than others in this dimension that “by the people” was undermined and a new election should be held. Well, at least 126 million votes were counted in the general election. If that is not “by the people”, then what is? One can certainly not say that Russia conspired with Trump or manipulated the election levers on its own so as to swing this election one way or another. No one can make such a foolish charge and expect to be believed. These votes are spread over 50 states. No one controls the outcome.

“The ‘of the people’ component is established when people run for a public office.” This is done within political parties. The public is presented with candidates chosen by parties. The processes that they use are up to them. They need not be democratic. There are many reports of procedures that are used that subvert the party members who vote in primaries or attend caucuses; but examining this is too far afield from our main topic. Suffice it to say that for the major parties, every state comes into play in selecting delegates to national conventions. There are candidate debates within the parties. These processes engage many people. Although individual candidates and their campaigns are known to play hard ball and use dirty tricks to knock out rivals, this is par for this aspect of the democratic process. Anyway, the allegations of a Russia-Trump axis do not conceive of the process having been undemocratic because of violations of the “of the people” strand of that process.

Where does this leave us? We can find no support for those of Trump’s critics who are saying that the election was undemocratic or any less democratic than any other election of a president. The candidates were chosen through arduous primary campaigns. The two candidates were the survivors who beat their rivals, which is not to say that they fought fairly and squarely, but only that the process was not radically different than any other and that the Russians didn’t place either Trump or Clinton at the top of their respective tickets. The people were informed as much as they ever are. The people voted for whom they pleased. The results were counted. The outcome was decisive. Of the people, by the people, and for the people were all satisfied as much as they ever are. The election was a democratic process. The Russians didn’t subvert it as a process. This particular reason for overturning the election has no merit at all. Trump is as legitimate an elected president as any other president has been.

The 2016 election was a democratic process relative to similar elections in the past. There is no other conclusion that can be reached based on what we now know.

After the election results came in, a new political process has emerged. It has roots in 2016 that are of interest; but it’s useful to separate pre-election processes from post-election processes. The new process is an attempt to discredit Trump or to weaken his power, or to get him to resign, or to impeach him, or to thwart his program. This is a slow-motion coup d’état without military force. The model for this coup is Watergate, which used existing law, institutions, and pressures to achieve its result of getting Nixon to resign. The most important instigators of the anti-Trump coup are within the government, within intelligence agencies, but with important support arising in Congress. The launching of the coup had important help from Obama.

One may ask if this post-election process is part of the democratic processes of this country? Is this process of the people, by the people and for the people? The answers in these three cases are the same: No, no and no. The people behind it are veiled in secrecy. They are hiding out. They are, as best we can tell, offering the vice-president as a replacement, and that’s as close as they come to “of the people”. However, badgering Trump to exit by leaks, innuendoes, hearings, blackmail and other forms of pressure is surely not a democratic process in which broad numbers of people exercise an equal right to participate. The “by the people” is circumvented in this attempted coup. People are not being shown alternative candidates in a new campaign, and, even if they were, the democratic process would be irrevocably harmed if the coup succeeds, because of the method used to remove someone who was just elected. The people’s will, insofar as expressed by constitutional election procedures, would be thwarted and overturned if the coup succeeds, no matter how a succession is arranged. “For the people” would be entirely preempted by a successful coup because the program advertised by the winning candidate would be mortally wounded. It would be replaced by the program favored by the NSGs.

Any process that forces Trump from office or induces him to resign or impeaches him, when there’s no valid reason for it, any such coup process is undemocratic. Even though the election was a democratic process, it has immediately been followed by an undemocratic process. The rule of law demands equality under the law, and that’s what a democratic process entails. If America overturns a legal election for no other reason than a minority is able to do it, a minority that hates the winner and his program, this violates the rule of law severely. If this happens, it will be a significant step in turning America into an unstable republic. Without rule of law, this country will go straight downhill.

Read more at LewRockwell.com

Photo credit: rt.com

Democrats: Where There is Smoke… There is Usually Fire (VIDEO)

By: The Voice of Reason |

“It is so funny to read this nonsense about voter “suppression.” You need ID to get on a plane, apply for college or welfare, but to be asked to show an ID card to exercise a franchise that so many have died for is voter suppression. That is just nonsense.” – John Miles

Stop me if you know how this story ends. According to Democrats, there was no need for an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, because she did nothing wrong. She followed the precedents set by prior Secretaries of State, and she acted completely within framework of federal law. There was no “there, there,” remember? Anyone who suggested otherwise, was accused by Democrats of going on a partisan witch hunt.

The American people were told that Hillary Clinton did not send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.” That was a lie, but remember, according to Democrats, “the investigation was a partisan witch hunt.” She didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time. That was a lie, but remember, according to Democrats, “the investigation was a partisan witch hunt.” Hillary Clinton turned over all of her work-related e-mails. That was a lie, but remember, according to Democrats, “the investigation was a partisan witch hunt.”

Let’s keep going. Hillary Clinton wanted to use a personal e-mail account for convenience and simplicity, streamlining to one device. That was a lie, but remember, according to Democrats, “the investigation was a partisan witch hunt.” Hillary said her use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation. That was a lie, but remember, according to Democrats, “the investigation was a partisan witch hunt.” She said there were “numerous safeguards” against security breaches and “no evidence” of hacking. That was a lie, but remember, according to Democrats, “the investigation was a partisan witch hunt.”

Notice a pattern there? Now, Democrats are saying that there is no need for an investigation into voter fraud claims made by Donald Trump, because according to Senate Minority leader, Chuck Schumer, “The president ought to realize he’s president. Instead of talking about the election or how many people showed up at the inauguration, he ought to talk about how many new jobs he’s creating. It’s time to be president.” Really Chuck? Furthermore, House Speaker Paul Ryan, says he has seen “no evidence” of Trump‘s claim. Really? Have you even looked?

In the following video, I review the findings of the nonpartisan group VoteFraud.org, which released it’s findings back in November stating:

“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.”

I also review the findings of a second nonpartisan group, watchdog.org, which claims that as many as almost 7 million American votes might have been fraudulent. In addition to non-citizens voting, there estimate there could have been up to four million dead people who voted too!

Now, consider that the CIA confirmed George Soros was Hillary Clinton’s top donor.  Next, recall that thanks to leaked documents from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation (OSF), we know that Soros’ newest activist group known as Demos has as one of its top priorities, “Achieving true democracy by reducing the role of money in politics and guaranteeing the freedom to vote.”

In this instance, “freedom to vote,” being double-speak for the freedom of non-citizens to take part in US elections, and enabling operatives to vote early and often, in the same election.

Combine all of that with the fact that we also know George Soros provided the financing to over 50 anti-Trump protests around the country during the inauguration, and the American people are supposed to simply trust the Democrats when they say there’s nothing worth looking into? Seriously? Are these people high?

CNS News Reports:

Following sharp criticism from Democrats and their media allies on Tuesday, President Donald Trump on Wednesday morning tweeted: “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and….even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!”

(Trump also tweeted that he will name his Supreme Court nominee next week.)

Trump‘s voter fraud claims date back to November 27, when he tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

He reportedly said something similar Monday evening, at a private reception at the White House for congressional leaders. And his offhand comment became major news on Tuesday for Trump‘s critics.

As CNSNews.com reported, at Tuesday’s White House briefing, six different reporters pressed Trump spokesman Sean Spicer on Trump‘s Monday night claim, paving the way for mainstream media outlets and congressional Democrats to focus on Trump‘s “fiction” (as CNN’s Jake Tapper called it). Trump‘s voter fraud claims — not his whirlwind of executive activity — were the lead on some mainstream media newscasts Tuesday evening.

Democrats also weighed in:

“I heard the White House was saying that 3 to 5 million illegals did vote,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told a news conference on Tuesday. “The president ought to realize he’s president. Instead of talking about the election or how many people showed up at the inauguration, he ought to talk about how many new jobs he’s creating. It’s time to be president.

Schumer said Republicans have an “obligation” to reject such “falsehoods.”

“The bottom line is simple. You cannot run a government, you cannot help people, you cannot keep America safe, if you don’t actually admit to the facts. Plain and simple. And unless that starts happening, this country’s going to have real trouble and it’s not going to be Democratic trouble, Republican trouble, liberal trouble, conservative trouble, just trouble because of avoidance of the facts.”

Appearing at the same news conference, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said, “Regarding Mr. Trump‘s delusional statement that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in the last election –that is a total nonsensical statement. But what I fear about that statement and what is something we should all worry about is when Trump talks about 3 to 5 million people voting illegally, he is sending a message to every Republican governor in this country to go forward with voter suppression.

“The great political and democratic crisis we face now in this country is not voter fraud, it is voter suppression. And my belief is we have got to make — do everything we can to make sure that everybody in this country who is legally able to is able to vote.”

At the White House on Tuesday, in response to the six reporters who questioned Trump‘s voter fraud claim, Sean Spicer said, The president does believe” that millions of people voted  illegally in November. “He has stated that before,” Spicer noted.

“I think he was having a discussion with some folks and mentioned something in passing, which has been a long-standing belief that he’s maintained. This isn’t the first time that you’ve heard this concern of his.”

Pressed on whether Trump would investigate voter fraud, Spicer said, “Well, maybe we will.” Asked a similar question later in the briefing, Spicer refused to “prejudge what we may or may not do in the future.”

Less than 24 hours later, President Trump was calling for an investigation into voter fraud.

So many of this country’s problems stem from how pathetically uninformed the voters are. For example, consider that a simple search on YouTube for anything discussing the voter fraud investigation yields any of the actual “news” videos getting only a few thousand views at most. Conversely, a comedian Seth Meyers, get’s over 200,000 views the the following absurdity…

---

THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.

Democratic Delusional Worldviews

Democratic politics is a false premise experiment. The foundation of the modern liberalism, based upon an erroneous worldview, is a dead end ideology. Compared to the mad NeoCon war-mongering alternative, the fatal attraction of progressives, allures weak minded and desperate people into thinking government can provide solutions. Step back from the false left-right political discussions and focus upon the principles that make up sound and balanced standards for a civil society.

“At the core of it, Conservatives base their ideology on what they see as reason and logic and it is individualistic by nature, whereas a liberal’s ideology is based on emotion and ideals and is collective by nature. A liberal is interested in curing society’s ills by social engineering. A conservative is interested in curing society’s ills by individuals exercising their own choices to better themselves. Because of this, conservatives view centralized power with deep suspicion. Liberals on the other hand see centralized power as an opportunity to affect great change for good.” 

The central precept that separates and differentiates democratic politics from traditional conservative advocacy rests upon moral doctrine. However, scholars are determined to avoid this requirement with theories such as Realism V. Liberalism. Understanding International Relations Theory, “how the world works IR scholars usually subscribe to one of two dominant theories, realism or liberalism. One, classical/neo-realist thought, is more pessimistic about the prospects of peace, cooperation, and human progress whilst the other, liberalism/idealism, is more upbeat and sanguine about human nature and human possibilities.”Modern Liberalism is based upon the following set of assumptions:

1.Human nature is essentially “good”

2.The fundamental human concern for others’ welfare makes progress possible

3.Sinful or wicked human behavior such as violence is not the product of flawed people but of evil institutions

4.War and international anarchy are NOT inevitable

5.War is a global problem requiring collective rather than national efforts to control it

6.Reforms must be inspired by a compassionate ethical concern for the welfare and security of all people

7.International society must reorganize itself in order to eliminate the institutions that make war likely

The America First foreign policy viewpoint is anti-war and anti-empire. Foreign intervention to make the world safe for democracy is pure poppycock. The premises of democratic liberalism suffer from the illusion that humanity, as a whole, is able to build a global alignment of institutions, treaties and interconnections that can result in international harmony.

The notion, which discredits democratic bias and governmental programs that surround us, is all around. The utter catastrophe of the Obama administration is not simply a failure of a partisan regime. It is systemic of a system that has abandoned time-honored principles.

The inspiring and late Dr. Schaeffer preached the following message back in 1982.

“I want to say to you, those of you who are Christians or even if you are not a Christian and you are troubled about the direction that our society is going in, that we must not concentrate merely on the bits and pieces. But we must understand that all of these dilemmas come on the basis of moving from the Judeo-Christian world view — that the final reality is an infinite creator God — over into this other reality which is that the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.”

Can any person argue with sincerity that fundamental improvement in the plight of humanity has improved in the last three decades?

Facing up to the decline in Western Civilization is hard for many people. Most prefer the comfort of illusionary denial. Justin Raimondo offers a cogent insight in The Democratic Delusion.

“Rooted in the old-fashioned idea that people are merely the playthings of all-powerful and highly abstract forces, Soviet socialism was a throwback to the reactionary mechanistic doctrines that had ruled the earth and its peoples since time immemorial. Human beings, in this view, are passive lumps of clay whose fate is determined by History, the gods, or, perhaps, the gods of history.”

This looming conflict for the democratic liberal is unsettling, since their beloved governmental authority structure, is their presupposed answer to resolve intrinsic power struggles. After stripping away all the political posturing and propaganda, the Obama cohorts are left with an empty intellectual defense of their pernicious and intrusive tyranny.

LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS – MAXINE WATERS	MICHAEL SAVAGE EXPLAINS THE MENTAL DISORDER LIBERALISM

Those who identify themselves as part of the Democratic Party or supporters of liberal policies really do suffer from a mental disease. The Maxine Waters’ video illustrates, while caring the bucket for the cause. Move over and watch Michael Savage, Herb Denenberg is giving you a run for top honors.

“You can look at almost any plan and policy of Obama, and more often than not find it runs contrary to common sense and logical thinking. He more often than not does the opposite of what common sense would dictate.”

Apply the following Obama traits to your favorite liberal. Do they also suffer from the same symptoms?

A. NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. If that’s not enough, consider the Mayo Clinic’s definition of narcissistic personality disorder: “Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.”

B. PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. I think the most obvious disorder to add to all of the above is being a pathological liar. That condition is defined by the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary as follows: “an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder.”

C. THE TALKING DISEASE. I’ve spoken of another mental disorder, which I don’t think psychiatry has yet named. It is the talking disease. He thinks his words are magical, and that all he has to do is talk to solve problems.

Liberals and progressives want to feel your pain, while inflicting misery from the consequences of their policies. The Manchurian Candidate president champions Marxist pillaging as a badge of pride. The crux of the rationale that drives such plunder is humanism. Dr. Schaeffer warns, “A conservative Humanism is no better than a liberal Humanism. It’s the Humanism that is wrong, not merely the coloration.” The point made is that the liberal sickness infects “so called” conservatives with the integrations of the progressive disease into all levels and stratums of a dependent society. Utopian delusions are the prevalent and dominate political mindset. This infection forbids a serious and substantial contraction of government deficit spending or useless programs. As long as Democrats swallow the social poison of multicultural nirvana, in a futile attempt to create a worldly paradise, the planet is doomed.

The few remaining conventional Democrats bear little similarity with the ultra totalitarian collectivists that currently hold the majority in the U.S. Senate. Abdicating the responsibility of passing a federal budget may seem trivial to the hordes of dependent addicts that vote the liberal/progressive slate. Nevertheless, the results from the next election, the prospect of instituting a sober and comprehensive reform of government is but a pipe dream for wishful escapists.

Radical Reactionaries understand that co-existence with essentially decadent bottom feeders is a suicidal prospect. America’s collapse is a certainty on much more than an economic level. Political dialogue or activist immersion is a most painful exercise for the average person. The depths of the “Politically Correct” culture disallow a serene separation from federal supremacy. Individual state sovereignty is the only practical response to central despotism. Democrats refused to run a primary challenge to a sitting President in their own party. That error renounced any assertion of the high ground or argument claiming the role of an honest opposition.

The legacy of FDR haunts the socialists that strive to empower the nanny state. H.L. Mencken had it correct, “The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace.”

The progressive malady that shapes public policy is the ultimate superstition. I am from the government and here to help you . . .

“A liberal is a man who is willing to spend somebody else’s money.” – Carter Glass