There Is Nothing More Despicable Than a Democrat
On a normal day, Democrats will endlessly lecture you in the most condescending fashion, making liberal use of the preface, “You see.” Because, of course, you don’t see, you are a nonbeliever, a “denier,” and therefore a deplorable, barely deserving of their passing glance, much less their particular attention. And that’s after they’ve lost both houses of Congress and the presidency. Now with the Moore mauling in Alabama and their plot to force Trump’s resignation, they are not nearly as nice.
After sacrificing two of their pawns, the now onanistic Bill Clinton and the truly deplorable Al Franken, an oleaginous blob of despicability -- he of the “I’m not sorry, I don’t remember it, and I will resign… maybe, at a later date, and ‘GFY America,’ apology” -- they now believe they can unseat the president on sexual harassment charges (the same ones they tried to destroy him with just before the presidential election). Hey, it worked on Moore, so they’ll give it one more try.
The Democrats never stop. Moore was low-hanging fruit. He was something of a character, which made him the Democrats’ candidate of choice, which was why during the primary they didn’t produce the three middle-aged girls, still crying about dates they had when they were teenagers, because if you’re going to hold onto a gripe, you should hold onto it for four decades. They didn’t want Luther Strange, probably because he wasn’t as strange as Moore and they didn’t have anything quite so good on him.
Look at the first accusations; three girls, two of which were past the age of consent and only there to lend credence to the third one who claimed that Moore undressed her when she was fourteen years old. Then, for the icing on the cake, there was the fourth girl, bawling her eyes out holding her high school yearbook, with what she admitted had a forged (she claimed partially forged) notation from Moore -- all, presented by Gloria Allred, a person emblematic of typical Democrat amorality.
The Democrats are relentless, they come at you from all angles, they never stop, and they have absolutely no rules. For them, at least, anything goes -- lie, cheat, steal, and defame, it doesn’t matter as long as they win. Yet in the world the Democrats and the media have created, the Republicans have plenty of rules, and if they don’t abide by each one, the media tries to make it a scandal.
More inHome
Megyn Kelly Leads Renewed Targeting of Trump
Media Hubris and the Fall of the Center
SCOTUS and the Spy in Your Pocket
Sexual Harassment: Has the Expectation of Safe Spaces Made Women More Timid?
Laurier University and the Transsexual Pronoun War
It doesn’t help that there are a lot of Republicans and conservatives who are just too pure to get down and dirty. Many Republicans would rather lose with dignity than win, but people who voted for Trump want to win. America wants to win. Republicans, all Republicans need to learn how to fight like the Democrats, or the nation is lost.
So far, the Democrats are one and one -- and it would have worked against Trump if their candidate didn’t have more negatives than Satan; at least he reigns in hell, Hillary merely wanted to create hell on earth and maybe unload the remaining 80% of our uranium in the process.
They’ve been coming at Trump ever since he won the nomination. Hillary threw everything she had at him, even having her lawyers, Perkins Coie, pay (breaking campaign laws to do so) almost $10 million for the ignominious Trump dossier. “Opposition research,” that even James Comey called “salacious and unverified.” Then Obama apparatchiks in the FBI and the Justice Department used the dossier to get FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign.
Ask yourself why that isn’t a bigger story. Don’t bother, it’s because the media has become an arm of the Democratic Party.
The one thing she thought would work, however, the coup de grâce, the “Accusers,” didn’t have the impact the Democrats assumed they would have. The electorate ignored them.
After Trump won, they opened with the “Russians stole the election” meme and that was the reason they gave for members of the Electoral College not to do their constitutional duty to vote for Trump and instead vote for Hillary.
At the same time, they wanted recounts -- it almost worked for Gore in 2000. “We keep counting until I win!” And it did work for “hands-on” Al Franken when they actually did count until he won in 2008.
Stealing elections is allowable for Democrats.
Interregnum, it was the 25th Amendment -- Trump was just too crazy to be president. Then it was the emoluments clause -- that’s particularly rich since no one would have gotten richer than Hillary had she become president -- look at the hundreds of millions she made as Secretary of State.
Then it was “collusion.” The fact that anyone would believe that the Russians would prefer a volatile hothead like Donald Trump to a Hillary Clinton they had already bought and paid for with the Uranium One deal strains the limits of possibility.
In unison with “collusion” we had, the “We need a special prosecutor,” outcry -- which they got, courtesy of Comey the chameleon, who absolved Hillary of all crimes,with respect to her illegal private server and the mishandling of classified information, even though he was not a prosecutor and even though she was demonstrably guilty.
Then with the firing of Comey, it was, “obstruction of justice.” Now it’s just an outright case for impeachment being built by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose dream team of Hillary donors and Democrat moles have more scandals and conflicts of interest than even Hillary had.
I won’t get into how Huma Abedin (infamous for her husband, Anthony Weiner who ran in the 2013 New York City mayoral erection) and Cheryl Mills can lie to the FBI and go unpunished while an American hero, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, has to cop a plea to keep Mueller from bankrupting his family and going after his son.
Now the Democrats have a new “Hillary,” Kirsten Gillibrand. You have to give her credit -- she saw an opening and she took it. She was the first to say Bill Clinton should have resigned 20 years ago (what a brave stand, something that didn’t occur to her for the ten years she has steadfastly supported him or when she took Clinton money and campaigned with Bill by her side). Then she was the first to call for Franken’s resignation. Now she is the first to call for Trump’s resignation, just after the re-release of the 2016 “Accusers.”
If it doesn’t work, so be it. She has a Plan B, and it involves 2020.
It’s all a calculation on her part. She knew she would make the perfect candidate. She’s a Democrat and a woman, and younger than Fauxcahontas, Elizabeth Warren. Now especially, with the moral high ground after her very, very brave stance against a long-retired rapist and a man no one likes. It’s just too bad she’s not a minority, cripple, or transvestite, then she’d be a sure winner in 2020.
Still, if that doesn’t work, look for them to find something else to unseat Trump. They will not rest because they are convinced the presidency belongs to them and elections mean nothing -- unless of course, they win, then they mean everything. In fact, if it were up to the Democrats there would be no elections -- the people are just too stupid to realize that the Democrats deserve to rule the world.
Now tell me, is there anything more despicable than a Democrat? http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/there_is_nothing_more_despicable_than_a_democrat.html
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
she has the stink of the Clintons on her. she will never be able to wash it off. even with bleachbit.
The Democrats represent the Domestic threat to our Constitutional Republic.
like their idols Marx and Hegel, they follow their guidelines to destroy us.
This is presented in three parts
The first is a moral breakdown of society and our cultural institutions like marriage and family. He considered Judeo-Christian morality as destructive of man's true nature and a core element of capitalism. He considered the elimination of traditional marriage as essential to move from capitalism to to communism
from the Communist Manifesto, Section II, Proletarians and Communists
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were the days!)
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
Part II- political transformation
The Democrats employ two central tenets- Marxisms Essential steps to transition from Capitalism to Communism and Lenin's Democratic Collective Centralism
The key belief within DCC or Democratic Collective Centralism is the belief of Collectivism .
“ Collectivism being the idea of prioritizing the group rather than yourself or biased individuals such as your family. These prioritizations could be goals, outcomes, rights and so on.
Of critical importance is the Democrats adherence in what Marx called essential steps to transition from capitalism to communism found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto
1. Heavy Estate Taxes
2. Heavy Progressive Income Tax
3. Promote Unionism to destroy capitalism
4. Redefine family and destroy the concept of the traditional family and it's influence.
5. Transfer as much power as possible to the Central State.
6. Free Public Education
Part III- Hegel the State as “God”
Marx, Hitler, Mussolini and other totalitarians promoted adherence to Hegel and his promotion of the idea that the State is “god” on earth and as such replaces God as sovereign over all the affairs of mankind, morally, spiritually, and in governance. One added note; Marx believed this to be a transitionary phase as the ultimate goal of communism is elimination of the State.
Since the State replaces God, it is the State that determines what is moral and what isn't. Everyone exists to support the ultimate “collective good of the state”
For Hegel, the State is the highest embodiment of the Divine Idea on earth and the chief means used by the Absolute in manifesting itself as it unfolds towards its perfect fulfillment. Hegel argued that the State is the highest form of social existence and the end product of the development of mankind, from family to civil society to lower forms of political groupings.
The State is a superorganic whole made up of individuals grouped into local communities, voluntary associations, etc. These parts have no meaning except in relation to the State, which is an end in itself. The State can demand that its parts be sacrificed to its interests. Each man is subordinate to the ethical whole – if the State claims one's life then the individual must surrender it. Because everything is ultimately one, the collective has primacy over the individual. Hegel's State has no room for the idea of individual rights or a liberal theory of the State; instead it provides an ethical underpinning for totalitarianism. The State is an independent, self-sustaining, superorganism made up of men and having a purpose and will of its own
There Is Nothing More Despicable Than A Democrat
This seed title is what Sparty would call ‘non-partisan’.
Liberals and progressives agenda is pretty simple and nothing like the boogey man the conservatives present them as.
If you support access to public education for all, support higher educations for all and promote training in the growing tech fields you're likely a progressive.
If you support re-segregating our schools through voucher programs, ridicule higher education and complain about the loss of manufacturing jobs (which 70% were lost to automation, not immigration, so they're never coming back), you're likely a conservative.
If you support equality for all regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof, you're likely a progressive.
If you fight tooth and nail against equality for all, push policies which are xenophobic, homophobic and Islamaphobic, you're likely a conservative.
If you support regulations that keep our air, water and lands clean from the abuses of dirty fossil fuels and chemical companies that have created massive superfund cleanup sites costing tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars just so a private company can make a few bucks, you're likely a progressive.
If you support private companies raping our land, polluting our air and water all so the private sector can make a few bucks and then leave the American tax payer holding the cleanup up tab, you're likely a conservative.
If you support pay equity for women in the workplace, you're likely a progressive.
If you think men should always be paid more because women should be at home raising kids and making their husbands dinner, you're likely a conservative.
If you think public businesses should treat all American citizens the same regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof, you're likely a progressive.
If you think any business should be allowed to refuse service because their religion disagrees with certain legal lifestyles, you're likely a conservative.
If you believe the SCOTUS ruling was a fair compromise on the rights of women being allowed to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability, you're likey a progressive.
If you demand the government adopt your faiths belief that a fertilized egg has a magical invisible soul and thus should be given all the same rights as a child that has reached viability, you're likely a conservative.
If you think the civil war was based on slavery and several treasonous States who wrote their own constitution in violation of American law and the confederates should be viewed as racist traitors to America and shouldn't ever be revered or honored with monuments and confederate flags flown, you're likely a progressive.
If you think the civil war was a righteous defense of Southern States rights and those who fought to protect slavery should be honored and respected with thousands of monuments and that the South will rise again someday, you're likely a conservative.
I pity conservatives who refuse to get a proper education, who revel in their rebel history of treasonous acts against the government, who reject civility and equality, who prefer to keep minorities and women in "their place". I want equality for all, including conservatives, but if conservatives reject equality then they are separating themselves from an America that has been moving forward without them for nearly two centuries. Liberals always eventually win as they have with banning slavery, segregation, giving women and blacks the right to vote, getting rid of bans on interracial marriage and now gay marriage, we keep this country moving forward while conservatives whine and complain about being left behind. All it takes is standing up, getting educated, refusing to continue the prejudices of your peers and they too can join the rest of us in the 21st century.
If you think women are not capable of choosing their own vote for President, you are Michelle Obama (a douchebag).
typical of the brainwashed lemming mentality of a leftist
Only conservatives think of college educations as "brainwashing". Only conservatives think of experiencing other cultures and studying other peoples and faiths as "brainwashing".
I made no reference to education as the reason for being lemmings. I call leftists lemmings because they line up with whatever their leftist masters spew as the politically correct marxist statist view of government and culture
I hold multiple degrees and have studied every major faith. In addition I have a multi-racial family, have lived in Africa and Asia for ministry and business, and have traveled to 28 countries.