By John Porter
The Democratic Party is the origin and perpetuator of hate and anti-American violence and should be removed.
Subvert: to overthrow, destroy, undermine, or
destabilize an established or existing system, especially a legally constituted
government or a set of beliefs. (Webster's College Dictionary)
This is a time which calls for complete and unabashed
honesty with ourselves.
What are we really witnessing with the events of
violence being carried out in our beloved America?
The vile and putrid display
in Charlottesville, Virginia is but one more event of such
violence intended to subvert our Republican form of government of Individual
Freedom into one of a Socialist dictatorship, such as we have witnessed in many
countries of the world, with Venezuela being the most recent.
What I believe we are seeing has very little, if anything
at all, to do with Robert E. Lee, slavery, the Civil War, race, color,
religion, etc.
These are but flashpoints for a much bigger and more sinister
movement underway to destroy our government of Individual Freedom and
Responsibility.
For the past seventy five years it has been going on, through
national politics, supported
most notably by the National Democrat Party with a few in the National
Republican Party with their beliefs in the Federal Government having close to
total control of all aspects of the lives of individuals.
It is all about
control. Should government be in control or the people in control?
We must be reminded of the things most needed to subvert
a government or system, i.e. control the media, control the minds of the young
through the school systems, destroy the culture or history of a nation. (The
root cause of the violence in Charlottesville , VA. and other southern cities
is the destruction of American History).
The media is now controlled by having infiltrated
the executive level of major news outlets, the thinking of the young through
school teachers and college professors, the destruction of culture and history
through both being eliminated from school books via Common Core and such.
The
root cause of the violence in Charlottesville , VA. and other southern cities
is the destruction of American History.
In the past it has been a slow peaceful
approach of the Democrat Liberal Progressives.
NOW COMES THE RISE OF THE
VIOLENT LEFT.
They are led by basically two groups. Black Lives Matter is the
most notable group, but the most dangerous and fastest growing is known as
ANTIFA (Anti-Fascist Action).
Their violent tactics have elicited substantial support
from the mainstream Progressive left, both in government and the media.
As repugnant as they are, the white supremacist group
acquired a legal permit, issued to them by the city, to be in Charlottesville
to peacefully protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee.
The ANTIFA
did not have a permit to counter protest. They were sent in to cause exactly
what happened. This is not the first time the two groups have had such clashes.
This group (ANTIFA) uses these type events to cause riots and violence so as to
further subvert our system of government and the legitimate election of a
president.
The real danger is that they are supported by the Progressive
Liberals of the Democrat Party and also those within the Republican Party who
wish to see President Trump driven from office.
President Trump is exactly
right, there are two sides to this Charlottesville story, but you are only hearing
about the repugnant white supremacists and not the equally repugnant ANTIFA
group.
It is widely reported the ANTIFA group is heavily
financed by George Soros, and he hasn't denied it.
They have been tagged a
Democrat Terror group and is leading what many are calling “The Resistance.”
We
have heard Hillary Clinton speak of "The Resistance."
Haven't you all
asked yourself in the past, why the Democrats and the so called, mainstream
media have not publicly condemned the riots in different places?
Their fight is
against President Trump, and destroying his "America First" agenda is their goal.
Their goal is to make America “ungovernable” for the president of the United States.
The
swamp is deep and very wide. The Alligators and poisonous vipers are fighting
back hard.
If you have ever stood for anything in your life, you must stand
with our president now in these perilous times when he and our Republic are under attack.
________________
Statues of Limitation
By Steven Hayward
So we seem to be on our way to tearing down every statue
related to the Democratic Party’s largest achievement in American history—the
Confederate States of America.
Funny how the Confederate battle flag, and now
statues, didn’t start to come down until Republicans became ascendant in
southern states.
Democrats who had a monopoly grip on the South for decades had
lots of time to take these steps, but didn’t. You’d almost think they were
opportunists.
Rich Lowry pointed out that there is a statue in
Baltimore of Roger Taney, and lo and behold it was taken down last night.
Taney
did more than perhaps any other figure to propel the nation into civil war with
his reckless decision in Dred Scott that “the negro has no rights which the
white man is bound to respect,” which by implication legalized slavery
throughout the entire U.S. and prohibited Congress henceforth from stopping its
spread in the territories.
All that was needed, as Lincoln pointed out, was one
more case extending the principle Taney laid out to make slavery legal
throughout the North.
Had not the war intervened, maybe we would have had
Ubergefell as the sequel to Dred Scott.
There may be a larger parallel between that time and
today.
I often like to share with students in class the summation of the
defense lawyer in the case of Jacob Gruber, a Methodist minister who was put on
trial in Frederick, Maryland, in 1818 on the charge of inciting a slave revolt.
Gruber had spoken at a large outdoor meeting in Hagerstown about “the nation
sin” of slavery, and as the large audience included several hundred slaves,
Gruber was promptly arrested.
Gruber’s was exactly the kind of abolitionist
speech that Democrats in the 1850s like James Buchanan denounced as causing
sectional rifts.
Here is the climax of the closing argument to the jury
that Gruber’s defense attorney offered:
Any man has a right to publish his opinions
on that subject [slavery] whenever he pleases. It is a subject of national
concern, and may at all times be freely discussed. Mr. Gruber did quote the
language of our great act of national independence, and insisted on the principles
contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters, who, in
the exercise of power, are deaf to the calls of humanity; and he warned them of
the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak with abhorrence of
those reptiles, who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by
tearing the husband from the wife—the infant from the bosom of the mother: and
this I am instructed was the head and front of his offending. Shall I content
myself with saying he had a right to say this? That there is no law to punish
him? So far is he from being the object of punishment in any form of
proceeding, that we are prepared to maintain the same principles, and to use,
if necessary, the same language here in the temple of justice, and in the
presence of those who are the ministers of the law. A hard necessity, indeed,
compels us to endure the evil of slavery for a time. It was imposed upon us by
another nation, while we were yet in a state of colonial vassalage. It cannot
be easily, or suddenly removed. Yet while it continues it is a blot on our
national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it
will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away; and earnestly
looks for the means, by which this necessary object may be best attained. And
until it shall be accomplished: until the time shall come when we can point
without a blush, to the language held in the Declaration of Independence, every
friend of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and
better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave.
Such was Mr. Gruber’s object in that part
of his sermon, of which I am now speaking. Those who have complained of him,
and reproached him, will not find it easy to answer him: unless complaints,
reproaches and persecution shall be considered an answer.
Students often assume that Gruber’s lawyer must have been
Abraham Lincoln, as his argument sounds so much like Lincoln’s line of argument
in the 1850s. Lincoln was precocious, to be sure, but since he was born in
1809, he would have been just nine years old at the time of the Gruber trial.
No; instead, Gruber’s lawyer was. . . Roger Taney.
Which leads to the next question: what the hell happened
to Taney?
That’s a long story, but can be summarized briefly by the proposition
that Democrats ceased to believe that slavery was a national sin—indeed they
came to believe it was a positive good. (See Calhoun, Alexander Stephens,
George Fitzhugh, etc.), and the first version of identity politics was born.
In
other words, Democrats aren’t that much different today than they were in the
1850s.
To put it still one more way, when thinking about what the hell happened
to Taney, you can begin to make out parallels to what the hell has happened to
Democrats more recently.
P.S. Gruber was acquitted.
