The Tyrant in the Room
The violent riots on college campuses designed to shut down free speech are simply the latest sign of the elephant in the room: modern liberals are fascist tyrants at heart who reject democracy, free speech, and pretty much everything else in the Constitution. They are not patriots with a different vision of democracy, but traitors who want to remake America into a one-party state where the government rules the people.
That may sound harsh, but recall that liberals vilified Donald Trump when they thought he might reject the results of the election because of voter fraud. Yet now those same liberals are demanding that everyone resist and fantasizing about assassinating Trump, even though we now know, thanks to Jill Stein, that there was no voter fraud favoring Trump.
Does anyone doubt that if the scenario were reversed – not that it could be, because conservatives aren't fascists – liberals would be declaring the conservative resistance to be fascists?
At the moment, the biggest battle in ending the fascist aspirations of the mainstream left in America is the decision of whether or not the Supreme Court will continue to be a tyrannical institution designed to oppress the people or whether it'll return to its roots and serve as an impartial interpreter of the law.
Calling judges tyrants may seem harsh, but anyone who makes up laws under the guise of interpreting the law is a tyrant imposing his personal will on the people. Such actions are a rejection of the core tenet of the Constitution that political power flows not from the barrel of a gun or from being appointed to the Supreme Court, but from the people.
Liberals love tyrannical judges, because liberals have never been able get society to accept their agenda via democratic processes. Americans would not have voted to legalize abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth, for example.
If you pause a moment and ponder, you'll realize that all of the sweeping changes in morality made in America have been pushed down from the Supreme Court.
The "wall" that supposedly separates church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Jefferson, who coined the phrase, did so long after the Constitution was ratified, and even he didn't think the Constitution prevented states from having their own churches, nor did it prevent the federal government from funding a Catholic priest ministering to American Indians. For nearly 200 years, everyone thought the Constitution allowed support of religion in general by the federal government but prohibited only the establishment of an official government religion like the Church of England. Yet the Supreme Court has changed all that, so that while pornography is now legally protected, religious expression is directly oppressed in both public and private settings.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that the people who ratified the Constitution thought it protected burning the flag or pornography, but the Supreme Court simply decided that those things are in fact "free speech." That saved liberals from having to convince Americans that the most monstrous and misogynistic pornography should be easily available to children.
Coddling criminals and throwing out critical evidence because arcane bureaucratic processes weren't followed correctly was something that could never have gotten through any legislature in America. Converting the justice system into a game where the results are okay so long as the rules are followed, irrespective of whether or not the guilty are found guilty, is not something the American people supported. Yet the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution was intended to ensure that if a court clerk puts the wrong date on a search warrant, a child-raping, mass-murdering cannibal should get off scot-free.
By overturning the laws of all 50 states, even the most liberal, and legalizing abortion for any reason, including because the unborn is a girl, not a boy, up until the instant of birth, the Supreme Court has subjected America to decades of conflict. Given that the people who ratified the Constitution thought abortion was an abomination, it's unlikely that they intended to declare it a fundamental right. Yet the tyrants on the court imposed their personal beliefs on America and set the stage for the greatest mass killing of innocent people since the Gulags.
Never in the history of Western civilization was a sexual liaison between two men considered a marriage. But even though 55,000,000 Americans voted against same-sex "marriage," and in spite of the fact that the Constitution clearly says all things marriage-related are subject to state, not federal, control, the tyrants on the courts redefined marriage to appease the 2% of Americans who long for members of their own sex.
There is not a single example of liberals getting their hedonistic and atheistic concepts approved across America using the democratic process. Without a tyrannical court, we'd be in a 1950s America – except, of course, racism would be condemned, because the protection of black rights has been primarily the work of politicians, mostly Republicans.
Sadly, the court is not the only place where Americans have to fight the new fascists.
Liberals have never managed to change America by actually getting the majority of people to vote for their real agenda. That's why liberals always lie during election season.
Barack Obama said he opposed redefining marriage and that we could keep our health care policies if we liked them. Obama ran as a conservative and led as a liberal.
He is representative of liberals running for office in all but the most secure seats in the big coastal cities.
Unfortunately, the tyrannical instinct is not restricted to politicians, who can be outvoted in Congress, or to judges. Sally Yates ignoring legal ethics and the law by refusing to obey a lawful order from the president is just the tip of the iceberg of fascist government workers violating their oaths and putting their tribe ahead of their obligation to the American people.
When Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, liberals condemned her even though she was opposing a tyrannical law created out of nothing by unelected rich white judges. Yet those same liberals are fine with sanctuary cities and government bureaucrats who sabotage and resist Trump.
We all know the hypocrisy of the left on pretty much every issue – any liberal speech is protected, but Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be allowed to broadcast; the California legislature exempting itself from gun control regulations; etc. – but we don't usually acknowledge that such a double standard is typical of fascists, who believe in the rule of men rather than the rule of law.
It's time to shed light on the dictatorial nature of modern liberals so that the low-information voters eventually realize that when liberals promise them the moon, they're lying through their teeth.
Liberals like the thugs who rioted in Berkeley, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, and most of the media have become blatant in their repudiation of America because they've come to assume that a tyrannical Supreme Court and a government that feels unconstrained by the Constitution are their right.
It's time for Americans who pay the bills and make America work to say we will not tolerate tyrants. It's one thing to disagree on what immigration policy is best. It's another to encourage illegals voting so as to undermine democracy.
It's time to stop pretending that the people who are the public face of modern liberalism are the loyal opposition. Instead, we should shout from the rooftops that they are fascists who wish to put the American people in chains.
Only then will we have a chance to convert the vast majority of people who vote for liberals because they've been lied to by the media. The liberals know that those people wouldn't vote for them if they knew what liberals really stood for, which is why liberal leaders run as conservatives.
You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.