In the meantime...
“One” of the parties? The other is complicit if it does nothing to stop it.
History shown as the two diametrically opposed philosophical views of the world and society are not going to be able to coexist with the same national border.
For the second time in our history, the Democrats don’t want to be Americans any more.
The Democratic Party is unlikely to turn from its madness, only become more ensconced in it.
And sooner or later Democrats WILL again seize power.
At that point our goose is cooked, unless patriots are willing to wage a civil war - a REAL war.
Both parties gave US the Kenyanesian Usurpation that made all the other crimes possible.
Eliminating unearned entitlements to the roughly half the country that takes advantage of US taxpayers may help lose socialist progressive supporters.
I opined about 17 years ago how the country needed TWO healthy parties, and at the time it only had one. I was wrong about that as it turns out. We had zero healthy parties. Corruption is just as destructive, actually more so, than unhealthy ideology.
But as countries like Italy have demonstrated for over 70 years, more than two parties creates weak chaotic government.
We are in serious trouble if we can not sweep out the corruption, and get back to two healthy, if even ideologically different, parties.
I seem to recall a time when one party stood for small government, low taxes, and self empowerment. The other party stood for ‘compassion’, a ‘necessarily larger’ more giving government (welfare for the poor). Both parties used to be united when it came to politics beyond our shores. May not have been real but at least that was how I remember its portrayal.
We need checks and balances and I am not sure how that functions without two parties, even if one does not agree with the others ideology.
But while the cancer exists in the parties, we are at risk of losing the “Great Experiment”. I guess that also applies to our society as a whole. It doesn’t work in an amoral society.
Schlichter is missing the point. There is a reason why no Democrat is speaking out about this.
Who is the single Democrat politician who stood up and said, “Hey, wait a second, we just can’t have one party’s the first African-American President's administration spy on another party’s campaign?”
That's why no Democrat is speaking out.
The conversation cannot be allowed to become what African-Americans actually do when they finally achieve the highest offices of power, as opposed to the lofty ideals of what they should do. They don't want Americans to be afraid of what the next Democrat African-American President will do.
-PJ
Hillary recently told us that 40% of Democrats are Socialists.
What she neglected to say it that the remaining 60% are Communists.
The Democrat Party admires Mao.
“If only we could be like [Red] China. Even for just one day”
Someone still has “hope”?
What is this 1972? There is NO reason to hope for this to end without bloodshed. The Marxist in this country have set off a chain reaction that can not be defused. The country is divided between tax slaves and parasites, both sides hate the other. The parasites refuse to detach. They will burn the country to the ground if the tax slaves are emancipated.
Due to the tax slaves ridiculous “hope” that elections are still real, the parasites are trying to keep the host sedate long enough to allow them time to import millions of additional parasites from around the world. Once that is finally achieved the tax slaves will accept the notion that they are simply outnumbered.
The stage is set, and the tax slaves lose. There is only one “hope” and that is for the host to start the purging. Which it will never do because that would be “illegal” and tax slaves don’t have it in them. Game, Set, Match.
Schlicter uses a lot of words to say very little...
As I understand it, parties are an evolution of the realities of people coming together for political jockeying for power in order to effect a political agenda. The Constitution does not provide for them.
So, in theory at least, we could survive as a Republic without parities. However, it is hard for me to think of how that could happen.
In the meantime...
After all, the Democrat Party has bulldozed every norm, custom, and tradition out there in its quest for undisputed power.
That will never change until that party has a headstone on it.
One? Ha!
The Republican and Democrat parties both support Tyranny. It's why there's significant chunks of each that hate Trump and his goal to drain the swamp — unfortunately for Mr. Trump (and us) his greatest strength is also his greatest weakness: as a businessman he's trained and skilled to compromise, to make deals… this is not what is needed in DC. Instead of deals and compromise, we need someone who is uncompromising and vehemently anti-corruption, the sort who would not hesitate to arrest the Supreme Court for violating the Constitution (re: Obamacare, the USSC does not have the authority to make a 'fee' into a 'tax' as the law was written so as not to be a tax and Art. 1. Sec. 1 clearly states that ALL legislative power in the federal government resides with Congress).
One party supports tyranny and the other party won’t fight back.
Serious commentary BUMP!
Cautions from America’s First President:
George Washington’s Farewell Address, excerpted portions on “dangers”:
“But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
“Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”
(Excerpted from G. Washington Farewell Address)