Democrat Party Presidential Candidates Seek To Destroy Nation’s Bill Of Rights
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Mad Scientist

Thread: Democrat Party Presidential Candidates Seek To Destroy Nation’s Bill Of Rights

  1. #1
    Ancient Gaseous Emanation Popeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Sacramento area, CA

    Default Democrat Party Presidential Candidates Seek To Destroy Nation’s Bill Of Rights

    Roger Katz
    July 8, 2019

    New York — -([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])- The Democrat Party is in a bind. This is the inference to be drawn after the first two recently aired Democrat Party Debates. And no less a source of Radical Left, Marxist hate-filled proselytizing and propaganda-filled garbage than The New York Times newspaper recognizes this indisputable fact; and, recognizing it, laments it, but for a very specific reason—one that may not be apparent to the casual reader.

    In two recent stories–one, an Op-Ed, appearing in the Saturday, June 29, 2019 edition of the newspaper, and the other, a news story appearing on the front page of the Sunday, June 30, 2019 edition of the newspaper–two NY Times reporters in a news story, and one NY Times columnist in an Op-Ed, express concern, even consternation over the style, tone and mood of the two recent Democrat Party debates.

    Several of the candidate hopefuls were falling all over themselves in their call for radical change for the Nation–calling for no less than a Marxist Revolution. Their exuberance was on clear display for all to see.

    The fact of the matter is that for millions of Americans who tuned in to hear the recent Democrat Party “Debates” and who listened to the Radical Dead Souls, calling for nothing less than a Marxist Revolution, were less than enthralled with the message delivered. In fact, the majority of Americans were positively alarmed at the tone, mood, and bravado of these individuals who would have the audacity to serve as U.S. President, seemingly on behalf of a Nation and its citizenry whom they really couldn’t care less about, as they seek to destroy the one and to reduce the other to servitude, penury, and misery, serving their lives out in a Socialist Collectivist nightmare of reality.

    They certainly didn’t restrain themselves in projecting the most outrageous social and political policy positions and in providing the American public with their prospects for our Country. In that, these Democrat Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls, were clear and categorical about the agenda they are hell-bent on setting for the Nation: a transitional path forward to ultimate subsumption of our Country, our Nation, into a transnational, trans-global political, financial, economic, social, cultural, and legal system of governance. That would indeed mark the end of our rights and liberties; the end of the supremacy of our laws; an end to our history; an end to the very idea of a United States existing as a distinct Nation State as it is subordinated to and subsumed into a new transnational Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural construct.

    The New York Times, no less a proponent for the Marxist overthrow of the natural order of things, exhibited a note of caution and wariness over the alacrity with which the Democrat Party candidates for U.S. President laid bare their plans for the Country if any one of them were able to defeat Trump and actually assume the Office of Chief Executive of the Nation.

    In the June 30 2019, article, the NY Times reporters made this comment in the opening paragraph of their news account:

    “The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing seeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of a political backlash.”

    And in a June 29, 2019 Op-Ed, the NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, seemingly grudgingly acknowledges that the Democratic Party agenda is well beyond the pale of anything acceptable to the vast majority of Americans:

    “In this week’s Democratic debates, it wasn’t just individual candidates who presented themselves to the public. It was also the party itself. What conclusions should ordinary people draw about what Democrats stand for, other than a thunderous repudiation of Donald Trump, and how they see America, other than as a land of unscrupulous profiteers and hapless victims?

    Here’s what: a party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country. A party that puts more of its faith, and invests most of its efforts, in them instead of us.

    They speak Spanish. We don’t. They are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. We are. They broke the rules to get into this country. We didn’t. They pay few or no taxes. We already pay most of those taxes. They willingly got themselves into debt. We’re asked to write it off. They don’t pay the premiums for private health insurance. We’re supposed to give up ours in exchange for some V.A.-type nightmare. They didn’t start enterprises that create employment and drive innovation. We’re expected to join the candidates in demonizing the job-creators, breaking up their businesses and taxing them to the hilt.”

    Keep in mind Brett Stephen’s account of the Radical Left agenda does hit the mark. What he says concerning the fears of those whom he refers to as “ordinary Americans” isn’t hyperbole.

    What the NY Times finds objectionable, apparently, is that the Democrat Party U.S. Presidential candidates have, for the first time, in the Debates, articulated their message directly and forcefully to the American people–too forcefully; thereby losing, not gaining a substantial portion of the Electorate to their cause.

    The Bill Of Rights Would Be In Serious Jeopardy If A Democrat Does Defeat President Trump In The General Election

    Repeal the Second Amendment

    The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their Bill of Rights constrained or abrogated. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their history rewritten; nor the founders slandered. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their legal system subordinated to foreign laws and tribunals, and their Nation subsumed into transnational system of governance. Brett Stephens and Andrew Cuomo, and Eric Swalwell are not those people.

    What people like Stephens, Cuomo, and Swalwell fear is an armed citizenry that through its very existence would fight to prevent and would be fully capable of preventing a Marxist-Collectivist takeover of the Country. Thus, they seek to disarm the public. Recall that Cuomo and his henchmen were the architects of the New York Safe Act that places a ban on the very firearms with which the American people can ward off the inception of tyranny. And Recall Swalwell's intention to confiscate all semiautomatic firearms in the hands of law-abiding, rational, average Americans.

    And, recall that NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, on two occasions, has called for repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In an October 5, 2017 Times Op-Ed, published a few days after the psychotic killer, Stephen Paddock, went on a shooting rampage, Brett Stephens didn’t mince words as he went about viciously attacking guns and gun ownership and possession, making clear what it is he wants. The very title of his Op-Ed made clear his fervent wish: “Repeal the Second Amendment.” He said, in part:

    “I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment. . . . the more closely one looks at what passes for ‘common sense’ gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

    There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.”

    And, if Americans didn’t get the message in Stephen’s first Times Op-Ed, he reiterated the message in a second Op-Ed, titled, “To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment,” that was published in The New York Times on February 16, 2018, after the Parkland High School tragedy.

    Stephen’s argument against gun ownership and possession is nothing new. Americans have heard the same tiresome message countless times before, albeit delivered with more sense of urgency and ferocity, immediately after a tragedy involving firearms in the hands of psychotic or psychopathic killers: namely that society must get rid of guns, but that those Americans who wish to own and possess firearms need not fear, because it isn’t the intention of Stephens, and Cuomo, and Swalwell, and any of the other Radical Left elements in our Nation to take away all guns from citizens. They just want to take away some of them—and they want to add a little more scrutiny on those who really wish to possess them. And, eventually, these people want to confiscate most firearms from the American citizenry; and, eventually, they seek to confiscate all firearms, so that no one may own or possess a firearm lawfully without first obtaining a valid license, issued by the appropriate Government authority—rendering the Second Amendment de facto repealed, as gun ownership and possession would devolve into mere privilege; no longer a right.

    Americans’ autonomy and self-determination comes to end once Government restrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is not conjecture. That is ice-cold fact.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Jacksonville, FL


    "Passed to fight off slaves" The racist slave owners took guns to stop the slaves from fighting back. What is the government doing to the citizens if they take guns? A group without guns is way easier to control.

  3. #3
    Senior Member NGF Addict! gunzilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012


    Anyone who wants to abolish the second amendment should be considered a traitor to the country and punished accordingly .
    Better to have it and not need it , than to need it and not have it

  4. Remove Advertisements

  5. #4
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Sep 2012


    Baring a personal disaster that would really alienate Americans, I think Trump hasn't much to worry about with these DEMOCRAT adolescent imbeciles. These Mooks aren't even political. They're just plain stoopid!

  6. #5
    Grand Imperial Poobah NGF Addict! Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    North Carolina


    Quote Originally Posted by Stevejet View Post
    Baring a personal disaster that would really alienate Americans, I think Trump hasn't much to worry about with these DEMOCRAT adolescent imbeciles. These Mooks aren't even political. They're just plain stoopid!
    So are the people that vote for them.
    friendof2nd likes this.
    Hidden Content

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington, the first President of the United States (1789-1797)

  7. #6
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Sep 2012


    The people that voted for them did so for their current offices. Not for President. But i probably give them a bit too much credit.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)