DEMs propose distraction and distortion

Slavery for blacks and latinos

In David Horowitz's book: “Indoctrination U,” he describes how tenured radical professors with little regard for professional standards or the pluralistic foundations of American society have created an ideological curriculum that subverts the purposes of a democratic education.

Let's clean up our schools; we're being attacked on many levels - Click







Dems love the virus to create chaos -- like voting against the stimulus package

Oh well, we got it - see if you qualify  --  HERE


Dems also love voter fraud.  Yes, another example




Dems would absolutely love to take away our guns-See Cuomo

As president, any DEM nominated would have the power to take harsh action on gun control and access. Kamala or Beto’s Department of Justice, for example, could step-up enforcement of gun control laws, freeing DEM-led states to confiscate and search. The DEM president could pick for attorney general and a longtime opponent of any/all citizen ownership of a gun or could take inaction with efforts to combat alleged gun control investigation on the part of gun control groups, and coordination of eradicating citizen gun ownership. And could choose a candidate for the Department of Homeland Security, who is passionately like minded.



Dems love to put the scare in us and make teenagers think about suicide.  AOC and Bernie followers have never questioned the climate scientist validity of end of world claims. They know that most of USA are non-believers, but they keep on pushing because they gain followers with each ridiculous repetition.








Dems love to shout about income inequality.  Is the system rigged against you?  Click


Dems love the banking system - THE Federal Reserve - Click

What can we do about Adam Schiff?  Click







Dems love to kill.  Click












Dems are trying to erase Capitalism - Click


Dems love a good monopoly - Click









Dems want globalization and are relentless - proof


What's Socialism all about - Click







Dems want to bring down/melt our society.  If extremist rhetoric has popular appeal, at least on its face, what could be wrong with the overwhelming prevalence of extremist rhetoric in democratic discourse? After all, extremists have a constitutional right to speak in extremist language as long as they are not directly threatening other people. Our answer to the question of what’s wrong with extremist rhetoric is essential to understanding both why its prevalence endangers the public interest that democracy should serve and why so many democratic citizens, even many initially drawn to some forms of extremist rhetoric, find it increasingly troubling over time.

Going as far back in political philosophy as Aristotle, political rhetoric has been employed in the service of reasonable persuasion concerning questions of justice or the public good. Aristotle maintained that the “proper task” of rhetoric is to drive home the logic, the truth, and the evidence of an argument. Reason should frame a good politician’s goal to persuade. The opposite of a sound democratic argument is demagogy: manipulation and deception in order to divide and conquer the democratic populace. Extremist rhetoric is a common tactic of demagogy: it divides in order to conquer.

Mobilizing one’s base and arousing people’s passions are natural parts of democratic politics. Aristotle recognized that rhetoric at its best appeals concomitantly to our passions as well as to our character and our reason. The problem with extremist rhetoric is that it mobilizes the base by spurning reason and playing exclusively to the antagonistic passions of disrespect and degradation of argumentative adversaries. Extremist rhetoric insidiously undermines the democratic promise of mobilizing citizens on the basis of some reasonable understanding of their interest and the public interest.

Unlike extremist rhetoric, extreme rhetoric is almost always either deceptive or worse: It blatantly disregards and devalues truth-seeking understandings upon which citizens in a democracy may make informed judgments. It also undermines a basic value of representative politics. When politicians use extreme rhetoric to mobilize their base in cavalier disregard of the vast majority, they strip the moderate middle of a voice in governance.  It shuts out consideration of competing values that are basic to constitutional democracy. Neither liberty without security and opportunity, nor security and opportunity without liberty is a tenable option.

The problem for representative democracy, therefore, is that many people who are not ideological zealots manipulatively use extreme rhetoric for their own mutually disrespectful political ends–at the same time as zealots of all ideological stripes insidiously subvert the compromising spirit of democracy through their use of extremist rhetoric. Since so much of representative democracy depends on politicians’ wooing the votes and support of citizens to govern in our names, what politicians say matters mightily.




Dems believe in Scientism.  Scientism expresses an equal and opposite certainty, which also defies reason, that all human understanding derives from the comprehensive rational value of scientific inquiry. It treats religion–and religious believers–with open contempt.










Dems do not see the awful outcome of globalization - click

They prefer to stick their heads in the sand












Dems love to undermine the Constitution.  Let's review the oath of office - click   Can a Muslim put our U.S. Constitution/Laws above Sharia Law?  No, then we cannot elect any Muslim to office.

Taking the oath with left hand on a Bible is not required, but should it?  Should we require some authorized Godly book(s)?








Dems love Sanctuary Cities/States.  Court ruled in favor of the Constitution - click













Dems love legalized drugs.  Very lucrative, right?  Freedom of choice, yet Dems love to dictate food to us - hypocrisy

What ethnic group is very opposed to it?  Click











Dems love open borders.  Court ruled in favor of the Constitution - The travel ban excludes people with no background records, from countries that keep no records of terrorist or illegal activities











Dems cringe at the remedy already in action:  Less partisan gerrymandering would foster more representative democratic rhetoric. Well-structured debates and factcheck.org blogs can expose extremist and extreme rhetoric that is deceptive and subversive of the democratic pursuit of the public interest.

Democratic citizens should not wait for the media and our political leaders to reform themselves. The vast majority of democratic citizens–can play an important part today in criticizing extreme and extremist rhetoric and in defending a more democratic, less demagogic rhetoric of morally engaged pluralism.