What the left wants is slavery

The recent ruling from a federal judge compelling Trump to return Marxist hack Jim Acosta's press pass, is yet another example of the assiduous and interminable jurisdprudential farces plaguing America, and yet further illustration that the system of government established by the Founders is currently nigh nonexistent.

I mean, what the hell is this judge talking about? Due process? How was Jim Acosta denied due process? Due process is defined as:

"the regular administration of the law, according to which no citizen may be denied his or her legal rights and all laws must conform to fundamental, accepted legal principles, as the right of the accused to confront his or her accusers."

As stated in a previous blog entry presidential press conferences are a courtesy. The president has no obligation whatsoever to host the press or apprise them of anything. So, being that there is no "right" to be briefed by the president in the first place, much less to debate or browbeat him during one of his own press conferences, how is this even a legal matter at all much less one of due process? This is yet another testament to how profoundly wayward, and dangerous to American liberty, the courts have become. Any coherent, non-activist judge, would have laughed this ridiculous lawsuit out of his courtroom.

Democrats, the disposition of which is superbly conveyed by the insipid cows of The View, are of course tickled pink that Acosta (and through extension the rest of the Walter Duranty laden media) has been indemnified from any repercussions for their political activism. Now leftist journalists too, like so many other subversive proletarian groups, have by a federal judge effectively been granted carte blanche to flout decorum and will likely conduct themselves accordingly. The shills of the GOP are of course unhappy with it, but as usual, for purely partisan and none of the right reasons. I've yet to see any major "Republican" pundit acknowledge the real problem with this ruling, which only serves to further vindicate an observation I've been making for years. Things like "freedom of speech" are for the left entirely one directional. In other words, leftists have the freedom to say whatever they want, and Conservatives do not. Likewise leftists have the freedom to associate with whomever they please, and Conservatives have the freedom with which to be associated. And this is merely another in a litany of examples of that disturbing fact.

If you're a leftist you may associate with whomever you choose. If you're a Conservative you may not. You are compelled by law to associate with people with whom you do not wish to associate. You know, like slaves. In antebellum America the slave owner had freedom of association, and the slave had the freedom with which to be associated, whether he wanted to or not. In present day America "homosexuals" likewise have "freedom of association," while the Christian conversely has only the freedom with which to be associated. (This is plainly illustrated by the fact that "homosexuals" may boycott Christians businesses, but Christian businesses may not boycott "homosexuals.") Association is voluntary for one party (the leftist), and involuntary for the other party (the Conservative). So "homosexuals" had the right to associate with the Kleins, and the Kleins had the right to serve "homosexuals," whether they wanted to or not. If that's not a quintessential characteristic of slavery, I don't know what is.

As I said at the time (of the protest in the image above), she's right. It's not about the cake. It's about freedom of association, and more importantly for us, the lack thereof. And I'm frankly appalled by the abject inability of those on the political right to discern that, and it's actual ramifications, despite its essentially being openly proclaimed by leftists like those in the image above. Despite it being openly proclaimed by leftists when they say things like this.

"It appears to be the first time the federal government has asked the justices to carve out an exception from an anti-discrimination law." - Mark Sherman, Associated Press.

That exception already exists. It's called the First Amendment, which being devised to prevent the federal government from imposing compulsory church attendance or establishing criteria for religious beliefs, establishes the freedom of dissociation. As does that whole "separation" from England incident that took place. Secondly, justices (to whom are conferred "jus discere") don't "carve out" anything, legislators (to whom are conferred "jus dare") do. So Mark's statement tells us a lot about him. Namely that he is, like most American journalists, an ignoramus.

Allow me to explain something to you folks, because those who claim to be on the political right in America, seem to have a serious problem grasping the nuance and gravity of what's occurring. You're not free. You might think you are, but you're not. The First Amendment, for all practical intents and purposes, essentially no longer exists. Do you understand that? It's been effaced by federal "anti-discrimination" law. Under our current form of government, Donald Trump does not have the right to dissociate from Jim Acosta, Christians do not have the right to dissociate from "homosexuals," whites do not have the right to dissociate from blacks, Americans do not have the right to dissociate from illegal immigrants, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

And being that Trump's absurd rhetoric in response to this ruling indicates he's apparently already completely capitulated on this matter from a legal perspective, I feel compelled to therefore ask (for illustrative purposes) the obvious question. What are Trump and the GOP doing to restore fundamental liberties, like the right to dissociate with anyone we want for any reason we want, to people on the political right? Obviously, being that Trump once again lost a battle and now has his tail between his legs, not a damn thing of significance. Clearly Trump can't even protect his own liberties (despite being the most powerful man on Earth). So how can he protect ours?

Aside from a few rapidly fading vestigial remnants of adjudicatory coherence, i.e., a fluke ruling here and there that contravenes the Marxist hegemony, these "anti-discrimination" laws are consistently interpreted in one direction and to the benefit of leftists. The entire philosophical basis of liberty has shifted in America, from one in which rights are derived from God, to one in which rights are derived from the federal government. I've been pointing out for years now, how the "homosexual rights" movement has consistently been the spearhead for replacing God-given and unalienable natural rights, with alienable government granted "civil rights." And no one, not even on the right, seems capable of even comprehending that much less taking it seriously. And it needs to be understood that this is only going to get worse, that these rulings will favor the left more over time and not less, as American jurisprudence continues to become less and less rooted in originalist principles, and ever more rooted in psychotic Marxist moral relativism.

For all their ostensible hatred of religion, the left is establishing a government that is the consummation of everything the Founders sought to prevent, and rivals the most notable excesses of the theocratic tyranny they so love to denounce. It's becoming virtually impossible for one to hold public office in America, without acceding to and openly professing their loyalty to the federally maintained Marxist hegemony, in a fashion not dissimilar to the reign of King Henry VIII. When Henry separated from the church of Rome, the Act of Supremacy was passed, which required his subjects to swear the Oath of Supremacy. The Oath required any person taking public or church office in England to swear allegiance to the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Failure to do so was to be treated as treasonable. (Devout Catholic Thomas More was executed for refusing to do this.) The requirement of swearing the Oath would later be extended to include Members of Parliament and people studying at universities.

In disturbingly similar fashion it's becoming increasingly difficult to make it through college, to hold public office, or even be a pastor in the United States without swearing an oath of federal supremacy, and through extension the Marxist platform upon which such is increasingly based. Leftists will argue they're completely separate and different things, because one was theistic and the other is not, as if there were some meaningful difference between the theocracy they denounce and the "secular" autocracy they're facilitating. Most of them, in spectacles of abject ignorance and delusion, will often even routinely deny their agenda has any basis in Marxism at all.

That's Buzzfeed editor Kelly Oakes discarding with all pretense. None of this specious they only want "Socialism" and not Communism tripe they so often dispense. Kelly has since deleted this Tweet because, despite being full blown Communists, American leftists are aware that label still has a negative perception in the U.S. and therefore don't want to be associated with it. So they generally hide their true political beliefs and affiliations. But make no mistake, the leftists of America and the west in general, want the full shebang.  

Remember when I said above that Marxists are using the "homosexual rights" movement to supplant unalienable natural rights with usually federally conferred and alienable civil rights? You can see that vindicated on Wikipedia's page on the German Green Party.

"Because of the extensive support the Green Party has given the LGBT community since its conception, many gays and lesbians vote for the Green Party even if their political ideology does not quite align otherwise."

This also affirms a longstanding observation and assertion on my part. These people, which I call "vice voters," are overwhelmingly single issue voters. They will support whatever person, or party, promises access to their vice. Even if that person or party is ostentatiously tyrannical. So if a political candidate or party in the U.S., were to start supporting "pedophile rights" for example, you'd see virtually all pedophiles vote for that candidate/party even if they agreed with them on nothing else whatsoever. Even if that candidate or party was merely using the advancement of their "group rights," to abolish liberties derived from any other source but the state, and to crush political dissidents. Basically you'd see the exact same process unfold that was used to advance "gay rights," as that person/party used those benighted pawns to augment the power of the state, which its supporters were oblivious was the real objective all along. To this end, and this end alone, the left promises and rewards these deviants with federally conferred "civil rights." It makes of them most zealous supporters, who obliviously facilitate the establishment of an authoritarian government, as they generally have little or no interest in anything but access to their vices. This is why the Founders warned us, repeatedly and explicitly, about the dangers moral decay poses to limited governance and liberty.

The authoritarians of course grant them these liberties to the extent it serves their purposes. And once it stops serving their purposes, the state may revoke them entirely from a populace of useful reprobates that, having made the state the arbiter of rights, now has no recourse.

By the way. Guess who's an ex-Green Party member.

Sexual deviant, and now senator, Kyrsten Sinema. Kyrsten naturally ran as a member of the largest unofficial, and much too unacknowledged, Communist party in America; the Democratic Party. As a legislator, we can naturally expect Kyrsten to pursue yet more legislation that seeks to supplant natural rights with civil rights, and robs non-Marxists of their right to dissociate from Marxists. Obviously, it would be far harder to infiltrate and subvert American institutions, if they were allowed to separate themselves from Marxists and deny them admission to their institutions.  

For far too long the myopic rights has downplayed and scoffed at the notion Communism is a threat to America. For far too long they've sat obtusely claiming it was "dead" while it flourished all around them under conspicuously transparent euphemism. And now it's ascended to the highest levels of government, is directing virtually every facet of American life, and dimwitted Republicans still refuse to acknowledge it and insist on referring to Marxists as "liberals."

Again, what the left wants is slavery. And if the ineptitude of the feckless GOP is any indication, they'll get it. They already have to a profound degree.