Daily Archives: March 3, 2016

Party for Socialism and Liberation: Fighting Trump and the far right

Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) logo

The following was published on the Liberation News website, the official publication of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, on March 1st: 

Originally published in the February 2016 issue of Liberation Newspaper.

On the Republican side, the clearest lesson from Iowa and New Hampshire is that ultra-right politics are in full command. Trump and Cruz are leading the field, and the so-called “moderate” candidates are either Tea Partiers themselves or espouse the same program of attacking labor unions, social services, Planned Parenthood and expanding wars in the Middle East.

The Republican program amounts to a full-scale assault on the working class and all regulations that inhibit profit. In order to have a mass appeal it wraps its economic program in the American flag, “conservative values” and unchecked militarism. The Republicans speak to white voters especially of a mythical “golden age” and lament that the U.S. is “in decline.”

While the GOP candidates are individually more diverse than ever, their common narrative is to present the demographic and cultural changes that have taken place in the second half of the 20th century (inclusion of Black people, women, LGBTQ people and immigrants) as the cause of the massive economic instability for previously stable and relatively privileged groups of white people. They present all progressive changes as a conspiracy between Washington elites and “minorities” against “traditional” America.

The top Republican candidates are the ones that 1) best channel this right-wing brew of bigotry and populist anger and; 2) have the smallest connection to the “old” Republican Party before the Tea Party wave.

Understanding Trump and Cruz

Trump’s “make America great again” campaign just boils down the whole Republican approach into a simple slogan. Unlike the Republican establishment, Trump also tries to appeal to U.S.-born workers with a promise to bring back U.S. industry and to defend Social Security and Medicare. The core of his message is racist scapegoating, calling for the deportation of 12 million immigrants and proposing bans on Muslims. He calls to reinforce the U.S. Empire with brute force, torture and bombing.

All throughout Europe, far-right racists and nationalists, from Marine Le Pen in France to Viktor Orban in Hungary, are using the same playbook as Trump to build semi-fascist movements, although still within the framework of bourgeois democracy.

Trump has given a huge boost to white supremacist and militia organizations—the core of homegrown U.S. fascism. His rallies have become hotbeds of racism, where people of color have been repeatedly attacked, and his supporters spew their bigotry with brazen confidence online.

The clear fascist elements of the Trump phenomenon, including the danger it poses to oppressed communities, does not mean that a Trump victory would immediately amount to full-blown fascism, meaning the termination of the democratic rights to assemble, speak out and organize. A Trump presidency would likely spur enormous anti-fascist organizing and struggle from communities of color, the LGBTQ community, defenders of women’s rights, as well as progressive and class-conscious workers.

Glimmers of a new anti-fascist movement have already been seen in the anti-Trump rallies across the country, many of which the PSL has participated in and helped organize.

Cruz has a different social base, but is no less reactionary. Cruz has effectively become the candidate of right-wing evangelical Christians. He combines his extreme reactionary views against women, Muslims, immigrants and the LGBTQ community with his pro-austerity Tea Party credentials, and war-mongering. While Trump has built a kind of cult around himself, with only a superficial organization, Cruz has a whole network of far-right evangelicals that are chomping at the bit to completely seize control of the Republican Party in state legislatures and governorships nationwide.

Only mass social struggle can defeat the far right

Trump Sarasota

Out of either fear or sheer disgust for the far right, many progressive people are looking to a Democratic Party victory to stop the far right.

But to stop right-wing populism, it is important to understand how it has grown. Economic dislocation in the United States has been caused by three decades of nonstop austerity from the ruling class. It has been a bipartisan effort—the Democrats are equally responsible for it. Their goals have been has been to maximize profit and drive the various sectors, strata and identities of the working class into a race to the bottom of the increasingly globalized economy.

This imperialist system has been constructed over time with various types and levels of oppression that exist in addition to class exploitation. Racism is embedded into this country’s economic stratification as well as so many aspects of daily life. This makes the task of uniting the working class all the more difficult, and allows the far right, in the absence of a strong and independent left, to draw in and keep control over large sections of the white working and middle classes.

Class-conscious workers have to combat and expose Trump’s divide-and-conquer campaign. Rather than “make America great again,” Trump in fact wants to lower workers’ wages and preserve the economic inequality that has benefited him and his billionaire friends.

If Sanders were to win the nomination, much of the ruling class—including its “moderate” elements—would unite behind a third-party candidate, like Michael Bloomberg, or the Republican candidate. They could even back a far-right Trump or Cruz, who they currently find embarrassing and loathsome. That is how determined they are to prevent Sanders’ old-school liberalism, not to mention mildly socialist rhetoric, from becoming a powerful political current again. To them, this development would be more dangerous than far-right extremism.

If Clinton were to win, her connections to the political establishment and the banks are so strong that she is more likely to mobilize disgruntled white people to vote against her—and for the Republican Party—than she is to inspire progressive whites and oppressed communities to vote for her. To make matters worse, in such a scenario Sanders has pledged to fold his progressive supporters back into Clinton’s campaign. This would demobilize and demoralize the movement behind him, and hand the populist anger back in the direction of the far right.

In short, the capitalist elections cannot defeat the far right, but are likely to only help the far right grow—as has already happened. The fragmented and chaotic state of both capitalist parties could lead to new political realignments and a protracted period of instability. This means preparing for sharper struggles within the capitalist class, against the far right and in defense of poor and working people.

Class-conscious workers and revolutionaries must not yield to fear and alarmism in the face of increasing polarization and instability. Now is the time to search for new opportunities to increase the contradictions among the ruling class, to build united fronts to advance the class struggle, to fight the far right, and to expose the undemocratic capitalist system for what it really is.

American Freedom Party leader attends Donald Trump rally in Memphis

American Freedom Party banner

James Edwards, the host of the weekly white nationalist radio program, The Political Cesspool, attended a Donald Trump rally in Memphis, Tennessee on February 27th. Edwards, a former member and candidate of the America First Party, serves as a director for the American Freedom Party and is a member of the party’s leadership. The following was published on the American Freedom Party’s website on March 2nd: 

I attended a Donald Trump rally in Memphis on Saturday night as a fully credentialed member of the media and enjoyed the unique experience of being able to air a live broadcast of The Political Cesspool Radio Program from inside the press pen while the event was in full swing. (Next Saturday’s show [March 5] will feature a previously taped 20-minute interview with Donald Trump, Jr.) It was a very memorable day and I’d now like to take my audience behind the scenes.

After receiving my credentials from the campaign, I was instructed to get there early for set-up and to go through security. At approximately 1:30 PM I arrived at the Millington Regional Airport, where the rally was to be held inside one of the hangars. There was already a long line of supporters waiting to gain entry even though I was on-scene nearly five hours before Trump ascended to the podium. With rock music blaring and people tailgating in the parking lot it felt very much like a college football atmosphere. There were plenty of vendors hawking Trump merchandise, but the most impressive display was a concession stand offering the “Make America Great Again Trump Burger.” Naturally, this monster featured 100% American beef and 100% American cheese. Other items being offered included the “Ted Cruz Burger” (which featured Canadian Bacon), Bernie Sanders Pork Nachos, and Hillary Clinton SOFT drinks — that had been scrubbed clean.

I was fortunate to be able to bypass the crowd and long line by parking in a VIP area designated for members of the press, which was located directly behind the hangar. When I got out of my car I almost immediately ran into Trump beat reporter Katy Tur of NBC News. Katy first became known to me a couple of months ago after watching an interview she did with Trump.I must say though that she comes across as having an overall pleasant personality on television, and she was most certainly a sweetheart when we talked. Interestingly, she is the former girlfriend of Keith Olbermann, who once referred to me as “the worst person in the world” on his unimpressive and now thankfully canceled television show.

The time seemed to pass quickly. After picking up my press badge and clearing Secret Service, it felt as though the crowd was already starting to gather inside the venue. My co-hosts, Keith Alexander and Eddie “The Bombardier” Miller, were already waiting for me by the time I set foot inside the hangar. The three of us, along with a TPC correspondent, brainstormed for a few minutes and developed an outline for our radio broadcast that night. As the crowd continued to build, it was nearing time to go to work.

James Edwards, Media Pass

As “game time” approached the energy in the room became palpable. There was a sense of excitement that was undeniable inside of a rusted, concrete hangar that looked like it had been built during the Cold War to shelter Memphians if Cuba ever decided to drop the bomb. It’s amazing how such an unassuming location can transform into the place to be when filled to capacity with the right people. And filled it was. A crowd of at least 10,000 packed inside a space with no chairs — and no complaints.

A view of the crowd from my vantage point inside the press pen long before the start of the event

As vigorous as the crowd was in advance of his arrival, Trump sent them into an absolute frenzy when his personal 757 came in for a landing in full view of those assembled. This man knows how to make an entrance. The plane rolled to a stop right in front of the podium before the door opened and out emerged New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the Republican front-runner. Christie provided an admirable warm-up act during which he comically savaged “Little” Marco Rubio.

Trump on screen, James Edwards

Trump himself took over the mic just minutes before 6:00 PM Central Time and gave his patented stump speech. The crowd roared when he asked them who was going to pay for the wall and nearly made the ground shake when he told them the wall was going to get ten feet taller if Mexican officials continue to use foul language.

Believe it or not, I was actually able to hear very little of Trump’s speech because shortly after 6:00 my radio program went live on the air and I had to connect to the studio. However, it was a pretty incredible experience to be able to broadcast live from the press pen while Trump was simultaneously making his remarks. Being able to paint a verbal picture of the scene for my audience was a real novelty and something that will definitely be remembered. If you’ve not yet listened to our most recent show, please check our broadcast archives.

A highlight of the evening was when a scraggly protester attempted to disrupt President Trump’s remarks by holding up an unoriginal sign that read, “Make America HATE Again.” The crowd erupted when a hero emerged to rip the sign to shreds before security could escort the vanquished Social Justice Warrior to the parking lot. The press ate up the confrontation and scribbled furiously to cast this malcontent as someone worthy of praise.

Quite frankly, the media is wetting itself in reaction to Donald Trump’s surging candidacy. So-called reporters and journalists must feel absolutely impotent to find that, after spending decades attempting to brainwash people with a constant inundation of unnatural ideas, their best efforts have resulted in a colossal failure. As the media watches its grip slipping away, they have become desperate to paint Trump as a “racist.” It’s the same old, worn out card they always play. I wrote a book about it.

Trump has risen to the top of the polls by simply stating he will enforce our immigration laws and by showing he is a real man who won’t cower to political correctness. By throwing out some red meat to the starving base of the Republican Party, he has firmly positioned himself to execute a hostile takeover the GOP. Thank God!

James Edwards - After long since abandoning objective reporting, the media now sees itself as the enforcer of political correctnessmedia tables

The only downer was having to work in such close proximity to my “colleagues,” I really do despise the press and have gotten to the point now where I rarely give interviews anymore. They’re contemptible and obnoxious creatures. Rather than take advantage of having room to maneuver in the pen, I chose rather to stick close to the fence and mingle with the crowd during breaks in my program.

After he wrapped up a stem-winder, the Donald worked the ropes for a while before climbing back aboard AirTrump. Minutes later, he was rumbling back down the runway and into the Tennessee sky.

I handed the show over to my co-hosts during the second hour and took pictures with a few fans who had been patiently waiting for me. The last woman who approached me had driven in from Nashville and remarked that she, too, was a Southern Baptist who agreed with me on the situation plaguing our church. I believe that I gave her comfort by assuring her that Trump was going to win Tennessee and carry the evangelical demographic throughout Dixie.

James Edwards - Holding my show notes while touching base with my producer

After a short exchange, I autographed her campaign sign and encouraged her to pray that Trump becomes our next Charlemagne.I must admit that this rally lived up to my expectations. I’ve been saying for years on the radio that the majority of Americans fundamentally agree with us on the issues and that the neocons were generals of a phantom army. I am being proven right. Our people just needed a viable candidate and they’ve identified Trump as that man. There is no doubt that Trump’s populism and nationalism is galvanizing our nation and may change the course of American history for the better right before our very eyes. After getting my start in politics with Pat Buchanan in 2000, Donald Trump will be the first Republican nominee that I have ever voted for.

Buchanan was a man ahead of the times and Trump is his vindicator. With family men like myself, it can be argued that Trump is now growing the party because there isn’t a chance that I would have ever considered voting for any of the other cuckservative losers bidding for the White House under the GOP banner this year. A fellow traveler remarked to me in private that the ingredient in Trump’s historic rise that makes it so delicious is that it’s nuclear powered. It is unstoppable. It is impervious to foot-shuffling, complaints, whining, hysterical cries of “racism” and so-called “white supremacism.”

Trump supporters don’t care, and there is something undeniably infectious about Trump’s masculine attitude. He is a prototypical alpha male.We don’t have to agree with everything Trump says, and he doesn’t need to agree with everything we say. In fact, it wouldn’t bother me if Donald Trump himself denounced me and all of my friends. He can denounce me until the cows come home so long as he follows through on his pledge to build a wall and ensures that the aliens self-deport. I am supporting him because immigration is the single biggest problem that our nation needs to solve. Demographics is destiny. He doesn’t have to support me.

The bottom line is that Trump is the only candidate who gives us a chance at having a fighter who will put America first. He’s the only candidate who isn’t owned and operated by special interests. With Trump, America has a chance to regain her identity.

A new day is dawning and it’s a beautiful sight to behold.

Vote Trump.


Lp.org: Libertarian debate on TV, moderated by John Stossel

From LP.org, March 3rd:

Dear Libertarian,

It’s official!

There will be a debate of Libertarian presidential candidates on TV this year!

Many thanks to John Stossel and FOX Business Network for making this happen. A nationally televised debate is long overdue and we are delighted that it is finally happening.

You may be aware that the Libertarian National Committee and Our America Initiative are currently suing the Commission on Presidential Debates for equal access. Such a lawsuit takes time. The Commission is biased because it is controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties. They are clearly scared to have our nominee on the stage debating theirs! We will update you as this lawsuit progresses.

Justice is slow in coming. But, when it makes progress, we must celebrate…and spread the word!

So please help us spread the word about the upcoming debate on FOX Business Network.

It will be filmed on March 29 and aired on April 1.

We’ll update you on key details such as the time it airs as these details become available.

A limited number of free tickets are available. To request them, email.

As always, thank you for your support!!


Wes Benedict

Executive Director

ATPR note: The candidates who will participate in the Libertarian Party presidential debate are Gary Johnson, John McAfee and Austin Petersen. 

Throwback Thursday: I interview a David Earl Williams III campaign operative on The Lesiak Report

Throwback Thursday: On May 25th, 2013, I interviewed a campaign operative for David Earl Williams III, a libertarian conservative candidate who ran for the Republican Party’s nomination for Congress in Illinois’ 9th district, losing in a close contest with 47.6%, or 14,148 votes. Williams III quit the GOP in late 2015 and now is running as an independent for the same congressional seat this year, and has publicly stated that after the election he plans on joining the Libertarian Party.

Disclosure: I was a campaign staffer for Williams III during a portion of his 2014 run.


Throwback Thursday: Andy Jacobs: The Libertarian Zone

Andy Jacobs (right)

Throwback Thursday: The following was published on IPR on July 31st, 2014:

Via The Saturnalian:

A frequent commenter to IPR and longtime member of the Libertarian Party, Andy Jacobs, who also works on ballot access drives and thus has encountered a large segment of society, has discussed the idea of a “Libertarian Zone” in IPR comments since at least 2012. Below is a comment Andy made on June 5, 2014, which I believe best summarizes the Libertarian Zone concept and provides the rationale behind it.

Why We Do Not Have a Libertarian Society

The reason that we do not have a libertarian society right now is because there are too many people in this country who do not believe in liberty.

I’ve never been to PorcFest (the annual summer libertarian festival in New Hampshire from the Free State Project), but I’ve heard accounts from people who have attended it, and they said that it is great, because it is like a mini-libertarian society. What makes it a libertarian society? The only people who go to PorcFest are libertarians!

People can be free to disagree on a lot of issues, and this is fine. The problem is when people use force, most often in the form of government, to FORCE their views onto others. Now it is one thing to use force against a person who is violating the non-aggression principlethemselves, such as a person who believes that they have a right to steal your car, but another thing to use force against a person who is not violating the non-aggression principle, as in they have not initiated any coercive acts of violence or destruction of property, nor have they stolen anything or defrauded anyone.

People who are not libertarians do not really believe that individuals have the right to disagree, because they want to use government to force their views on others, even when the people whom they are forcing their views on are not doing anything to harm anyone else. So this is why it is dangerous to liberty to have people around who do not believe in liberty. People who do not really believe in liberty DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT TO DISSENT, as in they do not believe in “live and let live.”

I think that Lysander Spooner was right way back in 1867 when he wrote, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, in that the Constitution is not a valid contract, because nobody living signed it. There is also the fact that the Constitution still established a coercive government.

Kenneth Royce, also known as “Boston T. Party,” wrote a book called Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution’s Shocking Alliance With Big Government, where his premise is that the Constitution was a coup, as in the real purpose of the constitutional convention where the Constitution was drafted, which was supposed to have been held to merely to amend the Articles of Confederation, was to create a strong national government, which is what has led to the mess that we are in today.

Regardless of whether or not Kenneth Royce is correct with his assertion about the Constitution, the fact of the matter is that nobody today signed it, and most people today, even those who hold elected office and those who work in government, do not have a freaking clue what the Constitution says or means.

Even with the flaws present in the Constitution, I think that we can all agree that if it were actually followed, we’d have a society that is a lot more free right now than it really is. Well how can you expect people to follow a document that most people have never read, or only read part of years ago, and therefore do not really understand? Do you think that if everyone had to sign the Constitution, or some kind of document that laid down the guidelines for living in this country, that a lot more people would take the time to read and understand what said document says, especially if there were some kind of penalty clause in it for violating it?

One of the flaws in the Constitution is that there is no penalty clause in it. I had an idea a while ago for a penalty clause in the Constitution that would say something like, “It shall be legal for anyone to engage in acts of violence, including violence resulting in death, against any elected or appointed government official, at any level, who violates any section of the Constitution.”

Do you think that government officials would be more careful about abiding by the Constitution, if they knew it was a legitimate legal defense for somebody to beat them or murder them if they violate the Constitution?

The Constitution really does not go far enough in protecting individual liberty. This is why ultimately, coercive government should be abolished. There should be no taxes. Individuals should interact with each other on a voluntary basis.

Why is this not the way it is now? Why do we not have a voluntary society? Why do we not at least have a coercive government that is small and strictly adheres to what is written in the Constitution?

The reason we do not have either a voluntary society, or a small government which is limited by the Constitution, is because there are too many people among us that fall into one of three categories:

  1. They are sociopathic control freaks.
  2. They are people who prefer to be led around like sheep by sociopathic control freaks.
  3. They are not sociopathic control freaks, and they do not necessarily prefer to be led around by sociopathic control freaks; however, they do not possess the will to do anything to stop the sociopathic control freaks, so they just “grin and bear it” (so to speak).

There are people who are freedom fighters, such as those of us who are in the Libertarian Party, as well as those who are working toward more freedom in other ways, but we are greatly outnumbered by the other three groups. The people who are in groups 1 and 2 are the enemy, especially group 1. The people in group 3 are either apathetic, or they sympathize with our way of thinking, but they do not realize it yet, or they realize it but think that the situation is hopeless, so they do not do anything, or are afraid to do anything.

I really do not see any way that we can achieve liberty, unless we get away from groups 1 and 2. Libertarianism is just not compatible with the people who are in groups 1 and 2. The people in group 1 are especially dangerous. These are the people who would try to destroy a libertarian society if we were successful in creating one somewhere.

There are certain people in this country and world who will never accept libertarianism no matter what we do. The only things that we can do is get away from these people and defend ourselves, with violence if necessary, if they come near us.

We will never achieve a libertarian society, as long as we are outnumbered by Democrats, Republicans, socialists, communists, fascists, monarchists, or whatever other form of collective control systems you can imagine.

The Libertarian Zone

This is what led me to the concept of a Libertarian Zone, or Libertarian Zones. This would be a place, or places, where people who are not sociopathic control freaks, and people who do not like being lead around by sociopathic control freaks, can come together and live in voluntary cooperation (kind of like PorcFest, but year round, and hopefully on a bigger scale).

There’d have to be some way of spelling out the terms to live in or visit the Libertarian Zone, and there’d have to be some mechanism for enforcing those terms. This is what led me to the idea of the Libertarian Zone Contract. Entrance to the Libertarian Zone would not be based on race, ethnicity, or anything else beyond political, or more accurately, philosophical ideology. The ideology would be spelled out in the contract, which would be the same for everyone, and everyone would have to sign. The penalty for not signing would be ejection from the Libertarian Zone.

Perhaps everyone in the Libertarian Zone would have to post some kind of bond, and then if the Libertarian Zone Contract is broken, there would be randomly selected jury, participation in which would also be voluntary (since the price for liberty is eternal vigilance, I think that most people who live in the Libertarian Zone would welcome the opportunity to serve on a randomly selected jury). If the randomly selected jury finds that a person did indeed violate the Libertarian Zone Contract, bounty hunters would be able to collect the bond which the individual posted to enter the Libertarian Zone (anyone in the Libertarian Zone could be free to collect the bounty as a bounty hunter), by forcibly ejecting the offender if necessary. If the offender is particularly nasty, and refuses to leave, bounty hunters will be free to use deadly force against them. Given that there will be no laws against self defense in the Libertarian Zone, a really heinous Libertarian Zone Contract violator, such as a rapist or a murderer, would not likely get very far, because many people in the Libertarian Zone would likely walk around armed.

Nobody would be forced to own or carry a gun, but I’d bet that many people would choose to do it. There would be no War on Drugs and no welfare state, both of which breed crime, and there’d be no laws preventing people from owning or carrying guns, or knives or swords or mace or tasers or other weapons for self defense. I don’t think that crime would be a big problem, even more so given that every individual would have to read and sign a contract that says that they agree to not engage in coercive acts of violence, theft, fraud, or destruction of property, and that if they violate this contract, they will be forced to leave the Libertarian Zone, that they will be forced to pay restitution prior to leaving, and that depending on their actions, violation of the contract could result in their death, or severe bodily injury, since many of the residents of the Libertarian Zone will choose to carry weapons and will be well trained in their use.

I think that the Libertarian Zone would be a nice and prosperous place to live, and that once people were in it, and once they signed the Libertarian Zone Contract, which would be short, and in basic terms that most people could easily understand (if a person was retarded and not capable of understanding the Libertarian Zone Contract, they would have to be a ward of a Libertarian Zone Contract signer, as in a Libertarian Zone Contract signer would have to sign for them and would be responsible for caring for them), that most people would want to stay in the Libertarian Zone, and would be careful to not initiate force or fraud.

The Libertarian Zone is an idea I’ve been kicking around for a long time for how a Libertarian Society could be achieved, given the reality that there are some people in this world who are severe obstacles to having a libertarian society.

William Saturn: Supreme Court Vacancy Threatens Liberty

Antonin Scalia

William Saturn is a contributor for both American Third Party Report and Independent Political Report. The following was published on his website on February 29th:

Earlier this month, a new threat to liberty emerged as originalist Justice Antonin Scalia died in Texas, vacating his seat on the Supreme Court. On that day, the stakes of the 2016 presidential election grew exponentially.  Now, whoever gets elected will either maintain the status quo in the Court or create a new, more dangerous majority.

Though the U.S. Constitution is not necessarily a libertarian instrument, it guarantees several fundamental God-given liberties such as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.  Conservative jurists like Antonin Scalia, more often than not, maintain the status quo of liberty. Modern progressives do not. While textualist conservatives see the Constitution as dead and the Court merely an institution to strike against unconstitutional government excess, modern progressives read words into a “living” Constitution to invent powers for government to restrict rights in the name of “fairness.”

The progressive Warren Court’s expansion of individual rights and civil liberties in the 1960’s was admirable, but modern progressives no longer share such values. Whereas the goal of traditional progressivism was the protection of civil liberties and the rights of dissenters, modern progressivism is more interested in promoting fairness at the expense of liberty. For example, the concept of political correctness has so-warped modern progressivism with the so-called “right not to be offended” that universities have shifted from beacons of free expression to echo chambers rivaling North Korea in suppression of free thought.

Some argue that a conservative Court would be just as liberty averse as a progressive Court.  I disagree.  The status quo is much less scarier than changes to interpret the law as one desires.  For example, in the recent Court decisions of Citizens United, and Heller, the progressive members of the Court dissented to clear cases upholding the rights of speech and gun ownership.  In both cases, just one vote would have shifted the balance and taken away fundamental rights.  In comparison to the malignant ideology of modern progressivism, conservatism is relatively benign.

A progressive Court will be able to approve massive sweeping changes to the way we exercise our rights. Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton agree with President Barack Obama’s abuse of executive powers. One can assume a President Clinton or President Sanders will also abuse executive powers, perhaps more so than Obama. An opposition Congress can do nothing to stop it. What can Congress do if President Clinton or President Sanders legislates gun control and speech bans from the oval office with a Supreme Court in his or her back pocket? Impeachment? I doubt it. Enough in Congress support the withering of our rights to block that.

The only solution will be on Election Day.  For the defense of liberty, the importance of not electing a modern progressive as President cannot be overstated.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,521 other followers