PROLOGUE: The United States was never supposed to be a democracy. No such thing is mentioned in the Constitution. This country was designed to be a representative republic.

The difference between the two forms of government is profound. In a republic, a constitution is the law. The rights and freedoms recognized (not afforded) are unchangeable and inviolate. Note: The U.S. Constitution has a Bill of Rights, (Amendments to The Constitution) which, with the exception of administrative rules and one denial of a freedom, have recognized even more freedoms. The 18th Amendment, commonly known a Prohibition, denying citizens the right to the use of alcoholic beverages was passed, just to be struck down shortly thereafter.)

In a democracy, a constitution and the rights and freedoms afforded within are more of a guideline and are able to be changed, adjusted and denied according to the wishes of the majority in power at the time. This is mob rule. Note: Rowe vs. Wade gave women the right to terminate their pregnancies in violation of the “right to life”. This remains a point of contention among citizens. Generally, democratic laws attempt to deny personal freedoms in favor of group freedoms. This is problematic because the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to protect individuals from groups infringing upon individuals’ rights.

It is the purpose of the Democrats’ agenda to change our nation from a republic to a democracy… and eventually into a communistic society.  In order to do this, votes must be taken which weaken and eventually destroy the U.S. Constitution as it was written.

The Democrats’ chosen demographics are of two categories. First, the poor and disabled and then, of course, the young. In order for liberals to secure votes on their policies, they promise financial relief through public charity provided via taxation. Both major parties agree that there are those who need assistance. Republicans favor private charities wherein the needy and disabled beneficiaries are grateful. Democrats prefer the aforementioned public charity in which all beneficiaries feel shortchanged.

Democrats policies of welfare introduced by F.D.R. have had the result of creating a multigenerational welfare culture in which families have become accustomed to living without the need to provide for themselves. The lack of the need to work has allowed free time to invest in criminal and gang activities to supplement their financial public entitlement incomes.

In many cases honor rises to the surface and people on welfare find the ambition to legally fend for themselves. As these folks succeed, they accumulate wealth and, lo and behold, decide they are entitled to what they’ve earned and want to keep it. That’s when they change political affiliations. Democrats don’t like this type of attrition. They think the desire to keep what one earns is “greed”.  Money earned should belong to everyone, or at least accessible by the state. To combat these problems, Democrats are required to continuously renew their supply of needy folks. We see this most prominently now in their proposed policies on illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and states and the use of tax dollars to reduce incomes of earners toward the advancement of non-earners.

The adage of “you can give a man a fish and he will feed himself for a day” ends there, in the minds of Liberals.

Republicans and other conservatives see the folly in these policies and recognize they fly in the face of basic human nature. The more success the liberals see in advancement of their agenda, the more the conservatives will and do push back. It has now reached the predictable point at which Americans have become more politically polarized than in any time other than the 1860s Civil War era.

What will happen next? It’ s easy to predict… the violent conflict which has already begun.

Lots of people hate Trump. On both sides of the political aisle, people find Trump to be rude, narcissistic, ineloquent and something of a bully. Washington politicians, of both major parties, are fearful he will upset the apple cart of power, corruption and malfeasance they enjoy with his “drain the swamp” policy.

Democrats have a much bigger concern specific to their agenda. Trump is attempting to destroy the momentum they’ve gained toward creating a citizenry reliant upon government to fulfill individual’s personal needs and responsibilities. This is the elephant in the room no one talks about; and it is the basis for the Liberals’ hatred of Trump.

UP NEXT: The Domocrats’ agenda and what to expect as they gain success.

There is one area where Republicans and Democrats agree. When it comes to charity, the money should come from Republicans.

Republicans donate personally. Democrats donate Republicans’ money by taxing them at disproportionate rates.

Modern democrats admire financial success in  the same way mosquitoes admire bare ankles.

The above is actually an unfair comparison. Unfair to mosquitoes, which are innately parasitic. For liberals parasitism is a conscious choice.

There exists a belief that the rich are responsible for providing solutions to poverty. This is not only blatantly false; it is thoroughly unworkable. History has proven this fact over and over again. The tendency to covet your neighbor’s wealth is normal. It is the inspiration to  earn wealth for yourself. The idea that your neighbor owes you some of what he’s earned has no basis in logical thought.

There have always been those who would attempt to gain personal power by advocating reapportionment of wealth. These are not stupid people. They know the benefits of such systems are nonexistent. They know Robin Hood was a fictional character. Allow me to ask…Who benefitted from the Russian Revolution? Who benefitted from Cuban and South/Central American socialism or communism? How are things going in North Korea? The winners are always those who promoted the idea of reapportionment of wealth. The losers were/are the supposed beneficiaries.

The concept of having other entities, whether it be wealthy individuals or the government, assume someone’s personal financial responsibilities has always been attractive to people without honor. The idea that a person is entitled to something beyond the gifts of God, without earning it, began as simple theft between primitive individuals. This crime grew over time as groups of various sizes became involved. We call the latter organized crime. Through the process of rationalization, certain groups claim that because depriving others of their rightful property without benefit to the property owner fits their agendas, the ways in which they steal are perfectly okay.  We don’t call members of these groups organized criminals because the ways in which they steal are technically legal. They are legal because people believe they are entitled to something for nothing…so laws allowing theft are passed.

Those of the population who are truly physically and/or mentally incapable of surviving without others’ assistance will always have socially derived care. Those who claim to be victims of a society which rewards effort, talent and ingenuity at a higher rate than it rewards sitting on one’s ass will always find sympathetic ears among the Democrats, socialists and communists who work tirelessly to promote continued poverty…for without poverty, these thieves have no power or value.

1. Addicted to fantasy.
2. Allergic to reality.
3. Dumbfounded by the obvious.

Has anyone recognized what is going on in Washington D.C.? For the past three years both sides of the political isle have focused upon the inappropriateness of how the other side exposes wrongdoing among their elected members. Almost no interest is shown regarding the wrongdoing itself. If you don’t announce you are about to enter the kitchen before catching someone with their hand in the cookie jar, you are the guilty one.

How was dirt dug up on Hillary? The Russians and WikiLeaks became the focus of attention. The dirt on Hillary got swept under the rug and she’s back entertaining another run for the White House. The Democrats, by way of Mueller investigates whether Trump was involved. Now, Trump’s investigation of possible corruption in Ukraine has Democrats threatening impeachment of the President. Corruption in Ukraine is sidelined. Crowds have chanted “Lock her up!” Crowds have chanted, “Lock him up!”. This is simple jockeying for an upcoming election.

All of this is clearly infantile, partisan shenanigans. Career politicians have no interest in exposing actual wrongdoing because such behavior is their modus operandi. They simply want to ensure such wrongdoing can remain undiscovered by cementing the maze of difficulties required to make public these behaviors. None of this is new, except Trump’s push to “drain the swamp”. That is the real threat both sides are battling with differing tactics.

Whether Trump has violated the Constitution is moot when the Democrats do it daily. Each side screams the same words against the other side. In reality both sides are guilty. The question is whether the voting public has any interest in elected officials  upholding the Constitution in the first place. The media doesn’t and are betting voters don’t either.

I was just listening to a Sacramento, California radio station (AM 650). The duo, Armstrong and Getty, were discussing the reasons why Columbus Day is celebrated as a holiday in the U.S.. They wondered why and apparently disagreed with any notion that the study of explorers to the New World was at all important to young students, when teachers have so little time to teach so many more relevant subjects. I think this attitude is indicative of today’s distaste for learning history. Question: Is history relevant?

History holds within it the combined reasons why we are where we are today as a society. It includes all the successes and failed attempts societies have made as they’ve evolved. Therein lies the relevance of learning history.

As the saying goes, “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”. This is observed among politicians who, either being ignorant of, or refusing to accept previous attempts to find success with certain failed ideas, insist upon reintroducing such policies. This is the Liberal Progressive agenda. These folks seem to fail to understand their ideas are not new or know they are not new, but will somehow succeed simply because they are now being introduced by kind, intelligent people.

Is it any wonder why so many Liberal Progressive attempts end in results 180 degrees from their promised successes? The young know less history than older citizens. Which party targets youth for their votes? For which party do the young usually vote? Ergo, which party promotes a more ignorant and less successful agenda? Aw, come on…this isn’t a tough question, boys and girls. You don’t even need to know history to answer it correctly.

If a male and female both weight train for ten years and the male is able to bench press 500 pounds while the female is able to bench press 300 pounds after that time, should the male be disallowed to bench press weight above 300 pounds or should the scale used for the female be calibrated to read 500 pounds when the actual weight is 300 pounds?

Two employees work in a hospital. One is a surgeon who has studied for many more years than the other person who sweeps the floors. Is an hour of the surgeon’s time of equal value to the floor sweeper’s work for the same period of time?

If your answer to these questions is yes, vote for a democrat.

Sinking in quicksand is a very comfortable, yet ultimately fatal, experience. Being pulled out of quicksand is painful as the quicksand tends to stretch and strain the body in its refusal to relinquish us from its vacuum grip.

The quicksand is the Liberal agenda. The rescuing force is the Conservative agenda. The potential victim is the American public.

It is no surprise Liberals are in such a tizzy to disable Conservative policies now that the American public is being drawn toward its freedom; now that folks are recognizing how foolish the Liberal policies are. The Liberal’s power is diminishing day by day. Whatever will they do when more and more people become self-sufficient? What will they do when so very many of them are no longer needed?

Under Obama’s policies, Liberals were happy to deport large numbers of illegal aliens because they were guaranteed a sufficient level of people in poverty to vote for them, but now what do they do? They promote open borders and policies designed to lure the undocumented into the country to supplant those who are finally getting on their feet. Conservative ideology calls for small government. It promotes self-sufficiency. It believes the American Dream goes beyond the Liberal ideal of aspiring toward lower middle class.

Unfortunately for Liberal politicians, if things keep going the way they have been going the last three years, many of them will be without a job and won’t be able to find gainful employment at McDonalds because their minimum wage policies have caused that company to reduce its workforce dramatically. The opportunities that great company used to afford the inexperienced in getting a start in the private sector was torpedoed in the same way so many Liberal policies have backfired. Deceptively honorable goals with 180 degree results.

Can you name a Liberal policy that has been objectively successful in the long term? Think about it. They generally end up looking like the welfare system or dealing with homelessness…things are worse for their policies than ever. Apparently throwing good money after bad doesn’t work. Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime. Liberals like to give away fish.

Thankfully, the economy has become stronger, with the lowest unemployment rates in a very long time…due to Conservative policies. This is a mitigating factor for those who want to succeed…but not for the career politicians who’ve tethered their horses to duping able people into believing we, the people, are helpless victims. We are not victims unless we choose to be. We have the power to succeed when Liberal government gets out of our way.

The United States will never ignore the plights of the truly needy and unable. We don’t need to invent those problems for others.