The Birth of Domestic Terrorism & Divisionism Within the Democratic Party
The Death of Communism... Or So We Thought.
Communism didn't die. It simply limped off into the shadows of American higher learning institutions, and bided its time. Simply ask yourself this question: "Why is it that we have such a high number of Americans who think that Communistic concepts and policies would be so great in the United States?" I mean, where did they get the idea that a government healthcare system, government housing, government food stamps, government provided education, etc. was such a great idea? Who, since most of the adults over over 40 currently residing in the United States saw the tail end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the U.S.S.R., told these young Americans that all of these programs were so great? We all know that Communism and Socialism don't work. They have failed each and every time without being able to enforce one of them militarily. So, who told them that America was bad, Russia was good, and Communism policies are really Liberal American policies?
So, are they core Democrat policies? Most conservative Democrats over the age of 40 will say that these are not core Democrat policies. As an example, many Democrats in the Mid-West have stated that they don't even recognize the Democrat Party any more, but still vote Democrat due to Party loyalty. The reciprocal of that is, if the shoe was on the other foot and the Liberals within the Democrat Party were the ones not relating to the policies of Democrat leadership, would they be as loyal to the Party? So, where do these Liberal policies come from? If they weren't originally a part of the Democrat Party, then why were they introduced? Why do Democrats from the East and West coastal cities differ so greatly from Democrats of the Western and the Mid-Western states?
The answer is that Liberal Democrats from the 60's and 70's, who raised their children to be Liberal Democrats believing that it was their cause to "fight the man" or that "the government is evil", sent their children to Liberal leaning universities. The Liberal leaning universities of America were the first targeted by the Russian Communist Party after World War II and leading up to the Cold War. However, just because the Cold War is over, and the U.S.S.R. fell, doesn't mean that Communist leaning professors and Marxists left the one place in the nation that they knew they could mold young impressionable students, already taught to hate their government by Mom and Dad, to fall in love with policies that were unpopular or unnatural to a Constitutional Republic. If it was going to cause an argument, or cause harm to the establishment, then it was exactly what they wanted to hear. It wasn't because they were all mean and spiteful, it was simply because they were raised to think in a manner perceiving that government was bad, laws were bad, cops were bad, and that conservatives were morons incapable of being converted to their way of thinking.
The Result of Brainwashing Activities Upon Americans
Why do you think that it is that we see more violence being resorted to from the Liberal Democrats? Why is it that we see so little attempts at debate by Liberal Democrats with Conservative Republicans? Liberal Democrats believe that their way of thinking is the right way and that anything else is the wrong way. They have shown no interest in hearing what the other side has to say and, more importantly, willingness to compromise or question their way of thinking in regards to our nation. Action without reason can be very dangerous, especially if that action destroys the fundamental beliefs that a civilization or government is founded upon.
Ronald Reagan had this exact same issue of protesters who turned to rioting while serving as the Governor of California in 1969, which coincidentally occurred on the Berkley campus. He addressed the university staff, leaders, and community with one simple statement of truth. He stated, “All of it began the first time some of you who know better…let young people think that they had the right to choose the laws they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.” This very same way of thought, and method of raising one's children didn't change since the time of this occurrence and, in fact, escalated within these regions and spread to other major metropolitan cities as these people grew up to become educators, reporters, and politicians within cities which had Democratic majority.
However, once their infrastructure began to show signs of failure, i.e. California, New York, and Illinois being prime examples, did these Socialists and Communists stay within the state they so vigorously worked to corrupt? No, they move away into Red States such as Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida, in an attempt to spread their brainwashing and destructive policies to others. If these policies are obviously driving Blue States to bankruptcy and an obvious level of corrupt inefficiency, then how can any reasonable person consider these policies as valid? Why aren't the media working fervently to expose these failed policies, basically repackaged Communism, for what they truly are?
Democrat Liberals, Rioting, and Disorder Are Nothing New
Russia and U.S. Relations Went from Good to Bad
After the fall of Communism, Russian and U.S. relations couldn't have been better. They found a new hope and life in Democracy, and saw that they could grow far beyond anything possible beneath the Iron Curtain. The United States helped Russian diplomats and leaders to build trust and faith in the Russian government, as well as help the to pursue avenues of industry that could help to build a diversity within their economy that had never been realized before. The information technology sector has grown 1000% in their nation since the fall of Communism, and American businesses have invested heavily within their economy, or have even established a presence within their nation in order to help to build and strengthen the Russian economy and help to develop new avenues of income within their companies. So, what happened with Russia? How did we go from making them our, and everyone else's, new best friend and global contributor of Democracy, to the uncertain relationship we see today?
Russia is Bad but Good Dilemma
Softening Policy and Protecting Radical Islamic Terrorism
The most current issue which led us to where we are currently was President Obama's Islamic roots. With the world beginning to address the issues pouring from outside of Islamic nations, President Obama decided that he was going to try to change the world agenda away from the bad aspects of Islam, and instead treat all Muslims and Muslim nations as if those problems don't exist. His perspective is that peaceful Muslims aren't to blame for non-peaceful Muslims. However, the problem with this approach is that those who do practice the violent aspects of the Islamic doctrine found within the Quran, Hadith, and the Sira, were being protected by the same oblivious treatment of all Muslims being peaceful.
We never asked the hard questions as to what makes the difference between a peaceful Muslim and a non-peaceful Muslim? Why, after 1,400 years of this Islamic doctrine's existence do we still have the practice of 7th entry tortures, disfigurement, and killing? Why is Sharia, which is a complete theocratic legal system, and used as the law of the land in many Islamic nations, being allowed anywhere near non-Islamic nations in violation of their Constitutions? How do we put an end to the barbaric behaviors of a 7th century conquerer, and replace them with only the peaceful and benevolent aspects of Islam?
So, instead, President Obama decided to open our borders to Muslims the world over. He embraced event controvercial organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which were identified as a terrorist organization by several of our allied nations. This was probably part in parcel with Obama's brother's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, as them catering to him to gain preferred access to the President. However, just as a predator gives sweets to a child so that he'll bring his friends around, this was a very dangerous scenario for the President to put the United States into.
President Obama Was Soft on Terrorism - Early in His Presidency
The Softening of Policy Against Radical Islamic Terrorism Continues with ISIS...
If the Muslim Brotherhood was as dangerous as everyone else was warning us that they were, you were letting them have access to roam freely within the borders of the one nation on the planet who had led the charge against terrorism world-wide. Islamic Terrorism, like any power hungry entity, did have an overall goal - make the world Islamic by destroying anyone who resists, especially the Israelis. However, those looking to commit Domestic Terrorism could also hide behind the fact that real terrorists were in America, and the American press have yet one more thing to blame for their acts of violence. Plus, with liberal leaning states and laws, they could seek special protections within our government by stating that any scrutiny against them was either religious persecution, racism, or bigotry. The FBI even found evidence of mosques within the United States which were operating as bases for Radical Islamic Terror training facilities, bases of operations, or as places of education for the radicalization of troubled or rebellious youths.
In fact, under the Obama Administration, the NYPD was sued for investigating suspects and organizations with possible ties to Radical Islamic Terrorists. They were commanded, and obeyed, to remove references to Radical Islamic Terrorism from their training materials. The NYPD was also forced to literally stop investigations into persons of interest who were suspected of having terrorist ties or were sympathizers to those who did. The FBI, who had over 300 open investigations into individuals, organizations, and mosques across America, was commanded to remove all references of Radical Islamic Terror from their training materials and public facing sites and resources. In some cases, both the NYPD and the FBI had to completely remove training resources which were significantly enhancing their ability to train agents and officers to effectively combat terrorism.
When ISIS enters stage left, it was downplayed by the Obama Administration as the "JV Team". We watched as they raped, tortured, maimed, and killed their way across nations, in an attempt to rebuild the Islamic Caliphate of old. While Obama promised to destroy ISIS and to stop their path of destruction, the limitations he placed upon his generals with their highly restrictive rules of engagement, as well as their warning notifications to them prior to bombing runs, truly disabled our military's ability to effectively fight against an enemy who had shown no quarter to anyone.
However, outside of his failed policies against ISIS or ISIL, one has to look beyond this and ask one question: How was ISIS or ISIL even allowed to come to be? Why was Benghazi on of the most disastrous black eyes every given to the United States, both from a diplomatic and intelligence standpoint? Anyone paying attention to the Benghazi hearings, who read the Congressional reports on the hearings, and read the book , got enough information to ask the only important question which needed answering. The troubling thing is that the answer means that members of the State Department and our intelligence agencies broke federal law and violated a Presidential Order. If they did so, one has to assume that they would only do so knowing that they would not be prosecuted and, therefore, did so under Presidential order. The question? Why were we in Libya when it was too dangerous to protect our ambassador and everyone else, including the Red Cross, had left? 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
President Obama Was Soft on Terrorism - End of His Presidency
Activism, Division, and Disruption Has Become the New Norm for Democratic Party
Under the Obama Administration, the very first thing we saw happen was the birth of Identify Politics. It was sold to Americans under to guise of helping minorities to get a stronger voice within United States government, policies, and the Judiciary. Liberal leaning judges were being injected into the Judiciary, ensuring that this brand of "Social Justice" had heightened level of protection within our legal system and that conservative Americans and corporations could be targeted by liberal American lawsuits resulting in financial rewards for liberals and forcing conservatives into compliance.
Identify politics, even when they were based upon lies, were sold to Americans as "Social Justice" because American Law Enforcement and Judiciary could not be trusted to protect any minority in America. This brand of thinking, which is dangerous in any form of government, is right out of the pages of the - which is a cookbook for how to disrupt existing government and insert Marxist agendas and policies. Yet, here we are, seeing it unfold within the United States political system, and our Judiciary (where somehow liberal judges are being allowed to legislate from the bench), being protected and insulated by Main Stream Media outlets (which are now owned by politically motivated conglomerates), and all was being protected from on high and nurtured by the Obama Administration and its Department of Justice. Rules for Radicals
Identity Politics Poll
Which specific acts or statements promoting identity politics, made by members of the Democratic Party during the Obama Administration, have you witnessed the most?
The Birth of BLM Was Based Upon Several Misrepresentations
The birth of Black Lives Matter was based upon several lies, the first was the events behind the shooting of a young man within the city of St. Louis. A story was perpetuated that the young man Michael Brown, who was African American, attempted to surrender himself to police and was shot in the back and killed by the officer on scene. It was stated that he was unfairly targeted, had committed no crimes, and was mistaken for another individual. This story was started on social media as the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" occurrence, was then inflated by media outlets with zero validation of the story and facts, and was exacerbated by members of the NAACP as an instance of white police targeting black Americans for racist murder. Then President Obama, without the completion of an investigation, stood up on the world stage and chastised law enforcement across America for unfairly targeting minorities with violence.
However, this was not the case. A DOJ investigation discovered the Michael Brown had, in fact, committed a robbery that day, the officer had positively identified him as the suspect in that robbery, and was attempting to make an arrest. It was then that Michael Brown assaulted the police officer in his vehicle, attempted to steal the officer's weapon while severely beating him, and that the weapon discharged within the officer's vehicle during Brown's attempt to steal the weapon. Once the officer got positive control of the weapon and was able to escape Brown's hold, Brown then attempted to flee the scene. The officer then pursued Brown on foot, issued a command to stop or be shot, and Brown was shot after he attempted to attack the officer again after a brief moment of pretending to surrender himself. The officer's use of deadly force, after Michael Brown's attempt to already use deadly force against the officer, was significantly justified.
The claims that Brown was shot in the back was directly refuted by forensic evidence that was provided by the coroner which showed that all bullets had entered Brown from the front of his body and his head. The "witness" who claimed that Brown was shot in the back while attempting to surrender later recanted their story and admitted that they weren't actually present during the shooting.
What happened after this extremely destructive misrepresentation of the facts to the public, the attempts of organizations and the President to execute social justice before an investigation was concluded, and the spreading of these false claims by the media? Black Lives Matter was formed, claiming that African Americans were statistically being shot and killed by American law enforcement unjustly and were being targeted and profiled based upon the color of their skin. We later learned, through review of related statistics, that this claim was false or extremely skewed. We also learned that BLM was directly funded by none other than George Soros.
BLM, immediately after its inception, was leveraged to launch a nation-wide anti-police social media campaign across America. Members of their organization began to make multitudes of claims of police violence against member of the black community, often time before the completion of an investigation. Several police assassinations occurred after members of the organization called for violence against law enforcement, and after the media sensationalized officer involved shootings which resulted in the death of a black American. The sensationalizing of these police involved shootings, and claims made by members of the BLM community, led to a public outrage. This outrage escalated into the riots of Fergurson, MO. Afterward there was a drastic increase in officers targeted for shootings or ambushes, including multiple police targeted assassinations, across the country. The individuals who ambushed and killed police officers were later identified as having exposure to or participated with BLM, or other radical anti-police groups, and their anti-police rhetoric.
The very first police officer targeted shooting following the flurry of anti-police rhetoric from Black Live Matter, was Deputy Darren H. Goforth, 47. He was gunned down in what appeared to be an unprovoked, execution-style killing. Enrique Zamarripa, the father of Officer Patrick Zamarripa, who is one of the murdered police officers assassinated in the Dallas shooting perpetrated by Micah Xavier Johnson, filed a lawsuit against Black Lives Matter and 13 other defendants, including the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party, the Reverend Al Sharpton as well as several individual activists. The lawsuit is seeking $550 million in damages and claims that Johnson was acting as an agent for these listed defendants. It also alleges that they (the defendants) incited violence and caused the Dallas shooting as a "direct result". There is also a lawsuit which stemmed from a similar, some say a carbon copy, shooting in Baton Rouge, LA. Several officers were targeted for assassination, by Gavin Long, and he continued to fire upon, kill, or maim other arriving officers on the scene. In fact, following the creation of the Black Live Matter organization, and their anti-police protests and rhetoric, police assassinations were up by 44% by the middle of 2016.
DOJ Documents Show Obama Administration Funded Soros Organization of Disruption
ANTIFA Protests & Violence Bought and Paid For
Following BLM was later the creation, or at least the validation and organization of, ANTIFA. ANTIFA, or the organization for Anti Fascists, which became famous for the violence and destruction on the day of President Trump's inauguration day, is also heavily funded and supported by George Soros funded organizations. Where are both of these organizations recruiting their membership base from, organizing meetings, and performing fundraising activities from or through? Look no further than our liberal leaning college campuses across America. With ANTIFA, they took it one step further however. They literally paid people to "protest" by posting job listings on the web, and then allowing ANTIFA members to spread those listings across social media and within college campuses.
So, the violence and destruction that has been witnessed across America since the Democratic Party lost the Presidential election of 2016, has been bought and paid for organized acts of domestic terrorism. They were instructed upon how to fashion weapons and armor that could be easily concealed or disguised, and to assault anyone who attempted to challenge or stop them. The evidence of these premeditated acts of violence, which was well funded and well organized, was not organic. It was orchestrated, organized, and funded by the very man that the Obama State Department financially assisted with the political disruption and political opposition promotion within nations whose leadership did not reflect the socialistic policies being perpetuated by George Soros and the Obama Administration.
However, even with the obvious evidences of ANTIFA showing up with weapons and home-made armor or shields, their obvious premeditated acts of violence were being protected by the media and even police forces within Democratic controlled municipalities. You had conservative Americans being chased and assaulted by ANTIFA members wearing armor and brandishing weapons, but had law enforcement officers being issued orders to stand down and to not intervene. You had members of ANTIFA directing traffic in Democratic Party controlled municipalities, threatening drivers with violence if they attempted to disobey their commands. Since when was it ever the policy of law enforcement to allow this level of organized criminality and violence to be perpetrated upon their citizens?
Fun fact, peaceful protesters do not show up with batons, bats, or wooden rods with flags at the end of them and grip tape tied at the base of their handle (effectively disguising their blunt force weapon as a flag or banner). That grip tape is so that they can swing it as a weapon without losing grip of it. Those hoods and masks are to subvert law enforcement and to avoid prosecution for their premeditated violent crimes. Showing up with backpacks filled with improvised explosive devices, or bottles filled with flammable or corrosive liquids (even pepper spray) is not a means of peaceful protest. In fact, polls taken during ANTIFA protests have shown that most of them aren't even registered to vote. If you're not registered to vote, then you are not a part of the electorate process, and have not even attempted to perform the very first peaceful act of civic protest that one can do as a citizen of the United States - Vote. The fact that they choose not to participate in the electoral process to peacefully influence the government, and that they are obviously resorting to violent means of terrorizing and influencing municipalities and the people of the United States, show zero intent of peaceful protest and is the exact definition of a Domestic Terrorist.
What Happened to the Party of John F. Kennedy?
President John F. Kennedy was a Democrat. To most enlightened young people today, learning about President Kennedy in school, they would probably have a few questions. Such as, why are the behaviors of President Kennedy so different from Democrat Representatives of today. How did the Progressive Party morph into the Liberal Party, and why did they abandon the simple and down-to-earth policies which helped Kennedy get elected? President Kennedy won over the American People. It wasn't his charm or youth that won him the Presidency. It was the fact that he looked at America and her needs, and build a platform around those simple needs.
The Democrat Party, as it is today, is completely unrecognizable to what Kennedy would have helped it to become had he not been assassinated. He was more to center than to right, and his death left a gaping hole in their party regarding which way the party should lean. He was protecting our national security, ensuring equal rights for all, and standing up for American freedom and our way of life. In Vietnam, at the time was just a crisis. Kennedy's cool demeanor could have allowed us to make positive change without going to war. However, his assassination led to the Vietnam War, and for it to be an extended problem for the United States.
The biggest value that Kennedy offered the Democratic Party was that he went against the grain of the party. The Democrats had predominantly voted against every piece of Civil Rights legislation that every was submitted to Congress. However, President Kennedy was willing to use any and all resources to ensure equal rights for Americans in any institution and in any state. He was articulate, well educated, and strong in his beliefs. He didn't change his tune to appease his party, or to harm the other party. He simply did what was right.
This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.
© 2019 PrometheusIV