When I was a young Liberal Democrat, a joke we often used to mock right-wingers and Republicans was to sarcastically quote, “Liberals, you see, they hate America!” This, in and of itself, was funny to us. How absurd to think that we, the left-leaning Democrats, patriots like any other American, could hate our own country!
Since then, within the last 15 years, it has actually become a mainstream left-wing viewpoint that America is an overall bad thing, a net-negative all together, and that it would be better if America would forsake its foundational values, the things that made America the world’s first non-dictatorship.
Liberals, quite openly, hate all of the most important foundational parts of what makes America unique. When they talk about reforms, they encourage changes that would fundamentally undo how the country functions as a free federal constitutional republic.
You cannot be a liberal and like America, let alone love America. When someone is seen displaying something patriotic, like a ringtone of “God Bless the USA,” Liberals say, “oh, of course, that person is a far-right racist.” Liberals often assert that the flag is a racist symbol, a hate symbol, and should not be displayed for fear of causing offense. Liberals themselves do not think you can be a liberal and patriotic at the same time.
If you are trying to enforce equity, you cannot treat all people as though they are created equal. You must choose either equity, or “all men are created equal.”
Liberals hate the founding documents
Joe Biden’s UN Ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenwood says without evidence that the founding documents of the country (the government of which she works for and is paid by) are white supremacist at their core.
When Biden enacted the CDC’s temporary eviction moratorium, he admitted that there’s a good chance he may be disregarding the Constitution in doing so. That’s okay, he said, because until the case reached court and he was officially called on violating the Constitution, he would be doing the right thing. The US Constitution, according to this viewpoint, is wrong, out-of-date, and should be ignored or discarded.
Liberals hate the Bill of Rights
Frequently, the Left shows itself to disagree with the Constitutional Bill of Rights in theory, and to be openly hostile to it in practice.
Amendment 1: Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion
According to a recent YouGov poll, just over half of Democrats favor criminalizing “hate speech.” This popular far-left talking point is certainly a violation of the spirit of free speech, if not a direct constitutional violation.
The Christian owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop, Jack Phillips, became a pariah targeted by the left when he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The couple in question had searched widely, passing over many other cake shops, until they found a shop who finally refused them, so that they could take their story of oppression public. Their goal was not a wedding cake (at least, not just), it was to find a person to accuse of bigotry.
The January 6 Capitol Hill protests, which were notably more peaceful and less violent than the previous 4+ years of anti-Trump arson, looting, murder, and riots, are embraced by hard-line Democrat partisans as the x-factor they needed to dismiss all of their opponents’ rights to participate in the democratic process. Democrats are currently utilizing the fact that their opponents exercised their right to freedom of assembly as evidence that they should not be allowed to freely assemble.
Political extremist and tyrannical narcissist Jennifer Rubin has already revealed what’s behind the mask on liberals’ beliefs with regards to the freedom of Republicans to exercise just about any political rights whatsoever:
“You have to have new ground rules for the media. They have to stop treating Republicans like normal politicians. They are not normal politicians … This is a party that spends its entire time cooking up ridiculous culture memes and fanning violence and coming up with outright lies.”
Amendment 2: The right of the people to keep and bear arms
The second amendment is the final bastion in times of crisis between the citizens of the United States and total tyrannical control. If all else fails, says the Constitution, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If any old fool on the street could, conceivably, be armed, asking for “papers” and making dissenters disappear overnight becomes a lot more complicated. That’s why gun ownership is an inalienable right in a free republic.
Every time there’s a shooting, liberals start using the phrase “common sense gun control,” which is something the United States already has. We often hear calls to “ban semi-automatic weapons,” which most people understand to mean “ban machine guns.” Semi-automatic weapons, however, are not machine guns — a police officer’s pistol is a semi-automatic. Fully-automatic machine guns are already illegal in the United States. The semi-auto ban is a strategic political play against the inalienable right to gun ownership itself.
Joe Biden himself confirmed after the Boulder, CO shooting that, yes, he wants to enact stricter gun control laws, badly:
A study of the US Supreme Court on the question of gun control reveals that the dissenting Justices’ opinion, the pro-gun-control opinion, does not want “common sense gun control” at all — it denies that the basic right to gun ownership exists at all. The SCOTUS opinion on this is very much all-or-nothing. Either the people do have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, as it says in the US Constitution, or they do not. That is how the Supreme Court thinks about gun control.
The true purpose of calls for more “common sense gun control measures,” calls to ban “semi-automatic weapons,” and “assault-style weapons” is to see to it that the Second Amendment has another day in court, over and over, until the right of the people to keep and bear arms is fully overturned.
The Joe Biden website confirms that Biden wants to enact all of the usual left-wing “common sense gun control measures,” including gun buy-backs, red-flag laws, and a national registry, which would allow for a future tyrannical government to find and persecute peaceful private gun owners, and effectively end the Second Amendment, the final bastion of American Constitutional liberty.
Amendment 6: The right to a fair and speedy trial
As revealed during the very public Rittenhouse trial, when liberals were attempting to film and photograph members of the jury for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, and doxxing, liberals do not believe in sixth amendment.
This is not a unique occurrence. During the Derek Chauvin trial, House Rep. Maxine Waters, who has openly called for violence and harassment against her political opponents before, called for rioters to continue rioting and to ramp it up, saying “stay on the street,” and encouraging the protestors to “get more confrontational.”
This is the same trial on which Joe Biden saw fit to comment publicly before a verdict had been reached.
As usual, all we have to do to expose this as dangerous and tyrannical is switch the roles. Imagine if Donald Trump acted the way anti-Trump politicians are allowed to act. What if Ted Cruz said, “Go out and confront them, give them no peace, stay on the street”? The media doesn’t confront liberals on bad behavior — the media encourages their bad behavior, echoes their sentiment, excuses their vile conduct, and displays overall agreement, and this happens all over every screen.
This is identical to how the media treats masking. If a wrongthinker is seen in public violating mask mandates, they are treated like a pariah, and it is used against them, as an argument of their innately flawed wrongness. If a liberal violates mask mandates, no one seems to care.
These people, the Maxine Waters types, are not hypocritical exactly, at least not how they see it. They don’t believe themselves to be “breaking the rules” that apply equally to all when they violate basic civility, shirk basic human decency, and call openly for violence, rioting, and insurrection. No, they simply believe the rules are not meant for them. They can exercise certain rights and privileges, while you, the lesser, the pariah, are forbidden from doing the same. The rules they would inflict upon you don’t apply to them.
It’s not hypocrisy — it’s hierarchy.
Amendment 10: Federalism and states’ rights
The spirit of this amendment is simple: if it can be handled on a smaller scale (locally, or at the state level), it should be handled there, not at the federal level. This is an important founding American principle: the states are sovereign entities that can exercise some degree of independence in their laws. Whoever’s laws turn out to be the best for the people in practice naturally attract more population, and the best laws rise to the top in this way.
Joe Biden’s House America initiative, for example would have violated this founding principle by giving the US federal government control over local zoning laws. But zoning is just the beginning.
The great one-party takeover
HR 1, called the “For the People” Act, was advertised as a bill that would strengthen our democracy, and Republicans are said to oppose it only because they want to suppress the vote.
In reality, this bill would be a violation of the 10th amendment because it would completely federalize election laws, and bestow permanent, unbreakable majority power on the Democrat party.
HR1 would encourage massive-scale vote fraud, create a mail-in voting system that is completely impossible to verify as non-fraudulent, and most important of all, install a permanent one-party majority in the United States. It would accomplish this by:
Allowing same-day and automatic registration to allow voting by people Democrats believe are too irresponsible to register to vote ahead of time
Expanding early voting to allow mail-in ballots to decide elections
Prohibiting voter ID to allow for easier vote fraud, despite the fact that even most liberal European countries require and ID to vote.
Prohibiting signature requirements to allow for easier vote fraud
Mandating no-excuse absentee voting, to allow unverifiable mail-in ballots to decide elections, and to allow for more mail-in ballot fraud
Creating one single absentee ballot application for ALL future elections, to create massive amounts of improperly mailed ballots, to allow for more mail-in ballot fraud
Forcing states to accept mail-ins up to ten days after Election Day, to allow for more mail-in ballot fraud
Allowing ballot harvesting, to allow for more mail-in ballot fraud
Limiting ability to clean up voter rolls, to maintain a massive amount of improperly mailed ballots, to go along with the fraud-encouraging mail-in ballot provisions above
Allowing 16-year-olds to register to vote, to flood the vote with more likely Democrats
Making Washington DC a state, thus violating the entire purpose of DC’s existence as the seat of government located outside the home turf of all other states, to flood the vote with more likely Democrats
Allowing convicted felons to vote (like those who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse), to flood the vote with more likely Democrats
Having districts redrawn by unelected bureaucrats (to give Democrats a layer of corruptible bureaucracy between the people and fair elections)
France, knowing the fraud danger inherent in mail-in voting, banned it in 1975. A majority of European countries somehow restrict mail-in voting because of how easy mail-in ballots make it to overturn the will of the people by means of foreign election interference, or fraud.
Before we were instructed to believe that getting rid of Trump was more important than anything else, everyone knew and accepted that more mail-in ballots meant more fraud.
Democrats are doing this because they believe a free republic with free and fair elections is a bad thing. Their left-wing views are morally perfect, they reason, so anything that allows for disagreement from their views must be strictly prohibited.
Why do Democrats hate their own country? Why do liberals want to undo everything that makes America a free republic, and replace it with a Chinese-style one-party state with little to no political voice? It’s simple: they believe the only moral existence is one in which they and their personal viewpoints are given absolute unchallenged dominance.
If you spend years shouting as loudly as possible that your opponent is literally the next Hitler, you don’t then sit back and allow for them to have an equal voice, as is demanded by the founding documents. You would, in that mental state, be convinced that the only right thing to do is to obliterate your opponents’ political voice, voting rights, and ability to affect change in government. You would believe that this dismantling of the US Constitution is the only moral course of action. They, you would say, are “on the wrong side of history,” so they need not be afforded basic human consideration.
This is political narcissism, and the full extent of its potential danger when applied to a top-down, power-hungry leftist government is nothing short of genocidal tyranny.
The Declaration of independence states that our rights are inalienable, which means that it is impossible to take them away because they are in-born, not granted. These are not rights that are given, these are rights that are innate. These rights are given to individuals “by their Creator,” not by any government. This is unique to the United States.
Liberals do not believe in these rights. The right to choose what gets stuck into your body or not is an inalienable right. The right to run your own business how you see fit without being locked down or shut down is another.
These rights, this idea that “all men are created equal,” these are completely incompatible with the most mainstream viewpoints of the left. For example, the black liberation theology of Critical Race Theory does not view people as equal. The idea that white people must apologize for innate privilege is directly opposed to the rights mentioned and outlined in the Declaration and the Constitution. Affirmative action, racial quotas that ignore qualifications in favor of race, is also diametrically opposed to the foundational principle that “all men are created equal.”
If you are trying to enforce equity, you cannot treat all people as though they are created equal. You must choose either equity, or “all men are created equal.”