(Q Anon ) Warning To All Americans 🔴Trump's SOTU Affirmed Liberty to Unresponsive Subversives

President Trump's SOTU Affirmed Liberty to Unresponsive Subversives

An hour before Pres. Donald Trump's State of the Union Address, I opened my mail.  It included a thank-you note regarding a contribution I had made to a right-wing organization.  The author of the note quoted Nikita Khrushchev, who said, "You Americans are so gullible.  No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism."  The author of the thank-you note was revolted by this remark by N.K. and knew I would be as well. 

I grew up during the Cold War and understood that communism was not merely an alternative theory of politics and economics to that held by most Americans, but was a living and breathing threat to our freedom emanating 24-7 from the USSR, the PRC, and a determined fifth column of traitorous leftists living in these United States.  Our conflict with communism was not a mere academic or drawing room debate between gentleman-scholars.  Rather, the ardent supporters of communism wished to extract the essence of our freedom and opportunities from our society. 

In the name of curbing the rich, they wish to curb us all, grab power, assert governmental force over every area of our lives, and make themselves arbiters of every life decision we make – where we live, what kind of work each of us does, where and when we can and cannot travel, how to heat our homes or even build our homes, where to go to school, how many children to have, how long we live and under what conditions we live, and even the thoughts we think.  Almost all that we now consider "private" they would refashion and reconfigure to be seen as "public."  Our individual rights would be subsumed under collective rights. 

As Richard Overy relates in his remarkable volume, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, under the Soviet Union system of law, a person could be deemed guilty of a crime simply because he was documented to have had thoughts similar to the thoughts of  those who actually plotted and committed a crime even if he had had no part in planning or carrying out the crime.  Thus, when I see Bernie Sanders's bespectacled face, I see not just another person with whom I have some differences of opinion, but, behind his college professor visage, a hideous expression of hatred for all that we hold dear.  In like manner do I perceive the other leftists of the Democratic Party with their pro-communism agenda despite their attempts to present those views as mainstream or make them sound less threatening by calling them socialistic.

Pres. Donald Trump spat in the face of the socialists and socialists in sheep's clothing of the Democratic Party during Tuesday evening's State of the Union address.  "America was founded on liberty and independence and not government coercion, domination, and control," he said to Republican applause.  He continued, "We are born free and we will stay free.  Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country."  These sentences cleared the air.  There is no hiding from the truth encapsulated in these words.  Fresh air blew through the hall and could be felt over the airwaves. 

The Democrats should be repudiating the extreme leftists in their party; instead, they are embracing the far left ideology.  During the 1930s and 1940s, the Democrats went through a crisis where they had to repudiate the extreme left wing of the party, which roughly can be designated as those led by Henry Wallace.  President Harry Truman fired Wallace from his position as secretary of commerce because he perceived Wallace as being too conciliatory toward the Soviet Union.  Wallace subsequently formed the Progressive Party and ran for president against Truman and the Republican candidate, Thomas Dewey, in 1948 but garnered only 2.4% of the vote.  Here was a case where the Democratic Party's leader repudiated the far-left wing of that party.  Nevertheless, it was an ironic and striking reality that a large percentage of the Socialist Party platform of 1912 had been implemented in the U.S., including the graduated income tax, by the time Wallace was rejected.  Most of the implementation came during the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Only in their program of "Collective Ownership" were the goals of the Socialist Party not met over time.  The people of the U.S. decided on regulation instead of ownership.  The socialists wanted ownership of all banks, all transportation, all mines, all means of communication, and all land.

Similar trends can be seen in the labor movement in the 1940s era.  Many unions that had been strongly supportive of Pres. Franklin Roosevelt because of his initiative in getting the Wagner Act through Congress at the same time tried to purge their ranks of communist leadership.  My own father was a union activist with the Transport Workers' Union.  That union had been formed both by men who were communist unionists and by non-communist unionists.  Under the leadership of Michael Quill, whose base was staunchly Irish Catholic and still held many so-called "bourgeois values," repudiated and kicked out the communist wing of the union, also in 1948, as the Cold War picked up a head of steam. 

Earlier in the century, Eugene V. Debs had run for president three times as leader of the Socialist Party, but his aggressive objection to World War I led to his imprisonment and severely set back the socialist-communist agenda in the U.S.

Make no mistake about it: the Socialist Party was adamantly against private ownership of property.  One need only read its platform of 1912 to see that.  Labeling themselves socialists to distinguish themselves from communists should be taken with a grain of salt.  Early on, the socialists realized that the word "communism" had so many negative connotations for Americans that the term "socialism" would be more palatable to the citizenry.  However, their desire to control (not merely regulate) all major industries was explicit, with control of smaller industries and businesses implied. 

By the last presidential election of 2016, the platform of the socialists had morphed into 248 bullet points, a veritable stew of negativism that advocated for intense federal controls to invade almost every area of American life.  Today's Democrats are no longer repudiating communist ideas and ideals, but are embracing in ever greater numbers its calls for universal Medicare, universal free higher education, open borders under the rubric of compassion, elimination of the electoral college, and an embrace of worldwide climate change agendas with a massive redistribution of wealth to the Third World and ever increasing government controls over every detail of daily life.  These policy themes that would require a tremendous curtailment of freedom are being embraced and advocated by Democrats rather than repudiated. 

The communist focus of 1948 was repudiated by the Democrats of 1948, but it is being incorporated as the mainstream ideas and ideals of that party today, and individual choice and individual property rights are disparaged.  During the State of the Union address, President Trump spoke forcefully and directly into the faces of subversion.  Although many on the left were dressed in white, they represented the dark side of humanity.  All the purity was in Trump's liberty-loving remarks.

The Hijacking of a Presidential Election

In January of 2017, the Federal Election Commission reported that in the 2016 general election Mrs. Clinton received 65,853,516 votes and Mr. Trump received 62,984,825 votes. Clinton therefore beat Trump by 2,868,691 popular votes.

President Trump has said that if the illegal votes were deducted that he would have won the popular vote. If one looks at that FEC report, one sees that in California, the state with the most illegal aliens, Clinton got 8,753,788 votes, while Trump got 4,483,810 votes. So Clinton beat Trump in California by 4,269,978 votes.

What’s interesting is that Clinton beat Trump by more votes in California than she did nationwide, precisely 1,401,287 more votes. Though Trump’s claim that illegal voting threw the popular vote to Clinton is sheer speculation, we can say that if we exclude California that Trump did in fact win the popular vote in the rest of the nation, and by exactly 1,401,287 votes.

Because Trump didn’t get any electoral votes in California and New York, when we subtract the electoral votes of those two states, Clinton won just 143 electoral votes in the rest of the nation while Trump’s electoral total remains unchanged at 304. In the Electoral College, which is what we use to elect our presidents, Trump beats Clinton by more than 2-to-1 when California and New York are excluded. Even if the votes of the seven faithless electors were given to Clinton, Trump would still have trounced Clinton by more than 2-1 in the 48 states of “real America.”

It takes a bare minimum of 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Had Clinton received all 46 electoral votes in the blue wall states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, she would have gotten 273 electoral votes. She then could afford to lose only the least populous of those three states, Wisconsin, and still prevail, but only if she were also awarded all seven votes of the faithless electors. In which case, Clinton would have won with a grand total of 270 electoral votes.

Government officials have assured us that Russians did not change the vote counts in 2016. Elections are conducted by the states, and each state has its own separate election system, so changing the votes would be enormously difficult. And besides, “there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized.” We were told this by no less than Obama Himself, (so it must be true).

Obama fails to see the obvious. If the Russians wanted to throw the popular vote to Trump in 2016, all they would have needed to change is the popular vote in just one state, California with its 55 electoral votes… not the entire country. Trump could have even lost his three “blue wall” states and still have won had he gotten California, and he’d have had an even greater total at 313 electoral votes.

Some progressives think we should junk the Electoral College and elect presidents with the popular vote. Other progressives think we should rejigger the College and allocate its votes in a way that is closer to the popular vote. But if one believes in federalism, the above data argues just the opposite. We can’t have the preferences of two populous coastal states being imposed on the other 48 states merely because they have some tiny majority. That’s especially so when those two states are so very different from the rest of the country. Let California have its tent cities, its free healthcare for illegal aliens, and its San Francisco values, but leave us “hicks” in the heartland alone.

Given the above, I think we can say that in 2016 the Electoral College worked as intended, and that America got the correct president, the one she needed. Even so, the electoral vote is derived from the popular vote, so there’s still the nagging little question of what thelegitimate popular vote count really was.

One of the safeguards to ensuring the integrity of the popular vote is voter registration. But the states are failing at this important task. Recently, California came under fire for registering illegal aliens at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

On October 8, the San Francisco Chronicle ran “California DMV may have registered noncitizens to vote” by Melody Gutierrez, who quoted Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno:

“There is much more to see here than what the DMV is admitting to,” Patterson said. “They have either been hiding the truth from the public or are completely unaware of this voter registration disaster -- either should be a startling realization for this governor and the public... We cannot trust the current management to fix the very problems they created.”

(But what does Patterson know, he’s an Anglo. He might even have a MAGA hat.)

The Secretary of State has responsibility for voter registration in California. But despite the snafus in his office, Secy. Alex Padilla was re-elected in November, and in a landslide.

On October 10, the New York Times reported in its “California Today” series: “At the center of the controversy is California’s new Motor Voter program, which automatically registers eligible voters who visit the D.M.V. to renew or replace their drivers’ licenses.”

On January 7, Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times reported on a settlement to a suit brought by Judicial Watch (video) in which Los Angeles County agreed to purge its voter registries of inactive voters perhaps numbering 1.5 million:

Judicial Watch said it targeted Los Angeles after finding the county’s total voter population was higher than the number of people the Census Bureau estimates to be citizens of voting age in the county. That’s true for the state overall, which Judicial Watch said has a 101 percent registration rate for its eligible adult population.

Here’s the thing about California’s voter registries: a federal law enacted 23 years ago mandates that only citizens can vote for federal officials. It was called the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.” For the operative language, see SEC. 216 on page 26 of the pdf of the entire act, or if you want the short sweet excision, click 18 U.S. Code § 611. Voting by aliens.

Since they’re corrupted, can California’s voter registries be used in the election of a federal official? The problem of illegal aliens on California voter registries isn’t just a problem at the DMV, as voter registration in California asks for only the last four digits of one’s SSN. California isn’t doing even the most basic vetting to comply with the requirement that voters for federal officials be citizens.

California is by no means unique, however, as none of the states really verify registrants’ citizenship, not even in Kris Kobach’s Kansas. Perhaps the Electoral College should reject a state’s votes if that state cannot demonstrate that all of its registrants and voters are citizens.

The vulnerability of our federal elections to fraud is just fine and dandy with the Democrats because they’ve been planning to steal the 2020 election anyway. Why do you suppose the Dems hate voter ID laws and love open borders? Democrats don’t want President Trump’s wall precisely because it keeps their voters out. The illegal alien vote is the Democrats’ “insurance policy.”