Posted on June 19, 2017

Trump vs. the Neo-Fascists

Tom Trinko, American Thinker, June 19, 2017

One of the great horrors of the novel 1984 was the thought police who punished people for having incorrect thoughts. That’s the sort of communist worldview that the vast majority of Americans reject.

It’s dismaying that liberals have adapted communist tactics and implemented a new thought police in the guise of the judiciary. Liberal judges have decided that they can read peoples innermost thoughts. That’s the basis for both the 9th and 4th Circuit Courts declaring that Trump’s temporary travel ban is unconstitutional.

Both courts agree that the executive order as written is constitutional. Both courts agree that if Hillary or Obama had issued the exact same order it would be constitutional. Both courts declare it to be unconstitutional because they claim to know what Trump was really thinking when he signed the orders.

Those two circuit courts are saying that they know that Trump’s thoughts are not sufficiently pure and hence that disqualifies him from exercising his constitutional authority.

Essentially, liberals are declaring that federal judges are a thought police that has the authority to punish a President whose thoughts don’t toe the line defined by the judges.

Earlier liberals realized that even judges who think they are god can’t actually read people’s minds. That’s why the Supreme Court ruled that all a court should take into account when assessing the constitutionality of an executive order is what the order says.

That makes sense since if the government started acting outside of what an executive order said, by say banning all Muslims from entering the U.S., the court could take action against that activity. Hence there’s no reason to ban an order that is itself constitutional.

Unfortunately, this latest power grab by liberal judges goes far beyond anything they have tried before. Essentially, the judges are saying that if they determine that a President, or presumably Congress, has ever expressed displeasure with any group for any reason they, the judges, can declare that the President, or Congress, can make no laws that the court doesn’t approve of that impact that group.

For example we know that Obama disparaged Christians, who “cling” to their religion, and hence using this new principle of law the HHS mandate would be unconstitutional.

Of course the liberal judges would not rule the HHS mandate unconstitutional because they agree with it. Which points to the most troubling aspect of this new trend; the judges are saying that if the President disparages any group a judge likes, than the judge is entitled to take over the President’s power, as defined in the Constitution, as it relates to that group.

This means, for example, that if Trump should decide to take women out of combat roles in the Army the courts could tell him he can’t do that because he’s spoken poorly of women in the past.

The court’s actions are a gross violation of separation of powers. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the Executive Branch is responsible for immigration and foreign policy. Yet these judges have declared that they can usurp the Executive Branch’s powers if they decide that they don’t like what the President is thinking. Clearly since the judges are the ones who decide what thoughts and policies are acceptable there is no limit to what authority the judges can steal.

There’s really no reason the courts can’t extend this same reasoning to areas other than discrimination against a group. For example, the courts could conclude that Trump can’t exit the Paris accords because he’s expressed doubt about the reality of global warming… err climate change and because the judges believe in climate change they know that Trump’s thoughts are wrong.

This takes judicial tyranny to a whole new level. These two circuit courts are saying that if judges don’t like a President’s attitude, not his actions, on an issue there is no limit to what the courts can do.

A woman from the Baltic countries who had lived under both communists and Nazis said she preferred the Nazis because as long as you did what they wanted they left you alone, but the communists insisted that people think the way the communists did.

The same is apparently true of modern liberal judges; following the Constitution — as reimagined by liberal judges — is no longer enough. Now politician’s thoughts must be judged to be pure, in the sense of following the liberal line, in order for them to be able to exercise their Constitutional authority.

Of course the reality is that the judges know what they’re doing and hence they are simply traitors who refuse to accept the results of the election. As with their communist forbears the ends justify the means, and hence anything that crosses the judge’s minds is a positive good so long as it “resists” Trump.

We must recognize that we are at war in America. While conservatives accepted Obama’s elections and even stuck to the legal process when Obama repeatedly violated the Constitution, the neofascists, nee liberals, are willing to use violence and illegal actions by the Deep State to negate the peoples votes.

Clearly liberal judges feel absolutely no need to follow the law, the Constitution, or even common sense if those conflict with their fascist desires for a new Amerika. Liberals who aren’t judges support both the fascist acts of the judges and the violence that “antifa” thugs use to silence speech they don’t like.

These are not our father’s liberals whose policies were wrong but who believed in Democracy, God, and Freedom of Speech. These are the sons and daughters of the liberals who sided with Hitler until he attacked the Soviet Union and who spent the Cold War telling us it was America’s fault.

If the new fascists succeed, our children will grow up in a dictatorship of evil where the elites rule over us from their coastal retreats.

No matter what you think about Trump, we have to go to war with the President we have, and so far he’s done a pretty good job of fighting the neofascists. Worrying about Trump’s tweets while judges are stealing our freedom is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; it’s only going to help those who are trying to enslave us all.

We need to return to an America where judges only decide what laws mean instead of deciding what the laws should be.

We must resist the “resisters” with as much energy as they use in trying to enslave us. None of us can sit by and just assume things will work out because we’re not fighting people of good will anymore; we’re fighting monsters that want to steal what our forefathers died to give us, our freedom.