Ordinary Americans may not think they are at war with indoctrinated Socialists in the service of Oligarchic Fascists bent on replacing the republic, but those Socialists/Fascists are definitely at war with ordinary Americans.
They see progress as the destruction of every republic and replacement with an oligarchic ruled new world order. They are committed. They become very angry at setbacks. They are ready and quick to riot, loot, destroy, burn, maim, and murder.
There is no middle ground with them. There is no lasting basis for reaching across the aisle to them. They want the destruction of every nation, and the elimination of every patriotic defender of liberty. They want liberty to be replaced by wise elitists making wise provisions for the security, shelter, healthcare, and equal access to goods and services among the masses.
What they haven't asked or studied is this: When in history have so-called wise elitists, once centrally enriched and empowered far above the common person, treated the masses in any way that was not despotic? To look at the number of child abusing pedophiles among the elite oligarchs is to get an idea about how fairly, equally, and wisely they will treat the masses once they have consolidated power over them. Why should any self-godded oligarch care about masses bred and indoctrinated to be so stupid they voted for their own worldwide enserfment?
Dumas Socialists have always been, even if unwitting, the tools of Fascist Oligarchs. They are two sides of the same coin of despotism. Streep is an evil affront to human decency -- whether from idiocy, corruption, or both.
The more I review the history of the Cold War and the U.S. catering to arms and petroleum industries in the destabilization of many, many nations, the clearer it seems that our gov for a long time has not been serving We-The-People, but a despicable, self-godded oligarchy. And that it continued to do so right up to the election of DJT. If I am right, that would account for the Establishment losing its collective mind as DJT smashes its framework of despotism mucked over the Constitution.
It is becoming clearer that the loony Left is not just loony. Rather, it is, and long has been, the indoctrinated soldiers for shock troops on behalf of forces moving not to establish human freedom and dignity as a new world order, but a vast serf-ocalypse. The socialists seem always to have been, even if unwitting, the dumas tools of fascists. They are not the loyal opposition. They are the treasonous enemy within. They came very close to destroying the representative republic, forever. They are the indoctrinated enemy. We are past the point of niceties.
Most people know a lot of Blacks and Jews make good Americans. Thinking people tend also to know that it is factual that: Most Blacks voted for Obama based on identity politics, and a good number of the ACLU "law droolers" (people who think everything the Executive and Congressional branches do should be subject to review and/or veto by the Judicial branch) happen to be Jewish.
Even though that degree of law drooling poses a grave danger to the representative republic, as well as a giant opening for the NWO oligarch-alypse.
Fortunately, some (atheist) Jews (Sam Harris) understand the risk from an excess of Islam PC, as you noted in a Youtube shot about him.
If it's bigoted to state facts, they can bite me. Personally, I don't care much about religion or skin color, so long as the person is not an anti-American servant of the NWO. All who advocate for human freedom and dignity are friends. However, by definition, that friendliness DOES EXCLUDE Progs (especially law droolers) and Muslims. As and when they act to undermine the representative republic, the time for playing nice with them is over.
I do not see you (Progs) as loyal opposition. I see you as a demented, indoctrinated, unwitting tool on behalf of oligarchs bent on destroying the representative republic. I see no point in trying to fix or be nice to people like you.
It has become clear that the loony Left is not just loony. Rather, it is, and long has been, the indoctrinated soldiers for shock troops on behalf of forces moving not to establish human freedom and dignity as a new world order, but a vast serf-ocalypse. Your kind of Socialists have always been, even if unwitting, the dumas tools of fascists. Not the loyal opposition, but the treasonous enemy within. Your kind came very close to destroying the representative republic, forever. We are past the point of niceties.
You and your kind are wasting judicial and national resources and trying patience by bullheadedly putting the cart before the horse. Before any trial on any "facts" on any merits, whether to award damages, punish an offender, or issue a stay or injunction, there is the question of whether separation of powers precluded jurisdiction in the chosen forum and restricted it to another. Even before that, there is the question, once the issue of jurisdictional power is raised, of which side has the burden of proof and/or persuasion regarding jurisdiction. Until that issue is resolved, the only jurisdiction the tribunal may have is jurisdiction to consider whether it has jurisdiction. Under that, there are issues of proper service of process among parties with standing.
Assuming proper service of process and standing, did any Federal Judge have subject matter jurisdiction to wholly void or stay the President's Executive Order, which found, under authority properly delegated to the President, that it was in the interest of the U.S. to preclude entry across its borders from selected nations? Does any authorization exist, under the Constitution or any statute, for any Federal Court to second guess the President's decision and authority on such issue?
For that, the pertinent "facts" are the Constitution and the statutory law. A challenger to the Court's assumption of subject matter jurisdiction cannot show a provision to challenge, when there is no provision. Rather, what the challenger does is challenge the subject matter jurisdiction by asserting there is no authority in the Court. The burden to show such authority is, at least as of that challenge, to show that there is such authority.
Does raising extraneous matters help bootstrap subject matter jurisdiction? Does it create jurisdiction to tell the Judge, "You might not like what the President did?" No, of course not. Does a non-residing, non-citizen have standing to complain that his Constitutional rights under the First Amendment have been violated? No, of course not. Can a State have standing on behalf of a non-resident non-citizen non-visa holder, to assert a non-existent Constitutional right? No, of course not.
Moreover, such arguments would be absurd. They would "phony prove" that every person on the planet must have a "right" to enter the U.S. because his/her exclusion constituted a violation of his/her free speech or free exercise of religion.
Who would make such arguments for such rights? Answer: A law-drooling sub-marginal with no common sense and a robotic need to try to destroy the republic in order to serve his/her/its people-farming monsters. You know, a traitor to the nation, to human decency, and to common sense. Like you find frequently on the ACLU, many law campuses, and among many Prog-appointed, unelected, stupid-ass judges.
These people are not just putting their carts before their horses. They're putting their asses before their heads. What your hero lawyers and judges are doing is worse than any ass-mooning, pant drooping, juvey-deviant. What we have are moonbats running rampant in all our institutions. Many even presume to be "counselors."
The allowing of unions for gov workers is just one among many weapons forged by those that want to replace the representative republic with despotism to be run by so-called benevolent oligarchs. Soros is so benevolent! Swoon. S/
Allow connivers to organize against the gov. Yup. First the oligarchs divide up the gov/nation. Then they reap and farm. And when the shtf, they will be nice. Sure they will.
A representative republic will naturally want as many citizens as possible to become educated elites. At the same time, it will not want educated elites presuming to dictate the details of everyone else's lives. That's why we have a central gov with limited powers, and three branches with separated powers. If you will ponder on it, you will notice that I want to preserve the separation among those powers.
Too many people who have been mal-educated or educated-beyond-their-intellects think the Judiciary ought to have power to rule over the other two branches -- in EVERYTHING. A lot of poorly read people who imagine themselves to be elite actually believe that's the way the Founders intended the Constitution to be applied. It's not. Up until fairly recently, no one but a fool would have presumed to argue for the result the Ninth COA handed down in the recent Trump E.O. kerfuffle.
Those are the ignoranti and corrupti that I generally call law droolers. Because they are trying to drool the Judiciary into having subject-matter jurisdiction over areas that they clearly do not. Well, not if you want to preserve a representative republic. Clearly, if you give unelected fed judges power to veto everything, upon application by a forum-shopping ACLU, funded by Soros et al, then you cannot have a representative republic. The gov then will not be responsive to the will of the people through their representatives, but it will be responsive to the will of oligarchs, as puppeted through their law droolers. However, if you WANT to replace the representative republic with a NWO for rule of the masses by oligarchs, then that would be right up your alley.