While Left, Liberal Progressive Democrats Lambast the “Alt-Right” They Ignore the “Alt-Left” Which Many Are

The “alt-right” as Hillary Clinton termed a sect of conservatives has many confused as to what this “group” actually is.  From Hillary’s coinage of the term, one could surmise she meant all individuals on the “right” or more aptly all conservatives.  However, the “alt-right” was not even considered as a separate subset of conservatives until Hillary’s coinage and the media scrambling to identify the conservative subset, define it, and promote it as condemnable.

On November 22, 2016, Breitbart reported that president-elect Donald Trump “disavowed an alt-right conference in Washington, DC over the weekend led by Robert Spencer that celebrated the election of Donald Trump.”

When asked directly about the event, covered extensively by the lamestream enemedia, Trump stated, “I condemn them.  I disavow.  I condemn.”

“I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group,” Trump said. “It’s not a group I want to energize. And if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why.”

But, what exactly is the “alt-right?”  And, if there exists an “alt-right,” would it also have a counterpart known as the “alt-left.”

One could say there exists an “alt-left” based on the violent riots in cities across the republic opposing the election of Donald Trump.  There are a growing number of millennials who need safe spaces, who cry and assume the fetal position because Hillary lost.  There is the “Black Lives Matter” group.  And, there are incidences of Trump supporters of all ages being assaulted by anti-Trumpers.  Then, there are the Hillary cultists.

So, if this is the alt-left, what is the alt-right and why are they to be condemned or disavowed?  Doing a Google search using the question, “what is alt-right,” produces pages of results of articles describing what is the “alt-right.”  Pick several and read through the various writers’ description.  A common set of characteristics emerge.  These characteristics include “white supremacy,” “white nationalism,” support of mass deportation of illegal alien invaders, online users who are alienated from mainstream American conservatism, support of anti-feminism, racism, anti-Semitism, and are generally homophobic, transphobic, and misogynistic.  In other words, these “internet social media intellectual podcasters and bloggers” are an extreme form of what some might describe as “natural conservatives” and others might label “neo-Nazis.”

The best in-depth article discussing the “alt-right” is at Breitbart.

Yet, all of these articles are written by journalists and not individuals who hold degrees in psychology, psychiatry, or mental health.  It’s the same with the “alt-left.”  Both the “alt-right” and “alt-left” are what some would describe as extreme movements of conservatism (alt-right) and liberal progressivism (alt-left).  Therefore, if the “alt-right” is to be condemned and disavowed, what about the “alt-left,” who are violently rioting, vandalizing and looting businesses in cities across the republic?  Common sense and logic would suggest this mirror image of the “alt-right” is to be vehemently rejected as well.

However, the “alt-left” serves a purpose for the left, liberal, progressive, communist, socialist, Marxist Democrats.  This group keeps discord, chaos, anarchy and confusion constantly in the forefront as a force to be addressed.  They are seen as having a legitimate gripe that government is required to address to stop the violence occurring republic wide.

On the other hand, the “alt-right” serves no purpose but to sow negative “-isms” throughout the population.  Like the “alt-left,” this group fosters discontent, internet trolling, engages in internet havoc, and speaks of issues in terms of anti-government when it comes to involvement in daily life.  This group is seen as a force to be squashed, having no legitimate gripe that needs to be addressed by government.  Their freedom of speech is to be combatted in the cyberworld through censorship of the internet.

A problem comes into play when those who are supportive of the Constitution, look to follow God’s laws, uphold the sovereignty of the State, and cherish individual God-given unalienable rights are labeled as belonging to the “alt-right.”  Not all liberal, left, progressive Democrats belong into the description of the “alt-left;”  yet, it is becoming obvious that the term “alt-right” is being used to describe those individuals considered to be “right-wingers.”

Both the alt-right and alt-left are extreme views of government that harm the republic and tarnish the foundation of the platform upon which the united States was founded — liberty, freedom and self-government.

The question that is outstanding between all political groups is, “What is wrong with following the Constitution — the law of the land that limits government to specific enumerated powers while reserving all other powers to the States or the people, respectively?”

One can bet each group has a different answer for this question.  However, the key phrase is “the law of the land.”  Despite what some may contend, the Constitution is the law and the law is to be followed.  Whether Republican, Democrat, liberal, progressive, conservative, Christian, atheist, regressive, black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, or any other descriptor, the Constitution applies as law, regardless of the numerous politicians, Congressmen, presidents and charlatans who violate it, misinterpret it, or skew it to suit their purpose.

In fact, there is only one side in this republic.  And, that side is the Constitution.  For Christians, it is God’s law first, then the Constitution.  And, any law that violates God’s law is null and void since God’s law is the highest law.

It matters not what political party is involved, what “movement” is chic at the time or who won or lost what election.  What matters is adhering to the law, especially the Constitution and more importantly, God’s law.  Throwing out the Constitution is just as bad as interpreting its tenets to support some policy platform belonging to Republicans or Democrats.  Providing a meaning in opposition to the framers of many articles and clauses is just as bad as ignoring those articles and clauses.  And, assuming powers of any of the other branches by one branch or another is usurpation and in violation of the Constitution.

So, while left liberal Democrats lambast the “alt-right” and ignore the “alt-left,” both Republicans, RINO and conservative, and Democrats, along with the “alt-right” and “alt-left,” have little regard for the Constitution, placing platform and rhetoric above the law.



About Suzanne Hamner

Former professional Registered Nurse turned writer; equal opportunity criticizer; politically incorrect conservative;
This entry was posted in Constitution, General, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.