The Liberal Left: Corrupt Godless Anarchists Intent on Destroying the U.S.

Remember the good old days when either the Republicans or the Democrats won, but then both sides of the fence worked together – at least somewhat? Wow, how times have changed,  with the fear-mongering and absolute discord, not to mention the vitriolic hatred on display.

The liberals and the left-leaning lame-stream media relentlessly attack and besmirch President Donald Trump, not to mention the complete lack of respect for Trump. These are the same people who cheered on President Obama and Hillary Clinton regardless of what illegal, immoral, and idiotic policies and actions that were enacted by them.

The Right is by no means innocent, but when was the last time the Right committed the actions that have become commonplace to the liberal left? Violent protests, death threats, property destruction; basically anything goes with the left as long as it furthers their anti-American agenda. The liberal left is the party of anarchists – evildoers.

Take immigration and Trump’s travel ban for instance. According to the collective wisdom of the liberal left, the U.S. should welcome all comers, it’s what we do. Actually, that is a falsehood perpetuated by the left. Those of us who dare to agree with Trump are seen as un-American and mean-spirited.

President Trump’s Muslim immigration ban applies to seven countries, not all of them. Each country on the ban list is known for terrorism and terrorists seeking to enter the U.S. to further the goals of radical Islam to over-take the U.S.

Even with people I have spoken to myself, many seem to see only the plight of those poor people who cannot obtain entrance to our country. I agree that some innocents will get caught up in this travel ban, yet what of the safety of the American people? The media of course does not focus on that. What if one of the people that slips through into the U.S because of lack of vetting guns down one of YOUR family members? Will that change your mind? Why should it take that much for people to see reason?

Woodrow Wilcox


What about the flow of drugs and criminals from Mexico? This is not to mention the many Mexican people who come here and do not even have a job, wanting demanding all matter of benefits be given them. Mexico is fine with having their people live here, in part because millions of dollars flow back to Mexico from their people here in the U.S. Again – what of the safety of the American people? What of the drain on the American tax payer? Why does the liberal left ignore these issues? Bradlee Dean writes in his latest column that anyone immigrating to Mexico had better be able to add to – and benefit the Mexican nation as a whole. Yet if anyone mentions the U.S. ought to embrace the same values, they are vilified.

I’m not against immigration, but anyone coming here should consider the U.S. home, their 1st country. People need to come to the U.S. legally, and be able to add value to this nation. The U.S. is not here to pay for everyone who comes here looking for a free ride. The immigrants of yesteryear came here legally, worked hard, learned English, and considered the U.S. to be THEIR country. Many of today’s immigrants come here looking for access to free or subsidized housing, food stamps, and free health care. And why wouldn’t they? The U.S. provides it, even going to great lengths to advertise it, while too many of our own citizens cannot even find a job and vets die before getting adequate health care. This is a travesty of social justice that should never have happened in the first place; our citizens should come first, often they are last.


The liberal left promotes the values of the homosexual and transgender agenda as well. What people do in the privacy of their own home is none of our business, but when their actions threaten the safety of the American people, then it’s everyone’s business. The destruction of traditional marriage and family is tearing this country apart. It used to be that family was fiercely defended, not anymore. Now, family is fiercely abandoned in favor of individuality no matter the cost.

It has been said that family can survive without a nation, but a nation cannot survive without the family.

It has also been said: united we stand, divided we fall.

Apparently, even our own intelligence community has (probably long ago) joined the fray in colluding against Trump. Draining the Swamp desperately needs to be done, but the IT community would rather support the liberal left (like Obama) instead of helping Trump to heal the damage done to this nation. Corruption pays better – just ask the Clintons.

The United States has always stood in the way of the One World Government, a New World Order. If the U.S. continues to accept and support the values of the liberal left, that will soon change. Open borders, anything goes, government corruption, loss of marriage and family values: this WILL lead to the loss of U.S. sovereignty to the likes of leftist libs like George Soros, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bilderberg Group, and the United Nations to name a few. These godless and deeply corrupt persecutors of our great nation are actively working to usher in the new age – The One World Government.

Republished with permission The Olive Branch Report

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Since 2014 The Olive Branch Report, the definitive Christian Magazine for today has featured the insightful writing and reporting of Christian blogger Greg Holt. His writing has been featured on American Prophet, American Clarion, Not Ashamed of the Gospel, and others. Greg is also the publisher of Inspirational Christian Blogs. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. There is no other.
Greg Holt
View all posts by Greg Holt
Gregs website

  • mikael

    Okay, so market fundamentalist liberals are the same thing as libertarian socialists, wed together in some kind of secret cabal? I think the ground tenets in this fantasy are standing on shaky ground to say the least. Anarchists are against the power apparatus of the elite, whether they are neoliberals or conservative, and always fight for us poor folks.

    • CoyoteJohn

      Really? There are so many things wrong with what you said that it is hard to take it seriously. ” Market fundamentalist liberals”? “Libertarian socialists” ? I am at a loss of exactly what you are talking about. “Anarchists are against the power apparatus of the elite”? Anarchists are the tools of the power elite. They are being manipulated by the very power structure you are railing against. Educate yourself and then come back and let’s have an adult conversation.

      • CoyoteJohn

        Speaking of Noam Chomsky, he was about as relevant as Ralph Nadar. Both came up short of actually doing anything.

        • mikael

          To be fair, while his theories are no longer the main road in the field of linguistics (I for one would be the first to criticize him on for example language acquisition and so on) he did manage to produce sufficiently heavy-hitting research to be one of the “grand old men” of modern science.

          Politically, he probably did a lot to spread libertarian ideas to many people who otherwise would never have come into contact with them. In the last 20 years however, he has done some things that are hard to defend, like paying a visit to Chavez in Venezuela, thereby giving him some legitimacy. But as long as he is a card-carrying member in good standing of the IWW he doing some practical and worthwhile just by paying his dues, I’d say.

      • mikael

        I was joking about the conspiracy theory in the original post. It looked like the person who wrote it thought that right-wing ideologues had some kind of secret alliance with libertarian socialists and unions.So you are right about “so many things wrong with what you said”, it is because I laid it out in the light to show how absurd the theory was ?

        • CoyoteJohn

          I guess I should have thought about it before posting! “Anarchism” is the most confused, poorly defined political ideology there is. Anarchists don’t even know what anarchism is. I think the best definition I have come across is this: “anarchists are people for whom political activity is a substitute for a real social life”. That coming from a former anarchist. The wide range of definitions of what anarchy is makes it possible for anyone who has any gripe whatsoever about government, class structure, economics or society in general, can consider themselves anarchists. I know that the “official” definition goes something like this…”to be an anarchist is to reject government”. Okay, that is where sometimes anarchy becomes associated with the ideas of classical liberalism. It also has been associated with libertarianism and ex-Senator (thank God) and Majority Leader Harry Reid once derided the TeaParty as “anarchists”.
          Noam Chomsky, the ivory tower elitist who fashioned himself to be an anarchist, once paraphrased the self-identified anarchist, Rudolf Rocker, “anarchism seeks to free labor from economic exploitation and society from ecclesiastical guardianship.” A real mouth full. That is the problem with the anarchist movement. The concepts, just like “Libertarian socialists” or “anarcho-syndicalism”, are so intellectual convoluted that no one knows what they are talking about. Especially the working classes, which are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the “anarchist movement”.
          I could bore you with so much more about the disfunctionality of anarchism but this may not be the space or time. The bottom line is that these kids that are out there destroying public and private property, have no idea what they stand for, have no idea about the history of the anarchist movement and are nothing more than pawns of the left. Basically, they are middle to upper class, unemployed or unemployable societal misfits who are so” isolated from their surroundings that they have virtually no contact with anyone beyond their own clique”, another quote from a rehabilitated anarchist.

          • mikael

            I’m not totally sure about your characterization, the majority of the members of the anarchist labor union I’m a member of are currently employed, and mostly work in transport (bus, taxi drivers), in health (nurses, home assistants for the elderly, nursing assistants, cleaners), education (teachers, administrators, cleaners), it (programmers, administrators) and so on.

            I think the idea is to become the dominant force of the left, not a pawn of the left. The experiences of 1917, 1936, 1956 and so on are quite good reminders to not show any fucking leniency at all towards leninists and other authoritarian would-be “People’s commissars”.

            The youthful exuberance is probably something you just have to count on given the circumstances we live under, but the real heavy-hitting part of the libertarian movement are to be found in unions, shop-stewards networks and cooperative community projects – just tending to the day-to-day chores that are not very glamorous, with the people involved not that interested in shoving their ideology down other people’s throats. It’s less of “intellectual convolution” than just building from basic principles.

            • CoyoteJohnKerr

              Now I really am confused. You are telling me that you are a member of a labor union? I am not sure how that fits in with anarchy. I am not at all familiar with an “anarchist labor union”, so maybe you can educate me. I was a union contractor for 35 years and am well informed about unions. Are you a member of a collective bargaining unit? Does your union negotiate wages and compensation with a group of contracted employers? Sounds like to me you are a labor activist and more closely aligned with a progressive or leftist ideology rather than anarchism. I also know from experience, having negotiated with the unions for 35 years that the unions are a top down organization with a president that is highly compensated (in comparison to the members) and yields considerable and often times, excessive power. Corruption becomes endemic in any organization where the power elite have control of it’s members. Corruption and unions are unfortunately synonymous. Unions are antithetical to the values of anarchy, so I would be genuinely interested in what constitutes an “anarchist labor union”.

              • mikael

                Sure thing! And respect for those 35 years btw!

                You could say there are two strand to the labor movement, the authoritarian and the libertarian. The authoritarian strand (either socal democratic or marxist-leninist) favored working through top-down structures like parties, and in the 20th century these parties started trying to rope in more independent working class organizations like labor unions under their control.

                I can say I recognize to the point of dullness the type of business unions that are directed by some fat-cats at the top – I couldn’t imagine the setup being anything else than further corruption, corruption which only strikes against the grassroots membership who were tricked into believing that “this guy, this guy is different, he won’t make the same mistake”. Most people who wake up to the fact that without democracy, the union movement will never truly make any advances, aside from some day-to-day victories. Lots of disillusioned workers out there, and I can’t blame them – reform seems impossible.

                But the parallel strand, with roots in France, where the CGT, the powerful national union confederation existed, took its queue from the Charter of Amiens in 1906, which took a strong stance for the preservation of local autonomy and independence from “all ideological sects” (ie parties). The members of the CGT also determined that unions are meant to be a means to and end, where the end is not itself. Unions are tools for achieving better pay, more reasonable work environment, but also constituted the natural forms out of which non-market oriented, state and class society would grow out of – bypassing both exploiters among captains of industry and the politicians just interested in becoming the next “coordinator class” to profit from access to the logic of the state.

                Lots of unions took their inspiration from there, and the sister union of my union, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) is one example – a union which are far from the 100,000 members it used to have before being smashed by criminal syndicalism laws and competition from less libertarian communist organizers, but they’ve grown about 400% in the last 10 years, with the curve going even more exponential after the election of Trump. Last year it incarcerated workers organized in the IWW staged the largest prison labor strike in modern times (participation is a bit hard to quantify due to the nature of prisons, but 10,000 to 40,000 people participated, though only 1,000 were IWW members) .

                Anyway, before WWII the anarcho-syndicalist labor union international had a couple of million members, with the largest being the CNT in Spain, with 1,5 million members.

                This industrial unionist, grass-roots, base-democratic, horizontalist, syndicalist or anarcho-syndicalist movement (they have different names in different countries) never quite recovered the onslaught of fascism and war, but following the hot 70s and the fall of the Berlin wall they had a resurgence (the libertarian camp always opposed the Soviet Union – the marxists having had persecuted and forbidden their union, for example in Cuba, where the powerful anarchist labor movement saw their publications banned 53 years ago this year, as a matter of fact).

                Anyway, whether these grass-roots ‘workers’ unions’ sign CBAs or not is up to its membership, when they’ve grown strong enough. Where I live, the syndicalist union here for example was the majority union within logging and forestry for 20 years, but the members didn’t often vote to sign bargaining agreements, since they realized that would be the same as recognizing the right of the employer to “lead and assign work” at the same time as the obligation for industrial peace would mean that their power was diminished (some also argued that it would make membership democracy stagnate too).

                The secretary-general of my union is never paid more than the average monthly wage for an industrial worker, and per 5,000 members we have roughly 5 salaried officials – the rest of the work is taken care of on the shop-floor (the CNT had less than 10 paid officials in 1937, with 1,6 million members, which is kind of crazy given all the time-saving tech we have at our hands today!). I’m not sure how many salaried officials the heir to the CNT has today, but they represent about 1,5 to 2 million Spanish workers in industrial negotiations, but have only around 100,000 members nowadays.

                In my town we are roughly 400 workers in our small general membership branch. The general membership branches have the right to recover their given mandate to those elected to positions of responsibility in the national confederation at any given time, and local workplace branches have a great degree of autonomy in terms of how to go about solving industrial conflicts, through informal negotiations, formal ones, blockades, strikes, public awareness campaigns…

                And as mentioned, we are mostly health, transport, education and hospitality workers – I myself work in health (though traditionally our national membership has been among anarchist-influenced stonemasons, navvies, construction workers, miners, loggers and other groups such as printing workers.