Предыдущая публикация
Hillary Clinton has declared that her political views and interests are inconsistent with the legal constitutional life of the American nation and state, as well as with the civilized goals of the US Democratic Party.
Therefore, she is now faced with a real choice: to remain in the Democratic Party or to seek for herself some fascist party of dictators, with a low level of mental development, but with aggressive anti-human goals.
Democracy is the best form of government in the modern world, where the political sector no longer observes the country's constitutional norms, adopts illegal unconstitutional laws, and tries to deprive citizens of their rights, that is, to infringe on their human, civil and property rights. Under democratic governance, a person can freely express himself, within the framework of the constitutional legal order, and protect the quality of his life, his interests. Democracy is also good in that people who accidentally find themselves in this party, or people who deliberately try to disguise their selfish dictatorial goals by being in a democratic party, sooner or later declare that their personal desires do not correspond to the statutory rules and goals of the democratic party and leave it, cleansing this party of illegal and harmful criminal ballast for the nation, society and the state.
Dear citizens, when Hillary Clinton was young and beautiful, when she was happy in her married life, with the equally beautiful man Bill Clinton, then, despite her Talmudic views, she adhered to the democratic norms of civilized life. In other words, in those days she lived happily and did not prevent other people from living happily, which is what the Democratic Party ensures in the state. Unfortunately, in her old age, Hillary Clinton, out of base envy of the cheerful free life of young girls, women and men, took the unconstitutional and anti-democratic path of revenge on them. It is a great pity that such a senile and egotistical mental illness is inherent in most people of old age. Therefore, she voiced her illegal desires to prohibit people, society, the nation, and state employees from enjoying their constitutional rights, enjoying freedom of expression and thought. Any person who takes such an anti-human and anti-constitutional position already loses any spiritual, ideological and legal connection with both the democratic party and the concept of a democratic state in general. I have already written that the Masonic Talmudist Noe Zhordania was a member of the Social Democratic Party of Georgia, which in 1918 threw off the enslaving ties of Tsarist autocratic Russia. Noe Zhordania was the first President of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, but it was he who banned democracy and civil freedom in the country, because he simply covered up his real fascist Masonic essence with the signboard of the Social Democratic Party. Democracy was also banned by the Nazi fascist Hitler. The USSR had a complete socialist democracy under the rule of Joseph Stalin, even all party decisions were made through sometimes very heated democratic debate, through free and fair voting. However, after Stalin's death, democratic government in the Soviet Union was abolished by the Talmudists, who were led first by the clown Nikita Khrushchev, and then by the car collector Leonid Brezhnev. Democratic government in the Russian Federation has not been revived to this day. Even Boris Yeltsin, a drunkard and dancer who engaged in demagogy regarding democracy, made all decisions in an authoritarian, dictatorial manner, not to mention Vladimir Putin, who makes the same dictatorial decisions only with a Talmudic management caste in political liaison.
Dear citizens, in the video presented in this publication, Hillary Clinton says that she believes that it is supposedly necessary to cancel the constitutional section of the US legal norms, I repeat, an absolutely constitutional and legal section, which granted social networking platforms on the Internet immunity, that is, granted them the rights that they have under the US Constitution. In other words, Hillary Clinton proposes to cancel the US Constitution, which grants Americans the constitutional right to free expression of speech and thought. She Talmudicly believes that the alleged constitutional right to free expression of speech and thought is "too simple a view." The question arises, "a simple view" in what sense? In the sense that Talmudists should have a monopoly on deceiving the entire society, using the state system unconstitutionally, and citizens of the United States or other countries should not have the right to reasonably refute this lie and defend their rights, defend constitutional statehood?! Hillary Clinton tells us that if social networks, such as Twitter X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or other platforms, do not moderate and control content, then, as she emphasizes, “we lose complete control. And this is not just social and psychological consequences, but this is real harm," says Hillary Clinton. Again, legitimate questions arise, who does Hillary Clinton mean when she mentions the pronoun WE? If she means Talmudists, then according to the Constitution they have no privileged rights over the rest of the population of the USA, they have equal rights with it, and do not have the right to control them or impose their Talmudic lies or crime on them. If by the concept of "WE" she means state power, then state power also does not have the constitutional right to control the way of thinking and interests of the population of the USA, because the USA has a multi-party state system, which, through a multi-party electoral system, forms its state power, precisely from the diverse different opinions of the population. This is the content of a democratic state. Moreover, Hillary Clinton talks about content moderation, which is an unconstitutional requirement, i.e. a crime against the civil rights of the population. In addition, the question arises, by what criteria does she propose content moderation on social networks, taking into account whose subjective views or dictatorial and criminal opinions?! The US Constitution legally and fairly grants the right to free expression of speech and thought to all US citizens. This is also the case in other civilized countries. Freedom of speech cannot harm anyone by any criteria, because it has no possibility of physical impact. However, through freedom of speech, truth and legality are affirmed, because it exposes lies and crime. Democracy is good because it gives all citizens of the country equal constitutional rights. Therefore, if Hillary Clinton does not like some scientific, political, theological, moral or legal content on social networks, she has every right to engage in a reasoned and argued debate with the author of this content and prove his erroneousness and wrongness, or, as a result of the debate, admit her own erroneousness and wrongness. But she has no right to prohibit the truth and the ascertaining of objective reality, in favor of her subjective lies. Such are the norms of legal life in a civilized democratic state, which the aged Hillary Clinton has no right to prohibit or cancel.
As you can see, dear citizens, Hillary Clinton is already facing a real choice: to remain in the Democratic Party or to seek for herself some fascist party of dictators, with a low level of mental development, but with aggressive anti-human goals, which is a criminal offense. In this case, she will have to make such a decision herself.
Professor David Ben Melech (Abaev-Jirkvalidze), a real descendant of the King of Israel David.
Georgia, Gori, October 11, 2024.
.
Следующая публикация
Нет комментариев