Alber

Historically, the traditional parties (Democrat and Republican) have had liberal and conservative wings; but for a few decades to this day, Republicans call Democrats liberal and Democrats call Republicans conservative, which is a mistake when put it into perspective.
The Democratic Party is not the party of liberals, since liberalism is a doctrine of defense of individual freedoms, especially against the State, and this party currently seeks to increase the control of the State over society.
On the other hand, it can be said that the Republican Party embraces the economic proposals of liberalism; but, opposing the imposition of a strong state that establishes a false "distributive justice" and leads to the destruction of the rule of law.
It is indisputable that it was a liberal who wrote the following: “We hold that these truths are evident, that all men are created equal, that their Creator has endowed them with certain inalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."; since it is noteworthy that he accepts the principles of liberalism, changing property (of which Locke says: "each man has a 'property' in his own 'person', to which no one has a right but him"), for the pursuit of happiness.
Currently, the political action of the Republican Party is conservative liberalism and that of the Democratic Party has tendencies towards Marxist socialism that is totally contrary to liberal ideas, since it defends the rights of minority communities, instilling in them the dissatisfaction of being equal before the law , in detriment of the individual freedom of all members of society, which tends to the division and confrontation of the groups it defends, against society in general; promoting a new struggle within society, to replace the "failed class struggle" preached by Marxism, which divided society into: the bourgeoisie and the proletarians.
For all the above, it can be said that Republicans are closer to being liberal than Democrats and Socialists hates liberals more than conservatives.
In our days, the class struggle is meaningless; being necessary for Marxists to create different groups, applying the maxim: "Divide and conquer", which justify the struggle for the imposition of their dictatorship, which can no longer be called of the proletariat.
All of the above is imported from trends such as: ethnicity, feminism, indigenism, homosexuality, gender ideology, environmentalism, and others; created by the Sao Paulo Forum, which is “an enemy of the USA”, and supported by the UN, which has fallen under its influence.
It must be considered that those who support these ideas cooperate with the enemy; and therefore, they are traitors, according to the Constitution. They intend to divide the nation against itself, so that it cannot be sustained (paraphrasing the famous Lincoln sentence); and once destroyed, to collect what remains of it, in order to impose a Marxist dictatorship.
To argue that what has been written above is unfounded, is not possible, since the express support of a good number of leaders of the Democratic Party to Socialism is notorious, to which they have added the word "Democratic", creating an oxymoron (is like saying: " darkness of light "), since socialism (darkness) is contrary to democracy (light); trying to equate Democratic Socialism to Social Democracy, when between real socialism (adding the qualifier that could occurs to them) and Social Democracy, there is a huge gap in politics.
Socialism, carries implicitly the germ of dictatorship, imposing planning to replace the free market; nullifying the principle of law that says: "You can do everything that the law does not prohibit", which is replaced by: "You can only do what is authorized."
Thus, the United States, as it is North Korea or as it was East Germany, would become a Socialist Democratic Republic, for which it would be necessary to derogate the current Constitution.
I think that if it is possible for them to continue developing "complots", such as the one described by Time magazine in an article, disguising the "mediatic-cybernetic putsch" applied to defeat Donald Trump, where they justify the dark methods used, saying that it was to "save democracy", they will be close to achieving their goal.
Can they do it? I hope not; and I pray to God, that it will not be necessary to refresh the tree of freedom, remembering what was said by Thomas Jefferson; and that CO2 (although it is beneficial to trees), acting as a greenhouse gas, will not produce such an intense heat, that it would be necessary to shed the blood of the patriots and that of those who, replacing the tyrants (which at the time wanted to destroy the nation from the outside), today with their betrayal, handing it over to Socialism, want to destroy it from the inside.

guzzimaestro

Good post.