Brits Labour Party plans to abolish and confiscate private schools

 

Best hustle out to your local theatre and catch “Downton Abby” for a view of the last vestige of the once great Great Britain. If Brexit was a problem for the UK and Boris Johnson, let’s look at what Corbyn’s Labor party has in store-

Nigel Farage: “I’ve no doubt, Mr McDonnell, you all want us to be dragged down to the bottom in your new Marxist state.”

Boris Johnson

Leaders of elite private schools have vented outrage over Labour’s plan to abolish them, branding the policy “incredulous” [sic] and an “act of unprecedented vandalism”.

Jeremy Corbyn’s party voted at their conference to integrate all private schools into the state sector if they win the next election.

….

“It doesn’t feel like I’m living in the UK any more,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Properties and funds held by private schools would be “redistributed democratically and fairly” across the country’s educational institutions as part of the reforms.

Private schools’ charitable status would also be scrapped and universities forced to limit their intake of privately educated students to just 7 per cent – the same proportion as in the wider population.

Boris Johnson also called it a “pointless attack” on the education system, adding that it was based on a “long-buried socialist ideology”.

Mr Adshead, head of the fee-paying Old Vicarage School in Derbyshire, said: “For me it seems quite incredulous [sic] that in 2019 I’m discussing whether my private land will be seized and then redistributed.” More at Independent UK

Nigel Farage: Abolishing Private Schools Is Communism

How far behind are we?
Other than that all is well in the swamp.
For the best in conservative news click below:

 

NY Times Celebrates Communist Mao Zedong as “One of History’s Great Revolutionary Figures”

 

One can only wonder at the fascination so many have with so many murdering dictators. Mao’s birthday was yesterday. Guess what. A NY Times reporter apparently had it on their calendar. Lucky us.

The New York Times honored mass murdering communist tyrant Mao Zedong yesteray as “One of History’s Great Revolutionary Figures.”

This was posted on the New York Times archives Twitter account.

 

 

On second thought, maybe forgetting that 50 or 60 million dead occurred during his regime wasn’t the best idea…

———————————————————-
NYT Archives
@NYTArchives
We’ve deleted a previous tweet about Mao Zedong that lacked critical historical context.
3:03 PM · Sep 9, 2019SocialFlow
———————————————————–

Just more fake news.

A comment:

Bear in mind that the New York Times got a fake Pulitzer prize in the 1930s for covering up the 6 million Ukrainian middle class farmers starved to death by Stalin. The failing New York Times also completely fraudulently misrepresented Fidel Castro and his intentions with endless Communist propaganda before he seized power.

But then again, the National Education Association had the “birth”of China on their calendar –

NEA: Let’s celebrate communism!

 

Teachers’ union promotes Mao’s launch of ‘People’s Republic’

The National Education Association is suggesting its teachers and NEA-connected schools celebrate China on the anniversary of the repressive communist regime’s violent founding.

The NEA’s website has a page called Diversity Events and lists Oct. 1 as the day to celebrate Chairman Mao’s successful revolution.

 

University of North Carolina-Wilmington Criminal Justice professor Mike Adams says the NEA’s position is borne out of intellectual arrogance.

“Well, the next thing you know they’ll be celebrating the birth of Nazi Germany, but certainly that would be anti-climactic, because communist China has killed more people than Nazi Germany,” Adams said.

“I think the only one way to describe the arrogant hubris of these pseudo-intellectuals is that they’re ‘holier than thou,’” Adams said.

It too was reported that this event was later removed from the calendar.

Just for old times sake when I first started this blog –

Obama celebrates 60 years of Chinese Rule- Millions Slaughtered

 

 

The astounding image of the building’s top aglow in red and yellow to commemorate the birth of Red China. Yes, unbelievably, the Empire State last October paused to recognize Mao’s communist China, which was responsible for 60-70 million deaths, the single greatest slaughter of humanity in history, dwarfing Hitler’s terror by six-fold.

The Empire State Building in New York City will glow red and yellow Wednesday night to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China.  “What’s next, Marx, Lenin and Trotsky’s birthday’s too?” one blogger wrote.

“What about Allah while we’re honoring our enemies under the ‘Commie Obammie’ administration?” Another: “While we’re at it, let’s light up the Rockefellor Center with a big swastika on red lights?”

Others blamed the ESB’s color scheme on President Obama: “I thought by ‘change’ that President Obama meant socialized healthcare, higher taxes, and a bloated nanny-state there to take care of my every need. But not this!”

A tip of the fedora goes to Gateway Pundit

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

For the best in conservative news click below

Chicago Teachers Union visits Venezuela, returns with high praise

Four representatives of the Chicago Teachers Union, including a member of its executive board, visited Venezuela and returned with high praise for the socialist polices of President Nicolás Maduro.

So starts the story of those apparently living in an alternative universe. What is worse, these are the teachers who are indoctrinating the children. Chicago, the bastion of all that can go wrong with a city, gives us a chilling insight. The very same people opposed to charter schools and will do all they can to insure incompetent teachers remain in their positions. Who are more than willing to enjoy the largesse of the taxpayers with extraordinary benefits.

The Chicago Teachers Union retweeted a link with this photo from the blog Radical Educator Collective, which was created by the group that called itself a “CTU delegation” to Venezuela. (Radical Educator Collective photo)

Union leadership had approved a resolution several months ago criticizing U.S. sanctions and intervention in Venezuela, including the efforts of President Donald Trump’s administration to delegitimize Maduro and elevate an interim president, Juan Guaidó, during mass citizen resistance to Maduro’s controversial reelection last year.

Here is their resolution:

CTU Resolution to Oppose the Invasion of Venezuela.pdf

11: WHEREAS, the current Trump administration, various European nations, and the  Lima Group in South America, has recently made menacing pronouncements against the sovereign state of Venezuela by discrediting the result of the May 20, 2018, 14 Venezuelan presidential election of Nicolas Maduro, and have backed the self declared “Presidency” of Juan Guaido, President of the National Assembly of Venezuela;…..

While CTU has been clear it did not pay for the four members’ trip to Venezuela, they went as CTU representatives and met with high-level government officials. Reading their social media accounts of the trip, you’d think they visited Mayberry.

In a reflection of the first day here, CTU Area Vice President Sarah Chambers states:

“I’ve already learned so much just within a couple of hours of being in the country. I’m excited to learn more tomorrow about the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and how it has improved the lives of the Venezuelan people.”

SARAH CHAMBERS, CTU AREA VICE PRESIDENT

This was CTU executive board member Sarah Chambers, who went to Venezuela, quoted on an anti-Trump website:

“Through major economic hardships, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro never closed a single public school or a single health clinic. This stands in stark contrast to our experience in Chicago, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel closed 50 public schools and several mental health clinics in a single year.”

Chambers also posted on social media her astonishment that, during her trip, she “didn’t see a single homeless person.” She and others praised literacy rates in the country and the commune-style culture.

Maybe their Venezuelan hosts took them on a programmed propaganda tour, as one angered CTU member suggested. The teachers must not have seen areas of Caracas where families occasionally dig through rubbish for food, where women sleep on cardboard boxes outside of grocery stores hoping to bring home cornmeal, where ATMs are empty, hospitals are barely staffed and where tuna fish and flour are luxuries.

Read More

This from their on the spot reporting:

We walked there planning on just taking a tour, but what we received was so much more.

As an educator, I took this trip not only to gain knowledge on what is actually happening politically in the country, but also to meet with other educators and students to see how the educational system operates in a country that has eradicated illiteracy since 2005.

Did you know thousands of private and public companies have been taken over by rank and file workers in Venezuela? Companies like GoodYear and Kelloggs locked their gates to stop production and sabotage the economy in an effort to make people’s lives harder.

However, the result of this attempt was the exact opposite of the companies expectations – workers returned the next day with bolt cutters and reopened the locked gates to run the companies themselves.

A lot of this was due to the new law passed in 2018 by the Constituent National Assembly (ANC) and the Constitution Law of Productive Worker Councils. This gave workers the support of the state to form worker councils (CTPs) to take over and change production to meet the people’s needs rather than the profit motive.

To be very clear – this was already happening in many Venezuelan factories. The difference is that there is now a law that provides the state’s official support.

More of their experiences Here

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Welcome readers from Whatfingernews and Doug Ross @ Journal Thanks for the links.

For the best in conservative news and so much better than Drudge click below.

Denver City Council winner promised to usher in Communism ‘by any means necessary’

 

Newly elected far far-left Denver City Council member Candi CdeBaca has stated that she is “excited to usher” in communism “by any means necessary.” She was elected in a run-off. Congratulations Denver. We have been tip toeing around the topic with euphemisms.

euphemism is a polite expression used in place of words or phrases that might otherwise be considered harsh or unpleasant.

Social Democrats such as the likes of Bernie Sanders is a euphemism that comes to mind. AOCortex comes to mind as well.

“Any means necessary?” Try the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Thats sounds like a phrase wouldn’t you say?

In the end, it is Communism that they all wish for and they have been working at it for decades to bring it to our shores. Indoctrinating our young.

 

 

I don’t believe our current economic system actually works. Um, capitalism by design is extractive and in order to generate profit in a capitalist system, something has to be exploited, that’s land, labor or resources.

And I think that we’re in late phase capitalism and we know it doesn’t work and we have to move into something new. And I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources, and distribution of those resources.

And I think that we’re in late phase capitalism and we know it doesn’t work and we have to move into something new. And I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources, and distribution of those resources.

 

 

WhatFingerNews  A great site for all the news.

Rejecting Socialism

 

Rejecting Socialism

by Mustang

There is a gulf of separation between theoretical socialism and its practical realities —something that socialists are well aware of, and why they intentionally deceive others about this peculiar ideology.  One important overarching reality of socialism is that its success requires compulsory adherence to the will of the state that wields it. 

One might argue that socialism opposes human nature, and I think this is true, but experience tells us that it is nevertheless possible to convince human beings to relinquish their natural instincts to the demands of the state —particularly if individuals are duped into accepting socialist theory over socialist reality, and where the state is willing to use coercive methods against its citizens to assert and maintain totalitarian power. 

By writing “coercive methods,” I mean to suggest numerous insidious strategies beyond holding a gun to a citizen’s head.  Most thinking humans will recognize coercion as the gateway to an unnatural state; anyone who is willing to give up his or her unassailable rights probably doesn’t deserve them in the first place.

Socialism is complex, however.  What makes it complicated are its several (actually, too many) and competing theoretical ideologies.  These include Utopianism, Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Leftist Communism, Autonomism,  Anarchism, socialist democracy, democratic socialism, liberal socialism, ethical socialism, libertarian socialism, religious, regional, and eco-socialism … and it goes on from there.

One may recall the case of Winston Smith, who frustrated by state oppression and rigid control —even to the extent of prohibiting individualism in thought or expression, sought to break away from his socialist masters.  He soon realized that the socialist state can never allow even one citizen to achieve independent thought.  At one time, George Orwell was a committed socialist, whose work Nineteen-Eighty-Four reflected his realization that socialist reality was a stark betrayal of its theory.  Orwell’s conclusion was that mankind must never trust any state to deliver a just society.

If this is true, then why should anyone living in Utopia wish to change from a system that values individuality —indeed, one in which society thrives on our natural instincts— to live within a society controlled by the state, where the only rewards come from group think, and where success economic is only achieved through carefully measured doses of state welfare? 

In 1908, writer Jack London wrote the earliest of dystopian fiction novels; he titled it The Iron Heel.  The background for London’s book is set in San Francisco and Sonoma County.  He chronicles an oligarchic power structure that exists for three centuries before a revolution ushers in what he calls “The Brotherhood of Man.”  London, a socialist activist who died in 1916, was never witness to the fact that his predictions about San Francisco came true —but one in which the transformation to a brotherhood of man transformed itself into a socialist oligarchy.

Nevertheless, Marxian socialism in America failed because it was largely rejected by the American people.  This rejection fueled a massive undertaking by the socialist elite to rethink their strategies. 

The change came in 1973.  It was the year that the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book Gulag Archipelago was published.  It demolished any pretense that communism had any moral authority.  Socialism was exposed for what it is.  The American left struggled … what next, then?  The answer: identity politics: a struggle between victim and victimizer, the oppressed and the oppressor, and rather than presenting the socialist ideal as being collectivist in nature, the political left began to “expose” the power of the white people over exploited minorities (and third-world nations). 

And where should this new battle plan be implemented?  Within US colleges and universities, of course.  Writer Bruce Bawer tells us: “The point [became] simply to “prove”—repetitively, endlessly—certain facile, reductive, and invariably left-wing points about the nature of power and oppression.  In this new version of the humanities, all of Western civilization is not analyzed through the use of reason or judged according to aesthetic standards that have been developed over centuries; rather, it is viewed through prisms of race, class, and gender, and is hailed or condemned in accordance with certain political checklists.”

This is American socialism today.  We are witness to it every single day in the 24/7 news media, the perfect place for the expression of opinion vs. fact.

In contrast to leftist socialism (pick any of its manifestations) free-market capitalism is founded upon voluntary human interaction.  Its characteristics include private property ownership, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchanges of goods and services, and competitive markets. 

People who own wealth make their own economic and investment decisions; prices and the distribution of goods and services are controlled through competition.  Traditional Americans believe that while there is a role for government, it must be a limited role —as reflected in the United States Constitution.  There is another significant distinction: it is founded on commonality among Americans, which includes friendliness toward one another, the sharing of common values, beliefs, and traditions.  True Americans have a firm belief in the goodness of our founding documents.

America is now involved in a new civil war.  Is it a contest involving differences in culture, east coast to west, northern border to southern?  On the one hand, American socialists (nee communists) deny the importance of God, endorsed such odd notions as transgender rights, forcing small business owners to provide medical procedures for the employees that violate our religious beliefs, force Catholic Nuns to provide contraception, engineered the firing of corporate executives because of their stand on such issues as marriage equality, imposed fines upon bakeries who refused to service homosexual weddings, and denying to Christians the same religious protections accorded to Native Americans.

It is more than a cultural war.  It is a conflict that pits west coast, metropolitan, well-educated upper-class elite against the traditions and liberties of middle American, exurban and rural, lower-middle- and working-class citizens with a modest education.  It is a war where the privileged few seek to impose their will on a recalcitrant majority of traditional Americans.

At present, the conflict manifests itself as a cold civil war.  It doesn’t need to become a “hot” war.  This will depend, I think, on how well the intractable majority realizes their power at the voting booth —which is why I think Mr. Trump is making such a gargantuan effort to “stump” for the Republican ticket in the mid-term elections.  He appeals to those of us who regard ourselves as nationalist s—that is to say, people who are passionate in our love for America.

Note this important contrast: Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party of unity around our founding principles, while the socialists are the party of elitists who can only offer us the politics of identity.  Which of these will you choose?

Democrats – An Anti-American Platform

 

An Anti-American Platform

By Mustang

Whenever Barack Obama was talking to all Americans, he spoke about unity.  When he was confronting an audience of black Americans, he told them that white people are racists, that white people hate black people, and that white people are the bad guys.  From Obama’s own voice, “It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.  (White) people were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.  They were more than satisfied —they were relieved— such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.”

Throughout his administration, Obama continually said racist things about white people.  His attorney general discriminated against white Americans, his treasury department discriminated against conservatives, and his FBI targeted political enemies of Barack Obama.  This is not conjecture —it is fact.

Obama isn’t president anymore, of course.  I keep hoping to see him deposited onto the dustbin of history, but no … he’s still out stumping around the country reminding everyone what a dyed-in-the-wool racist he is —as he has always been.  The phenomenon is catching.  CNN’s pseudo-journalist, Don Lemon recently said the same thing: paraphrasing, the problem with our society is white men; we’ve got to do something about those radical white men.  CNN, the official propaganda arm of the Democratic Party refused to hold Lemon accountable for his racist sentiments.  But to be fair, Lemon isn’t the only one.  There are self-loathing white men who’ve jumped on that bandwagon as well.

 

Why is that?

It’s actually a page right from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: #12—pick your target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.  Go after people, not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.  This is cruel, but very effective.  Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.

So then, to shut down any conversation about our diverse views, anti-American progressives (communists) attack anyone who disagrees with them by calling them racists, fascists, hate-mongers, right-wing radicals, white extremists, and bible-carrying gun owners.  The list goes on.  Do you oppose Obama Care?  You’re a racist.  Do you support closed borders?  You’re a racist.  Are you fed up with Islamic extremism?  You’re Islamophobic.  Do you happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin?  You’re homophobic.  Do you think there is something seriously wrong, mentally, with transgenders?  You’re transgenophobic.

Now, says the communist left, since you’re so full of hate for your fellow-man, sit down and shut up.  If you don’t want to sit down and shut up, the left will send along representatives from their terrorist arm to beat you up.  We see this every day on the televised news; well, at least on conservative learning news services.  They even assault senior politicians who are dining in public —egged on by Representative Maxine Waters, a professed communist.

Who are these people? 

 

Ironically, they call themselves Anti-FA (for anti-fascist).  In reality, they are the new-day brown shirts … and they do present a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens, particularly those who refuse to carry a concealed weapon.  The behavior of these thugs is among the worst examples of hate-mongering I’ve ever seen.

How does it advance our Republic?

It doesn’t.  But it is the new face of the Democratic Party.  This is the new communist front.  It exists full-bore today within the United States of America.

Now, about that “Hope and Change” line during Obama’s candidacy?  Here’s what he really thinks: “I don’t believe it is possible to transcend race in this country.  Race is a factor in this society.  The legacy of Jim Crow and slavery has not gone away.”

Of course not.

It hasn’t gone away because Democrats perpetuate it and the black racists in this country are too heavily invested in maintaining racial discord.  Disunity is their goal —and they are achieving it.

By the way, whenever you listen to a dunderhead on CNN or MSNBC talking about right-wing fascism, know immediately that the person speaking is a complete idiot.  Fascism originated on the left.  Not from Hitler (who adopted it as part of his National Socialist scheme), but from Benito Mussolini.  The word fascist is the shortened version of Mussolini’s Fasci Rivoluzionari d’Azione Internazionalista Party, translated to Revolutionary Fashions of Internationalist Action.  No one on the right has ever been a fascist.

Well, something to think about as you drive over to the voting station on Tuesday. 

Welfare? because it pays….

 

Because it pays … By Mustang

 

Considering the total amount of welfare spending, welfare fraud is but a small percentage. This, at least, is the argument posed by the defenders of state welfare. On the other hand, interviews with welfare recipients where the questioner has gained a high level of trust with his subject illustrates that most welfare recipients fail to report their total income and that just over 80% of these recipients are willing to cheat because there is only a 16% chance that their dishonesty will be discovered. It’s a game —and one that pays good dividends.

Welfare fraud, while widespread, is mostly committed by people who struggle financially. In a study conducted in 2012, 88% of welfare recipients admitted that they regularly cheat, either to maintain their benefit, or toward increasing it. The 2012 study was remarkably consistent with one conducted in 1988, where 80% of Chicago blacks worked either full or part time but failed to report their income to the welfare office. In 1974, a study of 450 welfare recipients in Orange County, California discovered a 45% fraud rate; in less than ten years, this number increased by 729%.

In 2016, investigators in the Social Security Administration received 143,385 allegations of fraud. They opened 8,048 cases; 1,162 people were eventually convicted of fraud. This was a small percentage of individuals ever going into court, but the government claims to have recovered $52.6 million while imposing $4.5 million in fines.

Note: I’m not sure how the government “recovers” stolen benefits. What I do know is that fraud perpetrated against the Social Security Administration Trust Fund threatens the integrity of the fund and blocks access to needy applicants with legitimate claims for benefits

By 2017, resulting from advances in medicine, safety devises, and an overall decrease in positions demanding manual labor, the numbers of people unable to work actually decreased since 1960 … but the percentage of people qualifying for federal benefits because they are unable to work actually increased. The only explanation, given that the legal definition of physical disability hasn’t changed since1960, is an increase in fraud.

In addition to the Social Security Administration, fraud also exists within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. In the first half of FY- 2012, the IG of the SSA detected frauds amounting to more than $253 million. If we extrapolate this through the entire fiscal year, over $500 million dollars of public assistance money was stolen by recipients of welfare or assistance.

Some examples:

  • In 1977, Linda Taylor from Chicago used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 in medical assistance. Within 18 months, hundreds of others in Chicago developed equally outrageous schemes to steal millions from the welfare state.
  • In 1978, Dorothy Woods claimed 38 non-existent children.
  • In 1979, Esther Johnson in California was sentenced for collecting $240,000 for more than60 fictitious children. When she was released from prison four years later, she had acollege degree in social welfare administration, paid for by the American taxpayer.
  • In 1979, Arlene Otis of Cook County Illinois was indicted on 613 charges of illegally receiving $150,839.Welfare fraud aren’t the only costs. The cost of policing and prosecuting welfare fraud is high (although largely unmeasured). These costs involve labor costs of investigators, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, probation officers, and the administration costs of welfare diversion programs.

There are also prison costs, and the cost of foster care when single mothers are incarcerated. In 2008, California spent three times as much in policing welfare fraud as its cost of welfare fraud overpayments. Now of course, state comptrollers have concluded not to prosecute fraud —it is cheaper to just turn a blind eye.Why do they do it? Because it pays.

Welfare fraud more often than not reflects the idea that
citizens have a moral right to proper financial support from county, state, and federal governments. They think this because politicians continually reinforce this kind of thinking. The fact is, more than one-half of adultAmericans receive more money in government payments than they pay in federal taxes —this according to the Congressional Budget Office. The lower one’s income, the more benefits they receive, and the wider the disparity between benefits received and taxes paid.

CBO tells us that the lowest income earners pay only $400.00 in taxes yet receive $16,000.00 in benefits. They receive more income after taxes than they do before taxes. So, the question is, who is paying for this disparity?

American taxpayers, of course.

This is not a problem if one happens to be a Democrat. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a popular refrain among Marxists. Still, the sentiment does provide an effective strategy for recruiting political support. Ludwig von Mises instructed us that once we reach the point where a majority of voters receive more in benefits than it pays in taxes, they will demand even more from the government and be politically positioned to demand it. The more this political majority demands fromgovernment, the greater the government’s assault on a diminishing number of middle and higher-income people taxed to support welfare programs.

According to the Cato Institute, the federal government in 2014 spent $688 billion on 126 separate welfare programs. Spending by state and local governments pushed this figure well over $1 trillion. Leftists like to quibble over these figures, though. They’ll argue that $55 billion is refundable as part of the Earned Income Tax Credit, $21 billion to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which, given the history of welfare payments in the United States, isn’t temporary at all). $44 billion is the figure attached to Supplemental Security Income; $75 billion for food stamps, $18 billion for housing vouchers. Medicaid spends $228 billion on the non-elderly population, with children’s health claiming $13.5 billion. Added to this are Title 1 grants of $14 billion and Head Start programs of $10 billion.

If the Cato figures tell us anything at all, it is that the United States and its so-called Great Society lost the war on poverty … a presumption on my part based on the fact that such programs haven’t accomplished raising the poor up into the middle class. All it ever did was increase the rolls of voting Democrats. Given the fact that registered voters have an iron in the welfare fire, it makes one wonder if these people shouldn’t recuse themselves from voting. After all, it isn’t as if they’re giving much thought about who to vote for.

There is no civic virtue on the American left.

I do believe that each of us has a duty to help our neighbors in need. Giving to the poor is laudable act when private citizens make those kinds of decisions. This isn’t what happens in Marxist run countries, however: private citizens don’t decide —the government makes that decision for them. The government decides how much the wage earner will “donate.” Government decides how we define poor, and who qualifies for taxpayer-funded assistance. Government even decides how this money will be extorted and the penalty for withholding it.

This is the Democratic (communist) political platform. We now live in a society where the political majority consist of those who benefit most from government largesse. Who are they —these leftist voters? They are people who do not, and will not work for a living. They are people who feign illness or injury so that the government will pay them to stay home and watch television.

They are the millions of illegal aliens here now (and those who are in the way — the communist left’s future voters). They are the literally millions of people who refused to stay in school, people who’ve made a mess of their lives, who produce more children than they can afford, and now expect the American taxpayer to bail them out. These numbers, by the way, far exceed the numbers of our truly-needy elderly and disabled citizens —and they too are loyal Democrats, because this is the party that consistently frightens into thinking that the other party may cause them to lose their benefits.

If these genuine recipients ever do lose their benefits, it will be because the communists have squandered precious monetary resources recruiting young voters into the Democratic machine.

%d bloggers like this: