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.

Advertisements

More Taxation Please

 

 

More Taxation Please

by Mustang   (Our man on the beat in the U.K.)

 

Taxes pay for the government (local, state, federal) and common use infrastructure, such as highways and bridges.  We all know this, of course, and can appreciate why these taxes must be paid.  Infrastructure supports commerce, and commerce fuels the economy.  So far, so good.  But there are other reasons for taxes that many of us find objectionable.  Here are a few of these:

  • Foreign aid, macro-organized welfare programs, and offering free education and medical care for illegal aliens might top the list, but then liberal politicians make no bones about the fact that taxation allows for the redistribution of income.  Robbery, some would say … stealing from Peter to pay Paul.
  • We must also pay the salaries of government employees.  There are literally millions of local, state, and federal employees, such that after a while, we might wonder … is government ever big enough to administer all government’s programs?  Apparently not, and depending on where these employees work, their salaries can be quite hefty.  How does any rational person justify the salaries of members of Congress (as high as $190,000.00 annually)?  Do they really earn this kind of money in terms of the services they provide?  And of course, the more employees there are, the more buildings we need to house them, the higher the cost of their benefits, and the longer-term retirement program obligations.

But there are other reasons to tax the crap out of people.  Enforcement of rules and regulations is one of these, and punishment for behaving in a certain way.  Sin taxes come to mind —and seat-belt laws that are less about public safety than they are about collecting revenues.

Here in England, one community has decided that punishment is a good reason for taxes … no, not fines, but an actual increase in taxes.

So, you own a home.  You want to sell it, but the market isn’t quite right.  Or perhaps, you might want to rent it out, but you need a minimum amount of rent in order to meet your mortgage payment obligations.  Maybe you inherited the property and it needs substantial repairs; you can’t afford that right now.  No matter.

The Wychavon (pronounced Witch Haven) district council has decided that if you are the owner of an unoccupied home, and if the property has been unoccupied for more than two years, your county taxes will be doubled.  Yes, that’s right —doubled.  If you happen not to like this arrangement, then either move into the property, sell it, or rent it … but until you do one of these two things, thou shalt bepunished.  The council complains that there are 148 homes in their district that have been unoccupied for more than two years; half of those for more than five years.  Something has to be done.

District council spokesperson Vic Allison explained: “The intention of this revised legislation is to encourage and bring back empty homes into use.  We have a shortage of housing and leaving properties empty is not helping that.”  He was joined by councilman Gerry O’Donnell, who said, “Anything that is a disincentive to having empty houses is to be welcomed in my view and this is one way of doing itthat has a bonus of income.”

Of course, the civic logic of this decision makes little sense: Punish people for having unoccupied properties?  Who leaves a property unoccupied just for the fun of it?  Perhaps Vic and Gerry aren’t making enough money as councilmen, and so to increase revenues, they’re happy to punish home-owners.  This conclusion may seem a bit disingenuous, but the increase in annual revenues will exceed £120,000.  Easily enough to be able to afford a new car for council members, maybe several suites of new office furniture, an upgrade to office computers —a more robust happy hour at the end of the month.

I suspect that council or board meetings here in England are much like those back home.  Have you ever attended one?  There are rules to be followed, of course, and not everyone is entitled to speak to council members unless certain requirement have been met.  These may include (but are not limited to) a demand that your stated concerns are pre-approved for public meetings, that your remarks are limited to a certain amount of time, and that you promise not to lose your temper or threaten council members.

 

Then, whenever speakers are allowed to address the council, such an address must take place after the regular business meeting.  People have actually died from boredom during these council meetings.  This is one of the reason people try NOT to attend them.  School board meetings are like this, too.  This is how boards and councils are able to pass so much idiotic rules and regulations without public outcry … no one wants to sit through these meetings.

This tirade won’t change the way things are done … neither here, nor back home.  It only underscores the arrogance of “elected officials,” illustrates how these minor despots are able to get away with so much, and points to how easily citizen’s rights are legally thwarted by bureaucrats and minor officials.  It is a world-wide phenomenon.  Government is a curse to humanity, but then I suspect it has always been thus.

I feel better now … sort of.

Congressional Dishonesty

 

Congressional Dishonesty

by Mustang

Whenever someone violates an oath or a vow, either by swearing to what is untrue, or through omission (concealing truth), intentional or otherwise, or to fail to do what has been promised under oath, they are guilty of false swearing.  In our judicial system, we call this perjury.

 

 

It is a felony, punishable by fines or imprisonment.  We’ve even seen where high-ranking officials have been sent to jail for lying to federal law enforcement officers.  As an aside, the prefix per– in Latin means “harmful,” so whenever someone perjures themselves, they do harm to the truth.  Not all lying is perjury —only lying under oath or lying to a member of the FBI.  Now, of course, a person may avoid perjury by refusing to make an oath, or in law enforcement or judicial matters (including testimony in congress) by claiming his or her right against self-incrimination.

What brought me to this discussion was the post of a few days back about the recently elected and seated member of Congress, Rashida Tlaib.  The oath she took reads as follows:

“I, (State your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

This oath, by the way, is required:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” — U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3

Not everyone back then agreed.  During the Constitutional Convention, the question arose, should an oath be required at all in a free country?  James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, said that oaths only provided “left-handed security.”  A good government, he argued, did not need an oath, and a bad government ought not be supported at all.  Noah Webster agreed with Wilson when he said that oaths were instruments of slavery and a badge of folly.

People would be naturally inclined to support just government, so oaths were unnecessary.  Wilson served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, so I suppose to a man who committed treason against his king may not be inclined to offer an oath of allegiance.  The Supreme Court finally got around to addressing this issue in 1833, when Justice Joseph Story opined that requiring officials to take an oath “would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it.”

All of this happened before there were Moslems in America working to undermine Republican Democracy.  A politically incorrect person, such as I, might observe that these Moslems are really no more than wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.

In any case, researching back to the Clinton administration, I could find only one member of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch convicted of perjury.  Judge Thomas Porteous (D) (a Clinton appointee) for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas was convicted of perjury in 2010.

Now a quick word about Taqiyya (spelled in several ways).  It is a practice emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their true religious purposes to avoid persecution, prosecution, or compulsion.  It has been politically legitimized among Moslems in order to maintain unity and fraternity among Moslems of all sects.  One Moslem scholar (teaching at Columbia) explained, “Taqiyya is an Islamic judicial term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Moslem is allowed, under Sharia Law, to lie.  It is a concept whose meaning has varied significantly among Islamic sects, scholars, countries, and political regimes, and it has become a key term used by anti-Moslem polemicists.”  Imagine a judicial system that allows dishonesty …

We could all agree that whenever a member of Congress takes the oath of office and then violates that oath, then that person has committed perjury.  They lied.  They either lied overtly or through omission, and for intentions that act against the interests of the United States Constitution and the citizens of the United States.

Yet, over the past three decades, people in power routinely ignore the lies told by others —especially within their own party or administration, because who wants to admit publicly that they support telling lies, or misstatements, or concealing the truth?  Where we are today is in a land called word-play.  Lying has become “mis-speaking,” or “spin.”  But a lie is a lie, and concealing the truth is a lie.  A lie is unacceptable under any scenario, but apparently, only if one is actually able to utter the word, “lie.”  If not, then “spin” is perfectly acceptable —to people who lie.

Rashida Tlaib at the Islamic Society of North America

Now to the issue of Rashida Tlaib: she took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (not defend it, of course).  No sooner had she taken that oath, she turned around and threatened an innocent man with congressional impeachment, adding in a bit of profanity unacceptable under any circumstances, and in so doing, given her position as a member of Congress, assumed the guilt of a man who under the law of the land is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

None of this may matter, though … since even if we had an honest and forthright House of Representatives, there are no real punishments for lying to Congress if you happen to be a member of Congress.  The only sanctions offered by the House Ethics Committee are censure, reprimand, and expulsion.  In the entire history of the Congress, only five members have been expelled, all of whom were Democrats: three were expelled during the Civil War for violating their oaths to the US Constitution by joining the Confederacy, and two after being convicted of bribery during judicial proceedings (1980, 2002).  This is not to say that members haven’t been “reprimanded,” but nothing more drastic as punishment than having to write an essay and pay back the money you stole.

I’m not happy with people, particularly Moslems, who become members of our government and then begin to work against the interests of the American people.  They take oaths, then violate them, and no one ever holds them to account.  Since there are no real punishment for lying in Congress, it is no surprise to find so much dishonesty in that body.  No wonder the American people have such disdain for the Congress of the United States.  They’re liars.

 

A Self-Reliant America

 

A Self-reliant America

By Mustang

Are Americans self-reliant? My guess is that no more than half of our population think of themselves as such; the rest have given themselves up to the good graces of the government. But of those who think that they are self-reliant, how many actually are? A self-reliant American might look something like this:

  • One who rejects conformity in favor of individuality
  • One who believes that he or she alone controls his/her own destiny
  • One who understands his or her civic duty and can be trusted to do it
  • One who understands that he or she bears responsibility for government
  • One who realizes that personal enlightenment is achieved only through individual effort
  • One who reasons that our only source of truth is our morality
  • One who will pursue right because it is rightThe notion of self-reliance has been predominant in American social development from our colonial period —until only recently, when politicians realized that self-reliance hindered the success of politicians. Upon this realization, beginning after the Civil War, politicians began to formulate programs that were designed to transform self-reliant individuals into government dependencies. Some examples:
  • Enslaving Americans to government entitlement programs: individual welfare, farming subsidies, small business loans, and tax breaks for small-to-medium sized corporations of every description (banking, finance, industry, agriculture, and services) (Politicians maintained control over the largest corporations for their own benefit)
  • Creating educational programs guaranteed to destroy a person’s ability to think for themselves
  • Formulating and instituting policies certain to stifle individuality by rewarding group-think
  • Creating environments guaranteed to prevent individuals from reaching their full potential
  • Convincing an entire class of citizens that they could never succeed without government help and guidance; institutionalizing the bigotry of low-expectations.There are two sources of citizenship: natural birth or naturalization. No matter how one becomes a citizen, he or she becomes entitled to certain rights, but also incurs certain obligations. We call these two things the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. What rights? We find these within the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. The duties of American citizenship are these:
  • Understand one’s rights, take advantage of them with wisdom, forbearance, and an analytical mind.
  • Demonstrate good faith and loyalty to one’s family, community, state, and the nation. Obey the law, peacefully participate in the political process, respect the rights of neighbors by granting to them the same amity we seek for ourselves.
  • Strive to live honorably; cheerfully serve on juries, satisfy tax obligations.
  • Work toward self-improvement, be a good steward of the environment, participate in community affairsWe all read the news; we are all aware that if you believe the news reports, the numbers of self-reliant citizens, which is to say good citizens, is in steep decline. On the other hand, can we really believe what the news agencies tell us? And could it be that if Americans are no longer self-reliant good citizens that news agencies are partly responsible? Do they not constantly remind us that we are not an exceptional people, that we are incapable of goodness without a strong (government) hand to keep us on the straight and narrow path?The population of the United States (and all of its communities) is growing at a rapid rate. Within large populations we (always) find an increase in crime, even if the percentage of crime per capita remains constant. To err is human … we will never end crimes against persons or property. No matter, we should still attempt to understand why people ignore their duties as citizens.

    For myself, I believe that part of this is that too many people are no longer “self-reliant.” They allow others to control their thoughts and ultimately, their bad deeds. Government, in seeking to sustain itself, allows bad behavior by contriving ad nauseam excuses for unacceptable conduct. Why should anyone hold him or herself responsible if,as the government elitists argue,it was all the fault of their parents? Or society? Or rich people?

    To this end, we should consider government’s role in such areas as substance abuse. If government was all-knowing and all-seeing, wouldn’t our drug abuse problem be already solved? How many murders, rapes, kidnappings, assaults, and robberies could the all-knowing government have prevented had it solved the drug problem in America?

    Self-reliant men do not abandon their wives and children; self-reliant women do not abandon their husbands or children. Self-reliant men and women do not intentionally put themselves in harm’s way; they avoid such things as sexual assault by refusing to put themselves into unenviable positions; they are watchful and aware of their surroundings.

    Self-reliant men and women are prepared and willing to defend themselves and their loved ones. Self-reliant men and women do not abuse one another, or their children. Everyone has problems, but self-reliant men and women find ways to solve their problems without causing disruption to their neighbors or communities. Self-reliant men and women in committed relationships always look out for one another.

    Suddenly, then, we find self-reliance, more than being some ambiguous or fictional notion of Americana, has a practical application to our ever-increasingly complex society.

Are Americans self-reliant? If not, can we ever get it back?

Is America in the Twilight Zone?

 

By Mustang

In his book How America Lost Its Mind, Kurt Andersen assures us that we Americans “… have passed through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole.  America has mutated into Fantasyland.”

He continues …

“Each of us is on a spectrum somewhere between the poles of rational and irrational. We all have hunches we can’t prove and superstitions that make no sense. Some of my best friends are very religious, and others believe in dubious conspiracy theories.  What’s problematic is going overboard —letting the subjective entirely override the objective; thinking and acting as if opinions and feelings are just as true as facts.

Hmmm.  So, with slight modification from its original airing, the lead-in to the popular television show Twilight Zone might look like this today …

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between reality and fantasy, between science and superstition, and it lies between man’s manic depression and the summit of his inadequate knowledge.  This is the dimension of moral relativism; it is an area which we call America’s Twilight Zone.

Andersen offers an interesting proposition, but then he falls into the rabbit hole himself.  The problem, as he sees it, is that “we’re Americans.”  We can’t help ourselves.  You see, our colonial-period adoption of enlightened ideas has led us to an absurd society where people are allowed to believe whatever they want —no matter how outlandish those beliefs are.  And, because most of us believe in God, we’ve come to think of ourselves as God’s chosen people; we’ve been called upon to help create a customized utopia —a place where we can believe epic dreams and fantasies; where we can indulge ourselves in magical thinking.  Andersen argues that Americans are prone to believe silly ideas because we’ve evolved into a mindless society.

Yet, if we were to agree that our society is unable to make a distinction between fact and opinion, or if our Americans do tend to believe the most outlandish claims found on the internet, or texted to them on an iPhone, then we ought to develop some curiosity about how we arrived in bizarre world, but we do not make much headway in our investigation if we confine our investigation to the enlightenment period.  There was certainly nothing inexplicable about our founding fathers.

It is true that there exists on the internet dozens —maybe even hundreds or thousands— of websites that offer nothing but spoofed events, unbalanced opinions presented as factual news, poorly crafted conspiracy theories, character assassinations, and blatant lies about things that might have happened 35 or 40 years ago, but which lack any corroboration.  And, in spite of what we all know about these hoax sites, people believe them anyway.  Why?

Perhaps we should begin our examination with our public education system —which I believe is (with first-hand knowledge) a misnomer for what is actually going on in our schools.  It isn’t learning that being poured into our children’s brains: it’s brain-washing —with toxic bleach.

America’s public schools, grades K through 12 are tax-payer-funded incubators where dedicated Marxist teachers (hereafter referred to as educationalists) use instruction in the social sciences, English literature, and geography to indoctrinate students in cultural collectivism.  It is a place where young people are taught to “group think,” and where at a very early age they are admonished never to challenge anything their teachers tell them.  Like all good communist systems, the penalty for challenging an educationalist is shouting, public ridicule, and labeling challengers as intolerant racist trouble-makers.

Public funded brain-washing centers are where our children are introduced to moral relativism.  Considering philosophical points of view is fine —if we are talking about a classroom filled with thirty-somethings, but we are talking about adolescents and teenagers whose brains, according to developmental psychologists, will not be fully formed until they reach their mid-twenties.  The brain-washing of under-developed persons, who because of their inexperience are incapable of thinking in the abstract is not just objectionable —it’s downright disgusting.  Teachers, whom we trust (and pay nice salaries to) to provide our children with essential learning in public schools, are abusing under-developed children for their own political purposes.

Where is the public outcry?

Kurt Andersen claims that Americans suffer from national paranoia.  For example, we are afraid of the so-called deep state.  But if Americans are worried about such things, is it really paranoia?  The clinical definition of paranoia is that someone imagines that someone or something is out to harm them.

On the other hand, when we are able to detect the existence of affiliated policies and programs that are actually designed to destroy our society, or harm us professionally, personally, or physically, then we aren’t paranoid —and we should recall that the National Security Agency is actually monitoring our telephone conversations, people are being arrested on warrants issued by secret courts on the sole affirmations of government investigators, dossiers are actually being conspiratorially manufactured against political rivals, nuclear material really is being sold under the table to foreign entities, and people who are guilty of breaching national security are actually being let off the hook simply because they are part of the political elite.

We do not imagine that there are two sets of laws in this country —there really are: those that apply to you and me … and those that pertain to members of the privileged class.  To my way of thinking, these are not examples of paranoia; there are plenty of reasons for America’s uncertainty about its future.

Awful things are going on in our country today, and much of this is political.  While I have disdain for America’s political system, one party in particular goes out of its way to shower Americans with false and misleading information.  I think it was Vladimir Lenin who once said that a lie told often enough eventually becomes a verifiable truth.

A reasonably thoughtful person should conclude that there is a purpose to inculcating our children with moral and cultural relativism, for flooding our society with false and misleading information: to fool and manipulate the not-so-bright among us (the beneficiaries of brain-washing centers).  This purpose is to strengthen a Marxist agenda, which includes duping voters into supporting closet Marxists for political office.

Again, I wonder … where is the public outcry?

Jeb Bush – ‘I would kill for my Dad’

Here is Saturday’s special “Thought for the Day.” Just think, he could have been President what with his big war chest.

EPA gives grant to Church for White Priviledge

Apparently White Privilege now falls under the purview of the EPA. Better yet, why not give grants to churches? Even better, let’s support the next generation to buy into the Kool-aid. What happened to the separation of church and state? There is a clip of the Church leader over at the link. An earlier post of mine gives more detail in this perverse program:

EPA to study Churches, develop programs to combat climate change

But I digressed:

The Environmental Protection Agency has given $30,000 to a Unitarian church that preaches about “white privilege” and says that America is “structurally racist.”

The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Boca Raton, Florida, received an “environmental justice grant” for education and training about sea level rise and climate change, the agency announced Wednesday.

“In the first 2nd Hour Class On Being White led by Rev. Harris we did a privilege walk … and learned visually where we stand in terms of privilege,” she said. “Most of us fit squarely in the middle group: Neither Highly Privileged (the million-billionaires of society) nor among the impoverished locked out of society folk.”

The church provided an image of the badge, which features a “W” representing white placed behind an “A,” standing for ally, that is black, yellow, and red, representing the “people [Harris] would work with” to fight racism.

“I want to be a White Ally in the struggle for Racial Justice,” Harris said. “I don’t know what that looks like. I don’t know how I will need to become different than I already am. I just know this is the path I am on. This is part of my covenant, with Life, with myself.”

EPA’s EJ Small Grants have been a foundational piece to the portfolios of many community organizations that have gone on to make a visible difference in their communities. The 2015 grants will help organizations in 22 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands carry out projects that will educate residents about environmental issues that may impact their health, collect data about local environmental conditions, and work collaboratively to address environmental justice issues in their communities. The grants support activities that not only address a range of community concerns, but also support activities that are educating and empowering youth and the next generation of environmental stewards

More at Free Beacon

%d bloggers like this: