Amb. Nikki Haley: American foreign aid should only go to our friends.
This policy should be non-controversial and, on the surface, perhaps it is. I cannot imagine asking anybody this question and receiving a reply that we should give aid to our enemies. Yet, there is a great deal of controversy over who should receive aid. Personally, I think the real question should be, should the United States give foreign aid at all since we are giving borrowed money. If our annual intake exceeded our annual outflow, the debate would seem to be more valid.
Despite the flawed notion that the United States is financially capable, under the standard policy of operating with a huge deficit, we do give away over $50 Billion. This is the money that Nikki Haley said should be given to our friends.
The real debate seems to be who are our friends. Nikki Haley made the argument that countries that consistently oppose us in the United Nations are not our friends. That would seem to make sense to a rational person. Yet, we give aid to countries that consistently oppose us not only in the Untied Nations but in our overall foreign policy.
The real argument we are having is just who are our friends. The Obama regime treated those countries who openly claimed they wanted to destroy the United States and our allies were our friends. Obama not only aided the Iranians, who are known as the largest contributor to terrorists, but enabled them to advance their effort in developing nuclear weapons to use against us and our allies. The Obama regime considered Iran to be a friend.
The Palestinians have sworn that the only good Jew is a dead Jew and that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth, received aid and was considered by the Obama regime to be a friend while they treated Israel as an adversary. This was done despite the Palestinians aiding groups that the United States has designated as terrorists.
The Obama regime considered collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive – all virtually the same) as proper recipients of foreign aid and friends of at least the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) if not friends of the Untied States. The Obama regime considered countries who supported and aided Islamic Jihadists as proper recipients of foreign aid because they were also friends of the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) in their efforts to make their anti-Semitic views the policy of the United States as it is becoming the policy of the European Union.
I would say we must first debate whether the United States should give away $50 Billion of borrowed money or money we do not have. If we decide that we should give that or some lesser amount, we must define our friends. The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party has defined our friends as those who oppose us in the United Nations, those who support colletivism or are collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive -all virtually the same) nations, and those who support all efforts of Islamist Jihadists to destroy and then control all who are not Muslim. This statement is not made based on conjecture, but it is based on the actions and policies of the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party.
We must answer CAN WE, SHOULD WE, AND WHO ARE OUR FRIENDS.
When our founders established our country, they envisioned a decentralized government that protected our God-given rights and was founded on the principle of self-governance. They were also weary of centralized power, creating the 10th Amendment to restrain the federal government's insatiable desire to expand and grow. Anybody who would objectively study the history of our founding would arrive at this conclusion. Whether that person agrees with the concept of decentralized government as opposed to a centralized system is not the question. All people, currently in The Untied States have the right to support a decentralized system or a centralized system. As a side note, if the United States adopts a strong centralized system, that right of agreeing or disagreeing would no longer assist.
This debate of decentralized or centralized power was debated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and has been debated ever since. The founders chose a nation based on individualism which requires a decentralized system and rejected collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive – all virtually the same). Collectivism is a system that requires centralization.
Today that debate of decentralized (Individualism) or centralized (collectivist – Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive – all virtually the same) rages. Introduced into congress was a bill that is called the Green New Deal. I posted the Green New Deal several days ago. The Green New Deal is a bill that reads like The Communist Manifesto and the German Ideology – both authored by Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels championed centralization or collectivism and the Communist nations established since 1917 have been patterned on the theories of Marx and Engels. Incidentally, all these experiments have ended in utter failure where the society of the country went into total decay and the financial system collapsed.
The debate the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) leadership in the Senate is currently having, is how do we cope with the promised vote on the Green New Deal. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) first argued against having a vote on the Green New Deal because they said it was just a gimmick by the opposition for political purposes. However, congress was established to legislate. When a bill is introduced, the idea is to have an open debate and then an open vote. If it was not the intent of the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party to have an open debate and then a vote, they should never have introduced the bill.
The Green New Deal is an important bill. If passed it would announce that the United States would no longer adhere to a decentralized system but would now officially adopt a centralized system and officially become a communist nation adhering to all that is collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, and progressive – all virtually the same).
The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) leadership in the senate is more concerned with politics than they are concerned with policy. They appear to favor the policy but fear the politics. Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) leader Schumer is trying to conceive a plan that will be best politically while not declaring a position on policy. The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party is trying to avoid the very purpose of our legislative branch of government per our founders; be the strongest branch of government by being the only branch with legislative power to set policy for our country.
Schumer’s solution is to have the members of the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party vote present and not declare a position. This is clearly a political stunt. It also clearly states that the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party champions the policies laid out by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto and the Germany Ideology. This political stunt clearly states that the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party clearly favors centralization over decentralization, collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive – all virtually the same) over individualism, or yes, communism over freedom.
Schumer is clearly placing politics over policy, the good of the party over the good of the country, and his own political ambitions in the manner of Stalin and Khrushchev over the good of the nation. This is the place in history to where the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party has brought The United States of America.
YOU ON THE LEFT, PLEASE TELL US WHICH AMERICAN PRINCIPLE OR DOCUMENT YOU SUPPORT – I HAVE FOUND NONE ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU DENOUNCED THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF A BORN CHILDRead Now
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) talk about Patriotism and belief in American principles but yet they denounce and wish to eliminate or nullify the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights along with all the requirements necessary for freedom and independence; rule of law, limited government, divided government, and sovereignty of the people.
The Declaration of Independence declares there are natural rights that under the domain of the Creator. The Marxist/Progressives have determined that there is no Creator, or, if there is, the Creator does not have domain over any rights, but all rights are under the domain of the government. In the Declaration of Independence natural rights were declared to be life, liberty, and property or as Jefferson said the pursuit of happiness. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have declared that all property is subject to the whims of government including the individual’s income. They have stated that they will determine who should be assisted in the pursuit of happiness and who should be limited in their pursuit through feel good programs that favor one group over another.
The Marxist/Progressives have determined that arbitrary law and not rule of law (law will be applied more favorably, if at all, if you adhere to the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) ideology) will be applied. The Marxist/Progressives have determined that big bureaucratic dictatorial government should replace limited government, that the judicial branch of government should usurp the powers of the legislative branch and executive branch by having the power to legislate and administer as well as render opinions, and they have established that government is the superior and the sovereign while people are servants and slaves to the state.
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have long stated that the Constitution of the United States is an outdated document; that it must become a living document so it will mean nothing, and the ideology of the left can be substituted for the law of the Constitution when in conflict, which is always. In addition, the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have opposed the specific rights that are protected within the Bill of Rights. Our founders insisted that the Bill of Rights be adopted so that these specific rights, so necessary for the protection of freedom and independence, would not be grouped together or implied but would be stated individually and explicit. These fundamental rights such as speech, religion, assembly, due process, right to bear arms, and rights not mentioned assumed to be the explicit rights of individuals, but are under constant attack by Marxist/Progressives (Democrats).
And now the right to life, such a fundamental right of freedom and independence, has been denied to American citizens by the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats). They have long supported the position that the rights of the unborn child did not exist because they made the claim that the right of a mother to avoid what she might perceive an inconvenience outweighed the fundamental right to life of a human, born or unborn. Now the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have extended this denial of such a fundamental right to the born child. The right to deny life has always been the policy of tyrants throughout history. This murderous policy became a fundamental part of the collectivist dictators of the ninetieth and twentieth centuries; Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and all the others.
Now, this policy of legal murder has been extended by the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) to the United States of America. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) determined that the right to life, even of a child that is free from the mother’s womb, does not deserve the extension of such a fundamental right necessary to a free and independent people, the right to life as declared to be a Natural Right under the domain of the Creator in our Declaration of Independence.
I challenge any adherent to the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) ideology to explain which of our founding documents they support and which of our founding principles (rule of law, limited government, divided government, and sovereignty of the people) they support. We can extend this challenge to the rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights as well. I would also invite these same people to defend the legalization of murder of a baby. I have tried, but have been unsuccessful. Perhaps you Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) would help.
IGNORANCE OF WHAT COLLECTIVISM (MARXISM, COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, PROGRESSIVE, DEMOCRAT – ALL VIRTUALLY THE SAME) REALLY IS BY THOSE ON THE RIGHT IS DAMAGINGRead Now
We on the right (correct side of history) must understand the evil that collectivism is. We on the right (correct side of history) must also understand the differences between collectivism and individualism. Many times, those who have a megaphone give incorrect information and this is damaging to the cause of fighting the evil that is permeating our country. Some years ago, Bill O’Reilly, a person who has made many incorrect statements, stated that George Soros could not be a Communist because he made all of his money in a capitalist world. It is true that Soros made his money in a capitalist world, but you cannot make money in a socialist world unless you are an elite within the ranks of government.
Of course, George Soros is Collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat, - all virtually the same). It is collectivist movements that Soros supports and funds. To say the Soros is not a Marxist is to say the Friedrich Engels was not a Marxist. Engels was a very wealthy man. Engels was a part owner of Ermen and Engels, a manufacture of sewing threads. He belonged to private clubs and lived a very comfortable life. He also wrote the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, he proofed and edited Das Kapital while writing Das Kapital II and III from Marx’s notes. Yes, Engels made his money in the world of capitalism but was a collectivist, and yes O’Reilly Soros made his money in a the world of capitalism but he is a collectivist.
Now we have "Fox & Friends" weekend co-host Pete Hegseth said that Ocasio-Cortez's plan to cap higher-level staff incomes in order to pay every member of her staff an annual salary of at least $52,000 was an example of communism and socialism.”
And this is why it is so critical we on the right (the correct side of history) know and understand about what we are speaking. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fired back at Fox News over its criticism that her planned staff salaries amounted to "socialism and communism on display," saying that the GOP is "disconnected."
"The GOP is so disconnected from the basic idea that people should be paid enough to live that Fox actually thinks me paying a living wage in my office is 'communism,'" AOC tweeted.
"So, the next time GOP screams 'socialist,' know that’s their go-to attack for any common-sense, humane policy," AOC continued.
AOC is correct and Hegseth was wrong. Individualism champions the rights of the individual. If any employer wishes to pay the same wage to all of those they employ, and those who are employed are willing to accept it, then that is their right. That is freedom of the employer and the employee. That is freedom and independence. That is individualism.
Is in when the state or the community demands and regulates what the employer must pay and what the employee must receive that collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive, Democrat - all virtually the same) occurs. Hegseth is correct that AOC is employing a socialist type philosophy, but individualism strongly supports her individualist right to make her own decisions without outside coercion by the state or community. A mandated minimum wage by the state or collective is socialistic.
What O’Reilly and Hegseth have done by giving incorrect and unclear information is to give credence to AOC’s claim that the next time GOP screams 'socialist,' know that’s their go-to attack for any common-sense, humane policy.
Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) City Council candidate in Chicago Ugo Okere, paraphrases Marx from the Communist Manifesto and the German Ideology as he proclaims a great idea: to have socialism “control…every single facet of [your] life.”
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. Marx, German Ideology
In capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. VLADIMIR LENIN
Marx and Lenin promised that all power would be with the people. All oppression from the employers and job creators would be removed. The people would be in total control and freedom and happiness would exist for all. Yes, socialism would control every facet of your life.
Rosseau explained that all will be wonderful when each person surrenders all their rights to the whole community (state) because when each person gives themselves entirely, then the same condition exists for all so now no one has an interest in making it burdensome for others. This is the premise of collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive, Democrat, - all virtually the same).
What Okere said was the promise of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Chavez; it is the promise of all collectivists including Obama, Holder, Jarrett, Sanders, AOC, and all comrades.
Democratic Socialism is the new euphemism for collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same).
Okere specifically stated:
“Democratic socialism, to me, is about democratic control of every single facet of our life. Government is led by the people, not by big corporations, not by multibillionaires, and working people actually have control over who we elect to be our politicians, over how elections work, and over how our government is structured. People have the power.”
“Democratic socialism even extends to our relationships and how we treat each other. [It looks] at the world through a socialist-feminist lens, in how we treat people who are black, who are brown, who are femme, who are non-binary, who are gender-nonconforming, and who are working class.”
“To me, we’ll have achieved democratic socialism not when there is no conflict in the world, but when our societies are not governed based on power but are governed based on the mutual understanding that everybody deserves a decent and quality life.” (one of their reasons for open borders)
“One part of the Left wants to reform the existing society that we have now. They want to make changes that will make life easier, that will make life not so bad. But there’s another side of the Left that wants to radically transform the way the world works — not simply say that we can make some changes here and there and that things will be alright.” (one of the arguments between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks)
To bring about this state advocated by the collectivist, it is necessary that all sing from the songbook. This is why there is this massive effort to limit free speech by the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) movement by preventing opposing speech on college campuses, in grade and high schools, and throughout society. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are following the dictate of Lenin including the lying and shouting.
I am bound to accord you, in the name of free speech, the full right to shout, lie and write to your heart's content. But you are bound to grant me, in the name of freedom of association, the right to enter into, or withdraw from, association with people advocating this or that view. The party is a voluntary association, which would inevitably break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not cleanse itself of people advocating anti-party views. VLADIMIR LENIN
The Green New Deal is a bill that has been introduced to congress by members of the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party. It is being compared to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal with the claim that the New Deal was the means by which the United States moved out of the depression. This is of course a lie not supported by facts. For instance, the unemployment rate in the United States was higher in 1938 than it was in 1932. The economy was in a recession in 1937 and 1938. FDR was inaugurated for the first time in 1933 and immediately began the New Deal. The fact is that the United States escaped the depression because it began to produce arms to help Britain contain Germany and then to help Britain oppose Germany in World War II which began in 1939.
The Green New Deal is like the New Deal in that it consolidates power in the Federal Government. It places economic control within the government and not the private sector. It creates a collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) economic and political state where the government becomes sovereign and the individual becomes a servant or slave to the state. It substitutes the term “right” for “entitlement” by declaring that people have a right to health care, education, a living wage, and all the other rights that collectivists declare in order to fool people into voluntarily becoming servants and slaves to the state.
This is the Green New Deal. Read if for yourself and come to your own conclusion.
THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE GREEN NEW DEAL
I - THE ECONOMIC BILL OF RIGHTS
Our country cannot truly move forward until the roots of inequality are pulled up, and the seeds of a new, healthier economy are planted. Thus, the Green New Deal begins with an Economic Bill of Rights that ensures all citizens: 1. The right to employment through a Full Employment Program that will create 25 million jobs by implementing a nationally funded, but locally controlled direct employment initiative replacing unemployment offices with local employment offices offering public sector jobs which are "stored" in job banks in order to take up any slack in private sector employment.
Local communities will use a process of broad stakeholder input and democratic decisionmaking to fairly implement these programs.
Pay-to-play prohibitions will ensure that campaign contributions or lobbying favors do not impact decision-making.
We will end unemployment in America once and for all by guaranteeing a job at a living wage for every American willing and able to work.
2. Worker's rights including the right to a living wage, to a safe workplace, to fair trade, and to organize a union at work without fear of firing or reprisal.
3. The right to quality health care which will be achieved through a single-payer Medicare-for-All program.
4. The right to a tuition-free, quality, federally funded, local controlled public education system from pre-school through college. We will also forgive student loan debt from the current era of unaffordable college education.
5. The right to decent affordable housing, including an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions. We will:
create a federal bank with local branches to take over homes with distressed mortgages and either restructure the mortgages to affordable levels, or if the occupants cannot afford a mortgage, rent homes to the occupants;
expand rental and home ownership assistance;
create ample public housing; and,
offer capital grants to non-profit developers of affordable housing until all people can obtain decent housing at no more than 25% of their income.
6. The right to accessible and affordable utilities – heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation – through democratically run, publicly owned utilities that operate at cost, not for profit.
7. The right to fair taxation that's distributed in proportion to ability to pay. In addition, corporate tax subsidies will be made transparent by detailing them in public budgets where they can be scrutinized, not hidden as tax breaks.
II - A GREEN TRANSITION
The second priority of the Green New Deal is a Green Transition Program that will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. We will:
1. Invest in green business by providing grants and low-interest loans to grow green businesses and cooperatives, with an emphasis on small, locally-based companies that keep the wealth created by local labor circulating in the community rather than being drained off to enrich absentee investors.
2. Prioritize green research by redirecting research funds from fossil fuels and other dead-end industries toward research in wind, solar and geothermal. We will invest in research in sustainable, nontoxic materials, closed-loop cycles that eliminate waste and pollution, as well as organic agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.
3. Provide green jobs by enacting the Full Employment Program which will directly provide 16 million jobs in sustainable energy and energy efficiency retrofitting, mass transit and "complete streets" that promote safe bike and pedestrian traffic, regional food systems based on sustainable organic agriculture, and clean manufacturing.
III - REAL FINANCIAL REFORM
The takeover of our economy by big banks and well-connected financiers has destabilized both our democracy and our economy. It's time to take Wall Street out of the driver's seat and to free the truly productive segments of working America to make this economy work for all of us. Real Financial Reform will:
1. Relieve the debt overhang holding back the economy by reducing homeowner and student debt burdens.
2. Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means we'll nationalize the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and place them under a Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department.
3. Break up the oversized banks that are "too big to fail."
4. End taxpayer-funded bailouts for banks, insurers, and other financial companies. We'll use the FDIC resolution process for failed banks to reopen them as public banks where possible after failed loans and underlying assets are auctioned off.
5. Regulate all financial derivatives and require them to be traded on open exchanges.
6. Restore the Glass-Steagall separation of depository commercial banks from speculative investment banks.
7. Establish a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers.
8. Support the formation of federal, state, and municipal public-owned banks that function as non-profit utilities. Under the Green New Deal we will start building a financial system that is open, honest, stable, and serves the real economy rather than the phony economy of high finance.
IV - A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY
We won't get these vital reforms without a fourth and final set of reforms to give us a real, functioning democracy. Just as we are replacing the old economy with a new one, we need a new politics to restore the promise of American democracy. The New Green Deal will:
1. Revoke corporate personhood by amending our Constitution to make clear that corporations are not persons and money is not speech. Those rights belong to living, breathing human beings - not to business entities controlled by the wealthy.
2. Protect our right to vote by supporting Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s proposed "Right to Vote Amendment," to clarify to the Supreme Court that yes, we do have a constitutional right to vote.
3. Enact the Voter Bill of Rights that will:
guarantee us a voter-marked paper ballot for all voting;
require that all votes are counted before election results are released;
replace partisan oversight of elections with non-partisan election commissions;
celebrate our democratic aspirations by making Election Day a national holiday;
bring simplified, safe same-day voter registration to the nation so that no qualified voter is barred from the polls;
do away with so-called "winner take all" elections in which the "winner" does not have the support of most of the voters, and replace that system with instant runoff voting and proportional representation, systems most advanced countries now use to good effect;
replace big money control of election campaigns with full public financing and free and equal access to the airwaves;
guarantee equal access to the ballot and to the debates to all qualified candidates;
abolish the Electoral College and implement direct election of the President;
restore the vote to ex-offenders who've paid their debt to society; and,
enact Statehood for the District of Columbia so that those Americans have representation in Congress and full rights to self-rule like the rest of us.
4. Protect local democracy and democratic rights by commissioning a thorough review of federal preemption law and its impact on the practice of local democracy in the United States. This review will put at its center the "democracy question" – that is, what level of government is most open to democratic participation and most suited to protecting democratic rights.
5. Create a Corporation for Economic Democracy, a new federal corporation (like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory.
6. Strengthen media democracy by expanding federal support for locally-owned broadcast media and local print media.
7. Protect our personal liberty and freedoms by:
repealing the Patriot Act and those parts of the National Defense Authorization Act that violate our civil liberties;
prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI from conspiring with local police forces to suppress our freedoms of assembly and of speech; and,
ending the war on immigrants – including the cruel, so-called "secure communities" program.
8. Rein in the military-industrial complex by
reducing military spending by 50% and closing U.S. military bases around the world;
restoring the National Guard as the centerpiece of our system of national defense; and,
creating a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives.
Hopefully this begins a trend of the Supreme Court reading and adhering to the actual words of the United States Constitution. It is a rare occurrence. Because it is so rare it should be headline news. Thank you, Supreme Court Justices, for doing exactly what you are supposed to do; render an opinion based on the words of the United States Constitution.
The founders spent a great deal of time in meaningful debate when they drafted the United States Constitution. Their purpose was to have a document that would be the law of the land and that would protect the freedoms and rights of the individual from an oppressive government and an oppressive majority.
Patrick Henry told us, "The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people: it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." The left disagrees with Patrick Henry and the framers and is trying to minimize this quote and sentiment in their quest to have government reign supreme over the individual and dictate how each individual is to live their lives and what the thoughts of the individual are to be.
In this situation, the Supreme Court adhered to the original purpose of the Constitution and gave an opinion based on the words of the Untied States Constitution. Thank you, Supreme Court.
The case centered on Tyson Timbs, who pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. When Timbs was arrested, police seized the Land Rover he had purchased, for $42,000, from an insurance policy he received when his father died.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states must adhere to the Constitution's ban on excessive fines, a decision that will likely limit the ability of states to impose certain fees and
In delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Eighth Amendment guards against abuses of the government’s punitive or criminal law-enforcement authority, and that it extends to fines.
“This safeguard, we hold, is ‘fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,’ with ‘deep roots in our history and tradition,’” she said, quoting Supreme Court precedent.
This ruling would appear to end the overreach of the government regarding civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture in the United States, also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture or occasionally civil seizure, is a legal process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing.
We have seen how our FBI and DOJ attempted an illegal coup to overthrow a duly elected president inappropriately applying the 25th amendment. Civil forfeiture is a procedure that is just begging to be used by overzealous members of government who wish to minimize private citizens they consider to be threats to the advancement of the collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) agenda. Civil forfeiture is a procedure that is totally contrary to a free society and a normal procedure in a totalitarian society.
THANK YOU SUPREME COURT!!!
The collectivists (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) believe that all people must conform to one ideology. This is what all totalitarian movements have advocated. Those who believe in a free and independent society, a society free from the state determining how an individual is to live their life and what they are to think, believes in diversity of thought.
A key difference between those who believe in total conformity under a totalitarian government and those who believe in freedom and independence for the individual where the individual determines their own life and their own thought, is who is primarily responsible for the development of a child; the family or the state. Those who believe in a totalitarian state believe the state should be responsible for the development of the child while those who believe in freedom and independence have advocated for a strong family unit with the development of the child being the responsibility of the family.
Today we are hearing calls from the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party, the same calls we have heard from those who favor totalitarianism throughout history; place the child under the care of the state so they can be indoctrinated to the collectivist ideology at the earliest possible age.
"I believe in universal child care and early preschool," Elizabeth Warren said. "Zero to 5, let's make that investment."
Kirsten Gillibrand, "The astronomical cost of childcare is a quiet crisis of our economy. It's outrageous to make parents choose between providing for their kids or caring for their kids. We need universal, high-quality, affordable childcare options for every family, period."
Kamala Harris said, "We've got to have universal pre-K so that our babies can start out with a leg up. Associated with this issue is affordable child care and a national policy for that."
Karl Marx said, “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions.”
Vladmir Lenin said, “We must make the young into a generation of Communists. Children, like soft wax, are very malleable and they should be molded into good Communists. We must rescue children from the harmful influence of the family… We must nationalize them. From the earliest days of their little lives, they must find themselves under the beneficent influence of Communist schools… To oblige the mother to give her child to the Soviet state – that is our task.”
Parents, who believe in freedom and independence and wish for their children to determine their own lives and have their own thoughts, must take full responsibility for their children. These parents must teach these children how to be independent, how to be non-conformists, and how to evaluate situations and not accept bumper sticker slogans such as “Climate Change is Destroying our Planet” without looking at all the facts including the research of those who disagree with collectivist conformists.
If our nation is to never become a socialist nation as President Trump has stated, then our parents must accept the responsibility of instilling the principle of independence in the minds of their children and not acquiescing to the demand of the state that the state have complete control of their child from the earliest possible age. Yes parents, keep your children at home with family, read to your children, be a positive role model for your child, find schools that educate and do not indoctrinate – this means you will not have your children attend public schools – be an active and instrumental part of your child’s education and upbringing, and discuss the events of the day around the FAMILY dinner time even before your child can walk or talk. YOUR CHILD IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE. FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE REQUIRE YOU FULFILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
Yes Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) 1 + 1 still = 2 no matter how you try to spin your stories.
The Trump tax cuts are adding to the deficit and debt. That is a total lie. Despite the lower tax rates applied to the incomes of businesses and citizens, the tax receipts to the United States Treasury where the highest in history in 2018. The tax receipts to the United States Treasury in 2018 were over $3.34 trillion and are estimated to be over $3.42 trillion in in 2019. This compares to $3.27 trillion in 2016.
The income tax rates were reduced, but when the lower rates were applied to the higher incomes due to the tax rate cuts and the dramatic cut in regulations, the revenue rose. Unfortunately, so did government spending. “We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we have not taxed enough,” said Reagan, “but we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.” This is still true and has been true since the FDR days when people believed that Keynes made since – deficit spending brings about prosperity. Keynes was so wrong. The fact is that every dollar taken from the private sector and given to the public sector curtails growth. We have learned this time after time and yet the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) would still like us to believe that 1 + 1 = 3. It just doesn’t.
We are being led to believe that lower tax refunds are bad. What a lie. It is actually very good. Americans are seeing smaller refunds this year thanks to the 2017 tax reform -- and the Treasury Department says that's a good thing.
The average refund is down nearly 9% so far this filing season, according to updated data released Thursday by the Internal Revenue Service. Refunds averaged $1,949 through February 8, compared to $2,135 for returns filed through the same period last year.
"Most people are seeing the benefits of the tax cut in larger paychecks throughout the year, instead of tax refunds that are the result of people overpaying the government," a Treasury spokesperson said in a statement. "Smaller refunds mean that people are withholding appropriately based on their tax liability, which is positive news for taxpayers."
The new rules lowered most individual rates and nearly doubled the standard deduction. The legislation also included sweeping tax cuts for companies, lowering the corporate rate to 21% from 35%.
Workers saw an increase in their take-home pay last year after employers started using the new IRS income tax withholding tables.
Yes 1 + 1 = 2 applies to increases in minimum wages as well. Higher mandated wages also leads to lower hours for workers and results in many workers losing their jobs. It is a fact that wages increase naturally when we have low unemployment and businesses are having trouble filling the positions for which they need help. This is called supply and demand.
At Granny Shaffer’s restaurant in Joplin, Missouri, owner Mike Wiggins is reprinting the menus to reflect the 5, 10 or 20 cents added to each item.
A two-egg breakfast will cost an extra dime, at $7.39. The price of a three-piece fried chicken dinner will go up 20 cents, to $8.78. The reason: Missouri’s minimum wage is rising.
Wiggins said the price hikes are necessary to help offset an estimated $10,000 to $12,000 in additional annual pay to his staff as a result of a new minimum wage. “For us it’s very simple. There’s no big pot of money out there to get the money out of” for the required pay raises, Wiggins said.
This is true of all businesses. Wages are paid from the income a business receives. The business either raises its prices to absorb the inflationary feel good mandated minimum wage increases or it goes out of business. Yes, 1 + 1 = 2 applies.
Collectivists (Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats – all virtually the same) believe they can change the rule 1 + 1 = 2 to 1 + 1 = 3. Keynes was wrong, FDR was wrong, Marx was wrong, Obama was wrong, and the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party is wrong. Their policies always bring about social decay and financial collapse just as gravity always works. 1 + 1 = 2 and socialism = social decay and financial collapse.
Will we have secure borders or open borders is a question asked by many and is at the center of debate in the Untied States. Those who support the United States Constitution support securing the southern border and understand that a physical barrier must be a critical element of this security. Use whichever statistics you wish, they all prove that our southern border is porous. Not only does the illegal alien cross it, but terrorists, gang members, drug carriers, sex traffickers, and many other undesirables cross the border time and time again. The United States Constitution established a sovereign nation called the Untied States of America. The Constitution gave congress the responsibility and obligation to enforce a system of naturalization and immigration to protect the sovereignty of the United States.
There is a large population in the Untied States who claim they support secure borders, but at the same time refuse to secure the borders while enabling and assisting any and all who wish to violate the sovereignty of the United States including illegal aliens, terrorists, gang members, drug carriers, sex traffickers and all other undesirables who wish to enter the United States illegally. These people truly support open borders. They support open borders because open borders support their political goals of fundamentally transforming the United States from a sovereign nation to a member of the international socialist community.
Here is a portion of an article by Shaun Harkin entitled “Solidarity has no Borders.” This is the position of the collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) movement which includes the position of the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party enunciated by their current leadership along with their so-called socialist movement. I say so-called socialist movement because the total party supports the collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) movement.
Simply if you support the United States Constitution and the sovereignty of the United States you will support border security which would include a physical barrier. If you support the collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) movement, you will claim you support border security (for political purposes) while blocking border security in every possible way you can.
SOLIDARITY HAS NO BORDERS
BORDERS ARE one of the great contradictions in the era of capitalist globalization.
The world has become a much smaller place because of advances in technology and transportation, global production chains and the lightning-fast movement of capital around the planet. In this regard, the globalized economy is borderless to those with billions of dollars or euros or yen to invest.
But borders are still there to keep the vast majority of us apart. In many respects, governments are doing less and less to regulate the flow of trade and finance between nations, but they are taking increasingly tough action to restrict the flow of people across borders.
More restrictions will never stop migration--the economic imperative for workers struggling to feed themselves and their families will force them to cross borders, no matter what the risks. But the restrictions can make this much more dangerous and oppressive, by forcing the most vulnerable people in society into relying on smugglers and human traffickers, not to mention the exploitative businesses where they end up working.
The militarization of the U.S. border with Mexico is a prime example. In his book Border Walls: Security and the War on Terror in the United States, India and Israel, Reece Jones writes:
The 3,169-kilometer border between the United States and Mexico was demarcated in the middle of the 19th century but had only approximately 100 kilometers of fencing prior to 2006, all of which had been constructed since the 1990s. The U.S. Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, with bipartisan support, which authorized a barrier along an additional 1,125 kilometers of the border with Mexico. By 2010, 1,080 kilometers were completed, and consisted of a mix of roads, fences, walls, vehicle barriers and sections of a high technology "smart border."
This is not only a colossal waste of resources that could be used to provide help for people who desperately need it, rather than to punish them. The militarization of the border is also deadly.
The U.S. Border Patrol documented 477 deaths among border-crossers in the Southwest in 2012, a sharp increase over the year before, even though total migration from Mexico has slowed. The official count of border deaths is understated, too, because not every victim is found.
The increase in border deaths is directly attributable to stepped-up enforcement over the past two decades--since migrants are forced into more remote terrain where they are exposed to extreme temperatures and the like.
Why are there obstacles to immigration in a globalized world that more than ever resembles what Karl Marx and Frederick Engels described 165 years ago in the Communist Manifesto--of " national differences and antagonism between peoples" fading due "to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto"?
Marx and Engels' statement is true about one face of the capitalism--but the opposite is true at the same time: "National differences and antagonism between peoples" remain absolutely necessary for ruling classes to control the vast majority of people in society who labor.
Capitalists are absolutely dependent on migration across borders. But they also rely on restrictions on immigration to keep workers competing with each other so that all will be willing to work for less--and to keep the section of workers classified as "illegal" more easily exploited and intimidated with the threat of deportation.
Therefore, the struggle against restrictions on the right of workers to move freely and in defense of immigrant workers in the countries where they arrive is absolutely central to the creation of a genuine spirit of international working-class solidarity and networks of resistance.