Virginia Allen is an administrative assistant at The Heritage Foundation.
Posts tagged ‘Marxism’
Black Lives Matter Leader: ‘If This Country Doesn’t Give Us What We Want, Then We Will Burn Down This System’ (VIDEO)
Black Lives Matter greater New York Chair Hawk Newsome issued what many have interpreted as a terroristic threat during his appearance on Fox News Wednesday evening. Mr. Newsome told Fox News host Martha MacCallum that if Black Lives Matter doesn’t get what they want, they will burn the system down.
Advertisement – story continues below
“If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.. I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation.” said Newsome.
Advertisement – story continues below
Senior legal advisor to Trump’s team Jenna Ellis said in response to Newsome’s remarks, “Newsflash: The United States doesn’t negotiate with violent terrorists.”
We already knew Black Lives Matter are radical neo-Marxists and the co-founder confirmed it during an interview last week. Patrisse Cullors, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter proudly admitted she’s a radical, anti-white Marxist. Black Lives Matter is seeking to transform America by;
defunding the police,
dismantling capitalism, ‘
destroying the patriarchy,’
breaking down the nuclear family unit,
redistributing wealth in the form of reparations among other far left objectives.
Advertisement – story continues below
Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioters have destroyed small businesses, targeted churches and razed buildings to the ground. Tonight one of the leaders of BLM openly threatened to burn down the system if his people don’t get what they want.
Where is the FBI and DOJ??
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
The Emancipation Memorial was constructed in 1876 in Washington D.C in Lincoln Park, about a mile east of the United States Capitol. The statue features Abraham Lincoln in the act of freeing a slave from his chains, visualizing the legacy of the President whose legacy consists of abolishing the abhorrent tradition of slavery in America.
NEW: Congresswoman Eleanor Norton plans to introduce legislation to remove the Abraham Lincoln Emancipation Memorial in DC; protest leader says they plan to topple the statue Thursday
President Trump has threatened to federally prosecute any vandals
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 24, 2020
“Thursday, 7PM… We tearing this m*********** down.” Crowd of fanatic liberal historical ignoramuses cheers with glee.
In a twist attesting to the leftist thug’s monumental ignorance, it’s known that the iconic statue of President Lincoln was constructed with funds raised by freed slaves, many of whom were Black Union Army Civil War veterans.
Although the cultural criminal speaking has a dubious chance of succeeding in the monument destruction, there are elements of Washington D.C’s government that want the statue gone and possess a chance to eliminate it. City Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has announced her intention to see the Lincoln statue moved to a museum, claiming that its design is offensive and that it has no place in modern-day public society.
When the Left openly flouts its intention to deface a statue memorializing the President thought by many to be even greater in the progress of American society than George Washington, it’s lost any claim to a genuine and authentic American political movement.
A.F. Branco (((Past Blast))) – Defund Propaganda
A.F. Branco Cartoon – National Emergency
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.
Liberal Hollywood actor Jim Carrey was once beloved by audiences across America for his amazing acting ability in roles that ranged from rather serious to absurdly stupid — but incredibly hilarious — in his many popular movies over the years.
Sadly, Carrey succumbed to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in 2016 and simply hasn’t been the same, trading in his spot in front of a camera for one in front of a canvas as he works out his inner demons through the process of painting what could be described by some as “artwork,” typically of the anti-Trump, anti-Republican variety.
The Daily Caller reported on the latest piece of “art” showcased by Carrey on social media, but it was the response he received from the featured subject of his piece — Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is being challenged in the election by Democrat Texas Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke — that truly garnered the attention.
Carrey tweeted, “Go Beto! Go Democrats! Vote like there’s no tomorrow. Let’s make this Tuesday like the end of every great vampire movie. Pull back the curtains and let the sunshine turn all those bloodsuckers to dust.”
Naturally, Carrey’s painting portrayed Cruz as a vampire that was shrinking away and shrieking in pain as he burst into flames and disintegrated while O’Rourke pulled back a curtain to bathe his opponent in sunlight.
The likening of Cruz to a vampire was possibly inspired by the admittedly funny comparisons of Cruz with the vampiric Grandpa Munster from the 1960s sitcom “The Munsters,” not to mention the leftist belief that Republicans are blood-sucking monsters who hate the living, especially women and children, or something.
For all of the criticisms that Cruz has received — both fairly and unfairly — few could say with a straight face that he doesn’t have a great sense of self-deprecating humor or that he is incapable of suffering and replying to harsh insults exceedingly well.
Cruz linked to Carrey’s tweet mocking him as a vampire, and wrote, “Hollywood liberals all in for Beto. But (self-described socialist) Jim Carrey made a mistake here: Vampires are dead, and everyone knows the dead vote Democrat….”
And then utter hilarity ensued and was enjoyed by all in the comment section of that tweet, as everyone understood the joke about Democrats using the fraudulent votes of dead people to win close elections. Just kidding … Cruz was ruthlessly mocked and excoriated by humorless liberals who failed to see the point or get the joke of his post.
Unfortunately for Carrey and his Cruz-hating fellow liberals, it is highly unlikely that Cruz will burst into flames and disintegrate when the curtains of the voting booths are opened after Election Day and the ultimate outcome of his race against O’Rourke is revealed.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls in the Texas Senate race show that Cruz holds a fairly comfortable 6-point lead over his challenger, with the four most recent polls in October giving Cruz a lead that ranged from as little as 3 points to as much as 10 points.
In all likelihood, given the manner in which pollsters have historically and routinely oversampled Democrats and independents and undersampled Republicans, Cruz could very well hold a more significant lead over O’Rourke than has been announced by the pollsters.
However, every conservative and Republican and right-leaning independent needs to get out and vote for Cruz on Tuesday to help drive a stake through the heart of the monstrous undead Marxist philosophy that continues to drive the Democratic Party increasingly leftward these days, lest they be allowed to suck out the lifeblood of our nation and economy by gaining control of Congress.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Reported by Virginia Allen / @virginia27_ga /
URL of the original posting site: https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/08/31/south-african-farmer-reports-on-what-is-really-happening-in-his-country-regarding-land-seizure/
When a recent report on the uncompensated seizure and redistribution of farmland held by white farmers in South Africa drew the concern of President Donald Trump, his South African counterpart told him to “stay out of our issues.”
Subsequent reports have raised questions about how extensive the land expropriations are and the level of violence associated with the seizures.
The African National Congress is the longtime ruling party in South Africa, and it is currently headed by that country’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa drew U.S. media scrutiny after Tucker Carlson, on his Fox News Channel show, reported Aug. 22 that Ramaphosa had begun “seizing land from his own citizens without compensation because they are the wrong skin color.”
Carlson condemned the land seizure as “racist” because the South African government is largely black and the farmers in question are white, and he urged the U.S. State Department to condemn the move as well.
After Carlson’s program aired the segment, Trump tweeted his reaction and asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to “look into the matter.”
In a subsequent speech, Ramaphosa responded to Trump’s tweets by saying, “Stay out of our issues, and we will not get involved in your issues in America.”
Trump’s tweet generated a lot of attention and discussion about what’s really going on in South Africa.
The African National Congress has proposed expropriation of farmland without compensation, but no such changes have been made yet to the South African Constitution.
Uncompensated expropriation means the government could force farmers to give up some or all of their land without any payment in return.
The Daily Signal spoke with a white South African farmer regarding the current political climate in his country, as it relates to the safety of white farmers and their land.
For his safety, the pseudonym Paul Engle will be used in lieu of his real name.
Engle owns and operates a 50-acre macadamia nut farm in the northeastern part of South Africa. He grew up in South Africa and has been operating the farm for more than five years.
“The history of the situation is that, obviously, white farmers were privileged during apartheid,” he said, referring to South Africa’s system of apartheid, the racist segregation of blacks and whites under white-minority rule. “They were given farms or access to farms.”
South Africa’s apartheid ended in 1994, and the country has been governed by the black majority since then.
The South African publication Farmer’s Weekly reported that in 1994, there were 120,000 commercial farms in operation. Today, that number has shrunk to 35,000.
Engle said nearly 100,000 farmers have moved off the land, some because of concerns about crime, while others simply retired and their sons have chosen not to work the land. “They don’t want the struggles. They don’t want the hassle,” he explained.
He said that many of those vacated farms have been sold, largely to those who were pushed off the land during apartheid. But the reclaimed land is not being farmed, and it’s no longer producing commercial crops.
This loss of productivity is an increasing concern among South Africans, in terms of the overall economic stability of the nation.
“So, the breadbasket just keeps shrinking, which means that the very people who want the land are the ones who are going to suffer, because as food supplies decrease, the prices increase, which means more food must be imported,” Engle explained, adding:
I think where the situation is at the moment is, white farmers—and unfortunately, those are the guys that know how to farm—they have the resources, the know-how, the technology, after having been there for generations.
That sector of our economy is dwindling. And then of course more pressure is coming on now, as the government is talking about expropriation without compensation. So it is a very delicate, vulnerable part of the fabric of South Africa.
Joshua Meservey, a senior policy analyst on Africa and the Middle East at The Heritage Foundation, says it’s unlikely that the government would seize land from all white farmers. It’s more probable that land would only be taken from some farms or portions of farms, he said.
Engle said that at the beginning of the year, Ramaphosa asked for a report to be compiled that would essentially give voice to all South Africans on the topic of land expropriation.
“All across the nation they had meetings speaking to communities, businesses, agricultural sectors, all aspects of society,” he said. “Then that was going to be written up in a report to go back to the government to say, ‘This is what the nation is saying [about expropriation].’”
The report was due to be completed by the end of August, but it has yet to be released. Earlier this month, however, Ramaphosa said the African National Congress would not wait for the report, but would go ahead with the expropriations process.
South African news outlet News24 reported on Aug. 1 that Ramaphosa said “the ANC would propose an amendment to the Constitution to Parliament, outlining conditions for expropriation of land without compensation.”
Engle explained that this statement was made by Ramaphosa, not as the president of South Africa, but as the leader of the African National Congress. “He is making it as a political statement, rather than as a decision of government,” he said.
He said that in the northeastern province of Limpopo, a government minister has already started the process to take away two commercial farms and that the secretary of the African National Congress has declared white farmers can only own 12,000 hectares—about 25,000 acres—and they must hand over the rest of their land to the state.
Ramaphosa now appears to be backtracking somewhat on some of his more radical statements, according to Engle. The South African leader said, “We are not going to steal and grab land,” News24 reported Aug. 3.
Engle told The Daily Signal that the rhetoric and actions of the country’s political leaders have been inconsistent on the issue.
This has been “causing a lot of unrest in the country,” Engle says. “It’s not as if Ramaphosa is driving the ship and there is one voice. There are multiple voices.”
Engle described the political motivation for the land expropriation. The “ANC has become unpopular because they have not managed the country well. It appears that Ramaphosa was pushed down the road of land expropriation without compensation by the EFF [Economic Freedom Fighters, the extremist party led by Julius Malema].”
He said the African National Congress has been the ruling party for more than 20 years, but during that time the nation has seen an increase in crime and a radical decline in the quality of health care and education.
“They don’t manage the crime. They don’t manage the corruption, and they don’t manage the incompetency,” Engle said.
The people of South Africa have begun to lose faith in the African National Congress. The land-grab rhetoric is an attempt to win back lost popularity, he said.
“They are talking about change in education, land, and health so they can gain favor. It is very political. They are motivated by politics, by wanting to stay in power,” Engle said. “I do not see a pure heart of, ‘Let’s help the nation. Let’s help the poor. Let’s help our people.’ It is all politics.”
The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of Economic Freedom states that “South Africa’s economic growth has decelerated because of declining global competitiveness, growing political instability, and weakened rule of law that in 2017 caused the country’s investment-grade credit rating to be downgraded to junk status, denting investor confidence.”
Heritage’s Meservey added: “One of the problems with the expropriation-without-compensation proposal is that it presupposes the deeply corrupt South African government—which has already made a hash of previous land-reform efforts—could manage this new process competently and justly. That’s a dubious proposal.”
Despite the politics, Engle said he thinks “most South Africans, white South Africans, realize that there has got to be some form of expropriation.”
“We have to be giving back, but it cannot be at the expense of the economy, and it cannot be done illegally … . I think there is a realization that [expropriation] needs to be done, because it will lead to the peace of the country,” he said. “And there are a lot of poor people. They need a piece of their own land that they can farm and raise some chickens on, particularly around the cities.”
When asked about safety concerns, Engle shrugged. “Yeah, I mean, where we are is very safe … but there is always that sense of, it could happen, it could happen at any time.”
“But there is no escalation of crime against white farmers. It is not any more than it has been since 1994. The crime on the farms, the murders and so forth, is not necessarily political. It is just that farmers are a soft target,” he explained.
“Often, it is the workers that are disgruntled because they have not gotten what they want, or maybe the farmer has been harsh on them. Maybe he has been racist towards them. It’s kind of payback; so, that does happen.”
Crime and corruption are not unknown in South Africa’s history, but the political climate is quite distinct now. “It feels like South Africa is spinning out of control,” Engle said.
He expressed uncertainty as to where his county is headed. There’s a genuine concern that South Africa will go down the same road as neighboring Zimbabwe, falling into political corruption and economic ruin.
Robert Mugabe, the longtime former president of Zimbabwe, also engaged in land expropriation without compensation. Once white farmers in the former Rhodesia began losing their land—and sometimes even their lives—the Zimbabwean economy collapsed.
Engle said it remains to be seen what will happen in South Africa, but added he is praying for a miracle because “it will take a miracle to turn it around.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
CLAREMONT, N.H. — In her first week as a 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed to channel another high-profile Democrat. “The deck is stacked in their favor,” Mrs. Clinton said of the wealthy and powerful. “My job is to reshuffle the cards.” The line echoed a phrase that helped make Senator Elizabeth Warren the populist icon of her party. “The game is rigged,” Ms. Warren often says. “Rigged to work for those who have money and power.”
Before that there was Mrs. Clinton’s tribute to Ms. Warren in Time magazine. “She never hesitates to hold powerful people’s feet to the fire,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in the issue honoring the top 100 influential people.
For anyone who wondered what kind of economic message Mrs. Clinton would deliver in her campaign, the first few days made it clear: She is embracing the ideas trumpeted by Ms. Warren and the populist movement — that the wealthy have been benefiting disproportionately from the economy, while the middle class and the poor have been left behind. And the policies Mrs. Clinton is advancing, like paid sick leave for employees and an increase in the minimum wage, align with that emphasis.
But now, the former secretary of state must convince voters that she is the right messenger for the cause of inequality, not simply seizing on it out of political expedience. Nothing stings her inner circle more than the suggestion that their candidate is late to these issues. Mrs. Clinton was the original Elizabeth Warren, her advisers say, a populist fighter who for decades has been an advocate for families and children; only now have the party and primary voters caught up. “I don’t know why we have this semicollective amnesia about her past positions,” said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and Mrs. Clinton’s policy director in 2008. “She’s following no one on these issues.”
But affirming Mrs. Clinton’s sincerity as a populist, especially given her reputation for caution and careful consideration of political moves, is proving an uphill battle. The assessment by Bloomberg Politics after Mrs. Clinton’s first campaign stops was that she is “terrified of the left.”
It is easy to forget that for years, Mrs. Clinton weathered criticism that she was too liberal, the socialist foil to her husband’s centrist agenda. Economists in the Clinton administration referred to the first lady and her aides as “the Bolsheviks.” In Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, she positioned herself as the populist candidate to the left of Barack Obama on several economic issues, angering some of her Wall Street donors and earning broad support among organized labor and working-class voters.
Advisers have lists at the ready outlining Mrs. Clinton’s calls as early as 2007 to eliminate the so-called carried interest loophole, roll back the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, impose tighter regulations on derivatives and place limits on chief executives’ compensation. “Let’s finally do something about the growing inequality that is tearing our country apart,” Mrs. Clinton said during her campaign, appearing at the Take Back America conference, a gathering of liberal groups, in June 2007. “The top 1 percent of our households hold 22 percent of our nation’s wealth. Enough with corporate welfare. Enough with golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.”
A 16-page dossier, titled “Hillary Clinton: A Lifetime Champion of Income Opportunity” and assembled by a close friend and adviser to Mrs. Clinton, calls Ms. Warren a “footnote.” The document, provided to The New York Times, presents 40 instances in which Mrs. Clinton took the same stance as Ms. Warren on issues — from organized labor to tax increases on the wealthy — in some cases years before the senator’s ascent in the national spotlight.
But that was then and this is now, when everything Mrs. Clinton does will be viewed through the lens of a party under the influence of Ms. Warren and her blistering critique of the financial sector.
Robert B. Reich, a secretary of labor during the Clinton administration who has advised Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, said the comparison with Ms. Warren “personalizes it far too much.” … “This is a broad-based movement to take back our democracy and make the economy work for everybody instead of a small group at the top,” he said.
For seven years, Mrs. Clinton has been out of domestic policy, and in that time the populist movement caught fire. In the years Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state and since she left the State Department in early 2013, she has become more associated with the centrist policies of the Bill Clinton years than with policies of raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing government services that have become widely adopted on the left. “This perception comes because she wasn’t involved in the discussion for so long,” Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist, said of Mrs. Clinton. Because, she added, in the White House “she had this reputation as being the very left-wing, liberal, Elizabeth Warren type.”
During the same period when Mrs. Clinton was absent from domestic debates, the policies of the Bill Clinton years have been recast. In her 2008 campaign, Mrs. Clinton touted the prosperity of the 1990s. Today, the trade deals, Wall Street deregulation, and deficit reduction Mr. Clinton oversaw are often blamed as contributing to the current divide between a tiny sliver of the wealthiest and the vast majority of Americans.
“I remember when Bill Clinton was running in 1992 and his line was ‘putting people first,’” said Dean Baker, an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “He just didn’t follow through on that,” and instead emphasized deficit reduction and trade deals, he added.
On Friday, Mrs. Clinton subtly distanced herself from the trade policies associated with the 1990s. In response to a trade agreement reached Thursday by Republican and Democratic leaders, her spokesman, Nick Merrill, said Mrs. Clinton believes that any trade deal should protect American workers, raise wages and create jobs in the United States. “The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade’s sake,” Mr. Merrill said in a statement.
Mrs. Clinton will begin to present more specific policy proposals next month. In the meantime, she has expressed support for an increase in the minimum wage, paid family medical leave and closing corporate tax loopholes.
In a meeting with economists this year, Mrs. Clinton intensely studied a chart that showed income inequality in the United States. The graph charted how real wages, adjusted for inflation, had increased exponentially for the wealthiest Americans, making the bar so steep it hardly fit on the chart. Mrs. Clinton pointed at the top category and said the economy required a “toppling” of the wealthiest 1 percent, according to several people who were briefed on Mrs. Clinton’s policy discussions but could not discuss private conversations for attribution.
Still, Mrs. Clinton will pitch that “toppling” with a very different style than Ms. Warren, a bankruptcy expert whose populist message has been laser-focused on holding Wall Street accountable. Mrs. Clinton will present proposals for changes in the tax code as a way of also investing in education, infrastructure and communities.
Mrs. Clinton “wakes up asking how she can accomplish real things for families, not who she can attack,” said Gene B. Sperling, an economic adviser in the Clinton and Obama administrations. He added, “When she shows that fighting populist edge, it is for a purpose.”
Written by Ann Coulter | Wednesday Jan 14, 2015
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://humanevents.com/2015/01/14/as-long-as-obama-brought-up-the-cost-of-college/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
I gather from Obama’s “free” community college proposal that his plan for dealing with the Republican Congress over the next two years is to throw out ridiculously expensive ideas no one has ever heard of before, and then denounce Republicans for being naysayers.
Community college is already incredibly inexpensive. The only thing that will jack up the price is making it “free.” How about a big federal program to provide every American with free toilet paper? Coincidentally, that’s about all most college degrees are good for these days.
The cost of a college education has increased by more than 1,000 percent only since 1978. Nothing else has gone up that much — not health care, consumer goods, or home prices. The explosion in college tuition bears no relation to anything happening in the economy.
Would anyone argue that colleges are providing a better education today than in 1978? I promise you: People coming out of college in the ’50s knew more than any recent Yale graduate — unless we’re only counting knowledge of sexual practices once considered verboten.
They’re teaching gender studies, ethnic studies, moral equivalence, and hatred of America. Did the Japanese Really Start World War II or Did We? It’s worse than not reading Shakespeare. They’re reading Shakespeare for homosexual imagery. As Yale professor Daniel Gelernter says, colleges are “threatening to become an elaborate, extremely expensive practical joke.”
The fact that 80 percent of Weathermen — the violent ’60s radicals — are full college professors tells you all you need to know about the state of higher education today. The cost of college spirals continuously upward not because the product has gotten better — it’s gotten much, much worse — but because college loans are backed by the taxpayer. The government is chasing its tail every time it increases student financial aid. If the government hiked college loans and subsidies by $1 million per student, colleges would promptly raise tuition to: (current tuition) plus $1 million.
Americans are being bamboozled into paying any price for a college degree because they are relentlessly told that if they don’t go to college, their lives will be hell. And they’re told this not only by the colleges, but by the government. The sales pitch is manifestly false. According to an article by Adam Davidson in the New York Times magazine last June, “(m)ore than half of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed, meaning they make substandard wages in jobs that don’t require a college degree.” Evidently, most jobs don’t depend on a degree in women’s studies. More than a third of college graduates, Davidson says, will never make enough money to repay their student loans.
If any other business made such false claims about a product, there would be massive congressional hearings, media denunciations, and prison sentences for the CEOs. A college degree is the most expensive purchase most families will ever make, other than their home.
Right before our eyes, Democrats are colluding with colleges to create a market bubble for an increasingly worthless product, and they’re doing it by making the exact same promise that banks made about home mortgages before the housing market crash: Sure it’s a lot, but it’s an investment in your future! Instead of hauling college administrators to court, Democrats are active participants in the fraud, acting as Big Education’s carnival barkers. It’s as if the government is telling people: “If you don’t smoke, you’ll never be cool.”
Why is the left not willing to admit that education is an industry, just like Lockheed Martin, Enron, or Philip Morris? Democrats love to rail about the high costs of everything else — pharmaceuticals, health care, mortgages, missile systems, contraception, and so on. College is a business, too — a cartel that fixes prices, preys on teenagers, and lies to consumers. But liberals won’t make a peep about the College Industrial Complex because college professors are brainwashing students into leftist politics. Every year, another 10 million graduates emerge, hating God, their parents, America, and Republicans. For this, parents are spending $50,000 a year.
The education industry is how leftists make capitalists pay for socialism. It was a smart move for cultural Marxists to capture the country’s education establishment. GOOD THINKING, CULTURAL MARXISTS!
It’s not the fault of the students that they’re getting a crappy product at inflated prices. They’ve been lied to by shady education peddlers, including the Democratic Party. Let’s see if the middle class is more interested in the cost of college tuition or the Democrats’ endless global warming initiatives.
Earlier today, I posted a story by Mac Slavo that came via Todd Starnes’ article from Fox News. I want to post something again because this is so important. America has to wake up and they have to wake up now. There is no more time.
Alternative Media gets a bad rap for so-called conspiracy theory. It comes with the territory. For those of you who don’t know me, I run an independent blog called D.C. Clothesline. We are small and have no ad budget. So, in order to get site traffic I do a lot of sharing on social media. Whenever I share a story that doesn’t quite fit in with the mainstream media norm, I tend to get lots of critical comments. One of the most common comments I hear is something like, “This is a blog. This can’t be true. Until I hear it on Fox News it isn’t true.”
Well, I am here to tell you that it is time to wake up because Fox News is now on board.
People should not be shocked if they have been paying attention.
As for FEMA camps, if anyone would bother to research something called REX-84 they would find that Oliver North spearheaded an effort to make plans for internment of American citizens. If things go south, there are plans in place. Don’t fool yourself. Why wouldn’t the government have a contingency plan?
That isn’t conspiracy. It is common sense.
The latest revelation, however, is frightening beyond belief.
But Todd Starnes reported earlier today that workers are being threatened with arrest if they open their mouths about this problem:
A government-contracted security force threatened to arrest doctors and nurses if they divulged any information
about the contagion threat at a refugee camp housing illegal alien children at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, sources say.
In spite of the threat, several former camp workers broke their confidentiality agreements and shared exclusive details with me about the dangerous conditions at the camp. They said taxpayers deserve to know about the contagious diseases and the risks the children pose to Americans. I have agreed to not to disclose their identities because they fear retaliation and prosecution.
What these workers additionally revealed is a much bigger story, in my opinion. These security officers are calling themselves “Brown Shirts.”
“There were several of us who wanted to talk about the camps, but the agents made it clear we would be arrested,” a psychiatric counselor told me. “We were under orders not to say anything.”
The sources said workers were guarded by a security force from the Baptist Family & Children’s Services, which the Department of Health and Human Services hired to run the Lackland Camp.
The sources say security forces called themselves the “Brown Shirts.”
“It was a very submissive atmosphere,” the counselor said. “Once you stepped onto the grounds, you abided by their laws – the Brown Shirtlaws.”
p>For those of you who do not know what the significance of “Brown Shirts” are, let’s see what Wikipedia has to say:
The Sturmabteilung (SA) (German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊɐ̯mʔapˌtaɪlʊŋ] ( listen); Storm Detachment or Assault Division, or Brownshirts) functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. It played a key role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their main assignments were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of the opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties (especially the Rotfrontkämpferbund) and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists and Jews (e.g. the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses).
Please understand that thanks to a few conscientious whistleblowers, Barack Obama’s hand has been shown. Some might say that this is not Obama’s work, but rather the responsibility of the contractors.
This is how government officials cover their tracks. We saw evidence of this in Iraq when our government hired Blackwater, now Academi, to do the “dirty work” that they didn’t want connected to them. It’s a simple yet effective strategy of passing the buck.
This story did not originate on D.C. Clothesline.
Why would they call themselves “Brown Shirts?”
Is it because they reportedly wear tan shirts? I doubt it. What kind of a sick joke would that be?
Think about it hard. They know the historical significance. Don’t kid yourself.
Do you think it might be time to start paying attention?
This administration is not concerned with “conspiracy theorists” because they know that they won’t have to discredit them. The useful idiots will do it for them, as I witness on a daily basis.
But when Fox News runs a story like this, perhaps you might want to start paying attention to what is happening around you.
The time to prepare is now.
Water, guns and ammo are most important. You can hunt for food if need be. As for the silver and gold thing…
If my family has only 50 gallons of fresh water left, no amount of precious metal is going to barter that away. Think about survival because an economic collapse is coming and when it does things could get really crazy.
In the run up to the 2008 Presidential election Barack Obama promised he would work to implement a domestic security force which would rival that of the U.S. military. It was an idea heavily criticized by his opponents because of fears that such an organization would bear similarity to World War II era spying groups that policed the citizens of Nazi Germany.
Many dubbed Obama’s proposed force the “Brown Shirts,” a term often used to describe a Nazi assault force and one that has repeatedly been associated with extremist nationalists for their unwavering willingness to take and execute orders without question or contemplation. Brown shirt brigades were tasked with, among other things, arresting dissidents, silencing criticism and wholesale executions of those who could not be reeducated.
For the majority, the notion that such a force would be assembled in the United States was nothing but another conspiracy originating from the lunatic right wing. But in October of 2012 the Department of Homeland Security quietly graduated their first corp of civilian responders under the new program. And since then it is likely that thousands more have been trained and deployed across the country to be called upon in the event of an emergency.
And if there were ever an emergency that required a military level response in the United States, many believe it is happening right now on the Southern border as hundreds of thousands of migrants make their way illegally into America. Because of the sheer number of people heading to the U.S. and the complete failure, whether by chance or by design, of the Obama administration to secure the border, America is now faced with housing, feeding, clothing and providing medical care for more people than it was prepared to handle.
In response, rather than deploy Homeland Security or the National Guard to stop the migration at its source, the Administration has instead set up makeshift internment camps, some of which put scores of people in a room the size of a studio apartment. As a result, disease has spread and civilian emergency personnel have been tasked with providing care.
But among the doctors and caregivers is also a private security force that has been hired to keep the peace. And according to several people working inside the camps, the security groups have turned their attention not towards keeping peace between the migrants, but rather, at keeping the goings on of the facilities completely secret from the general public.
According to the unnamed source, who could not provide video documentation of these events because cell phones are not allowed in the facility, the security force is reportedly calling itself the “Brown Shirts.” The insider says they have been given orders to arrest anyone speaking to the public or using cell phones, and have implemented what is being referred to as “Brown Shirts Law.”
“There were several of us who wanted to talk about the camps, but the agents made it clear we would be arrested,” a psychiatric counselor told me.
“We were under orders not to say anything.”
The sources say security forces called themselves the “Brown Shirts.”
“It was a very submissive atmosphere,” the counselor said.
“Once you stepped onto the grounds, you abided by their laws – the Brown Shirt laws.”
She said the workers were stripped of their cellphones and other communication devices. Anyone caught with a phone was immediately fired.
“Everyone was paranoid,” she said. “The children had more rights than the workers.”
She said children in the camp had measles, scabies, chicken pox and strep throat as well as mental and emotional issues.
The U.S. Government has spent billions of dollars preparing a wide variety of protocols to respond to domestic emergencies. In addition to the Brown Shirt security teams currently in operation at migrant internment camps, the government has also stockpiled billions of rounds of ammunition, rifles, riot gear, armored vehicles, military drones and is believed to have set up hundreds of detention camps around the country in anticipation of events ranging from widespread civil unrest to natural disasters.
In the event of an emergency, the President, having authorized himself by Executive Doomsday Order, will have access to military assets, law enforcement, homeland security, and now a civilian policing force that is, apparently, ready to perform its job without questioning their complicity in covering up the spread of disease and who knows what else.
FEMA camps, believed to exist as a last resort in case the government has to round up and detain tens of thousands of people under a martial law declaration, will require very similar logistics as the existing migrant internment camps.
Now we know that, should you ever reside in a detention camp, there will be no information making its way in or out unless the message has been officially approved for dissemination. Anyone who fails to follow the rules and abide by Brown Shirts Law could have their career destroyed, be arrested or worse yet, charged under terrorism laws that, as the Brown Shirts of old may have referred to it, allow for a “final solution.”
While President Obama and Congressional members have made an effort to convince their constituents that the provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act will never be used against citizens of the United States, the fact is that the laws clearly allow for the detention, arrest and detainment of Americans without charge or trial. The President attempted to assuage these fears of potential abuse of the law by including a signing statement promising he would never use the law against Americans, but the statement itself is non-binding, leaving the possibility of misuse wide open.
In the event of a declared national emergency or war, when fear and panic are running rampant, the President will, without a shadow of a doubt, implement whatever means necessary in order to control the populace and maintain order.
Detainment and interment will be at the top of the Department of Homeland Security’s to-do list.
And if you have any doubts about this possibility then pay close attention to the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a recent event where law students asked the judge about the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Keep in mind that this is coming from one of the people who will be sitting on the panel of judges who decides whether or not such an act is Constitutional:
Well, of course, Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case.
But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.
That’s what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war.
It’s no justification, but it is the reality.
There will come a time in America when panic grips the nation. There will be riots, violence, and bloodshed resulting from any number of plausible scenarios like the collapse of our economic and monetary systems.
When this happens the government will implement their continuity plans. Martial law will be declared.
The Department of Homeland Security will activate their already stocked and staffed Federal Emergency Management Agency refugee camps. We’ve seen these in limited form during major storms like Hurricane Sandy. Those who came to FEMA for help reported that their facilities were like concentration camps.
But they were nothing compared to what would happen in a situation where hundreds of thousands of people would need to be detained under a national emergency declaration. According to various sources and a ton of research over the years, FEMA camps are situated all over the country and are awaiting internees.
A U.S. Army internal document provides some additional insight:
The document makes it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” and involve, “DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities,” including “man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories.”
The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking his executive authority.” The document also makes reference to identifying detainees using their “social security number.”
Aside from enemy combatants and other classifications of detainees, the manual includes the designation of “civilian internees,” in other words citizens who are detained for, “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.”
If you’re paying attention you can see the signs everywhere. The government of the United States is preparing for a widespread event that, based on their recent activities, will require the deployment of armed police, military and even a multi-million strong civilian security force.
This is happening and a Supreme Court Justice of the United States just confirmed that there will be no stopping it.
Antonin Scalia: ‘You Are Kidding Yourself If You Think’ Internment Ruling Couldn’t Happen Again
HONOLULU (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told law students at the University of Hawaii on Monday that the nation’s highest court was wrong to uphold the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, but he wouldn’t be surprised if the court issued a similar ruling during a future conflict.
Scalia was responding to a question about the court’s 1944 decision in Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the convictions of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu for violating an order to report to an internment camp.
“Well of course Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia told students and faculty during a lunchtime Q-and-A session.
Scalia cited a Latin expression meaning, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
“That’s what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality,” he said.
Avi Soifer, the law school’s dean, said he believed Scalia was suggesting people always have to be vigilant and that the law alone can’t be trusted to provide protection.
Soifer said it’s good to hear Scalia say the Korematsu ruling was wrong, noting the justice has been among those who have reined in the power of military commissions regardless of the administration.
“We do need a court that sometimes will say there are individual or group rights that are not being adequately protected by the democratic process,” Soifer said.
Scalia was appointed to the nation’s highest court in 1986, making him the longest-serving justice currently on the court.
The 77-year-old spoke after teaching a class. He didn’t take questions from media.
on 17 May, 2014 at 19:00
1. Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me.
At worst, liberalism denies the very existence of God in the forms of atheism and secularism, while, at best, it adopts that wonderfully “inclusive” blasphemy called religious pluralism. Pluralism presumes to give the false gods of false religions equal footing and denies Christ as He defined Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Liberal “Christianity” falls under this category. It’s pluralism with a Christian stamp.
Secular humanism, liberalism’s prevailing false religion, denies God altogether and crowns man as king over himself and the measure of all things. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”
2. Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images.
We’re talking idolatry here. Liberalism is built on it. First, there’s literal idolatry (the worship of man-made idols, animals or inanimate objects) enjoyed by our New Age friends. And then there’s everything else: pantheistic environmentalism, the idols of “reproductive freedom,” “sexual liberation and equality,” etc.
Essentially, liberalism worships the created over the Creator. Liberalism also worships the sins of the flesh (see Commandments No. 1, 6 and 7).
3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Lord’s Name in Vain.
To deny God is to take the Lord’s name in vain.
To deny God as He defines Himself is to take the Lord’s name in vain.
To misrepresent God, to call other gods God or to deny the deity of Christ is to take the Lord’s name in vain.
Liberalism does this and much more. Many liberals also mock Christ, Christianity and Christians. They revile the exclusive nature of Jesus, His commands and His faithful followers. They hate truth.
4. Remember to Keep Holy the Sabbath.
This one is a bit tricky as it is widely understood to fall under the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law – the old covenant, not the new. Christ Himself healed (worked) on the Sabbath. That said, many Christians still view Sunday as the Sabbath and do, indeed, keep it holy. Not all liberals (there are certainly liberal Jews), but liberalism at large denies the Sabbath any significance whatsoever, much less a holy significance.
5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother.
Liberalism seeks to supplant parents with “progressive” government. It diminishes parental rights and encourages children to rebel against the antiquated conventions held by mom and dad. It denies that children even need a mother and father and bristles at the “heteronormative” lack of “gender neutrality” inherent within the very words “mother and father.” The sin-centered, counter-biblical notion of “gay marriage” desecrates God’s design for true marriage and family and is intended to undermine these cornerstone institutions.
6. Thou Shalt Not Murder.
“death with dignity.”
Need I say more? Sacrosanct is the liberal rite of passage for a feminist mother to slaughter her own child in the womb. Fifty-five million dead babies later, liberals continue to worship at the pagan altar of “choice” (see Commandments No. 1 and 2).
7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.
This means all sexual immorality as identified in the scriptures, to include
Liberalism, it seems, embraces all perversions of God’s design for human sexuality. Central to liberalism is moral relativism. When it comes to sex, you can do no wrong because there is no wrong.
8. Thou Shalt Not Steal.
With class warfare as its fuel, liberalism embraces the redistributionist philosophies of Marx and Engels. Liberalism thrives on theft. Like some completely incompetent and inefficient Robin Hood, liberal government steals from the middle class to give to the poor, thereby ensuring that liberal politicians remain in power and everyone else remains miserable.
9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.
I give you Saul Alinsky from his Rules for Radicals:
“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.”
As we’ve learned from Barack “you can keep your insurance” Obama, that includes lying. Liberals lie. That’s what they do. The ends justify the means. Bearing false witness about detractors of liberalism is par for the course.
10. Thou Shalt Not Covet.
Again, liberalism uses man’s inherent covetousness as the driving force behind all liberal economic policies. Creating a political climate of economic envy and class warfare gives liberal government the cover needed to take wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who don’t. Not only does liberalism violate this commandment, liberalism commands its adherents to do the exact opposite. “Thou shalt covet.”
<img width=”665″ height=”385″ src=”http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BLM-texas-ranch-665×385.jpg” data-attID=”1212016″ class=”single-leader wp-post-image” alt=”red river BLM” />
The BLM removed armed federal agents from Bunkeville and near the Bundy ranch, but another possible “land grab” or range war appears to be brewing in Texas. Fellow rancher Tommy Henderson has been fighting the BLM for 30 years, and appears to be losing yet another round in the battle.
Tommy Henderson is locked in a property rights fight with the BLM. Although many students are taught in geography class that the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River, the issue is far more complicated than that, according to the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM used an ongoing debate over the border to nab 140 acres of land Henderson’s failed lawsuit against the agency three decades ago.
BLM is now using the Tommy Henderson lawsuit ruling as a precedent to seize even more of his land along a 116-mile stretch of the river which the agency claims never belonged to Texas in the first place. Henderson holds a deed to the 90,000 acres, but such a legal document did not prevent him from losing the 140-acre parcel he had labored over and paid property taxes on for years.
Henderson had this to say about the emerging Red River range war in Texas:
“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us.”
If the BLM is successful in its bid to seize the 90,000 owned by the Texas rancher, it would substantially alter the boundaries between the two states. The fight boils down to the difference between avulsion and accretion. The river has moved over time and the boundary is supposed to be noted as the vegetation line along the south side of the waterway. Both states use different semantics to define the boundary, according to the Americas Freedom Fighters website. The BLM has allegedly been able to capitalize on the confusion in the bid to seize Henderson’s land. Oklahoma state statute defines avulsion in a different manner than both the United States government and Texas.
A statement from the BLM about the possible land seizure in Texas reads:
“BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River. If the land is found to be public, BLM officials say they have three options: leave the land open, closed, or open with limitations.”
The BLM also contends that in the Red River there is always accretion – the gradual accumulation of sediment, to the south. The federal agency also stated that avulsion, the rapid formation of a new river channel, occurs on the north side of the river. The Bureau of Land Management believes that since the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma only moves in one direction – and that direction has not favored the ranchers working the land along the Red River. If the agency is able to redraw the Red River boundary it will include Tommy Henderson’s 90,000 acre ranch. If the BLM seizes the land, claiming that is should never have been privately owned due to the boundary dispute, grazing of cattle could still be an option – but will come at a price.
Tommy Henderson also had this to say about the very real possibility of losing his ranch:
“How can BLM come in and say, ‘Hey, this isn’t yours.’ Even though its patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours. Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north.”
A boundary change could land families who have be considered Texans for generations on the other side of the line and actually suddenly find themselves Oklahoma residents.
How do you feel about the ongoing actions by the BLM which could impact Texas ranch owned by Tommy Henderson?
[Image Via: Google Maps]
Read more at
Editor’s Note: We first told you about Manuel Martinez back in April of 2013. At that time Martinez blasted Democrat gun grabbers as Communists. This piece by Kim Paxton reports on Martinez’s latest declaration to the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee.
Imagine fleeing a Communist regime to escape to freedom…and then watching that freedom slip away.
“Marxism is not coming,” Martinez told the committee. “Marxism is HERE. Marxism has been in this country for quite a while, and the politicians allow that, because they are ignorant, or they are part of the plot.”
Martinez was voicing his passionate objection to Senate Bill 1551, which would expand strict background checks even to private sales of guns, criticizing it as a step towards gun control, and eventual confiscation.
“Don’t sell me this. A very powerful man tried to sell me this 50-something years ago, I didn’t buy it. This is Marxism, plain and clear.
They put this dog and pony show saying hey, we are going to protect you. No, what they did was enslave a country. They destroyed a country the same way that this country is going to be destroyed if we continue in this fashion. This is what you’re selling here! [Martinez displayed some Cuban communist magazines]
[A round of applause from spectators at this point caused one of the Senators to threaten to clear the room if there was another “outburst”]
…This is what you’re selling: subjugation.”
We must heed the warnings of those who have witnessed this insidious creeping takeover before. Just as Katie Worthman bore witness to the communist occupation of her native Austria, Martinez saw the rise of Castro’s Cuba. If we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
See Manuel Martinez impassioned testimony here;