Congressman Dan Crenshaw. Wow. You will be glad you watched this 23 minute speech.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw. Wow. You will be glad you watched this 23 minute speech.
Deleting all movies by Robert DeNiro, Jim Carrey, Charlise Theron, Baba Streisand, Schwarzeneggar, Harrison Ford, Scarlet Johannson, and more. Lots of disc space now. Normally, I would trade in the old discs for new DVD’s/BluRay movies. But I would not want to pass on this trash to others.
“Slavery was an ugly, dirty business but people of virtually every race, color, and creed engaged in it on every inhabited continent. And the people they enslaved were also of virtually every race, color, and creed.” ~ Thomas Sowell (@ThomasSowell) tweeted at 7:03 AM on Fri, Apr 05, 2019.
“To this very moment slavery continues in parts of Africa and the Islamic world. Very little noise is made about it by those who denounce the slavery of the past in the West, because there is no money to be made denouncing it and no political advantages to be gained.” ~ Thomas Sowell (@ThomasSowell) tweeted at 7:03 AM on Thu, Apr 04, 2019.
“Leftists like Kamala think blacks are helpless and pathetic. You think LeBron & P. Diddy and Oprah are traumatized by a receding past? There weren’t 200 years of American slavery. There were 87. Why would the government which gave 350k lives to free the slaves owe reparations?” ~ David Horowitz (@horowitz39) tweeted at 11:29 AM on Wed, Feb 27, 2019:
“Last week, virtually every serious 2020 Democratic presidential candidate spent an unserious period of time embarrassingly kissing the ring of race-baiter extraordinaire Al Sharpton at his National Action Network conference.”
“Sharpton’s burning question for each of them? Would they support H.R. 40, a bill originally introduced in 1989, probably as a joke, by former Democratic Michigan Rep. John Conyers, but reintroduced in today’s beyond-absurd political climate by Democratic Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. If passed, and I’m not kidding, it would create a “Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies.””
“That’s right. Sharpton was asking if 2020 presidential candidates – 2020 mind you – support paying black slave descendants’ reparations for an institution that ended in 1865.”
“If you don’t already know, do you really need to wonder how the candidates answered this guy’s ridiculous question? Of COURSE each and every one of them responded with a “hell yah,” because it’s 2019 y’all, and because to a person everyone running for president under the Democratic Party banner are either shameless liars, intellectually dishonest, or hopelessly stupid.”
“So Dems, how exactly would this work, you know, in real life and outside your pea-sized brains, you feckless morons? Was that mean? I’m sorry, I meant to say, “you handi-capable morons.” Is that better? But I digress. Let’s get back to figuring out how on earth this reparations thing would work.”
“First of all, geniuses, where is the money going to come from? We know good and well it won’t be voluntary, so do we tax everyone, or just white people? What if the white person descended from Italians who, like my grandfather, emigrated to the U.S. in the 1920s? Do we tax ALL white people or just rich ones? What if the white person descended from Northern soldiers? What if the person being taxed is only half-white, or maybe, just for fun, three-fifths white? Finally, on the topic of where the money is going to come from, might it be possible that, should we finally settle on who is to be taxed, said parties might not be amenable to having their money stolen to cement the Democratic Party power base or, at best, assuage the consciences of guilt-ridden liberals?”
“Secondly, who gets the money? All black people, just poor ones, or just poor ones descended from slaves? Does Michael Jordan get the same as a Blood member just released from prison? And if poor is a criteria, how does one determine if someone is poor because of “systemic racism,” one’s capabilities, or just simply bad choices in life? To what percentage does one have to be of both black and/or slave descendant in or to qualify for all this free money? Or are we creating a scenario where, as Fox News host Laura Ingraham aptly put it during her Friday conversation with former ACLU Executive Committee member Michael Meyers: “The guy that came here from Serbia six months ago is going to have to write a check for a Somali refugee that came here 20 years ago?””
“However, if liberals and race-baiting interests insist on reparations, then let’s talk about this. What would widespread reparations really need to be? Will there be a discussion on reparations to the descendants of white slaves? Yes, they existed, they worked in different levels of involuntary servitude in the American colonies. Check out White Cargo or do a casual Google search for more information.”
“What about for the hundreds of thousands of (white) men who died on fields of battle to end slavery. Where are their reparations? OK, they all died. What about for their children, or the extended families of these men who died so that men would live free on American soil? Many children lost their fathers on those fields. They sacrificed a great deal, too. They lost so much because of slavery.”
“Are reparationists going to confront the American Indian tribes which had enslaved black people, including tribes which insisted on holding onto black slaves even after the Civil War ended? As one of many political inconvenient truths about the slave trade, American Indians enslaved black people, sold them, and stole the fruit of their labor. It’s astonishing to learn that many of the native groups refused to give up their slaves even after the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments!”
“Will that politically incorrect history bother the “reparations raiders”? That’s nothing compared to the long-suppressed yet very true history of the black—yes black—slave owners which emerged throughout the United States up to and throughout the Civil War. The first slave-owner in the colonial North America was Anthony Johnson, a black indentured servant who worked for his freedom from that bond. He became a slaveholder and plantation-owner himself. He even sued in court for the right to own a black man! Blacks enslaved thousands of other blacks in the United States, and they even helped bankroll the Confederacy up to its defeat at Appomattox Court House. Most people still don’t know about black slave owners, including history teachers and professors. Will reparations seekers pursue the descendants of those slave owners?”
“Why not make demands on African countries, too? They enshrined and dispersed the slave trade long before Europeans arrived. Will reparations extortionists extend their demands to Black Lives (Don’t) Matter, whose racial hatred and violence burned down millions of dollars’ worth of black capital? Remember Ferguson? Much of that violence sprung out of the poisoned well of institutionalized victimization.”
“Besides all of this, former slaves already received reparations. After the civil war, black freedman received 40 acres and a mule because of “radical” Republicans, whose party had opposed slavery from their inception. Those same reparations were later denied to black slaves when Democrats came to power in Washington, D.C. and throughout the Post-Bellum South. In fact, it was the Democratic Party that renewed the push for involuntary servitude in the early 1800s. Five years before the outbreak of the Civil War, the Democratic Party was talking about allowing the re-importation of black slaves in the United States, which had been banned after 1808. When will the Democratic Party draw from its own campaign coffers and start paying back all the harm that they perpetrated against black people? If people are clamoring for reparations for slavery, they should pound on the DNC’s door and shout “Pay Up!””
“What a strange irony: Democratic Party Presidential candidates want to enact reparations, but it was their party that reinvigorated the slave trade, that made a business out of stealing labor from working people and giving it to those who do not work. For those clamoring for reparations, be careful what you wish for!”
Above quoted from: Reparations For Slavery: Be Careful What You Wish For, by Arthur Schaper. Posted: Apr 08, 2019 12:01 AM
“I am going to do what no white politician would dare do. I will make the case against what is really an act of extortion. The scary thing is that most politicians would likely go along with this nonsense if a bill ever reached a vote in Congress out of a sense of white guilt. They erroneously believe that all would be forgiven. It won’t. In 2009 the U.S. Congress passed a resolution apologizing for slavery of black people and Jim Crow laws. That didn’t matter to race hucksters who will claim in perpetuity that black people today still suffer the effects of slavery that ended over 150 years ago.”
“White politicians, namely Republicans, should claim that reparations have already been paid to African-Americans for the last 150 years in the form of affirmative action, hiring quotas and diversity programs like college admissions that let less qualified black students into schools by denying more qualified white students. I’ll make the claim that those white students are entitled to reparations as are people denied promotion by their employer who promoted a black person instead of them in a diversity program based on skin color. You don’t make up for past wrongs by discriminating against a different class of people on the basis of their white skin. As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make something right.”
“We should never forget the horrors of slavery. We should not, however, have let this become the cottage industry that it has become. Select blacks like Jesse Jackson have made themselves wealthy off of extorting white businesses. It gave him access to white Democrat politicians because he delivered them votes. Many blacks who were discriminated against didn’t get their beaks wet like Jackson. Trust that if reparations money were ever to be doled out, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would probably be put in charge of doling it out and their friends would be the biggest benefactors.”
“I am not going to tell individual blacks what to do here. I’ll say how I have approached things. The God I pray to daily sent his son Jesus Christ who continually talked about the act of forgiveness. As hard as it can be at times to forgive, forgiveness is in order. I did not say to forget. I made my peace with America for the past sin of slavery. It has been therapeutic. It has freed my mind of much debilitating emotional baggage. I suggest other blacks at least give it a try. It will be liberating. And at the very least, you will no longer be led around like a dog ceaselessly chasing its tail every four years by a group of race hucksters who know exactly what to say to get you to play along.”
Above quoted from: The Cruel Joke of Reparations, Sheriff David Clarke (Ret.) Posted: Apr 02, 2019 9:23 AM
“Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a town-hall audience in Jackson, Miss., Monday that “it’s time to start the national, full-blown conversation” about slavery reparations for blacks. Come again? Compensating black Americans for past oppression has been a subject of discussion for decades. The senator’s problem is that large majorities of the public have consistently opposed reparations, not that we don’t talk about it.”
“James Forman, a black activist, called for $500 million in reparations in 1969 and inspired a 1973 book, “The Case for Black Reparations,” by Yale law professor Boris Bittker. Civil-rights organizations rejected the idea, which the NAACP’s assistant director called “an illogical, diversionary and paltry way out for guilt-ridden whites.” Bayard Rustin, who organized the 1963 March on Washington and was one of Martin Luther King’s closest advisers, was another vocal skeptic of blacks cashing in on the tribulations of long-gone forebears. “The idea of reparations is a ridiculous idea,” Rustin said. “If my great-grandfather picked cotton for 50 years, then he may deserve some money, but he’s dead and gone and nobody owes me anything.””
“Each year for more than a quarter-century, Rep. John Conyers introduced a reparations bill in Congress. Other books, like Randall Robinson’s “The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks,” have become best sellers. And prominent legal scholars, such as Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School, have filed class-action lawsuits seeking compensation for the descendants of slaves. The civil-rights leadership and black elites today generally support reparations.”
Tell your Democrat friends, if you insist on calling them friends, please supply us with an example of your reparations or social justice working in the real world. Remind them to be prepared, because we have books full of factual examples where “social justice” has not worked.
“The bone marrow of the left, the ideas that give it momentum and make its war against America a forever war,” is a class-based society, an oligarchy, a reset to the days of divine-right rule before the Magna Carta and before the American and French revolutions. Ultimately, the leftist utopia is a society based on eugenics, wealth and power. Race, gender, politics, popular culture, media, war, educational systems, established religions, international relations are their means to that end and each of these means has its technocracy and trade craft for “fundamentally transforming” society and government.
This is about the real reason black on black crime is so high. This is about the reason abortions and single mother families are dis-proportionally high in black communities. This is about the reason anti-capitalism is built into the “social justice” and UN agenda.
Reformed communist radical David Horowitz explains, “Chief among them [the leftist ideas] is the notion that ‘equality’ must be created by any means necessary. But, as he shows in his writings, “Disparities and disproportions of talent, intelligence and physical ability are intrinsic and so basic to the entire human enterprise that creating equality can only be accomplished by a violent social engineering, which is why the seductive utopias of the left always turn out to be killing fields in disguise. The demands for ‘social justice’ by today’s progressives are just another version of the demands for equality by yesterday’s Marxist Leninists. Both promise human redemption. Both produce the destruction of human freedom.”
It is unequivocal natural law: you and I will never be equal. Or as Thomas Sowell puts it, “Nobody is equal to anybody. Even the same man is not equal to himself on different days.” “If you cannot achieve equality of performance among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, how realistic is it to expect to achieve it across broader and deeper social divisions?” Note, this argues that we should not expect equality of performance or results among people; this is not an argument that the government and laws should not treat all citizens equally.
Thomas Sowell [an African American history and economics professor at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, now retired] has pointed out that the victims of the reparations movement are actually blacks themselves: “Is anyone made better off by being supplied with resentments and distractions from the task of developing the capabilities that pay off in a booming economy and a high-tech world? Whites may experience a passing annoyance over the reparations issue, but blacks – especially young blacks – can sustain more lasting damage from misallocating their time, attention and efforts.”
David Horowitz explains, “Americans generally do not think of themselves as racists or oppressors, and there is no reason they should. America was a pioneer in ridding the world of African slavery, and in establishing the first multi-racial society in human history. During the last half-century, Americans have voted equal rights to African American citizens and supported massive compensations to African Americans and others who have lagged behind. To be indicted after such efforts is offensive and unjust. The reparations claim can only be understood as a hostile, historically ignorant and racially motivated assault on America and its heritage. Its divisive message and fallacious history can only have a profoundly adverse effect on those African Americans who embrace it, making it impossible for them to see the past clearly, or to find their way to an American future.”
“The present reparations movement in Africa – fully supported by its American counterparts – is thus directed at the very parties who righted the wrong, and did not initiate it in the first place.” (ref 1 p.120)
The left has determined “…to make race function the way class had in the traditional Marxist paradigm. White males were demonized as an ersatz ruling class responsible for every social disparity between racial groups and genders.” (3)
The call of Obama, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Mazie Hirono and other “social justice” radicals “to define what kind of country we are” is an ominously destructive agenda for America.
“The idea that creates the identity ‘American’ is summarized in America’s de facto motto E pluribus unum – out of many, one.” The idea is for the people in the great American melting pot to meld together, to assimilate as one nation, one language, and one culture under God. It is the antithesis of multiculturalism. The idea is not to “fundamentally transform” the nation or to melt the pot itself, which was Obama’s fundamentally destructive political rhetoric. Studies reported last week that over 50% of the people living in America’s largest cities do not speak English in their homes, and almost all of those cities are being run into the ground by Democrats, are sanctuaries for criminals, and are being destroyed by violence.”
“It took a Civil War and two hundred years of sacrifice and struggle to achieve a polity that approached this ideal. If one political faction were now able to redefine the ideal to conform to its own sectarian beliefs, the country we have known would cease to exist. But that is what the current creed of the Democratic Party – “identity politics” – entails; and it is why the current divisions in our political life seem so intractable.”
“Identity politics is, in fact, the antithesis of the American idea. It is a reversion to tribal loyalties. It regards diverse origins – colors, ethnicities, genders and classes – as primary, and proposes a hierarchy of privilege based on them, which it justifies as a reversal of past oppressions.”
“It is not the proper role of an opposition party in a democracy to mount a “resistance” to a duly elected government and press for its overthrow at the very outset of its tenure. But that is precisely what the Democrats have done in the first months of the Trump administration.”
“For the second time in its history, the Democratic Party has opted to secede from the Union and its social contract. The first time was over the issue of slavery; now it is over the issue of whether Americans are to be divided by race, gender, sexual orientation and class. This time there is not going to be an actual civil war because the federal government is so powerful that whoever controls it will decide the outcome. The passions of an irreconcilable conflict are still present, but they are channeled into a political confrontation over the executive power.”
“The theory behind “identity politics” is an ideology the political left refers to as “cultural Marxism.” This perspective takes Marx’s view that society is divided into warring classes, and extends it to encompass races, genders, and ethnicities. It is a vision that regards one group’s success as another group’s oppression. “Social Justice” – the proposed remedy for inequality and division – proposes to punish oppressor groups by redistributing their incomes and privileges to the “underrepresented,” “marginalized” and otherwise oppressed. It is a vision that disregards the accountability of individuals and ascribes to group identities the inequalities that are alleged to be unjust.”
“The left has created a term of art – “people of color” – to promote its collectivist views on ethnicity and race. “People of color” is not grammatical English; we do not refer to “crayons of color” or “televisions of color.” It is a French construction, reflecting the way French people speak (gens de couleur). “People of color” is an invention of ideologues; its purpose is to organize the world into the basic dichotomy of Marxism, oppressors and oppressed.”
“I am convinced that the fault-line in American society is not racial but political, and that the great obstacle to a constructive approach to these issues is a leftist agenda that is hostile to America’s democracy.”
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” ~ Frédéric Bastiat
Above quotes are all David Horowitz.
Have you noticed that almost all politicians become rich? And they play by different rules? And then there are the lobbyists. Who will plea your case at court.
And this is true for bureaucracy everywhere, in governments, corporations, universities, unions, and churches. The iron law of bureaucracy is: The larger it is, the more it will be used against you. The FBI, the Department of Justice, the EPA, the United Nations, the European Union, the Catholic Church, Net Neutrality and social media, courts of law, The United States of America, etc are all being actively used against you and me. Apathy and tolerance enable the tyranny of class, the tyranny of race, the tyranny of oligarchy, and they play those cards and extort you under color of authority.
Thomas Sowell summarizes the situation, “Those who want to take our money and gain power over us have discovered the magic formula: Get us envious or angry at others and we will surrender, in installments, not only our money but our freedom.”
(1) Unless noted otherwise, the quotations above are from David Horowitz in The Black Book of the American Left; Volume IX: Ruling Ideas. http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/
(2) Thomas Sowell, “Reparations for Slavery,” Jewish World Review, July 7, 2000. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell071700.asp quoted in reference (1) above on page 124.
(3) David Horowitz in Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes. and ref (1) page 206.
COPENHAGEN — When Rokhaia Naassan gives birth in the coming days, she and her baby boy will enter a new category in the eyes of Danish law. Because she lives in a low-income immigrant neighborhood described by the government as a “ghetto,” Rokhaia will be what the Danish newspapers call a “ghetto parent” and he will be a “ghetto child.”
Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.
Denmark’s government is introducing a new set of laws to regulate life in 25 low-income and heavily Muslim enclaves, saying that if families there do not willingly merge into the country’s mainstream, they should be compelled.
For decades, integrating immigrants has posed a thorny challenge to the Danish model, intended to serve a small, homogeneous population. Leaders are focusing their ire on urban neighborhoods where immigrants, some of them placed there by the government, live in dense concentrations with high rates of unemployment and gang violence.
Politicians’ description of the ghettos has become increasingly sinister. In his annual New Year’s speech, Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen warned that ghettos could “reach out their tentacles onto the streets” by spreading violence, and that because of ghettos, “cracks have appeared on the map of Denmark.” Politicians who once used the word “integration” now call frankly for “assimilation.”
That tough approach is embodied in the “ghetto package.” Of 22 proposals presented by the government in early March, most have been agreed upon by a parliamentary majority, and more will be subject to a vote in the fall.
Some are punitive: One measure under consideration would allow courts to double the punishment for certain crimes if they are committed in one of the 25 neighborhoods classified as ghettos, based on residents’ income, employment status, education levels, number of criminal convictions and “non-Western background.” Another would impose a four-year prison sentence on immigrant parents who force their children to make extended visits to their country of origin — described here as “re-education trips” —in that way damaging their “schooling, language and well-being.” Another would allow local authorities to increase their monitoring and surveillance of “ghetto” families.
Some proposals have been rejected as too radical, like one from the far-right Danish People’s Party that would confine “ghetto children” to their homes after 8 p.m. (Challenged on how this would be enforced, Martin Henriksen, the chairman of Parliament’s integration committee, suggested in earnest that young people in these areas could be fitted with electronic ankle bracelets.)
At this summer’s Folkemodet, an annual political gathering on the island of Bornholm, the justice minister, Soren Pape Poulsen, shrugged off the rights-based objection.
“Some will wail and say, ‘We’re not equal before the law in this country,’ and ‘Certain groups are punished harder,’ but that’s nonsense,” he said, adding that the increased penalties would affect only people who break the law.
To those claiming the measures single out Muslims, he said: “That’s nonsense and rubbish. To me this is about, no matter who lives in these areas and who they believe in, they have to profess to the values required to have a good life in Denmark.”
Yildiz Akdogan, a Social Democrat whose parliamentary constituency includes Tingbjerg, which is classified as a ghetto, said Danes had become so desensitized to harsh rhetoric about immigrants that they no longer register the negative connotation of the word “ghetto” and its echoes of Nazi Germany’s separation of Jews.
“We call them ‘ghetto children, ghetto parents,’ it’s so crazy,” Ms. Akdogan said. “It is becoming a mainstream word, which is so dangerous. People who know a little about history, our European not-so-nice period, we know what the word ‘ghetto’ is associated with.”
She pulled out her phone to display a Facebook post from a right-wing politician, railing furiously at a Danish supermarket for selling a cake reading “Eid Mubarak,” for the Muslim holiday of Eid. “Right now, facts don’t matter so much, it’s only feelings,” she said. “This is the dangerous part of it.”
The Naassan sisters wondered aloud why they were subject to these new measures. The children of Lebanese refugees, they speak Danish without an accent and converse with their children in Danish; their children, they complain, speak so little Arabic that they can barely communicate with their grandparents. Years ago, growing up in Jutland, in Denmark’s west, they rarely encountered any anti-Muslim feeling, said Sara, 32.
“Maybe this is what they always thought, and now it’s out in the open,” she said. “Danish politics is just about Muslims now. They want us to get more assimilated or get out. I don’t know when they will be satisfied with us.”
Rokhaia, her due date fast approaching, flared with anger at the mandatory preschool program approved by the government last month: Already, she said, her daughter was being taught so much about Christmas in kindergarten that she came home begging for presents from Santa Claus.
“Nobody should tell me whether or how my daughter should go to preschool. Or when,” she said. “I’d rather lose my benefits than submit to force.”
Barwaqo Jama Hussein, 18, a Somali refugee, noted that many immigrant families, including her own, had been settled in “ghetto” neighborhoods by the government. She moved to Denmark when she was 5 and has lived in the Tingbjerg ghetto area since she was 13. She said the politicians’ description of “parallel societies” simply did not fit her, or Tingbjerg.
“It hurts that they don’t see us as equal people,” she said. “We actually live in Danish society. We follow the rules, we go to school. The only thing we don’t do is eat pork.”
About 12 miles south of the city, in the middle-class suburb of Greve, though, voters gushed with approval over the new laws.
“They spend too much Danish money,” said Dorthe Pedersen, a hairdresser, daubing chestnut dye on a client’s hairline. “We pay their rent, their clothing, their food, and then they come in broken Danish and say, ‘We can’t work because we’ve got a pain.’”
Her client, Anni Larsen, told a story about being invited by a Turkish immigrant to their child’s wedding and being scandalized to discover that the guests were separated by gender and seated in different rooms. “I think there were only 10 people from Denmark,” she said, appalled. “If you ask me, I think they shouldn’t have invited us.”
Anette Jacobsen, 64, a retired pharmacist’s assistant, said she so treasured Denmark’s welfare system, which had provided her four children with free education and health care, that she felt a surge of gratitude every time she paid her taxes, more than 50 percent of her yearly income. As for immigrants using the system, she said, “There is always a cat door for someone to sneak in.”
“Morally, they should be grateful to be allowed into our system, which was built over generations,” she said.
Her husband, Jesper, a former merchant sailor whose ship once docked in Lebanon, said he had watched laborers there being shot for laziness and replaced by truckloads of new workers gathered in the countryside.
“I think they are 300 to 400 years behind us,” Jesper said.
“Their culture doesn’t fit here,” Anette said.
The new hard-edge push to force Muslims to integrate struck both of them as positive. “The young people will see what it is to be Danish and they will not be like their parents,” Jesper said.
“The grandmothers will die sometime,” Anette said. “They are the ones resisting change.”
By focusing heavily on the collective cost of supporting refugee and immigrant families, the Danish People’s Party has won many voters away from the center-left Social Democrats, who had long been seen as the defenders of the welfare state. With a general election approaching next year, the Social Democrat party has shifted to the right on immigration, saying tougher measures are necessary to protect the welfare state.
Nearly 87 percent of Denmark’s 5.7 million people are of Danish descent, with immigrants and their descendants accounting for the rest. Two-thirds of the immigrants are from non-Western backgrounds, a group that swelled with the waves of Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian refugees crossing Europe.
Critics would say “the state cannot force children away from their parents in the daytime, that’s disproportionate use of force,” said Rune Lykkeberg, the editor in chief of Dagbladet Information, a left-liberal daily newspaper. “But the Social Democrats say, ‘We give people money, and we want something for this money.’ This is a system of rights and obligations.”
Danes have a high level of trust in the state, including as a central shaper of children’s ideology and beliefs, he said. “The Anglo-Saxon conception is that man is free in nature, and then comes the state” constraining that freedom, he said. “Our conception of freedom is the opposite, that man is only free in society.”
Of course, he added, “There is always a strong sense of authoritarian risk.”
Ms. Hussain, the high school student from Tingbjerg, is accustomed to anti-immigrant talk surging ahead of elections, but says this year it is harsher than she can ever remember.
“If you create new kinds of laws that apply to only one part of society, then you can keep adding to them,” she said. “It will turn into the parallel society they’re so afraid of. They will create it themselves.”
After the 2020 Census, Democrats in 46 sanctuary counties will elect every President and control the U.S. House of Representatives.
If sanctuary cities are allowed to continue, unless the law is changed, Democrats will win every presidential election after the 2020 Census. It is already in the law and the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on that law. “One man one vote” was the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in a case known as Evenwel, which SCOTUS interpreted to mean that illegal aliens are the same as citizens when determining the proportion of electors in the Electoral College, and also the relative proportion of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. States may re-apportion their districts by eligible voters or by total population, and of course the sanctuary states choose total population because then they get more U.S. Representatives and Electors in the Electoral College that elects the President. The number of total electors and total number House seats does not change. The number of Senators remains 100. Dems will gain seats and electors. Republicans and any other party will lose seats/electors.
Following the 2020 Census, the U.S. House and the Electoral College will be dominated by the Democrats in the 46 sanctuary counties (out of over 1000 counties) in the country, which the Constitution was designed to avoid. Those counties are the big cities, which mostly are sanctuaries for illegals. Hillary won the popular vote by winning only 46 counties, whereas Trump won over 1000 counties.
It does not matter if the illegals vote or not. Democrats would rather illegals not vote.
Every illegal alien dilutes your vote in the U.S. House and in the Electoral College, but illegals receive billions of dollars in money and benefits in excess of all taxes they pay.
We have lost our republic unless we demand that the 2020 Census determine legal citizenship and also unless we demand the law be changed so that citizens ONLY determine the number of electors and the number of U.S. Representatives. It may require an Amendment to the Constitution to implement citizen-only voting.
The separation of powers built into the U.S. Constitution has been defeated by Democrat strategy.
The power of veto on all laws will be the U.S. Senate, and the power of oversight will be the U.S. Senate. Or course, that is NOT how it was designed.
When the Electoral College and House is re-apportioned after the 2020 Census, the big cities will control the country. We have lost our republic.
This gallery contains 16 photos.
Originally posted on Thongchai Thailand:
? ? ? FIGURE 1: FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION ? FIGURE 2: EMISSIONS AND CHANGE IN ATMOS-CO2 AT FIVE TIME SCALES ? FIGURE 3: CORRELATION BETWEEN ΔCO2 AND EMISSIONS ? FIGURE 4: SUMMARY…