One of the most revolutionary documents written.
He lectures the church, explains his willingness to be arrested and calls for peaceful protest.
“You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
See the entire letter below:
I can think of dozens of times I trotted out the annual “Who Pays Taxes” numbers from the National Taxpayers Union on my talk show. So instead of losing the numbers into the ether, let’s take a look at them in living color.
Simply put, the top 1% of the income earners pay nearly 40% of all income taxes. The top 1%-5% pay nearly 60% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay nearly 80% of all income taxes.
So when there are tax cuts–which Donald Trump promises to make, encourage your ‘eat the rich’ friends to spare us the outrage over how the tax cuts disproportionately help the rich. They only “disproportionately” help as much as they disproportionately hurt.
Information is power and patriot author William J. (“Bill”) Federer provides powerful information in his www.AmericanMinute.com (1/1/17) for Americans to use to fight lawyer tyranny to conserve and preserve the Constitution of the Founding Fathers.
Federer, whose book “America’s God And Country; Encyclopedia of Quotations” is the best single volume evidencing what the Founding Fathers believed about religion and Constitutional governance, demonstrates in his AmericanMinute.com column what Thomas Jefferson “really meant” by his famous “Wall of Separation” metaphor regarding separation of church and state: It and Jefferson didn’t mean that government had to be protected from religion. On the contrary, it meant that religion had to be protected from government.
The information Federer provides is generally not available to non-lawyers. It can empower ordinary non-lawyer Americans to fightback against elitist liberal lawyers epitomized by those of the secular extremist ACLU, which has become the Taliban of American liberal secularism. Those lawyers, in league with other liberal lawyers sitting as judges, dictate to Americans that Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers intended the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution to be used as a club to drive all religious thought, expression, and symbols out of the public square as a violation of the concept of “separation of church and state.”
There is no more exploited misinterpretation of the Constitution than that based on Thomas Jefferson’s reference to a “Wall of Separation” between church and state in Jefferson’s private reply letter in 1802 to Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, who had congratulated Jefferson on his election as the third President of the United States.
Baptists had been violently persecuted in Connecticut, in which the established religion of the State was Congregationalism. Jefferson used the “Wall of Separation” metaphor to assure the Danbury Baptists that as president Jefferson would protect their exercise of freedom of religion from oppression by government.However, Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” metaphor has been used by modern liberal secularist lawyers sitting as judges to interpret the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment to mean that the government must be protected from religion rather than that religion must be protected from government.
This misinterpretation has been used by liberal secularist elitist lawyers to convince Americans, wrongly, that the doctrine of “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution. It isn’t; never was. Neither was Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” metaphor in the Constitution; nor in the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson authored; nor in any “public” or “official” writing of Thomas Jefferson, including all his writings as the Third President of the United States.
Indeed, as President, Thomas Jefferson regularly attended Christian Church on Sundays. Not only that, but Jefferson, as president, actually authorized use of the Federal Government buildings in Washington, D.C., for the holding of religious services, and attended services in those government buildings. How does that conduct of President Jefferson, one of America’s Founding Fathers, square with an interpretation of his metaphor of a “Wall of Separation” to mean religion had to be separated from all things related to government under the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause?
Notwithstanding, the ACLU and other liberal secularist attorney organizations of its ilk, liberal judges, academics, and media, have read Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” into interpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment of Religion Clause to mean that religion has to be separated from government to protect government from religion; rather than that government has to be separated from religion to protect religion from the government.
Here’s a common example of the wrongheaded interpretation:
In short, what has happened is that the Founding Fathers manifestly desired to protect freedom of religion — freedom of conscience — from government interference through the Establishment of Religion Clause. But modern liberal lawyers, as advocates and as judges, have instead effectively reversed the intent of the Founding Fathers by using Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” metaphor to interpret the Establishment of Religion Clause to mean the government must be protected from from religious thought, and religion must be driven from the public square and political discourse.
Why is it important for Americans of this era to know what Jefferson really meant in his use of the “Wall of Separation” metaphor? It is important because liberal secularists have used Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” metaphor to justify an interpretation of the Establishment of Religion Clause as requiring banning prayer from public (government) schools; banning the Ten Commandments from libraries, schools, and other government-related public areas; and attempting to ban religious symbols and expressions, almost always targeting the Cross, from veterans memorials and other public (government) places and spaces.
Here’s what the First Amendment of the Constitution really says:
By decisions of five the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court, religiously followed by lawyers sitting as federal judges, elitist liberal secularist lawyers have effectively driven religion out of the public square and political discourse on how “We, the People,” should be governed, creating what the late Richard John Neuhaus called the “Naked Public Square” in his landmark book of that name– a public square “naked” of religious thought.
These decisions driving religion into the closet and out of the public square have not been made by reaching a political consensus of “We, the People.” Instead, they have been made exclusively by lawyers — liberal lawyers of intolerant secular extremist organizations like the ACLU, and like-minded liberal lawyers sitting as judges, including in particular five of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court in 5-to-4 decisions.
The interpretations of the Establishment of Religion Clause driving religious thought out of the public square have been reached by elitist liberal lawyers appearing before the courts convincing other liberal lawyers sitting as judges to interpret the Establishment of Religion Clause in their own modern liberal secularist image, effectively amending the Constitution by judicial/lawyer decisions, no matter the original intent of the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson, to protect religion from government, not to protect government from religion.
Notwithstanding Supreme Court decisions, the banishment of religious expression in the public square is persistently pushed by ignorant lawyers and government officials and must be fought for again and again in the courts.
Where, in this process, are “We, the People” and not just lawyers, who have usurped the judicial branch onto themselves, since only one class of Americans can serve in the judicial branch — the lawyer class?
Why do we Americans continue to allow the lawyer class to be the only Americans capable of being judges, since there is nothing in the Constitution requiring even Supreme Court Justices to be lawyers?
But from the first Chief Justice John Marshall to today, the nation’s lawyers have conned Americans into believing that only lawyers are smart enough and fair enough and ever-so honorable enough to serve as judges in the Judicial Branch, a kind of new High Priesthood of the Law; a Secular Sanhedrin; or new new Feudal Lords in robes controlling the thought and beliefs and acts of ignorant peasants clinging to their religion (but not their “guns” because the Feudal Lords wouldn’t allow them to have guns–just as modern lawyer-judges are trying to do by interpretation the Second Amendment to mean something other than what the Founding Fathers intended.)
Think of it: The fact that most of the Establishment of Religion Clause Supreme Court decisions are 5-to-4 means, effectively, that one (1) lawyer on the Supreme Court is determining what the Founding Fathers’ Constitution means and determining the nature of the social, religious, and political culture of America. One (1) lawyer’s vote ultimately determines the meaning of the fundamental source of American law, the Constitution, which trumps all other federal, state, and local laws in all fifty states.
Think of that in a country of over 300-million citizens who are compelled to abide by these Supreme Court decisions in which four lawyers agree, and four lawyers disagree, and one (1) lawyer then casts a vote for one side or the other and 300-million Americans must kowtow to that decision. “We, the People” cannot participate at all in the making of such culture changing decisions since only lawyers can serve in the judiciary, including on the Supreme Court, by custom and not by Constitutional command. It is “The Great Con” of the lawyer-class to usurp one-third of our federal government “for lawyers only,” and amend the Founding Fathers’ Constitution by the 5-4 decisions of these lawyers-only judges.
When allowed to vote, or express themselves in polls, “We, the People” overwhelmingly vote against such secular extremist lawyer-judge interpretations of the Establishment of Religion Clause of the Constitution that result in banning prayer from schools, banning the Ten Commandments from all government related spaces, banning even crosses honoring the service and sacrifice of veterans at war memorials.
But what “We, the People” believe doesn’t matter. Lawyers decide otherwise, and impose those decisions on “We, the People” as if we are sheep, dictating what they say the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment means no matter how contrary their interpretation is to what the Founding Fathers intended or what “We, the People” have expressed contrary to the views of the elitist, liberal lawyers and lawyer-judges.
Does any non-lawyer American really think that Gen. George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, the First President of the United States, the “Father Of Our Country,” and the other Founding Fathers, including Jefferson, really believed that the Establishment of Religion Clause they wrote into the First Amendment of the Constitution was intended to create a “wall of separation” of church and state that would ban prayer from schools, ban the Ten Commandments from government spaces, or ban Crosses honoring veterans at veterans war memorials? Only modern lawyers like those of the ACLU and other liberal law centers, and like-minded lawyers sitting as judges, could do that in their elitist arrogance.
This is judicial tyranny by lawyers. Period.
Americans need to know what Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers meant and intended in establishing the Constitution, in order for “We, the People” to preserve the Constitution the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. We need to fight back against these elitist, arrogant, lawyers epitomized by the secular extremist ACLU. They can and should be beaten. Consider that veterans fought for ten years to save the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial Cross in 2012, and for 27-years to save the Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial Cross in 2016, refusing to surrender to the fanatical cross-destroying litigation of the secular extremists of the ACLU.
That struggle of the veterans against the ACLU to save the Crosses honoring veterans at the Mojave Desert and Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorials is discussed in what I consider the best single book on the Establishment of Religion Clause — a book intended to be read and understood by “We, the People” and not just lawyers: It is author Steven Mansfield’s “Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America and What’s Happened Since.”It should be in every veteran’s, every American’s, home in order to make the fight to conserve and preserve the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, not the modern liberal Constitution by which elitist lawyers have amended the Founding Fathers’ Constitution by judicial decisions, not vote of the people as provided for by the Constitution itself.
The idea that lawyers have conned Americans into accepting the premise that “Only Lawyers Must Decide What The Constitution Means; And All Others Must Obey,” must end. There is no reason other Americans should be barred from serving in the judicial branch, just as all Americans who meet age and citizenship requirements can serve in Congress or in the Presidency.
Indeed, there is no reason to believe that lawyers are more honorable, more fair, more just, more intelligent than other Americans. Indeed, there are many reasons to believe to the contrary based on experience of lawyer abuses of power, a class of Americans to which the word “shyster” has attached. How many non-lawyers do not shudder at the prospect of having to deal with “lawyers”? There is a reason that Shakespeare’s King Lear opined more than 500 years ago that in forming good government: “First, we kill the lawyers.”
It is only “We, the People,” who can stop them, the lawyers of the contemporary judicial tyranny. To do that, we have to know what Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers really meant by the “Wall of Separation” metaphor, “separation of church and state,” and the Establishment of Religion Clause.
“We, the People” should not continue to allow the lawyers who have usurped the judicial branch, one third of our Tri-partite federal government, to dictate to us what the Founding Fathers meant. A good place to start is author William J. Federer’s www.AmericanMinute.com (1/1/17).
FOR GOD AND COUNTRY FOREVER; SURRENDER TO TYRANNY– INCLUDING JUDICIAL TYRANNY BY LAWYERS — NEVER!
(Rees Lloyd, longtime California civil rights attorney and veterans activist, is a member of the Victoria Taft Blogforce.)
A widely distributed political cartoon shows Barack Hussein Obama embracing Raul Castro, the totalitarian Communist leader of Cuba, and the Ayatollah leading the fascist Islamic Republic of Iran. It is one of the best evidences of Obama’s self-promoting hypocrisy and Machiavellian duplicity.
This is especially true since it was published on “another day which will live in infamy” — Dec. 23, 2016. That is the day on which the United States, two days before Christmas, by order of Barack Hussein Obama, aided and abetted the Muslim dominated United Nations General Assembly, fascistic Islamic theocracies, and overt Islamic terrorist organizations like ISIS, al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, in adopting a resolution condemning Israel in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and declaring as a matter of international law (since U.N. resolutions have that status) that Jews have no right to settle outside of the 1948 borders of Israel, forbidding them to live even in the “Jewish Quarter” of Jerusalem.
This AM on AM 1170 The Answer: Faithless electors, electoral college and the newest, nuttiest lefty “resistance” against #Trump. Filling in for Mark Larson Listen here: http://www.iheart.com/live/am-1170-the-answer-6020/
The same people who were in lock step with Al Gore as he predicted the “true planetary emergency point of no return“–for 2016, the sea levels wiping out American beach front homes, increasing tornadoes, hurricanes, melting Arctic ice caps and the extinction of the polar bears, had to cancel an event late last week.
It turns out that the people who believe that man is so powerful that he can change the weather, couldn’t get the weather to cooperate with their global warming news conference.
You’ll note that the news release (compliments of Lars Larson) shows that the global warming crowd has now included in their list of man-made horribles earthquakes.
Anything to keep the money rolling in, I guess.
POSTPONED: Mayor Hales and Community Activists to Celebrate Fossil Fuel Infrastructure Ban
Portland, Oregon – Mayor Charlie Hales will join community leaders and activists immediately following the anticipated passage of a new city ordinance that renews Portland’s commitment to strong climate action, lower carbon emissions, effective seismic resilience, a safer Columbia River Gorge, and a safer environment for those in and around Portland. This policy also sends a strong signal about the seriousness of Portland’s commitment to green infrastructure and a transition to clean, renewable energy sources.
The ordinance prohibits the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure that has the capability to transload fossil fuels or is larger than two million gallons in capacity and forbids existing terminals from expanding in size, preventing any further potential damage to their local environment.
This victory is the result of over two years of organizing from local activists and community members committed to the betterment of Portland’s environment and the protection of our neighbors’ health and safety. The ordinance is an important step forward for Portland and should serve as a model for other municipalities and states.
All speakers will be available for a brief question and answer session and interviews immediately following the press conference.
What: Mayor Hales and Community Activists to Celebrate Fossil Fuel Infrastructure Ban
When: To be determined
Where: Portland City Hall Atrium (1221 SW 4th Ave, Portland OR)
This policy was worked on by 350PDX, Audubon Society of Portland, Columbia Riverkeeper, Climate Action Coalition, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Oregon PSR (Physicians for Social Responsibility), Center for Sustainable Economy, the Oregon Chapter Sierra Club, and more.
The very same people who predicted world wide calamity this year due to man’s influence on the weather, couldn’t get enough cooperation to get rid of the snow.
Remember when the world laughed at Christian charlatans who predicted the world’s demise?
As long as the Democrats continue their see-saw, Chinatown duplicity on voter fraud–there IS voter fraud, there is NO voter fraud–let’s just find out once and for all, shall we?
Recently, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton’s campaign alleged voter fraud in only three states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan–all typical Democratic party strongholds–until Donald Trump came along.
Ms. Stein received 1% of the vote in all three states but, as ABC News put it, wanted a recount to check the integrity of the vote:
“Stein, who received about 1 percent of the vote in all three states, says her intent is to verify the accuracy of the vote. She has suggested, with no evidence, that votes cast were susceptible to computer hacking.”
Mind you, the candidate who stood absolutely no chance of winning and then received 1% of the vote wanted a recount to … verify the accuracy of 1% of the vote?
Obviously not. Stein is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton.
The two presidential candidates demanded recounts, alleging that somehow, if you squint your eyes and turn around three times, that the Russian government had penetrated the voting machines in the three states’ separate voting systems and had swung the vote for Donald Trump.
Though the candidates had evidence with all the weight of a box of hair, the media and the Democrats, but I repeat myself*, seized upon the mere request for recounts as prima facie evidence that obviously something was amiss–especially since Hillary Clinton lost a race the media predicted her win.
The speculation about the Russians potentially hacking voting systems began last summer when Senate minority leader Harry Reid set the media bait for the story by asking the FBI to investigate if such a hypothetical situation was possible.
In a letter to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey Jr., Mr. Reid wrote that the threat of Russian interference “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.” Recent classified briefings from senior intelligence officials, Mr. Reid said in an interview, have left him fearful that President Vladimir V. Putin’s “goal is tampering with this election.”
Now in fairness, note that at the time, hackers had been conducting a slo-mo bloodletting of the Democratic Party. First, with the email leaks of the Democratic National Committee, which led to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The emails showed Ms. Wasserman-Schultz used the apparatus of the DNC to sabotage Bernie Sanders’s campaign in favor of Mrs. Clinton. After Wasserman-Schultz was drummed out, she confirmed her ardor for Hillary and joined the Clinton camp.
The leaks of Hillary Clinton intimate and campaign chair John Podesta also revealed embarrassing inside information.
USA Today reports the “juiciest” emails were ones in which Clinton insiders mocked white people, Catholics, “needy Latinos”, and disparaged Christians in general. They revealed that the #2 at the DNC and CNN contributor* was leaking debate questions to Mrs. Clinton. Worse, they showed seeming collusion with the Justice Department over the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s private server and leak of classified information.
Many people believed that Russian hackers were behind the leaks.
Things were looking pretty bad for the Democrats. They were squirming. This was the only time that Democrats conceded publicly that, gosh, hacking emails is a bad, bad thing (see Democrats’ response to Republicans holding hearings about Hillary Clinton’s unsecured email server).
Fast forward to the ‘champagne anyone?’ November 8th Hillary Clinton loss, and as quickly as you can say ‘voter ID is voter suppression,’ Jill Stein bagged a few mil to order recounts, you know, for voter integrity’s sake.
But this Hail Mary effort is a three-fer.
For the Democrats it could net Mrs. Clinton more popular or even more electoral votes. For another, the rhythmic media story line about electoral votes vis a vis popular vote may help marginalize Donald Trump and his mandate to get things done, if only for the Mother Jones or The Nation crowd.
But the third pay off is that Republicans have been handed by leftists and the media, the moral authority to ask for more election integrity, including voter ID.
Jill Stein has already established that it doesn’t matter if the candidate didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, the question about the ‘integrity’ of the process is all the pretext one needs.
So bring it on. And let’s start with California.
Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California – so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias – big problem!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 28, 2016
President-elect Trump took incoming fire when he made the above statements about voter fraud. The media portrayed him as kooky, out-of-touch, having “no evidence,” and engaging in a flight of fancy or whatever pejorative they could ascribe to him.
But the thing is, Trump was right when he said,
“Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California-so why isn’t the media reporting on this? Serious bias-big problem!”
And the group, True the Vote, agreed with him, issuing a statement:
The statement read:
HOUSTON, TX. – November 27, 2016: True the Vote (TTV), the nation’s leading voters’ rights and election integrity organization, today released a statement with respect to President-Elect Donald Trump’s claim that “millions” of individuals illegally voted in the 2016 Election.
“True the Vote absolutely supports President-elect Trump’s recent comment about the impact of illegal voting, as reflected in the national popular vote. We are still collecting data and will be for several months, but our intent is to publish a comprehensive study on the significant impact of illegal voting in all of its many forms and begin a national discussion on how voters, states, and the Trump Administration can best address this growing problem.”
True the Vote (TTV) is an IRS-designated 501(c)(3) voters’ rights organization, founded to inspire and equip voters for involvement at every stage of our electoral process. TTV empowers organizations and individuals across the nation to actively protect the rights of legitimate voters, regardless of their political party affiliation. For more information, please visit www.truethevote.org.
As I pointed out in my story for Independent Journal Review on prosecuted voter fraud cases, they are but an infinitesimal number of the actual, suspected cases of voter fraud.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation conducted a limited study–limited by government officials–demonstrating that more than 1000 illegal voters cast ballots in only eight counties. All tolled, the illegal voters voted 300 times.
As voter fraud expert and journalist John Fund pointed out about the limited Virginia study:
He was able to get voter-registration records from eight of Virginia’s 133 cities and counties, and found 1046 illegal aliens who were illegally registered to vote. In the decade between 2005 and 2015, a number of those aliens had voted some 300 times.
Imagine if the organization had been able to match actual voters with voting records in all 95 Virginia counties.
As John Fund also pointed out in National Review, early on the Obama administration has instructed its lawyers to look the other way on voter fraud cases, even though Pew Research showed millions of voters registered to vote in two states or whose information is outdated on the existing voter rolls:
Even though that’s a rich vein of potential mischief for fraudsters, the Obama administration hasn’t filed a single lawsuit in eight years demanding that counties clean up their voter rolls, as they are required to do by the federal “motor voter” law. I’ve spoken to three Justice Department lawyers who attended a meeting on Nov. 30, 2009, in which they claim then-deputy assistant attorney general Julie Fernandez said the DOJ would not be enforcing that provision of the motor voter law because it ran counter to the law’s overall goal of “increasing turnout.” (Ms. Fernandez did not respond to repeated requests for comment.) [emphasis added]
As I also pointed out in my piece, the head of California Election Integrity Project, Linda Paine, told me that voter fraud is a natural by product of California’s laissez faire policy of letting everybody vote. It is the actual carrying out of the Obama desire to “increase turnout” by doing nothing to stop fraud:
“What we’ve documented in California is a systemic failure in the voting process. By not enforcing existing rules on verifying voters, registrars erode the integrity of the process.
There’s an overall manipulation of the voter process, including lax statewide standards, that allow people to be impersonated at the polls. And because poll workers don’t check signatures or ID, there [is] almost no way to catch it — unless they choose to.”
Those who would be willing to manipulate the voting process can do it.
It’s got so many open doors to fraud that it’s like Swiss cheese.”
Indeed, she says they don’t even bother calling it “voter fraud” anymore. It’s really “voter impersonation” and it happens all the time in California. How often? We have no idea because:
But, you can tell where and how they’re doing it.
As Paine told me for another piece in Independent Journal Review on how this is done, outside of every polling place is something called the street index. As I wrote:
The list is a trove of information. The names, addresses, and party affiliations of every registered voter in that precinct is displayed. People who have already voted have their names crossed out.
Paine says the mischief starts at 4-5 p.m. in the afternoon. Anyone can avail himself of the Street Index, find out who hasn’t voted, write down that individual’s name and address, and go to the poll and pretend to be that person. Because no identification is required in some places, there’s no way to catch an impersonator.
And where is it happening? Not necessarily at the same polling place where the frauds get the info. They pick up a telephone and call or screenshot with their smart phone the information from the street index and phone it to their buddies somewhere else, such as Los Angeles because, as Paine told me:
“LA County says they count 90% of provisional ballots.
And LA COUNTY had 4.8 million registered voters in 2012 and 5.078 million this year.
If I were going to impersonate a voter, I’d go to LA County and do it.”
Even more telling?
“California has 40% of all provisional ballots voted nation wide.
Registrars have been told not to worry about it because it takes too long to verify [legitimate voters].”
Paine’s group has submitted its evidence to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. After a year’s review, it was forwarded to Washington, D.C. where Paine says nothing has been done.
Provisional ballots cover only federal races, so in a presidential election year, they’re very important.
So, as long as we’re going for recounts, let’s ask for one in California.
But let’s not stop there. Let’s match votes with voters and find out how many people had their identities stolen–fraudulently hijacked by what is clearly an organized crime outfit to steal the vote by impersonating voters.
After all, as presidential candidate Jill Stein and her new friend Hillary Clinton have established, it’s all about election integrity and verifying the vote.
Let the recount and investigation begin.
How many people must you execute, imprison and deprive of freedom–all in the name of ‘social justice’– before the President of the United States calls you what you are, a murderous, communist tyrant?
If you’re President Obama talking about Fidel Castro not enough, apparently.
Cuban dictator Fidel Castro died on Friday, leaving one survivor remaining of the murderous troika of sworn communists who took over Cuba “for the people” in 1959.
The president feted the bearded, dead nonagenarian as a sort of benign change-agent in Cuba:
“We know that this moment fills Cubans – in Cuba and in the United States – with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.”
“Countless ways” include, as their comrade in arms Che Guevara put it:
“Here, in the Cuban jungle, alive and thirsting for blood, I write to you these inflamed lines inspired by Martí.
Cuban workers must get used to living in a collectivist regime and under no circumstances can go on strike.
We must eliminate all newspapers; we cannot make a revolution with free press. Newspapers are instruments of the oligarchy.
…I feel my nostrils dilated, tasting the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood, of dead enemy; my body contorts, ready for the fight, and I prepare my being as if it were a sacred place so that in it the bestial howling of the triumphant proletariat can resonate with the new vibrations and hopes.”
Well, Viva la Revoluc…aw, nevermind.
Raul Castro, the 85 year old younger brother of Fidel remains in charge. He undoubtedly will lap up the roughly $900 million fortune his brother left behind, his payday for decades of confiscating the freedoms and means of making a living of all his people, who may make $50/ month, and for the spiffs from the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and Venezuela.
Through the decades, the Castros and Che were responsible for the executions and imprisonments of thousands of Cubans (not counting their Angolan, Bolivian and other African and Latin American forays into ‘revolution!’)
Che, the henchman, was responsible for ordering the executions of thousands in the name of ‘the people.’
Fidel and Raul ordered seek and destroy attacks on people trying to flee the ‘people’s paradise.’ Or prison island. Your choice.
He purposely sunk boats, shot down planes, intentionally separated families, put people in prison camps, imprisoned people who went to church, spoke against the communist regime, and then called it good.
He stole their liberty, land, future and their stuff and then executed them for complaining about it.
Freedom loving peoples surely will put his legacy in its place. Good riddance.
Not much to say about this except that the Multnomah County Commissioners’ heads are wedged so far in their deep, recessed ‘brains’ they don’t understand there’s a huge contingent out there who are not disconsolate at all that Trump is president.
The letter reads:
A Statement from the Board of County Commissioners
Yesterday, our Multnomah County Crisis Line received calls from people distraught about the election and afraid of losing benefits, resources and their jobs. Others are anxious because they were born in another country and came here to escape war, political persecution or economic distress. Still others fear that there will be a resurgence of institutional racism and exclusion.
As the Board of Commissioners, we want to acknowledge those concerns and say that we are committed to the pursuit of a more equitable, inclusive and fair community. Multnomah County welcomes and serves residents and visitors without regard to race, origin, religious, income, gender, sexual orientation or immigration status.
And it was signed by Deborah Kafoury, Jules Bailey, Loretta Smith, Judy Shiprack, and Diane McKeel.
Color us stunned that a Klingon translation was not provided to the voting public.
We hear the blythe comments on the chat shows now that since Donald Trump pulled off an electoral miracle and won the presidency against the DNC, Clintons and the media–but I repeat myself–he should, for comity’s sake, call off the DOJ and FBI from continuing their investigations of Mrs. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton broke several laws in her email server set up. Furthermore, she monetized her State Department office by giving family foundation “donors” special meetings and allegedly other spiffs. So much for canons of ethics and propriety.
So odious were these effronteries that even Democrats said ‘aw, hell naw’ when it came to pulling the lever for former Obama Administration state department chief.
But here’s the thing, with the call by the Democrats and now some on the Republican side to go easy on Mrs. Clinton to make sure people understand it’s not a political vendetta, they’re just underscoring the fact that it IS all political.
As we learned from FBI Director Comey when he whipsawed the country with his “Chinatown” investigation–she’s guilty, she’s not guilty, she’s guilty, she’s not guilty–people were rightly concerned about the taint of politics involved here.
And now for all those deplorables disgusted by what was obviously a two tiered legal system writ large in the dealings with Mrs. Clinton, they’re now supposed to purr to themselves that it’s alright because ‘we won’?
No, it doesn’t work that way. It’s not your call. It’s the law’s call.
No lectures about prosecutorial discretion. When something so egregious as a woman selling her office for personal gain–the country’s security and place in the world be damned–it’s not “political” when she’s investigated for malfeasances and utter disregard for her oath.
You want Trump to start draining the swamp? Then drain it and let people know you’re serious about it and won’t tolerate this behavior. That’s why the people hired you.
When you don’t, you’re merely another swamp thing.
This photo on twitter by William Gagan of two Jefferson High School students who are giving the requisite
–Communist/Socialist/Labor/Jobs for Justice/ANSWER/Fight for $15/Occupy/Black Lives Matter, etc.–
fist to other fellow student activists who have cut class to “protest” Donald Trump–a man for whom they’re too young to vote and who hasn’t taken office yet.
That doesn’t stop ‘the children’ from being persuaded by their elders to participate in the planned protests–complete with lovely banners.
But, did that kid wear his shirt to school all day?
— William Gagan (@WillyFoReal) November 14, 2016
Makes you wonder, no?
Do Portland Public Schools approve of this kind of apparel in their dress codes?