In essence, there are two things that I will talk about in this article: First, the failed attempt Fake Doctor Jill Biden made at speaking Spanish during an event for farmworkers (few people showed up, unsurprisingly, as she and her husband are not popular figures in America) which drew mockery. Secondly, the suspicious-looking flag that was propped up behind her as she was making that speech.
Let’s begin with what I mentioned first.
Jill Biden made that failed attempt, like I said, during an event speaking to farmworkers on the birthday of Left-wing labor leader Cesar Chavez (who is rather well-known for making bigoted remarks towards illegal immigrants, whom he viewed as repressing American workers, a stance I am not disagreeing with, necessarily, but it’s notable that the Bidens seem to revere the guy). The Spanish phrase Jill Biden tried to say was “Si se puede”, which is Spanish for “Yes, it can be done,” likely meant as a call-back to Obama’s “Yes we can” slogan (that, in itself, is a bit of a botch, since the direct translation would be “Si podemos”, not “Si se puede”).
What the fake doctor and fake First Lady actually said was “Si se pwadueh,” which means nothing. If anything, that sounds closer to “Si se padre”, which means “yes is father”, which also means nothing, at least coherently.
Naturally, because of this botch and because it was particularly unnecessary since the audience was not necessarily a primarily Spanish-speaking one (even then, it’s just pandering to try and speak Spanish in such a circumstance when it’s not expected of one to speak the language), Jill Biden was mocked online.
RGA Deputy Communications Director Joanna Rodriguez tweeted: “It’s ‘Si se puede’ (Yes you/we can) not ‘Si se pwadueh.’ I can’t even imagine what word she was trying to say. Seriously why even try pandering if you’re going to butcher it and not practice before?!”
Journalist Dania Alexandrino tweeted: “Si se what???? I’m sure some one will surely tell Jill Biden ‘puadray’ is NOT a word in the Spanish dictionary. For those who are celebrating her effort, yeah NO! Very far from ‘Si se puede’ which means ‘Yes (we) can.’ We in parenthesis because it can also be yes you can!”
It’s not surprising that there would be those who simply applaud her efforts, as there is no doubt were any person on the Right to make this mistake, they would likewise be lampooned by the Left. But since it’s a Leftist making this mistake, all the excuses are brought up.
Another person mocked: “It’s wild that in the course of three months we went from a supermodel First Lady who spoke five languages, to fake Dr. Pwadway.”
Certainly, I miss First Lady Melania Trump and President Donald Trump. FLOTUS Melania was easily the best First Lady we had in a long time and had President Trump been a Democrat president, the fake news media would have gone out of their own way to highlight how classy she is and her life story, as well as her ability to speak five languages, which is roughly four and a half more than the current Occupier can muster.
At any rate, after the clip of Jill Biden’s failure to speak three Spanish words, people began to take notice of the strange flag that was propped up behind her because it resembles the Nazi flag so much.
That flag was the official flag of the United Farm Workers of America, which was created from the combination of two worker’s rights organizations, one of which was led by Cesar Chavez. Interestingly enough, it was Cesar Chavez who commissioned his brother, Richard, to design that flag.
Smithsonian Magazine gives more context to the reasoning behind the design:
“The story of the black eagle, the movement’s symbol, exemplifies Chavez’s skill as a tactician. He researched emblems, including cigarette boxes and Nazi flags, and concluded that the most potent color combination was red, black and white. He picked the eagle and directed his brother to draw the bird so simply that anyone could easily replicate the symbol.”
So it’s a United Farm Workers of America flag which was designed, in part, by Cesar Chavez himself and this was an event that took place on Cesar Chavez’s birthday. The flag, while strange to use given that it’s so close to the Nazi flag (the union was created in 1962, so there is no excuse for Chavez to not know what the Nazis did), makes sense for this event.
However, we have seen the fake news media searching for Nazi symbolism in everything Trump was associated with, from the stage on CPAC 2021 to an “America First” shirt which simply featured an eagle resting atop the American flag and claiming it was the Nazi’s Iron Eagle. The Left sought to push the narrative that Trump was Hitler or dog whistling to secret Nazis in America through these symbols, despite how utterly ridiculous those ideas are, so I have zero reason to be merciful to Jill Biden.
She stood in front of what looks like a Nazi flag and which was designed to resemble a Nazi flag. It was created by Leftists who at least had the courage to basically admit that Nazis were socialists (not only does their name mean “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” but their entire ideology and policies were centered around strong central government and government-controlled industries – a socialist/communist ideology) and a Leftist fake doctor and fake First Lady used it as a background during one of her speeches.
Jill Biden is a Nazi, confirmed, and has no issue with speaking in front of Nazi-looking paraphernalia. Even if she knew exactly what that flag was, and I believe she does know what it was, you would think someone who’s been on the side of “fighting Nazis” for the last four years would have a bit more common sense than to speak at an event in front of a flag that even remotely resembles the flag of the Nazis and was created with practically that intent.
Now, someone might argue that we don’t treat the Hindu swastika the same as the Nazi swastika, despite their obvious similarities, but the thing about that argument is that the Hindu swastika was used in ancient Hindu and Eurasian religions for FAR longer than how the Nazis used it. And while the Chavez flag doesn’t feature a swastika, the color scheme is clearly reminiscent of that ideology, which is very close to what Chavez’ own ideology was to begin with (again, “National Socialist German WORKERS’ Party”).
And like I said earlier, there is no excuse for Chavez to not have known what the Nazis had done by 1962. He very consciously and specifically implemented that color scheme and design for the flag.
Furthermore, even though it was an event that took place on Chavez’ birthday, there really was no need to have that flag in the background anyway. A background was not really needed, and if it was necessary for the (few) attendants to understand what this event was about, I imagine someone could have just put up a banner that said something akin to: “Celebrating farmworkers on Cesar Chavez’s birthday” or something that would indicate what the event was about and to whom it was tailored.
That they chose to have the flag there, in my mind, means that Jill Biden wants to be as close to a Nazi as she can be. Jill Biden, of course, being a socialist herself, follows the Nazi ideology anyway, but now she is practically showing to everyone that she is a Nazi almost outright.
And given the treatment the fake news media gave to Trump regarding any sort of shapes or designs that he was associated with, why would I give Jill Biden a pass for giving a speech in front of what looks like a Nazi flag?
Jill Biden is a Nazi. No one can dispute me on this, no matter how you slice it.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
It is unfortunate, but many times, it is necessary to learn the hard way what works and what does not. Vladimir Lenin, who initially sought and succeeded to implement communist Marxism into Russian government and way of life, rather quickly saw what happens when you go full-communist: starvation, suffering, torment, and miserable death, not just for citizens but for the country that implements it as well.
March of 1921 was a rather important time in the history of the Soviet Union. Following an unsuccessful invasion of Poland in 1920, the Soviet Union was teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse. The farmers were unproductive and starving, as was the general population. To make matters worse, hungry Soviet sailors were getting irritated with the Bolsheviks and their authoritarian ways, mounting the Kronstadt Rebellion and demanding, among other things, freedom of speech and assembly (ironically, considering these guys were self-admittedly faithful to Marxist communism).
That rebellion was quickly put down, but Lenin wasn’t unaware of what was happening. The Soviet Union, which was only a few years old by that point, was dying under its putrid system of government which killed all economic incentive. Without economic incentive, a nation cannot survive.
So, Lenin, on March 21st, 1921, began to implement the “New Economic Policy” (NEP), which began to undo the effects and causes of the misery of the previous four years, at least to an extent. The New Economic Policy, simply, is the very system which Lenin was previously staunchly against and launched a revolution to defeat: capitalism. Even Lenin was aware of what this was, proclaiming a partial restoration of “a free market and capitalism”, in his own words.
Of course, he wasn’t completely reversing course on the communist and Marxist ideology. Lenin was still a communist at heart and wanted as much communism as he could realistically implement in the Soviet Union. It’s just that he at least had enough rationality to recognize that the amount of communism he was implementing was literally killing his very country.
It’s possible that he learned, rather quickly, that it was impossible to implement communism in full without seeing extremely negative side-effects such as your country going broke. That may just be because communism only leads to such negative side-effects and it is an absolute pipe dream for it to even remotely work.
The idea that everyone is equal and gets equal results might be appealing to some, but that is simply not how the world works. We might try and treat each other equally as much as we can, but there will always be some amount of hierarchy which is impossible to overcome, no matter the economic system in place.
In a (usually) capitalist America, you have hierarchies in government, at work, on the streets, etc. There is the President of the United States (a position currently vacant, both legitimately and intellectually), with the VP underneath, and the executive branch which serves under the POTUS. There is Congress which has Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, as well as a Speaker of the House and a Minority Speaker. In companies, there is the CEO/president (not always the same person or position, though), other executives, middle-managers, etc. On the streets, there are the police, who have the authority to arrest people, etc.
What I just described as a usual occurrence in a capitalist country also happens in a completely communist country. There is the head of state and whoever is underneath him, there is the police on the streets, and there are bosses in companies (government-owned, but still) who have higher rank than those below.
It is quite literally impossible for there to be complete equality in terms of how one treats another, because some will have higher positions than others. It is even more impossible to attain equal results. Not all farmers will produce the exact same amount of produce to (be forced to) share with “the people” (i.e., the government).
Ultimately, what communism results in is authoritarianism from those who are in charge and misery for those living under it.
Ludwig von Mises put the distinction between capitalism and socialism most eloquently:
“A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system which men can live as human beings.”
Those who claim “real communism/socialism has never been tried” fail to understand that, yes, it has been tried multiple times by multiple people in multiple countries, and the results are always similar: misery, to different extents. The only difference between a communist country like the Soviet Union and a communist country like China is the amount of capitalism they chose/choose to implement. China is a bit more capitalistic than the Soviet Union ever was, but even China tried full-on Communism decades ago and it failed too.
They are still communists, don’t misunderstand, as they are ruled by authoritarians in the CCP and there is very little social freedom to speak of. But economic freedom is at least a bit more prevalent than what it was in the Soviet Union, and it has allowed China to be at least somewhat economically decent. They still artificially inflate their GDP by constructing ghost cities no one will ever live in (something which will eventually come to bite them in the rear), but they have more relative economic freedom that the USSR did.
And those who claim “real communism/socialism has never been tried” also fail to understand that what they desire is nothing but a pipe dream that, when tried, leads to the destruction of a nation in a fairly quick manner. In about a decade, Venezuela went from being highly prosperous to destitute, where their currency is literally more valuable if used to create fashion accessories than for their intended use.
All countries which turn towards socialistic policies inevitably see the results of such socialism, and can only stay afloat due to the capitalism that still remains untouched by them.
The Foundation for Economic Education gives us just a few examples of societies which turned towards communism (or something akin to it), to one extent or another, and which failed as a result:
“Ancient Rome’s Republic began its deadly experiment in democratic socialism in the 2nd Century B.C. It began as a welfare state, degenerated into a regulatory nightmare and finally collapsed into an imperial autocracy. Legislative assemblies voted into office by the Roman electorate constructed the socialist edifice brick by brick. Rome was not built in a day, but concentrated state power had no trouble tearing it down completely.”
“The Pilgrims of Plymouth, Massachusetts famously tried another version of democratic socialism seventeen centuries later. It was the communal variety, in which they placed the fruits of their labors into a common storehouse and then distributed it to each other equally… Starvation forced them to scrap it rather quickly in favor of private property.”
That story in particular we have shared with you time and time again, particularly around Thanksgiving.
The FEE also notes how the Germans elected Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists, Great Britain and Scandinavia adopted welfare state socialist policies following World War II and all had suffered as a result, and New Zealand was bogged in socialistic regulatory madness but largely got rid of such policies which have since freed its economy.
To different extents, socialism and communism have been tried, and even the ones that got just a taste of it ended up suffering as a result. Even then, they were still far better off than those which dove headfirst into communism like the Soviets and Chinese, who quickly saw how dangerous it was and needed to reign it in at least a bit.
“Real” communism has been tried by many, and they have seen their newly formed nations dying just as quickly as they were created. All forms of socialism stifle the economy and bring about suffering.
The antidote, as Lenin seemingly came to learn 100 years ago, is capitalism. Ironically, had he not died just a few years later and Stalin not taken power and gotten rid of NEP by re-socializing the economy, it’s possible that the Soviet Union might have been better off throughout its entirety. It wouldn’t have been great by any means, of course, as they still would have had some amount of communism, but they likely would have been more akin to modern-day Russia and China – still communist (not that Russia calls itself that, and are more oligarchical, but they pretty much are still that with the little capitalism they implement), but not so much that they are on the brink of death.
Surely, if even one of history’s most notorious communists learned that full communism brings economic death, then so can others in a far easier manner. I would hope that Americans who are misinformed about what socialism is and does don’t have to drag us through the lethal dangers of full communism before they learn that it doesn’t work.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
I have written many articles not only about how awful socialism is, but also about how socialism has been destroying, and will continue to destroy, the once prosperous, oil-rich nation of Venezuela.
And most recently, I even wrote an article that suggested that Venezuela was moving away from socialism. So, if that’s what’s happening, why are economic problems still ravaging the country? Well, two reasons, really. First, I wrote that article only about a month ago, so things don’t tend to change that dramatically that quickly. Second, I wrote that they were turning away from socialism, not that they were turning toward capitalism.
I pointed out how, in their transferring of regulatory power to companies allied to the Venezuelan government, they are acting more like post-Soviet Russia: Oligarchy, not capitalism.
If they were turning to capitalism completely, THEN, they would see great economic return very quickly.
But in any case, let’s focus on what’s happening there at the moment.
Reuters reports that Venezuela is running out of physical cash as Maduro is seeking to speed up the implementation of digital currency called “digital bolivar”.
“Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is pressing banks to implement digital payment systems as hyperinflation prompts chronic shortages of cash in the bolivar currency, three people familiar with the talks told Reuters.”
Maduro is targeting the public transit system in particular since roughly three-quarters of all circulating cash is spent there.
Annual inflation is hitting nearly 3,000%, which is at least better than the peak of 10,000,000% back in 2018 but obviously, it is still carrying plenty of issues for the people of Venezuela. Long lines are forming outside of banks in Caracas, where residents are hoping to withdraw the maximum of 400,000 bolivars, which sounds like it’s a lot of money, but it’s barely anything – the equivalent of 20 U.S. cents.
Reuters reports: “Venezuelans have stopped using cash bolivars for food and many other day-to-day purchases. It would take forty bills of 50,000 bolivars to buy 1 kilo (2.2 lb) of rice. Instead, many use U.S. dollars in cash or debit cards – sometimes backed by U.S.-dollar accounts at local banks.”
“In a sign of worsening cash shortages, the central bank on March 5 announced it would begin to issue bills worth 1 million bolivars each. Even that would be worth just a handful of [bus] rides.”
Those 1-million bolivar notes would currently be worth only 50 U.S. cents at best, as hyperinflation, especially as more of those 1-million bolivar notes are printed, would naturally lead to even that amount of money to be worth less and less.
But cash isn’t only disappearing in terms of worth in Venezuela. Physical cash is also literally disappearing in the country. Reuters reports that only 2% of Venezuela’s total money supply is currently in circulation, which is down from 7% just a few years ago.
This makes sense, seeing as Reuters noted that Venezuelans have largely stopped using the bolivars to buy food, opting instead to use U.S. dollars, and 75% of the bolivars are used for transit fare.
The cash is worth so little that people literally make bags and purses out of the money to try and sell them outside their country. You can find listings of such products on Etsy for around $60.
Funnily and coyly enough, Nicolas Maduro admitted to cash disappearing in an interview earlier this year, saying: “Yes, it is disappearing. For Venezuela that is a big advantage.”
Of course, he did not go on to explain how or why that was an advantage at any capacity, because everyone, including him, knows that he is utterly full of crap. Like socialists tend to do, he lies to his people and tells them that the poor economic situation is actually “a good thing” or “puts us at an advantage”.
I’ve shared this story before, but I feel it’s worth repeating here.
Back during the Falklands War between Argentina and the U.K., the Argentine government would often report to its citizens about how they killed this many English soldiers or they took this much amount of ground, etc. If you were living in Argentina during this war and your only source of information was the Argentine media, you would believe that Argentina (which had not fought anything resembling a real and direct war in over 100 years) was kicking British butt. Just 10 weeks after the war started, it ended in Argentine defeat.
Again, if you were just consuming the Argentine media, you were led to believe Argentina was winning against the Brits (specifically, the British Navy, which is even more unbelievable), only to find a few weeks later that your country just lost the war and the Falkland Islands (which were called “Las Malvinas”) remain a British colony. All lies, which is no different from what Maduro is doing.
The only difference, perhaps, is that the Venezuelans likely aren’t buying the crap Maduro is selling because unlike Argentine citizens during the Falklands War, the Venezuelans are actually and routinely seeing the “advantages” of this socialist economy.
Even the Argentine soldiers were led to believe some of the crap the government was spewing. Juan Guerrera, a then-18-year-old Argentine soldier in the Air Force told The New York Times in 1982 “Nobody has explained to us why we lost. I think they should tell me what happened. Maybe I was a bad soldier. I don’t know. But I need somebody to tell me what we did wrong.”
So for anyone who understands how these socialist-type government leaders work, the crap that they spew is easily recognizable.
There is no advantage for Venezuelans that cash is literally disappearing. It’s disappearing, in part, precisely BECAUSE of the hyperinflation that the country has been going through for years thanks to the socialist and idiotic belief that printing endless amounts of money is the solution to all economic woes.
Even at home here in the U.S., there are people who are dumb enough to believe that the country is incapable of running out of money.
Clearly, such people have never heard of the Weimar Republic, where the highest inflation rate was 29,500% (for perspective, Fed Chairman Powell has to try to calm the markets about a possible 2% inflation rate in the coming months), or Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s when highest monthly inflation rate was 313,000,000%, or Hungary in the 1940s, when highest inflation rate was 13,600,000,000,000,000%. That’s 13.6 quadrillion percent. According to CNBC, prices were doubling every 15.6 hours in Hungary during that time.
At one point, Hungary even had a denomination bill of 100 quintillion pengo.
So the idea that the government can endlessly print money without any worries is something that many countries have tried and all of them have seen its catastrophic results. Venezuela is merely one of them and it’s not even the worst case. Again, the peak for them was 10,000,000% inflation rate in 2018. Yugoslavia in the 90s and Hungary in the 40s would both kill for 10 million percent inflation rate. But all of them, to different capacities, have suffered greatly and excruciatingly because of the erroneous belief that the government is incapable of running out of money.
Venezuela is seeing this first hand right now and, again, their physical cash is worth so little that they are better off making handbags and purses out of them and selling them outside the country than actually using them to buy things.
This ought to be a major warning for any and all countries who think hyperinflation is no big deal or that socialist policies which are misguided at best such as endless money printing is not only achievable but beneficial. History has proven to those who pay attention to it that such policies not only don’t work and are unobtainable (endless physical cash requires endless use of paper which means endless cutting down of trees, so this is a bad idea even from an environmental standpoint) but are altogether detrimental in horrible ways for the people of those countries.
Learn from history, or you’ll be doomed to repeat it, as they say.
“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”
All ideas proposed by communists are bad. I don’t think I need to go into too much detail as to why, as they often times are self-evidently awful. But there are those who, if for the slightest of moments, somehow think that some communist proposals are logical and would help people out.
This article is for such people who are not too familiar with the most basic concept of economics – supply and demand – and believe that instituting rent control will help to lower rent and just make everything good and happy.
The Foundation for Economic Education recently talked about this subject as well, and they detail exactly why it is that rent control is a destructive and counterintuitive proposition made by those who fail to understand some of the most basic principles of economics.
Theresa Dolata, a resident of the Windom neighborhood in the city of Minneapolis spoke at a February 23rd city council meeting, urging city leaders to support amendments which would allow the city to regulate rent prices, making the emotional appeal that “I don’t want to end up homeless again, I don’t want to be pushed out.”
Following her testimony, as well as testimonies from other citizens, the council members unanimously approved a charter that would put this issue on a future election ballot so that the residents of Minneapolis could vote on whether or not they wanted rent control in their city.
Council President Lisa Bender said: “The fact that landlords can increase rents with very little notice is impacting people’s lives and their housing stability.”
Let’s assume that what Bender said is true. Landlords increasing rent with little notice impacts people’s lives and housing stability. What ought to be the logical approach when tackling this problem? It’s not the attempt at taking that ability away through rent control regulation, but rather, it’s to look for the root cause(s) of the problem.
There are a number of things which can impact rent prices, from cost of living in the area to taxes (which is part of that cost of living) to land value to inflation, etc. Landlords are, at the end of the day, businessmen and they are looking to make a profit so that they can live comfortably.
Unlike what the Left often portrays them as, they are not wealthy billionaires looking to screw people over.
I remember some time ago watching an episode of Alf where the titular alien was writing some sort of screenplay set during the Great Depression. The play was about a poor family of three, mother, daughter and son, living together in a small apartment, barely making ends meet. The characters in the play are often harassed by their evil landlord who takes advantage of them, asking for their rent early and threatening them to raise their rent, with failure to pay potentially leading them to eviction.
Without going into too much detail about the episode itself, the reason I bring this up is because that caricature of an “evil” landlord is what they claim all landlords generally are: greedy, evil, super wealthy, abusive, etc.
The reality, however, is that most landlords are not super wealthy. They treat their apartment complexes like a small business. Not every landlord is wealthy like Donald Trump or Barbara Corcoran. Not everyone in the real estate business is as wealthy as some of the richest people in the country.
But they get treated as such by the Left, and it’s not difficult to see why. They want to get rid of private land ownership so that the government steps in and builds “everyone” homes that they can live in at “affordable” rates. It’s nothing but a classic communist landgrab.
The landlords often times see that, in order to still make a profit, as all businesses have to do to stay afloat, they have to do certain things, such as increasing rent. They are often uncomfortable with doing it out of fear of leading their tenants to seek another place to leave, but feel as though they have little choice in the matter.
And rent control would only kill their business, leading to basically ALL their tenants to be homeless. If the estate is no longer profitable, no one will invest in it, and tenants would be forced out. That is at least one way in which rent control is destructive and counterintuitive (the stated goal is to keep people like Theresa from being homeless, but that’s exactly what it leads people to be).
Rent control, by the way, has been tried in a number of places from San Francisco to New York, Sweden to Australia, and even the entire state of Oregon passed rent control in 2019. Wherever it’s been tried, it has failed, as is often the case for communism in general.
Supposedly, the purpose for this rent control is to mitigate rising or high rent prices, but it generally doesn’t actually do that.
Berlin tried this, implementing it in February of 2020, and The Economist declares this experiment “a failure.” “Rents may be down, but so is the supply of homes.”
Supply of homes, by the way, is something else that affects rent. Which is why I brought up the simple economic premise of supply and demand. If the supply of homes is low and the demand is high, rent will naturally be high, as there are few other places for people to go to which would offer more competitive rent offers.
Thomas Sowell writes in his book Basic Economics why rent control is a general failure and depicts how it failed in places like Australia, Sweden, New York, San Francisco, etc.
We are asked: “Why wasn’t a single housing unit in Melbourne built in the nine years after World War II…?” With the answer being that “rent control laws had made the buildings unprofitable,” according to FEE.
Washington D.C. saw rental housing stock decline from nearly 200,000 to under 176,000 in the 1970s for the same reason: rent control.
And Santa Monica, California, saw building permits decline by 90% in 1979 from just a few years prior because rent control made the building of new houses unprofitable.
In Sweden in 1948, Sowell writes, there were roughly 2,400 people on waiting lists for housing, but just 12 years later, the waiting list had grown tenfold. In this time, Sweden was building more houses per person than any other country in the world, but rent control made them unprofitable. So even though houses were being built, they were not being rented out, creating an artificial housing shortage.
But when Sweden repealed rent control laws, particularly with all the houses that had already been built, a housing surplus occurred.
Generally speaking, when socialist policies are undone, prosperity is what follows. This was the case for Germany post-World War II and for New Zealand in the mid-80s and 90s.
Rent control is one such socialist policy which is destructive to any economy that tries it and is counterintuitive towards the purpose of instituting such a policy. Sure, rent may no longer go up, but that hardly matters if it leads to landlords no longer being able to afford maintenance of the buildings or keeping the tenants there, leading to even more people to be homeless, if temporarily, which becomes a tad bit more permanent if rent control cripples entire areas.
Rent control is sold as a “solution” to homelessness, but it only creates more of it. A common result of communist policies: they create or exacerbate the very issues they attempt to solve.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
This perhaps should not be particularly surprising, but given the behavior of companies, one might erroneously believe that people approve of the uber-liberal woke crap that they are trying to push down people’s throats. However, a recent poll demonstrates that the nonsensical, irrational wokeism that Leftist companies like Disney and others are pushing for are not well-received by the vast majority of Americans.
Conducting a poll from Feb. 26 to Mar. 3, Public Opinion Strategies found that “Corporate America’s lunge into ‘wokeness’ and cancel culture might hit a bump in the road given public reaction to Disney’s recent actions,” according to Neil Newhouse, a pollster for that polling firm.
Among other things, surveyors were asked about recent Disney news, such as the company’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party, their threat to stop working with and in the state of Georgia after pro-life legislation was made into law, and their recent firing of “Mandalorian” star Gina Carano over a supposedly offensive social media post.
Regarding that last point, for those of you who have not paid too much attention to that story in particular, Carano shared a social media post in which she compared conservatives (though without using the term) to Jews during the Nazi regime.
Her post read: “Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors… even by children… ‘Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?’”
Certainly, the Nazi regime did its best to justify their actions, indoctrinating its own population into believing that Jews were parasitic, lesser people. Numerous children’s books were written and handed out in kindergartens across the country that painted the Jews as liars, as greedy, and as sons and daughters of the devil.
Which is why such a thing as Kristallnacht (an event which has been politically bastardized by Leftists to attack conservatives), an attack against German Jews carried out by German military forces and civilians alike, occurred in the first place.
The Nazis convinced their people that the Jews were inhuman and deserving of such horrid treatment. That the Left treats conservatives in a similar manner, often justifying Leftist terrorists like Antifa and BLM when they attack us, is the reason Carano made that comparison in that post to begin with.
But because you apparently can’t compare American Nazis to German Nazis, Disney decided to fire her; a decision which has proven to be a poor one.
It’s noteworthy to point out, also, that before being shown the social media post, 58% of surveyors opposed Disney’s decision to fire the actress, with 42% supporting it. A majority across all age groups, both genders, and all ethnicities, as well as Republicans and Independents all opposed her firing, with 40% of Democrats agreeing.
However, once they were shown the post (due diligence of informing the surveyors on something, which is not often done by pollsters, as they tend to belong to the fake news media which only seeks to create public opinion as opposed to reflect it), opposition to Carano’s firing soared to 72%, with only 28% saying Disney was justified to have fired her.
39% said that the post may have been poorly worded but was still not a justifiable reason to fire Carano, with 34% saying that they found nothing wrong with the post and that Carano shouldn’t have been fired.
This opposition was even found among Democrats and liberals, as Public Opinion Strategies reports: “After viewing the post, a majority of every single group tested, including Democrats, liberals and 70% of Disney fans said that Carano should not have been fired.”
The survey also found that 64% of Americans disagree with Disney’s decision to close down popular rides at their theme parks due to activists claiming the rides had “racist origins” or “racist messages”, with only 36% approving. Such rides include even Splash Mountain, which, while it was not closed down completely (probably because it’s one of Disney’s most famous and popular rides), it was given an overhaul because it included stories and characters from the 1946 film “Song of the South”, a movie considered to be pretty racist.
Interestingly, minority Americans oppose such decisions, including 60% of Disney fans. I imagine it has a little to do with the fact that, even if those rides are somehow connected to racism (because apparently, everything has to be connected to that), to get rid of those aspects is to pretend as though Disney never participated in those seemingly racist things is generally a bad thing to do.
The biggest reason I oppose the tearing down of Confederate statues is not because I agree with their stances on anything (they were Democrats, after all, so why would I agree with them?) or because I agree with their spirit of rebellion (I do agree with a spirit of rebellion but not for the reasons that the Confederate south had) but because it is part of the country’s history and to get rid of them is like getting rid of that part of history. Most particularly, however, it is Democrat Party history, and those statues (among other things) serve as a reminder of what horrible things Democrats supported even back then, which are not too dissimilar to what they support now.
It's no wonder, of course, why the Democrat Party would want to get rid of their racist history in their attempt to be “anti-racist” (which is really just the same kind of racism as always, but with a different name and target, to an extent).
For Disney to get rid of those aspects is to attempt to get rid of their unsavory history, an action which people don’t like.
Moving on, the survey also found that people were not too keen on Disney’s attempt at “political correctness”:
“By a 65%-35% margin, Americans believe that companies like Disney have taken political correctness too far, including a majority of every age group tested, 90% of Republicans, 60% of Independents and 47% of Democrats.”
You know it’s bad when even nearly half of Democrats surveyed think that Disney is going too far into “political correctness” territory.
54% of surveyors also oppose Disney’s threat to stop doing business in Georgia following the pro-life legislation that the state’s government had passed, with 50% of women and a majority of Republicans and Independents, as well as 31% of Democrats also opposing the company.
An astounding 84% of Americans also oppose Disney’s decision to film a recent movie in China amidst the CCP running concentration camps on Uyghurs and other people the government considers to be dissenters or some sort of threat to their sovereignty.
And most damagingly for the company, “after hearing about actions that Disney has recently taken, fully 60% of Americans say they have a less favorable impression of the company, and 58% say they are less likely to watch Disney programming,” according to the poll.
Like I said in the title, wokeism is killing companies like Disney. All attempts at cancel culture by them is met with heavy criticism from many and support from the very few but loud.
If Disney cares at all about their bottom line, they would recognize what is plaguing their company and do all they could to avoid that. Knowing that the company is run by agenda-driven Leftists, however, that is unlikely to happen, no matter what happens to their bottom line. So long as they keep churning out uninspired live-adaptation remakes of Disney classics like Mulan (the movie for which they received criticism since they shot it in China and the movie’s main star is pro-CCP), The Lion King, Aladdin, etc., they will keep making money from nostalgia (which they ultimately kill in those movies anyway).
Not to mention that they own a whole lot of other companies from which they can make plenty of money, so it’s not like this is going to be such a major plight on them. Still, that this behavior is so negatively received is a good thing. I hope and pray that even more people turn against the Left’s cancel culture crap.
“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
What socialism/communism destroys, capitalism restores. No country which was once capitalistic was improved or made better after experiencing socialism or communism, and countries which have tried socialism and communism but then turned to capitalism were made better for it.
This was the case for Germany post-World War II and for New Zealand over the last few decades.
Will it also be the case for Venezuela? I will soon reveal why I do not think so.
But let’s begin with post-WWII Germany and New Zealand. After World War II, Germany was in shambles not merely because they lost the war. The Nazis, being socialists (as the name “National Socialist” would imply, but if you don’t think that’s enough to tell you they were socialists, consider that they employed pretty much every line item the American Left wants to employ), were in charge of everything regarding how the economy worked. Well, “worked.” Few things were not run by the German government, it applied heavy price controls, rationing, needless bureaucracy, massive inflation, awful cronyism, etc.
It was your typical Marxist dystopia, much like we see with Cuba, Venezuela and saw with the Soviet Union and China (China is still communist, of course, but privatized things enough that famines were not really a thing anymore. It’s still largely a dystopia if you’re not at least fairly wealthy and you can only be fairly wealthy by sucking up to the government).
But Ludwig Erhard, who was West Germany’s Economics Minister in 1948, employed capitalist measures to free the economy from its socialist bonds.
Late economist William H. Peterson said, detailing what happened: “In 1948, on a June Sunday, without the knowledge or approval of the Allied military occupation authorities (who were of course away from their offices), West German Economics Minister Ludwig Erhard unilaterally and bravely issued a decree wiping out rationing and wage-price controls and introducing a new hard currency, the Deutsche-mark. The decree was effective immediately. Said Erhard to the stunned German people: ‘Now your only ration coupon is the mark.’”
“The American, British, and French authorities, who had appointed Erhard to his post, were aghast. Some charged that he had exceeded his defined powers, that he should be removed. But the deed was done. Said U.S. Commanding General Lucius Clay: ‘Herr Erhard, my advisers tell me you’re making a terrible mistake.’ ‘Don’t listen to them, General,’ Erhard replied, ‘my advisers tell me the same thing.’”
So the Allied forces in charge of West Germany, which were Americans, British and French, instituted some of the same socialistic policies that the Nazis put into place. Tells you a little about the kind of socialistic tendencies these “heralds of freedom” possessed, doesn’t it?
At any rate, Erhard abolished the price-control program, slashed tariffs, raised consumption taxes but cut income taxes by 15% and got rid of any disincentive to save money, leading West Germany to see incredible growth while the communist East Germany suffered under its communism.
Robert A. Peterson writes: “Almost immediately, the German economy sprang to life. The unemployed went back to work, food reappeared on store shelves, and the legendary productivity of the German people was unleashed. Within two years, industrial output tripled. By the early 1960s, Germany was the third greatest economic power in the world. And all of this occurred while West Germany was assimilating hundreds of thousands of East German refugees.”
It was regarded as the “German economic miracle”, though Erhard hardly thought of it as a miracle (in some ways, it certainly was, but I understand what Erhard means as it took planning and action and it didn’t come out of nowhere). “What has taken place in Germany… is anything but a miracle. It is the result of the honest efforts of a whole people who, in keeping with the principles of liberty, were given the opportunity of using personal initiative and human energy.”
Capitalism restored the German economy which was rattled and destroyed by the Nazis. Capitalism also restored the New Zealand economy which was overregulated by welfare state socialists.
In the two decades following the 1950s, when New Zealand was a top economy in the world, the large island nation saw welfare state economists and leaders overregulate the markets and cripple the economy.
According to the Foundation for Economic Education: “The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.”
“The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the ‘democratic socialism’ that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.”
After that period of the socialist experiment in New Zealand, the country began to turn things around when all farm subsidies were ended, tariffs were slashed by two-thirds, as were taxes slashed with the top rate being cut to 33 percent. During the mid-1980s and 1990s, the government sold its state enterprises, allowing them to be privatized. Starting a business was also made quite easy with severe deregulation and, for regulations which were not abolished, they were finally equally and consistently enforced. Compulsory union membership was abolished and union monopolies holding various labor markets were outlawed as well.
This led to New Zealand seeing 4 to 6 percent annual growth for years. Their housing market is still a mess and overregulated to Hell, but if the government of New Zealand recognizes that it also needs to be freed like the rest of the economy was, then things will get even better for them. It would also help to not institute anti-free speech and anti-gun regulations, which began to be implemented following the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting.
Regardless, capitalism freed and restored an economy which was wrecked by overregulation and nationalization of industries aka socialism.
Now, finally, let’s turn towards Venezuela. What, exactly, is prompting me to even suggest they might be turning away from socialism? Well, it’s a Bloomberg News article reporting that the Venezuelan government “is abandoning socialist doctrine by offloading key enterprises to private investors, offering profit in exchange for a share of revenue or products.”
“Dozens of chemical plants, coffee processors, grain silos and hotels confiscated over the past two decades have been transferred – but not sold – to private operations in so-called strategic alliances, nine people with knowledge of the matter said.”
Ramon Lobo, a legislator from the socialist party and former finance minister said: “We believe this is positive because it is the synchronization of the public with the private sector. The state acts as a supervisor and receives compensation.”
So is Venezuela turning away from socialism? Like the title says, yes and no. Notice that I’m not asking if they are turning towards capitalism. They are just turning away from socialism, at least in some ways. If anything, this just sounds like what Russia did following the collapse of the Soviet Union and what China has been doing for the past couple of decades: privatizing a little bit, but only transferring the regulatory power to businesses and corporations which are allied to the government.
This isn’t capitalism, it’s oligarchy. It’s only marginally better to socialism, and better than to allow the entire country to collapse under the weight of socialism, but it’s nowhere near enough for the people of Venezuela.
The Latin American country was once one of the wealthiest in the world, was ranked among the top 10 in GDP per capita and once had a labor force with higher productivity than even the United States. This was in the 1950s. In the 1970s, Venezuela began to flirt with socialism by nationalizing the petroleum sector, and the economy began to stall out at best. In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected and in 2007, following his second re-election in 2006, he would nationalize Venezuela’s largest telecommunications company, CANTV, and announced “All that was privatized, let it be nationalized,” hinting at further nationalization of industries.
Of course, we know what followed this full embrace of socialism: hunger, destitution, pain, suffering, and attempts by Venezuelans to flee for freer countries.
Now, Venezuela seems to be only slightly moving away from socialism, but not fully letting go of the failed economic system which brought ruin to the once prosperous nation. Even a little bit of privatization helps to an extent, as even despite the oligarchical monopolies present in China, Russia, and the U.S., these countries are still doing fairly well, with varying levels of prosperity (the U.S. being the freest, but not exactly because it’s trying to be).
So further privatization will certainly help Venezuelans, but it’s not worth it to replace a centralized government tyranny with an amalgamation of corporate cronies and oligarchs with similar power and philosophies to Maduro. Though unofficially, it’s replacing one dictator for another, to some extent.
What Venezuela needs to do, as do China, Russia and the United States, is move away from socialism and government regulation of industries as much as possible. Germany tried that for a time, and it was very prosperous. New Zealand has been trying it, for the most part, and was prosperous as well. The United States was founded upon these virtues and long was prosperous because of them, even despite the attempts by globalists and communists to tear it down little by little.
French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu said in 1748: “Countries are well cultivated, not as they are fertile, but as they are free.” The freer the people, the better off the country will be.
I hope and pray that people will open their eyes and see what destruction socialism and communism bring, and realize that unrestrained capitalism is the only way for the largest number of people to live the best lives they can.
Socialism is marketed as seeking equality for all people. It achieves that only in the worst of ways by making people equally miserable and destitute. Even then, not all people are faced with this, as those in the government are made wealthier for it off the backs of the people.
To contrast Hugo Chavez: All that was nationalized, let it be privatized.
1 Peter 2:16
“Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.”
I have said this countless times: the Left doesn’t care about facts or evidence. They can see clearly that masks and lockdowns do not work and only hurt the states that they are supposed to be working for, but since the lockdowns let them be little dictators, they have no real interest in doing the right thing.
Look at California, for example. Despite all the grandstanding about wanting to “flatten the curve” and “stopping the spread of COVID-19” (and, by the way, don’t overlook the fact that they moved the goalposts from “slowing” the spread to “stopping” the spread, which is an impossible task to retain power), the state has the most Chinese coronavirus cases by far of any state, easily producing 17% of the nation’s infections.
California is the most populous state, at nearly 40 million people living there, but it also has 1.4 million active cases, which is roughly 3.5% of the population. The state with the second highest tally is Florida, which has 609,000 active cases out of a population of 21.9 million, or 2.7% of its population. Both populous states have active case percentages relative to population that are fairly close to one another, and yet, have completely different approaches to dealing with the virus.
MultiState has a ranking for how open each state is, and rank Alaska as the most open state, though it’s tied with Florida and South Dakota (openness scores of “96” each, so a virtual tie). California, like I said, has the strictest measures and thus, ranks at number 50 for openness out of 50 states in the Union.
Furthermore, according to Foundation for Economic Education, “on a per capita basis, Californian’s (sic) active cases are about 30 percent higher than Florida, which has virtually no restrictions in place.”
Despite the demonstrable fact that lockdowns don’t work, many governors, both Republican and Democrat (though, in some cases, they can just be referred to as “The Party”), choose to repeatedly implement stricter and stricter lockdown measures.
The FEE theorizes that part of the reason as to why is for politicians’ own ability of self-preservation. They want to appear in-charge and like they are doing something to take the virus seriously, even if they leave countless bodies along the way. Gov. Cuomo signed an executive order on March 25, 2020, which was basically a death sentence for countless old people in retirement and nursing homes, but because he was posturing as taking the virus seriously (and because he’s a Democrat, so the media has no real reason to be harsh with him), he was considered to be a good enough leader as to receive awards for how he has dealt with the virus.
He even believed his own hype so much that he wrote a book about what a good job he had done… right before New York saw another surge in cases.
That theory about self-preservation makes sense when you consider some spineless Republican governors being so willing to strip people’s civil liberties and rights so that they appear to be “taking the virus seriously.” Gov. Kristy Noem and Gov. Ron DeSantis received plenty of flack from both the media and politicians for choosing liberty over tyranny, being painted as “violent” governors who would doom their states.
Nearly a year since the pandemic began, and anyone with a working brain would far prefer to live in South Dakota or Florida than in California or New York.
Freedom-loving governors understand the science behind the Chinese coronavirus and understand that lockdowns have little to no effect on the spread and effectiveness of the virus. They understand that much of the world has been bamboozled by the “experts” who have profited tremendously from this pandemic. Seriously, the Chinese coronavirus is the single best thing to ever happen to people like Fauci, Birx, Tedros, and (though he’s not an expert) Xi Jinping. It’s the best thing to ever happen to socialistic politicians whom have dreamed for the ability to rule people’s lives. It’s the best thing to ever happen to the uberwealthy like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc.
Their good fortune comes from the average Joe’s suffering. Your misery is their profit.
It’s funny, really. Coming from a socialistic family, my mother was often told that “the rich stole from the poor to get their wealth.” In a capitalistic society, that is obviously baloney. The rich are often the ones who innovate and put things into markets which people want to buy in great demand. But in a socialistic society, what they say is 100% true. Though they initially amassed wealth by other means, people like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, etc. have only gotten wealthier BECAUSE of the unconstitutional lockdowns which have snuffed out smaller businesses.
Your local mom and pop shop isn’t allowed to reopen, but the big boys in the grocery industry like Walmart, Target, Publix, etc. have always been allowed to operate, even if with some restrictions.
A small cake shop can’t operate, but a massive Walmart with its own dessert section is allowed to function with almost no issues.
They may have gotten their wealth by selling marketable goods (except for Zuckerberg who was almost certainly taking money from Soros), but they have grown their wealth exponentially in the last year solely because of the monopolies which they own and because of the inability for anyone to even LEGALLY compete with them.
Our society is quickly becoming feudalistic, with certain rights and privileges being exclusively owned by the ruling class. The death of small businesses and of the middle class are the best things that could happen to the wealthy and the powerful, so what reason do heartless politicians have to reopen sincerely?
We were initially told that we would be locked down for 15 days. It’s been nearly a year.
We were initially told we had to “flatten the curve”. It was flattened many times for many states, some of which chose to not reopen at any capacity.
We were initially told to “slow the spread of the virus”. It was then changed to “stop the spread of the virus” which is an impossible task unless you planned to lock up every single person in their homes forever.
We were initially told that we’d be able to go back to normal once we had vaccines widely available. We have numerous vaccines widely available (I don’t trust them, but we have them) and many states have few plans to reopen. Fauci even moved those goal posts, saying that even with the vaccines, we still needed to adhere to the guidelines of mask-wearing and social distancing.
If those guidelines still have to be followed after people take the vaccine, then what’s the point of the vaccine? It’s supposed to be immunization which ought to last at least a good few years (and yes, I think flu shots are a scam if you have to take them every freaking year). So if you’re immune, why would you still need to wear a mask and social distance?
“Masks are supposed to protect others, not ourselves,” the liberal will argue. But there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread. So if I show no symptoms (and I very well shouldn’t if I have taken the vaccine and it’s effective), then why should I keep wearing a mask? I wouldn’t be spreading anything to anyone else. And even assuming every single person in the country takes the vaccine, I can guarantee you those “guidelines” will remain in place.
What they intend to do with this pandemic is similar to what the warhawks have done with the never-ending wars: provide b.s. reasons to remain in the Middle East and to continue fighting. The b.s. reasons they give for continuing the never-ending wars is that we are “keeping our enemies at bay” or “we are bringing democracy to those places” or “we are fighting there so that they don’t bring the fight to our shores”, etc. etc.
The b.s. reasons they give for keeping these measures are “to keep people safe” and “to ensure that more people don’t die from this deadly virus.” The virus is barely deadly and has demonstrably been overcounted in death tolls (remember, only 6% of the total died FROM the virus. The others died with it, and the tally counts people who died from gunshot wounds and falling from great heights).
The people who now have power see a great opportunity with this pandemic. So long as they can continue selling the idea that they are doing things for “the greater good”, they can continue to try and convince their people to not resist against them. After all, anyone who would challenge those who are “just trying to keep people safe” must be a terrorist and insurrectionist, right?
The good news is that we outnumber them greatly. There will be a breaking point for them. You can only rule people so harshly for so long before you get serious pushback. I just hope the military is not so infested with Leftists that it would gleefully turn against the citizens of this nation.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
It might be cliched to compare this stuff to George Orwell’s “1984”, but one can hardly avoid making the comparisons, seeing as the Left has taken that book as an instruction manual for how to operate. But it’s not just the elected Left which employs this junk. Leftists in the private sector and in academia also operate much like Big Brother, in some cases even issuing “newspeak” whenever they see fit.
This is what the University of Michigan has done recently, and this is far from the only time I have talked about that craphole of an “institute for higher learning.” In the past, they have both had black students self-segregate and had faculty organizing a “whites-only” café. Now, their Ministry of Truth, the “Words Matter Task Force”, has issued a list of “inclusive language” terms for the purposes of replacing current terms they deem “offensive.”
The following image shows this list:
There is plenty here for me to go over, but I will only talk about a few of them, so as to not make this article needlessly long.
First, of course, there is the replacing of “man” and “men”, as well as “girl/gal,” and “boy/guy.” Because these people want to do away with the biological fact that there are only two genders, they replace those natural words with “people” and “person” or just the man or woman’s name. Nothing different from what we have seen before, but it’s egregious that I am this accustomed to the destruction of objective fact for the purposes of wokeism.
Then, there are things like “blacklist/whitelist” and “black-and-white thinking”, which I assume are only on this list because they include the colors “black” and “white”. The thing is that neither of those terms are in reference to race. “Blacklist” comes from the 1610s, and was in reference to disgrace, censure or punishment. In 1884, it was largely used by employers to make lists of workers they considered to be troublesome, usually due to union activity. It has nothing to do with black people in general, and “whitelist” has nothing to do with white people.
The same applies to “black-and-white thinking”. That phrase is about thinking in absolute extremes, such as thinking that one is “absolutely perfect and flawless” or “is the devil in the flesh.” It’s usually used in the context of people saying “reality isn’t so black-and-white,” meaning that it’s not as clear-cut as someone is alleging it is. For example, most fairy tales and stories are pretty black and white, because you know who the good guys are – and such people always do good things – and who the bad guys are – and such people always do bad things. Again, nothing to do with race.
Not that it matters, of course. Leftists often think along superficial lines, and see the terms “black” and “white” always in the context of race and not the colors themselves, even if their actual context is not within race.
The term “brown bag” is likely also a result of this line of thinking. They ban it because they think of brown people when they think of a brown bag (which tells you how racist these people are), instead of the fact that the phrase “brown bag” is in reference to lunch and how lunch is often times carried in a paper bag which happens to be brown. Maybe lunch should now be carried in silver plastic bags so as to not offend these snowflakes, but then they would whine at you for “killing the planet,” so you really can’t win with these people.
There is also the term “grandfathered”, which is seemingly due to the grandfather clause used in the Jim Crow south to give white people an advantage when voting over black people, but there is a very clear issue with this line of thinking: if that term can be connected with that clause, then couldn’t the actual familial relationship of a grandfather – and thus, the concept of a grandfather – also be problematic?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Left started pushing for that idea – that grandfathers are problematic – largely because of both the gender of grandfathers and the age (the Left hates old people, as evidenced by Cuomo and Whitmer’s acts against them in their states).
Later on, there is also the terms “honey, sweetheart, sweetie”, possibly because the Left has no idea of the concept of love and seemingly hate pet names.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with “honey” or “sweetheart”, etc.? Sassy black women and gay men tend to mock those they disagree with by saying “oh, honey,” so wouldn’t this list be an attempt at limiting their vocabulary?
By the same token, why is “long time, no see” problematic? Its origin is in Chinese Pidgin English, supposedly from a short story in 1892 where a Chinese girl, during a conversation with someone, said “I think I go see my mamma today. Long time no see.” Is it problematic because of its origin or because of the kind of broken English you sometimes stereotypically hear from Chinese migrants? I’m willing to bet it’s for that reason, but frankly, no one means any sort of offense by saying it.
Even I did not know of its Chinese English origins until I looked it up, so I doubt most people would know about it and willingly be trying to mock Chinese migrants with it. Either way, it’s ridiculous that the University of Michigan would be banning these words and phrases. I guess they want to cull even phrases originated by migrants, much like they have culled the accomplishments of black people by getting rid of Aunt Jemima from the company’s products.
There is also the term “native” which is rather funny for me to see here. I can only imagine ignorant college students attacking Christopher Columbus for “killing” the Built-in Americans, or the Innate Americans. They clearly were largely talking about things, and not the race of Native Americans, but they were making this change because of the race, not in spite of it, so I can’t help but make that funny little connection. In order to not offend Native Americans, these people thought it would be wise to call other things which are not in relation to Native Americans (which, by the way, is a term created by the Left to replace the word “Indians” or “Indian Americans”, so they are trying to replace a term that THEY created to REPLACE ANOTHER TERM) because they thought it would offend those people.
Makes sense, considering their relentless attack on the Washington Redskins, who ultimately caved and embarrassingly are comfortable with having the temporary name of “Washington Football Team,” even though the vast majority of Native Americans did not have an issue with the name to begin with. Woke people do “good” things for minorities, even if the minorities don’t want those things.
Finally, there is the term “picnic”, which is also a bit of a headscratcher as to why it’s here. The UK Daily Mail suggests that the reason that term is here is because of “false suggestions on the internet that it originates from the racist, extrajudicial killings of African Americans.”
So these apparently “anti-racist” people chose the term “picnic” because it kind of sounds like “pick a n-word?” The term’s actual etymology is 17th century France, where the word “pique-nique” is used to describe social gatherings in which people contribute some amount of food… like a typical English picnic, in other words.
These Leftists really can’t help but see race in everything, even the most mundane and innocent of things like “picnic” just because, to the mind of a Leftist, it sounds like “pick a n-word” for the purposes of lynching them. Before today, I had never made that kind of connection, but then again, I’m not an insane Leftist who is outright conspiratorial about the meaning and etymology of certain words and phrases.
Maybe we should also ban the words “black” and “white” outright, despite them simply being colors, because they can be used in relation to race. Maybe we should also ban the word “person” because it has “son” in it. Maybe we should ban the word “window” because it has “win” in it and that promotes a spirit of competition and capitalism.
Who knows what other “newspeak” these Leftists will come up with to further choke freedom of speech? And you know that that’s the end goal. The UK Daily Mail noted that “It’s not clear if there will be any penalties for staff who don’t abide by the recommendations.” However, that’s hardly the point. The point isn’t to penalize staff for not using it – it’s to shift the entire culture to ensure that they are used and that punishments will be dealt by people, not official authorities.
For example, it’s not outright necessary to mandate the use of masks everywhere, because those who wear masks will, at least in some cases, outright yell at those not wearing masks and shame them into wearing one. Such people are not concerned with the inefficiencies of masks – matter of fact, they will 100% believe that masks work because that’s what “the experts” and “science” are saying, and anyone who doesn’t listen to them is an “ignorant science denier” at best and a “dangerous, lunatic serial killer” at worst.
Seriously, these lunatics will get right into people’s faces to yell at them to social distance and wear a mask. They carry measuring tape with them to make sure people stay 6ft apart (and such measurements can only be taken by breaking that guideline themselves, but they will never acknowledge that hypocrisy).
Maybe the university will issue punishments for members of their staff, and maybe even their students, for not adjusting to their “newspeak”, but that’s hardly the long-term goal. The purpose of this is to shift an entire culture towards doling out the punishments themselves, leading people to snitch on each other not unlike in “1984”.
As outright funny as it is to find some of the items on that list, what’s not funny is the blatant attempt at censorship by these groups of people. What’s worse is their push for making it so normal and “righteous” that they lead normal people themselves to be the gatekeepers and guardians of these rules.
Big Brother was only as powerful as it was because it managed to convince just about their entire populace to accept their new rules as being “just” and “fair” and “good”. The period before the “revolution” is regarded, even by those who question BB, as having been filled with injustice and unfairness. And those who do question BB are treated as outright traitors by the people.
Similarly, the Left’s aim is to convince just about the entire populace to accept their new rules, which they claim are “just” and “fair” and “good,” and are in direct opposition to this supposed period of “injustice” and “unfairness.”
Again, it may be cliched to compare the current situation with Orwell’s work, but one can hardly avoid doing so when they see these very things happening. I see the Left attempting to become Big Brother, doing many of the same things BB did, so I can’t help but note the parallels here.
We are obviously not quite there yet, as my own opposition to this sort of Big Brother is allowed to exist and I am not being sent to a secretive reeducation facility to “admit” to my “crimes” and to make me “love” Big Brother “again”. But there are a lot of similarities here with that work of fiction, which I can clearly see some people want to bring into reality.
Here’s hoping we can put a stop to all of that before it’s too late.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
Frankly, I originally did not intend to be writing about the useless crap our government wastes our money on so soon after the omnibus bill (which President Trump thankfully vetoed because he is a real patriot), but Sen. Rand Paul’s annual report on government waste was released around the same time of the release of that article, and I kind of want to make this an annual series (for as long as either the government keeps wasting money or I am alive, with the latter being more likely).
And similar to last year’s report, I will talk about only a few things on this report, though the report itself is utterly chockful of other wasteful spending that I would like to get to but doing so would make this article unnecessarily lengthy.
So let’s begin with some of the asinine crap that the government wasted our tax-payer dollars on:
There is a real and sick push out there on the Left to force you into subsistence all for the sake of “saving the planet” from “man-made climate change.” You, the peasant, are responsible for killing the planet, which involves eating meat and stuff like that, so you must be willing to eat bugs like an animal or like people in extremely poor African nations in order to rectify that. Meanwhile, the elites get to enjoy bigger and bigger supplies of rich meat and other delicacies, and will even justify their better lifestyle as them “fighting for the planet,” by telling you how to live a “greener” lifestyle. It’s utter bullcrap, but they will see just how far they can push us on this and how much we are willing to swallow (pun kind of intended).
2. $36M to find out why stress makes hair turn gray.
A Harvard study from January of 2020 shows that it’s the fight-or-flight response triggered under stress that can lead to permanent changes in stem cells that influence the hair’s color. I can only assume that at least some of the money spent by the government went to Harvard in researching this, but I have to ask: why? Why waste money on this? If scientists have the curiosity to find this stuff out, fair enough, but why do taxpayers have to pay for this research?
3. $6.9M using cancer research money for the purposes of creating… a “smart toilet.”
Twitter is already a craphole, so I suppose that the government wanted to see if they could interact in the septic social media while actually taking a crap. But this one is particularly special. You see, this is not only extremely asinine, as hardly anyone needs a “smart toilet”, whatever that means, but this is also rather insulting and repulsive not merely due to the subject matter but due to the reappropriation of funds used for such a purpose. Taking money from cancer research to create a “smart toilet” is what a crap government does (pun very much intended that time), and one that could hardly care about the people suffering from the horrible disease.
4. $3.4M to send messages to moms to stop their teenage daughters from indoor tanning.
I can only imagine the phone bill of the U.S. government if they are sending $3.4M worth of text messages to mothers of teenage girls seeking to get fake tans. But seriously, what the hell is this? Not only is this an asinine waste of money, but it displays something considerably more sinister: an attempt by the government to regulate and direct people’s behavior. There is other stuff on here that is of similar nature, such as the government wasting money to get U.S. adults to stop binge-watching TV, but that only further goes to show how they truly do not see themselves as working for the people. Those who believe they can work and manipulate other people do not see themselves as their workers. What business does the government have if teenage girls are getting fake tans? And what purpose does it serve to regulate that behavior via sending messages to their mothers?
5. $2M to test if hot tubbing can lower stress.
Similar to that first point about stress causing white hair, this one is utterly asinine, but I can see the elitist purposes of this one. After all, there is no doubt in my mind that no less than 95% of people in Congress own a hot tub. They are worried about their shallow images, so they fund idiotic research like the link between stress and white hair, as well as possible cures for that, such as seeing if sitting in a hot tub can lower stress. Next, they’ll probably test if sitting in a sauna also lowers stress (frankly, it’s possible they’ve already funded that kind of research).
6. $1M to try to get people to stop being afraid of going to the dentist.
I have no words. I mean, what can I even say about this one?
7. $10M to spend five years monitoring elections in Zimbabwe.
Could we have gotten some of that money for monitoring our own elections? Because it seems to me like we could have used that. Like in my previous article, it seems like government officials are more interested in the elections of other countries, but could hardly care about the security and integrity of our own, as long as The Party’s preferred candidate was declared the “winner.” The omnibus bill included a challenge to the Belarusian elections (for some of the same issues which plagued the American elections) and also have spent our money on monitoring the elections in Zimbabwe. Can you tell me the name of the president of Zimbabwe? Did you even know that they had presidents? Maybe the name Robert Mugabe rings a bell, since he used to be president of Zimbabwe from 1978 until 2017. Apparently, our government is interested in who wins the elections there, for some reason.
8. $1.5M walking lizards on a treadmill.
Okay, I thought the one about getting people to stop being afraid of going to the dentist was the stupidest one on here, but I was wrong. What the hell is the purpose of this, exactly? This one tops last year’s funding of research to study the effects of nicotine on fish. I cannot at all even see a supposed purpose for this one. At least with the smoking fish, I could rationalize in my own head the purpose of the research (and even then, I noticeably struggled in that endeavor), but I cannot make heads or tails of this one. Why? Why would you do that? To test if the lizards enjoy a bit of cardio? Did the lizards gain a bit of weight during Thanksgiving and they needed a workout? Are we testing to see if lizards can be walked like dogs? I’m racking my brain here trying to make sense of this, but I really can’t.
9. $200,000 to study how people cooperate while playing e-sports video games.
The answer is that they probably cooperate like they would in actual sports: communication and planning. Football players and coaches draw up plays for them to try and win. Basketball players do the same. Competitive video game players, no doubt, do the same thing. That’s how they cooperate. Can I have my money now, government?
10. $4.5M to spray alcoholic rats with bobcat urine.
Okay, I have several questions. First, why? Second, why are the rats alcoholic? Third, why spray them with bobcat urine? Fourth, why spray them with urine at all? Fifth, why spend $4.5 million on this? What purpose does this serve? To see if the alcoholic rats got ticked off? I imagine they did. You would too if you were blackout drunk and someone sprayed you with urine. Just why?
There is much, much more, but I can only fit so many items and briefly talk about each of them without making this article overly lengthy. Sen. Rand Paul overall arrived at an estimated $54.7 billion in government waste, which could have been used to, I don’t know, give Americans more than an accumulated $1,800 over nine months!
The overall message of this article is not really dissimilar to the previous article regarding the omnibus bill: these people hate you and don’t have much problem with showing that. They will happily spend money finding out if hot tubs reduce stress, what the effect is for walking lizards on a treadmill, and what happens when you spray inexplicably alcoholic rats with bobcat urine, while the American people are outright forced by their local and state governments to lock down and be out of work. The government cares more about monitoring elections in Zimbabwe (which aren’t even scheduled to take place for another two years, so why is that item in this year’s budget? Or at all?) than it does about monitoring our own elections to make sure that one of the candidates doesn’t steal it from the rightful winner via election fraud.
The government is far more preoccupied with setting forth an agenda to force you into a strict diet of bugs while they dine like kings.
The Party hates you and will make you suffer for the success that you have brought for yourself. Even for those who are already poor, their share of suffering will further increase because The Party hates everyone whom they believe is beneath them.
1984 was supposed to be a warning for present and future generations about government overreach, not an instruction manual for those seeking to subject the world to their will.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Back in March of 2018, President Donald Trump, unfortunately, signed a horrendous omnibus bill for the fiscal year 2018 in order to avoid a shutdown. For fiscal years 2019 and 2020, Congress avoided pulling the same bullcrap, 11th hour writing and voting of an omnibus bill, heeding the warning by President Trump that he would not sign another bill like it.
Seeing as most people in Congress believe Joe Biden to be the President-elect, they are back to their usual b.s. ways, writing up an over 5,000-page omnibus package with Chinese coronavirus “relief” in it, and overwhelmingly voted for it in both chambers.
This omnibus bill is an even bigger slap in the face than the 2018 one was, seeing as we were not in government-mandated lockdowns back then.
With millions of people unemployed (and with stricter lockdown measures being imposed by far-Left governors, leading to worsening situations), thousands of businesses closed and fewer ways for Americans to feed themselves, Congress has approved a b.s. spending bill which graciously gives Americans making less than $75,000 a year a measly $600, which Speaker Pelosi called “significant” (while she called $1,000+ in bonuses handed out by businesses after the tax cuts were passed and implemented “crumbs”).
$600 is all you plebs are worth to the people who are supposed to serve us. $600 is all these people, who believe you should be locked down and without a job, think you should get. After 9 months of lockdowns, a total of $1800 per American (making up to a certain amount, that is) has been given to the American people who are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and in some cases, their lives.
Meanwhile, take a look at what Congress chooses to help fund instead of struggling Americans:
And this is just regarding SOME spending in this $1.4 trillion bill. There is other asinine crap like investigating the 1908 Springfield Race Riot, regulations regarding race horses, funds for a museum offering “programming, education, exhibitions” on… “the life, art, history, and culture of women,” as well as some sections about discouraging teenagers from drinking and having sex (which is rather puzzling, seeing as Democrats make plenty of profit off of pregnant teenage girls too scared to consider anything other than an abortion), and educating “consumers about the dangers associated with using or storing portable fuel containers for flammable liquids near an open flame.”
Oh, and by the way, it gives $1,800 to households with illegal immigrants, so even they get more money than Americans do.
Like I mentioned earlier, this is an over 5,000-page bill, written shortly before it was passed, and I can guarantee this is just the tip of the ice berg for this insane bill.
But unlike that 5,000-page, nearly 1.4 million-word bill, I only need but one page and a few words to say to The Party: Screw you. And believe me, I SERIOUSLY want to use far stronger words than that. The English language doesn’t have enough words for me to describe how repulsed and enraged I am at Congress.
All of this spending for foreign nations and foreign and domestic programs and all Congress could give a damn about giving to Americans is $600? $900B was used for COVID relief. 900 billion divided by 330 million people in America amounts to more than $2,700 per American, which is more than what even President Trump was asking for. If Americans are getting $600, where is the other $2,100?
And, of course, idiot “small-government conservatives” like Rep. Jim Jordan have the gall to say “the best COVID relief is a job.” Are you kidding me? I don’t disagree, in general, but is this guy so divorced from reality that he has forgotten that MULTIPLE STATES HAVE ORDERED LOCKDOWNS THAT HAVE SHUTTERED BUSINESSES AND LED TO MILLIONS OF LAYOFFS?!
It’s because of idiots like Jordan that conservatives are considered heartless and outright stupid.
In just the first 5 weeks, nearly 27 million people lost their jobs. Due to the recent lockdowns in states like New York and California (as well as other states), we are still seeing 800,000+ unemployment claims every month and these tyrants don’t appear to be willing to let go of their chokehold on their residents any time soon.
Yeah, I would agree that the best COVID relief would be a job, but think about this for a second, Jimmy: WHY WOULD WE EVEN NEED COVID RELIEF IF JOBS WERE SO WIDELY AVAILABLE?! The very REASON Americans are asking for a handout here is not because they are lazy and don’t want to work – it’s because they have been FORCED not to work by their local and state governments, depending on their state.
This is not the time to be going like “get a job, hippie.” If the government is going to force Americans to not work, the LEAST they can do is subsidize them. This is not a “socialist” take, but a common sense one. The socialism comes in the form of forcing Americans to not work. The socialism comes in the form of reckless spending and subsidizing of PAKISTANI TRANNIES.
This omnibus bill reeks of America Last, and many people in The Party simply do not care.
Now, you might be asking why I’m even calling them “The Party.” It’s because this presidential election has taught me something valuable: there is virtually no difference whatsoever between Democrats and Republicans. I had a feeling this was the case sometimes, as I have spoken out against establishment Republicans and RINOs like Mitt Romney, but I see that the problem is considerably more widespread than I originally thought it was, if people like Gov. Kemp and his SecState are any indication (among others).
President Trump enjoys overwhelming support from voters who are Republicans, but not from the GOP itself. The GOP Chair and many other GOP politicians either stand in direct and open opposition to him or do so in secret, appearing to be supportive of him from the outside. There are only a handful of elected Republicans that I can actually consider to be at least fairly conservative and care about the American people. The rest are so in-line with Democrats that they may as well all belong to the same party.
Which is why I no longer care to differentiate between the “two” parties. They may have different names, but their goals are the same: screwing the American people and making sure they are on top and remain there. They might disagree as to what speed to go in accordance with this goal, but that’s where the differences end.
Oh, and speaking of the election, the omnibus bill includes a challenge to the presidential elections in BELARUS due to some of the same election shenanigans that were present in the U.S. election, such as early voting ballot stuffing, destruction of ballots, pressuring of poll workers, etc. So these are things that we would not tolerate in foreign elections, but when they happen here, particularly to benefit The Party’s preferred candidate, we are absolutely okay with it. What a joke.
These people have not suffered the consequences of their legislations – by design. Not one of them was subjected to the Obamacare mandates when they passed them. Not one of them is subjected to suffering what they put people through. They still get their paychecks. They don’t have to worry about where their next meal is going to come from. They don’t have to worry about facing eviction.
They don’t have to worry about how they’re going to pay for all these programs, foreign and domestic. Of course, eventually, we’ll run out of money, but they will run out of money only after we do.
Now, a liberal might argue “you didn’t seem to mind too much about government spending while Trump is in office, but now that Biden will be POTUS (which is arguable), you want to whine about government spending?” The difference between spending during the Trump economy and spending during the Leftist economy (such as Obama’s economy and this current one which has shuttered businesses and led to layoffs) is that a Trump economy is healthy and strong enough to be able to pay for a lot of the spending. Arguably, the government was still spending more than they should (and I have written about that), but with a healthy economy, there is less reason to worry about government spending. We do not have a healthy economy right now, though, thanks to Leftist politicians and RINO cowards (people who usually make up “The Party”).
The economy is suffering right now because of this and this is the biggest spending bill to date. This is how countries collapse.
And in the meantime, with these politicians not giving a rat’s ass about the future, all they can think to give struggling Americans is $600. It’s like they were so excited about all this spending that they nearly forgot they have to provide something to the American people, so they just threw in a number that is not big but not extremely and insultingly low. And yet, they still came up with an extremely and insultingly low number.
I suppose they wanted to give enough money for people to buy the new PS5, since they cost around $600. Nowhere near enough to help people pay their rent and bills (including electricity), but enough to let them get a new console and maybe a game or two.
These people hate you and they have no qualms about showing it. They pretend as though they are dissatisfied with this bill, but if they truly were, they would not have passed it, particularly with such overwhelming support for it.
These politicians are among the biggest reason Trump was elected in the first place. The President is one of only a handful of people in Washington D.C. (and in elected office in general) who actually give a damn about America and Americans. It’s no wonder, then, that they have worked so far to undermine him at every turn and outright cheat and break the law to steal a re-election he was going to win handily without that.
I can only hope that God will provide a way for us to undo the damage these evil bastards have been doing for decades and continue to do without a care in the world.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...