Another example of the horrific consequences of the fraudulent Biden immigration policies!

 

Chicago residents berate officials over crime from illegal aliens at shelters: 'They disrespect us; they rob us; they harass us'

Carlos Garcia July 28, 2023 theblaze.com

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Residents of a Chicago neighborhood angrily denounced their local officials over the crime overflowing from illegal aliens at a shelter, and some are threatening vigilante violence if nothing is done soon.

More than 50 residents of the Woodlawn neighborhood attended the community meeting at Apostolic Church of God to express their outrage over prostitution, drug dealing, and violence from a migrant shelter set up at the former Wadsworth High School building.

"I would ask you all to go out there — go out there at night, in the middle of the night — and see what goes on," said one woman in tears.

"They disrespect us; they rob us; they harass us!" said another woman.

(Watch youtube video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdwqih869dk

City officials said that about 583 migrants were being housed at Wadsworth, most of them from Venezuela. Residents said they had seen drug use and illicit sexual activities committed by migrants.

At least one resident threatened that the residents would take care of the problem if officials refused to do anything about it.

"Let me say this — they've got one more time to deal with it, because otherwise, next time they deal with it, they're going to deal with it from the streets," he said to approval from the crowd.

"We're going to take over," he added. "Nobody is going to be able to stop us from what we're going to do to them."

Many of the migrants have been bussed in to Chicago shelters from Texas by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

Residents demanded that city leaders dedicate more attention from police officers to the crimes being committed by illegal aliens out in the open. At one point in the heated community meeting, police had to step in to break up an argument between some of the residents.

City leaders said they were looking into adding more staff members to the shelter to make sure migrants who broke the rules or the law faced appropriate consequences.

In May some residents filed a lawsuit to prevent officials from housing migrants at a shuttered high school. Some were quoted as saying, "Build a wall!" in reference to former President Donald Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

 

Occasionally, we need to look at history to reveal our current situation - this article is a great example!

 

The True Definition of Socialism

By James T. Moodey www.americanthinker.com

A few weeks ago, Dennis Prager said, "No one understands what socialism is."  He is right.  Even economists are confused, and for good reason.  After Joseph Stalin gave socialism a bad name, socialist journalists and historians changed its definition to dissimulate socialist activities.  They settled upon a new definition: "the government's takeover of the means of production."

The new definition made socialism into something that is not likely to happen, thus concealing ongoing socialist operations.  The operations of socialism could proceed; however, the operators could no longer be called socialists.  This ruse persists today.

In the eighteenth century, the term socialism was a nebulous bromide to reference a desired perfect society.  Karl Marx codified it in the Communist Manifesto.  It was subsequently identified as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and more commonly as "Take from the rich and give to the poor."  It is the Robin Hood theory.  Perhaps that is why it sells so well.

Taking from the rich to give to the poor, or to anyone else, is an economic system.  Make no mistake: socialism is an economic system.  

Socialism has had various monikers throughout its history, starting with the name Marxism, followed by fascism, Leninism, communism, and the Third Reich.

 Each moniker represents a different intent or method to implement socialism.  Marxism is socialism by force.  But force upon whom and by whom?  Marx envisioned force by employees upon their employers.

When he published the Communist Manifesto in 1848, the ideal of socialism spread throughout the world like a flash of light.

Marx was only twenty-nine years old when he wrote it.  He was an occasional journalist and sold op-ed articles to various newspapers.  He was impoverished his entire life, and in later years lived off pecuniary gifts from his friend Friedrich Engels.

Marx's hatred of the wealthy and their supporters, the bourgeoisie, is obvious throughout the Manifesto.  The class warfare and hatred that he created have survived to this day in socialist philosophy.  In the 1800s, American newspapers were rife with articles and political cartoons that promoted socialism and its innate hatred.

Socialism survives on the noble ideal to help the poor but operates with a false economic assumption made a part of the philosophy by Karl Marx.  He said, "The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at."

In other words, in economic terms, the wealthy do not share enough with the poor, so they must be controlled, punished, or eliminated.  This is the false and destructive aspect of the socialist economic philosophy.

In the U.S., the bourgeoisie have become Republicans, who must be controlled, punished, or eliminated.

In 1848, when the Communist Manifesto was published, Horace Greeley was the unquestioned leader of our media.  Greeley read it and declared himself a socialist.  He wrote numerous articles and op-eds promoting socialism.  Greeley even employed Karl Marx as a European op-ed journalist for his New York Tribune newspaper.

In the 1850s, our American media became promoters of socialism and promote it to this day.  One can fairly say socialism was created by a journalist and is perpetuated by journalists.

To Horace Greeley's credit, he disagreed with Marx's demand to implement socialism by force or violence.  The rest of our media followed his lead.  That has served our country well.  Elsewhere, journalists sided with Marx and precipitated numerous wars to implement socialism.

In Germany, Marxism was particularly revered.  In a book, The Big Lie by autodidact historian Dinesh D'Souza, the author refers to a fascinating observation by a German historian, Gotz Aly.

Aly points to the leftist journalist Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term anti-Semitism.  Aly claims that in 1879, Marr "faulted Jews for outperforming ordinary Germans."

In Germany, Jews were the bourgeoisie.  They owned many of the businesses and tended to be quite wealthy.

Hitler was born in 1889 and grew up in an atmosphere that viewed Jews as the bourgeoisie.  Hitler was a Marxist-style socialist because he wanted to somehow, forcefully rid his country of Jews.  D'Souza points out that Hitler became obsessed with the German question of what to do with the Jews — Judenfrage.

It is no wonder that Hitler founded a Marxist-style socialist party, the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

In D'Souza's book, we find that Hitler said in 1927, "We are socialists.  We are the enemies of today's capitalist system of exploitation ... and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

In Italy, contemporary journalists of Wilhelm Marr were Giuseppe Mazzini and Alessandro Mussolini (Benito's father), a politician who wrote op-eds for a socialist journal.  Benito was born in 1883, six years before Hitler, and was raised in a socialist family.  He was quite brilliant and an excellent writer and orator.  He was also a journalist.

By 1909, Benito had written for a variety of socialist newspapers.  By that time, he was widely read throughout Europe.  One of his most ardent admirers was Adolf Hitler.  Benito was also a Marxist-style socialist; however, that changed.  

By this time, Marxist philosophers and journalists throughout Europe were expressing frustration that Karl Marx's revolt had not occurred.  Mussolini formed a union of workers, but they failed to revolt against the owners of their businesses.  Mussolini was quite frustrated.  He concluded that workers would never revolt against their employers, so he decided that an outside force, a government, must do it for them.

Finally, Mussolini and discontented socialists, restless revolutionaries, and discharged soldiers met to discuss the establishment of a new force in Italian politics.  Mussolini called this force Fasci di Combattimento — the Italian Fighting Leagues, or the Fascist Party.  In the days of ancient Rome, a fasces was a bundle of rods, often including an axe.  It is a symbol of power by force. 0

Mussolini's followers wore black shirts.  In 1922, the black-shirt fascists marched into Rome and took power with little resistance.  Socialism had won the population.  

So fascism is also socialism by force, like Marxism.  However, it is not force by employees; it is force by government.

Marxist fires had been burning in Russia.  Vladimir Lenin had concluded the same as Mussolini: that a government rather than the workers needed to force socialism.  He named his force the Communist Party, and his followers were Bolsheviks.  They took power by force in the October Revolution of 1917.

Lenin was an expert in the study of Marxism and, although not a journalist, was quite a philosopher and writer.  He added something new to Marxist philosophy.

Lenin believed that the evils of capitalism included commerce with other nations.  By trade and commerce the capitalist country could subjugate other nations, make them dependent, and force them into capitalism.  To prevent this, Lenin advocated communist revolutions in other countries to pre-empt the capitalist conversion. 

Leninism, or communism, is socialism by force of government by imperialism.  Hitler was learning from Mussolini and Lenin.   

Let's set aside the monikers and look at the economic system of socialism.  Take from the rich and give to the poor.  How do we take from the rich?  We tax them.  Taxation is the sword and tool of socialism.  It is the fasces of socialism.

The U.S. had no income tax until 1913.  By 1926, in the Roaring Twenties, unfettered capitalism had brought prices down so low that one person, earning the average wage of only $1.24 per hour, could pay off his home in five years, purchase a vacation home, pay that off, and support a family of five all the way through college.  Note that our vacation home boom in resort towns occurred at that time.

So what happened?  Why is our goods-to-price standard of living so much lower and still declining each year?

Franklin Roosevelt increased income taxes for the poor in the lowest income bracket from 4 to 24 percent, in the highest bracket to 94 percent (reducing what we could afford to pay), and corporate taxes to 40 percent (increasing the price we must pay).

This is nonviolent socialism at full throttle.  We became a hybrid capitalist-socialist nation.  Franklin Roosevelt had completed the transformation of the Democrat party into a socialist party, and their occasional moniker is "progressives."  

 

WAKE UP AMERICA! Get educated, inspired, involved and participate to SAVE our great Republic!

 

The Risk That Americans Are Too Busy To Notice Our Dying Liberties

By Vince Coyner www.americanthinker.com

Americans are busy people—but the real risk in the lead-up to 2024 is that we may be too busy to pay attention to our last chance to preserve our liberties.

In one respect, we’re no different than any other people on the planet given that our primary needs are food, water, and shelter. Beyond that, however, Americans enjoy a life of leisure opportunities that virtually no one else on the planet enjoys. Not leisure that’s measured in hours worked as in France or Germany. Workers in most developed countries work fewer hours per year than Americans do.

No, what’s different is that Americans have so many ways to spend their leisure time: Motocross. Shopping. Video games. Countless cable channels. Amusement parks. Golf. Swimming. Skiing. Football. Baseball. Golf. Putt putt golf. Pickleball. Off-track betting. Gymnastics. Theater. Karate. Star Trek conventions. Habitat for Humanity. Cornhole. BBQ competitions. Quilting competitions. Beauty pageants for kids. These are only a tiny fraction of the myriad options Americans have at their disposal to entertain themselves or spend their leisure time watching or participating in.

If one were to compare the spectrum of activities available to the average American with the equivalent spectrum for any other country on the planet, it wouldn’t take long to see an enormous difference. Many countries share some of our pursuits, but the depth and breadth available to Americans is unparalleled. None of this came about by accident. The reason Americans have dozens of sports and thousands of activities to participate in, from grade school to the senior center, is because the nation has been so prosperous for so long, and the nation has exemplified creativity for things both consequential and not. The result is a nation where most people have available a level of entertainment and leisure unparalleled in history.

One consequence of such is that Americans are busy. So busy, in fact, that they forget to pay attention to some things that really matter—specifically, government. In a perfect world, no one would have to pay much attention to the government because it would be run like a well-oiled machine in the background that wouldn’t cause any trouble. But that’s not how governments work. Our Founding Fathers knew that, which is why they gave us a government of separated powers with staggered terms for those responsible for exercising them. But even such a near-perfect document cannot stand forever in the face of avarice and the lust for power.

That greed and lust for power is the defining characteristic of what we call the Swamp. And it was enabled by a plethora of acts that strengthened and emboldened the apparatchiks who man it. These included Executive Orders by JFK and Nixon giving federal employees powers or “protections” they’d never previously had, as well as a 1984 Supreme Court case that required courts to defer to federal agencies as it relates to rule-making when there is ambiguity in the legislation.

Together, these and other acts made the Swamp possible. They built a federal government where it’s almost impossible to fire anyone, and agencies essentially get to decide who and what they regulate while those affected have limited redress. So basically, we have agencies that decide what laws they want to write staffed by people who can’t be fired regardless of their failure, incompetence, or criminality.

Of course, every two years, the cacophony that is American life is made that much more dissonant by elections. Most Americans, however, unfortunately, spend less time learning what’s really at stake in those elections than they do selecting teams for their March Madness brackets or wondering what’s going on in the dysfunctional Kardashian universe. The reality of this disaster was demonstrated 15 years ago by John Ziegler.

This situation might have been acceptable 100 years ago when the federal government was relatively small and had little discernible impact on most American lives. Today, however, when the leviathan of the federal government seeks to control virtually every aspect of our lives, it’s simply not. There’s a tipping point in every endeavor in life, and the lifecycle of a Republic is no exception. Leaving the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked: “Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” He responded: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Two hundred and thirty years later, we are on the verge of losing it. The problem is that too many Americans have no idea what the danger is and have little interest in finding out. They’ve spent so much of their lives enjoying the leisure and entertainment our Republic has made possible that they’ve forgotten that the foundation of freedom and prosperity upon which those conditions are built are not ordained by God, not set in stone, and not guaranteed. The conditions underlying Americans’ freedoms and prosperity are far more fragile than most recognize but, like frogs in a pot of slowly warming water, they’re succumbing to the creeping threat. Indeed, there’s an inverse relationship between government micromanagement and citizens’ freedom.

In what might be the single most crystallizing example of government micromanagement of Americans’ everyday lives since Barack Obama’s attempts to destroy the suburbs, the Biden Administration is considering banning gas stoves and a plethora of other items Americans use in the normal routine of their daily lives. Think about that…

Natural gas has been a key element of cooking in America for centuries. It’s a clean-burning fuel, cheap and plentiful, with a variety of sources, mostly in red states, which makes it hard to control. So, if Democrats can’t control the supply of something, they simply take control of the demand. Doing so in this case has the twin virtues of harming the economies of red states while forcing Americans to buy new, “green lobby approved”—read: dysfunctional and expensive—appliances. All, of course, in the name of the “Climate Change” hoax.

These and literally tens of thousands of other federal regulations are the cost to Americans of not paying attention, summed up by the notion that politics is downstream from culture. Hollywood and the media destroyed American culture, which made turning Washington’s alphabet departments, agencies, and bureaus into tools of tyranny easy.

The question is, can anyone shake the American people out of this political stupor long enough for them to recognize the danger they face? Will Americans rise to the occasion in 2024, or will they instead continue to eat the fruit from the tree of liberty, oblivious to the rot of its roots?

Perhaps a paraphrasing of Martin Niemöller might help:

First, they raised the minimum wage, and I cheered because I had a job.

Then, they destroyed public education, and I didn’t act because I sent my kid to private school.

Next, they limited cable rates, and I applauded because I saved $20 a month.

When they came for my light bulbs, I didn’t react because it made me feel good to help the environment.

One day, they said ethnicity was more important than ability for college acceptance, but I said nothing because I’d already graduated.

They increased taxes on the rich, and I didn’t care because I wasn’t rich.

Then they came for my gun, my car, my job, and eventually everything I hold dear, but there was no one left to stand with me because no one remembered what real liberty was or how it was supposed to be protected in the first place.