ThoughtCrime U

thought·crime
ˈTHôtkrīm/
noun
noun: thoughtcrime; plural noun: thoughtcrimes; noun: thought-crime; plural noun: thought-crimes
  1. an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offense or as socially unacceptable.
    “academia is pandering to politicized pressure groups with courses on feminism and homosexuality, and persecuting colleagues who are guilty of thoughtcrimes”

A thoughtcrime is an Orwellian neologism used to describe an illegal thought. The term has also been used to describe some theological concepts such as disbelief or idolatry,[1] or a rejection of strong philosophical or social principles.

The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party (in this case Universities). In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party.”Crimestop” is a way to avoid crimethink by immediately purging dangerous thoughts from the mind.

UT Austin professor says political correctness killed his moral ethics course 

The art of debate and discourse on campus has largely been lost due to students who no longer feel comfortable openly deliberating ideas that might get them labeled a racist or misogynist or some other name.

That according to University of Texas at Austin philosphy Professor Daniel Bonevac, who has experienced first hand the impact of this trend.

In 2011, seeing signs of this phenomenon, he stopped teaching an extremely popular course examining contemporary moral problems — a class he offered for more than 20 years — because today’s students are unwilling to debate controversial, politicized issues.

Political correctness has frozen debate to the point that the trouble and backlash he might receive by offering such a course it not worth it, he said. At this point, he’s not willing to resume teaching the class.

“Students clam up as soon as conversation veers close to anything controversial and one side might be viewed as politically incorrect,” he told The College Fix via email. “The open exchange of ideas that used to make courses such as Contemporary Moral Problems exciting doesn’t happen.”

“It’s not possible to teach the course the way I used to teach it.”

Historically, Bonevac’s “Contemporary Moral Problems” focused on four issues fundamental to moral and political philosophy: liberty, first principles, rights and justice.

Bonevac discussed these issues by connecting them to contemporary moral issues such as drug legalization, sexual behavior, the environment, abortion, capital punishment, war, economic equality, affirmative action and immigration.

His students read both the classical philosophical texts of Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Burke, Kant, Mill, Rawls and others, as well as contemporary articles tackling various sides of modern moral issues.

The course was extremely popular, according to Bonevac, sometimes enrolling nearly 600 students in a single class.

In a typical Monday lecture, Bonevac would present arguments in favor of one side of a moral issue, and then during Wednesday’s class he’d explore contrary arguments on the same topic.

“Teaching the course successfully requires presenting a fair balance of arguments, treating each side respectfully but also critically, and exposing students to the best arguments I can find on each side,” said Bonevac, who is known as a conservative-leaning professor on campus.

“For decades the University of Texas at Austin has been an ideal place to do that. Students bring a wide range of opinions. They’re open-minded. They argue for their own views vigorously while listening carefully to the other side and treating its advocates respectfully,” he said.

Yet, the rise of political correctness and fear of certain types of speech continue to challenge the free inquiry necessary for the success of “Contemporary Moral Problems,” he said.

“One or two students who don’t share those qualities mentioned above can shut down discussion and destroy such a course,” Bonevac told The Fix.

He recalls that in the early years of teaching the course, he had no problem presenting Sidney Callahan’s and Roger Scruton’s arguments in favor of traditional sexual morality, Don Marquis’s arguments against abortion, Justice Scalia’s and Thomas Sowell’s arguments against affirmative action, and Immanuel Kant’s, John Rawls’s, and George Borjas’s arguments for restricting immigration. He would also present counter arguments to those stances as well.

More recently, however, Bonevac noted that exploring conservative viewpoints on moral issues such as abortion, sexual morality, affirmative action and restrictive immigration has become prohibitively difficult in a classroom setting.

“Ninety-nine percent of the students might be excited to encounter arguments they had never heard before, whether they were inclined to agree with them or not. But the one percent who are not can poison the well. Indeed, they have poisoned the well, even if they say nothing in class,” Bonevac said.

The rise of political correctness makes students unwilling to “say anything that could get them denounced as racist, sexist, xenophobic,” and the like, according to the professor.

“But there’s another, less-noticed dimension,” he continued. “Students know there’s a politically correct view on a lot of issues. So, when anything connected to race, sex, etc., arises, I see a lot of students turn off. I think they see it this way: Either what comes next is politically correct and they’ve heard before, in which case it’s pointless and boring, or it presents a challenge to that perspective, in which case it’s dangerous.”

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Speak No Evil II

Now remember, kiddies, that any speech other than SJW Progressive Liberal Speech is “Hate Speech”.

You have Freedom of Speech as long as it fits in with the Liberal coda, you racist, misogynistic, bigot!

Students at Gettysburg College recently held a days-long protest in an effort to put an end to the “mental and emotional abuse of hate speech” apparently found on campus.

In a statement obtained by The Gettysburgian, protest organizer Joseph Recupero explains that students “can no longer face the mental and emotional abuse of hate speech,” noting that they “should not have to fear walking across campus at night” in the wake of Donald Trump’s election.

See: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8380

(Damn, if I knew it was this easy to get out of going to class do you think portesting Reagan would have worked back in the day…🙂 )

“How can we focus on learning when we are constantly looking over our shoulders?”

“We are here for an education, but how can we focus on learning when we are constantly looking over our shoulders?” Recupero asks in a statement promoting the November 17 protest. “So let’s make something happen. Together. This is a time for all of us to unite under an understanding that hate is a poison that we will not swallow.”

The demonstration, which started that Thursday afternoon, continued well into the following day as protesters garnered the support of their school’s president, who met with several of the organizers of the demonstration and even encouraged other students at the college to support the movement.

In fact, in a campus-wide email sent out by President Janet Morgan Riggs, she explains that she was “personally moved” by the demonstration and advised her students to stop by to show their support.

“The group of students continued their sit-in overnight…they plan to continue today,” she writes. “I encourage you to stop by to show your support, share perspectives, and engage in discussion…As we consider next steps, I ask each member of this community to show more kindness, compassion, and appreciation for one another.”

Additionally, Campus Reform obtained a copy of an email from the Student Government Executive Board stating that they “unequivocally support the action of [their] peers.”

While professing that “we support free speech,” the statement adds that “the Senate Executive Board in no way sees hate speech as an acceptable form of expression,” and “condemn all forms of it.”

“While our political and ideological beliefs may not all be the same, we can all agree that hate has no place in our community,” it continues before encouraging other students to participate in the protest.

Although the sit-in eventually came to an end, organizers of the demonstration have launched a campus collective called “#WontStandForYourHate,” which is “working to establish open and productive dialogue on our college campus,” according to a subsequent email obtained by Campus Reform.

In that same email, however, Recupero also declares that only those who “agree with” the collective’s goals and beliefs are welcome.

“We are here as a support network for all members of our campus community who wish to learn in, live in, and build safe and inclusive spaces where difference is celebrated,” he writes. “We believe apathy and silence contribute to hate. If we don’t act and speak against hate, we allow it to be perpetuated.”

rigged-recount

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Speak No Evil

  • Hampshire College is cracking down on free expression after veterans protested its decision to remove the American flag from campus, forcing activists to petition the White House for redress.
  • Hampshire President Jonathan Lash announced via email Tuesday that “no protestors [sic] will be allowed to come on campus” and that “media are prohibited from speaking directly to students.”

Hampshire College is cracking down on free expression after veterans protested its decision to remove the American flag from campus, forcing activists to petition the White House for redress.

On the eve of Veteran’s Day, Hampshire students upset over Donald Trump’s election burned an American flag that had been lowered to half-staff on a campus flagpole, prompting a national controversy that was only inflamed by the school’s response.

“No protestors [sic] will be allowed to come on campus.”   

But they make $15/hr!!🙂

 

While Hampshire College President Jonathan Lash initially expressed disappointment with the students, he also announced that he would not be replacing the flag, asserting that the decision would help to “focus our efforts on addressing racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and behaviors.”

Meaning anything and anyone who disagree with our Agenda.

After all, it’s the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE Speech, not “hate speech” which is defined as any speech that is counter or in opposition to Liberal speech.

In response, hundreds of veterans and local residents held a protest on campus over the weekend to demand that the banner be restored, with many demonstrators suggesting that the college should have its federal funding withheld until it complies.

Now, Lash has issued another ukase, this time decreeing that “no protestors [sic] will be allowed to come on campus” and that “media are prohibited from speaking directly to students.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell

Campus police will also have an increased presence on campus to ensure both compliance and student safety, he continued, adding that the administration would also “monitor social media about any other events that are planned and report any concerns to campus police.”

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

“It’s discouraging to hear Jonathan Lash make an announcement to not talk to the media.” A student from Hampshire College told Campus Reform. “In order for Hampshire to be heard during this time, it’s important students speak out against what’s happening. It’s important we stand up for our school. It’s important to not let the radical minority be the only voice heard during this time.”

But it is VERBOTEN! This is is Free Speech after all!🙂

This student has asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution, but others have found a way around Hampshire’s restrictive policies, creating a White House petition to “remove all federal funding from Hampshire College until they choose to fly the American Flag on their campus.”

The petition had secured nearly 2,000 signatures by press time, still far short of the 100,000 that it needs by Christmas in order to elicit a presidential statement.

“It is our belief that the school should not receive tax dollars in any form,” the petition reads. “They have chosen to step away from our country in a very bold and clear statement. As such they should not receive support from the country they no longer are choosing to support.”

MassLive reports that students attending Hampshire College receive $7.2 million in federal funding, which accounts for about 14.6 percent of the school’s net $64 million in revenue, and that the school also received $690,386 in federal grants during FY 2014.

liberal-election-freak-out

Five Stages

Ever since the elections, our media, schools, workplaces and houses of worship have presented a steady stream of stories showcasing the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. 

Liberal-progressive snowflakes are wallowing in denial, anger and depression. They cannot work, attend class or take exams. They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Do, comfort critters and counseling. Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zealand or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would. 

Nouveau grief is also characterized by the elimination of bargaining and acceptance – and their replacement by two new stages: intolerance for other views and defiance or even riots. Sadly, it appears these new stages have become a dominant, permanent, shameful feature of liberal policies and politics. 

The Left has long been intolerant to alternative viewpoints. Refusing to engage or debate, banning or forcibly removing books and posters, threatening and silencing contrarians, disinviting or shouting down conservative speakers, denying tax exempt status to opposing political groups, even criminalizing and prosecuting climate change “deniers” – have all become trademark tactics. Defiance and riots were rare during the Obama years, simply because his government enforced lib-prog ideologies and policies. 

Liberals view government as their domain, their reason for being, far too important to be left to “poorly educated” rural and small-town voters, blue-collar workers or other “deplorable” elements. Liberals may not care what we do in our bedrooms, but they intend to control everything outside those four walls.

They are aghast that over 90% of all US counties and county equivalents voted for Trump. They’re incensed that President Trump and Republicans in Congress, 33 governor’s offices and 69 of 99 state legislatures nationwide will likely review and reform policies, laws and regulations on a host of issues. 

Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra. It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at 5-star venues in exotic locales – their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards. 

That is why they demand that only their “facts” be heard on the “consensus science” supporting policies they say are essential to prevent a “disastrous” 2º C (3.6º F) rise from 1850 levels, when the Little Ice Age ended (and the modern industrial era began). It’s why the Paris climate agreement tells developed nations to keep fossil fuels in the ground, roll back their economies and reduce their living standards – while giving $100 billion per year to poor countries for climate mitigation and reparation. 

That, in turn, is why developing countries eagerly signed the Paris accord, bringing it into force and effect just before this year’s climate confab in Marrakech. They would not be required to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. And they – or at least their governing classes – would receive trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Countless thousands were thus in jolly spirits as they flew giant fuel-guzzling, GHG-spewing jetliners into Morocco for the historic event. 

 

But then, on the third day, news of the US elections brought misery and mayhem to Marrakech. Event organizers had tolerated credentialed Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow representatives handing out Climate Hustle DVDs and discussing Real World climate science and energy development. But when CFACT erected a Donald Trump cutout and shredded a copy of the Paris accord, they sent armed police to forcibly end the educational event and boot the impudent non-believers out of the hallowed conference. 

Marrakech may have marked the zenith of the religious-political climate movement. President-Elect Trump has long held that there is likely “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate – but he has also said it is a “hoax” to say humans are now causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. He also says he has an “open mind” on the issue and will be studying it “very closely.” 

 

Here are a few important facts and probing questions that he could raise, to get the ball rolling. 

1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences on global climate systems, amid many natural forces. However, it soon began looking only at human influences. Now it claims warming, cooling and weather are driven only by human emissions. How and why did this happen? How can you ignore the powerful natural forces, focus solely on air emissions associated with fossil fuel use – and call it solid, honest, empirical, consensus science? 

2) Your “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis – and the computer models used in support of it – implicitly assume that fossil fuel emissions have replaced dozens, perhaps hundreds, of powerful natural forces that have driven climate change and extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history. What caused the ice ages and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other major climate and weather events – before fossil fuel emissions took over? 

 

Where did all those natural forces go? Why are they no longer functioning? Who stole them? When did they stop ruling the climate: in 1850, 1900, 1950 … or perhaps 1990, after the IPCC was established? 

3) You claim climate and weather patterns are already “unprecedented” and increasingly cataclysmic. But even as plant-fertilizing CO2 levels continue to climb, average global temperatures have risen barely 0.1 degrees the past two decades, amid a major El Niño. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century. It has now been a record eleven years since a category 3-5 hurricane struck the US mainland; the previous record was nine years, 1860 to 1869. The 2016 US tornado count was the lowest on record. Where are the unprecedented cataclysms? 

4) Your computer models begin with the assumption or assertion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will cause rapidly, dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events. But if this assumption is wrong, so are your models, projections and scenarios. It’s garbage in / garbage out. And in fact your models have been wrong – dramatically and consistently, year after year. When will you fix them? When will they factor in data and analyses for solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces? 

5) The manmade climate cataclysm community has refused to discuss or debate its data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions with those whom you call “skeptics” or “deniers.” 97% consensus, case closed, you say. What do you fear from open, robust debate? What manipulated data or other tricks are you trying to hide? Why are you afraid to put your cards on the table, lay out your supposed evidence – and duke it out? Do you really think taxpayers should give you one more dime under these circumstances? 

6) The FDA and other federal agencies require that applications for drugs, medical devices and permits for projects include extensive raw data, lab and project methodologies, and other information. Your modeling and other work is largely paid for with taxpayer money, and used to determine public policies. Why should you be allowed to hide your data and methodologies, treat them as proprietary, refuse to share them with Congress or “realist” scientists, and refuse to engage in a full peer-review process? 

7) EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme blames everything imaginable on fossil fuels – but totally ignores the huge benefits of using these fuels. Isn’t that misleading, disingenuous, even fraudulent? 

8) America already produces more ethanol than it can use. Now EPA wants it to blend another 1.2 billion gallons into our gasoline. Why should we do this – considering the land, water, environmental, fuel efficiency and other costs, rampant fraud in the RIN program, and impacts on small refiners? If we replace all fossil fuels with biofuels, how much land, water, fertilizer and energy would that require? 

9) Wind turbines are land intensive, heavily subsidized and exempted from most environmental rules. They kill millions of birds and bats. Their electricity is expensive and unreliable, and requires fossil fuel backup generators. Why should this industry be exempted from endangered species laws – and allowed to conduct fraudulent mortality studies, and prevent independent investigators from reviewing the work? 

Mr. Trump, keep an open mind. But keep exercising due diligence. Trust, but verify. And fire anyone who lies or refuses to answer or provides the climate equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete. 

grief

 

Streaming Liberalism

How dare you cost Liberals Tax Money!! That’s an unholy sin! You must be punished!

The intrigue of the Netflix drama “House of Cards” soon might pale next to the turmoil brewing over whether consumers should pay a tax to watch Netflix and other video streaming services.

Pasadena city officials are mulling whether to tax subscribers of Netflix, Hulu and other video streaming using an existing municipal utility tax code that initially was designed for taxing cable-television users. Sacramento and dozens of other California cities have similar codes that might enable them to consider the tax.

That follows similar so-called “Netflix taxes” that already have gone into effect in Pennsylvania and Chicago. More levies elsewhere could be coming as state and local agencies try to generate more revenue, especially to replace revenue lost from consumers who became “cord cutters” by dropping cable TV and switching to video streaming.

How dare you try to save money or make choices that hurt Liberal Tax Addicts!!

“The trend seems to be more toward taxation than non-taxation,” said Paul Verna, senior analyst at the research firm eMarketer.

But the move is fraught with doubts and confusion. For starters, the Internet Assn. — the trade group whose members include Netflix — is not happy about the tax effort and is campaigning to curb it. The group also hinted that it might pursue legal action in some cases.

“We’re not leaving anything off the table,” said Robert Callahan, the Internet Assn.’s California executive director. “There are a number of questions we have about the legality of this.”

There’s also confusion about whether city officials can unilaterally impose a tax on streaming services or whether a specific Netflix tax should be subject to voter approval.

In Pasadena, for instance, City Finance Director Matthew Hawkesworth said he can decide whether to levy the city’s 9.4% video tax on streaming services based on a revised utility tax code that was approved by voters in 2008. That code says video-programming suppliers can face a tax “whatever their technology.”

But the California Taxpayers Assn. consumer group says not so fast.

“Our stance is you can’t do this without a public vote” on a tax on video streaming, said David Kline, the group’s spokesman.

“The law is very clear in California that if the local government wants to expand or increase a tax, it requires a vote of the public,” Kline said.

Then there’s the question about how and when such a tax would be collected by Netflix or the other providers and then relayed to a city’s coffers.

For example, Netflix could look for account holders with addresses in Pasadena. But what if the account holder simply switches to a relative’s address outside the city to avoid the tax? Or, as Kline theorized, “What if someone goes on vacation out of town and uses Netflix at their hotel? Are you still going to tax them?”

Even Pasadena is struggling with that question, Hawkesworth said. “That is the part we’re trying to understand. It could be based on the address designated on the account, but I don’t know that for sure.”

In addition, Netflix would have to keep track of different city tax rates for different subscribers in California.

There are roughly 45 California cities with utility tax codes that might allow for a Netflix tax, including Sacramento, Culver City, Glendale and Santa Monica. The cities’ video tax rates range from 1% of the bill to 11%.

Netflix has 47 million U.S. subscribers, and its standard plan costs $9.99 a month. So a 10% tax would add another dollar to the bill. Hulu, with 12 million subscribers, charges $5.99 to $11.99 a month depending on the service.

Netflix spokeswoman Anne Marie Squeo said the Los Gatos, Calif., company has serious reservations about the tax issue.

“It’s a dangerous precedent to start taxing Internet apps and websites using laws intended for utilities like water and electricity,” Squeo said. “It is especially concerning when these taxes are applied to consumers without consent and in a manner that likely violates federal and state law.”

Pasadena and some of the other California cities that are weighing such a tax have hired MuniServices, a unit of PRA Group Inc., to help them navigate the issue.

MuniServices spokeswoman Nancy Porter declined to discuss the effort in Pasadena or any city specifically, but said in general, the cities are asking such questions as: “If a consumer unplugs from cable television and gets the same service from Netflix or HBO Go, should that service be taxable?”

Asked why he was considering the tax for Pasadena, Hawkesworth said, “My job is to put all the options on the table for the city manager and elected officials to make good, informed decisions about how the city can collect revenue.”

Netflix and the rest of the streaming industry “has proven itself fairly sustainable, and it’s incumbent on us to say, ‘Does this apply [to a tax] or doesn’t it apply?’ ” Hawkesworth said.

Pasadena, with a population of 142,000, expects to collect $2.3 million from its video utility tax — mainly for cable TV — this year. That’s up from $1.9 million in 2013 because of additional subscribers.

But the city is projecting overall budget shortfalls in coming years, starting with a $7.6 million deficit in 2018, so it’s looking for additional revenue sources.

And Liberals never cut spending. They just increase Taxes.😦

Regardless, one big reason the Internet Assn. objects to a Netflix tax “is the precedent of having what you do online being taxed as a utility,” Callahan said.

“That is a slippery slope we think is dangerous,” he said. “Today, it’s because I’m paying for Netflix, and the next day, it’s for the music I download online and the next day, it’s for social media I use. If you’re treating Internet websites and apps as utilities, there’s no limit as to how far they can take it.”

That’s already partly the case in Pennsylvania. On Aug. 1, the state’s 6% sales tax was extended to streaming services such as Netflix and to digital downloads of music, e-books and ringtones. The tax is levied on users with accounts having a Pennsylvania billing address.

Chicago last year imposed a 9% tax on streaming media services under an existing “amusement tax” typically applied to concerts and sporting events.

The 4,000+ murders in the city aren’t amusing.🙂

But that tax is being challenged in court by the Liberty Justice Center legal group on grounds the tax is unconstitutional under state and federal laws. In the meantime, Chicago residents are forking over the tax money.

Critics also contend that taxing Netflix and other streaming services amounts to double taxation because the user typically already is paying local taxes for Internet access for their computer and for phone-carrier access for their smartphone.

Of course, the same double taxation already applies to goods bought on Amazon.com and some other e-commerce sites. Amazon initially was free of state sales tax but now Amazon purchases are subject to sales tax in 28 states, including California.

Because governments want MONEY! They are addicted to it.

Regardless, the factors at play in taxing Netflix and other streaming services “make for a situation where everything is up in the air,” eMarketer’s Verna said. “The cities are taking matters into their own hands, and then there’s going to be a lot of fallout.

“As these battles play out and get more media attention, and lobbying attention on both sides escalates, it’s anybody’s guess who wins,” Verna said.

Image result for zombie Money, need money

Go To Hell

While liberals and progressives were sorry to see him go and I was much more sad to see the deaths of Florence Henderson and Ron Glass over the weekend that a Dictator that has been there my entire life.

Fidel Castro. May he rot in his own hell.

I was born during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was the world I was born into.

Thanks, Fidel. I won’t miss you.

But Liberals will. They love oppressive Communist Dictators.

obama-kisses-cuban-ass

And of course, it’s all about HIM.🙂

But I’m more in tune with our President-Elect:

“Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades,” the statement read. “Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.”

“Though the tragedies, death and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty,” the president-elect added.

Sen. Marco Rubio (a Cuban American): “President Obama issued a pathetic statement on death of dictator #FidelCastro with no mention of thousands he killed & imprisoned,” he wrote on Twitter Saturday morning.

Fidel Castro seized power promising to bring freedom and prosperity to Cuba, but his communist regime turned it into an impoverished island prison. Over six decades, millions of Cubans were forced to flee their own country, and those accused of opposing the regime were routinely jailed and even killed.

Sadly, Fidel Castro’s death does not mean freedom for the Cuban people or justice for the democratic activists, religious leaders, and political opponents he and his brother have jailed and persecuted. The dictator has died, but the dictatorship has not. And one thing is clear, history will not absolve Fidel Castro; it will remember him as an evil, murderous dictator who inflicted misery and suffering on his own people.

The future of Cuba ultimately remains in the hands of the Cuban people, and now more than ever Congress and the new administration must stand with them against their brutal rulers and support their struggle for freedom and basic human rights.

His brother Raul  and Liberals everywhere are standing in the way.

happy-dance

Calexit

YES,PLEASE. That’s 55 Electoral Votes the Democrats won’t get then.🙂

And many those Celebrities and Race-Baiters who threatened to move to Canada if Trump won, then said “just kidding” would go with them…

As disgraced Democrat John Edwards liked to say, “There are two Americas.” There’s an America where people love this country, want it to be successful and believe in using tried and tested means like capitalism, conservatism, the Constitution and Christianity to make that happen. Then there’s an America where this country is shameful, deserves to be brought down a peg and all the old values that served us in the past need to be disgraced and destroyed. These views are becoming increasingly difficult to square. 

Take Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, for example. Are there any meaningful areas of agreement you have with them politically as conservatives? Do you agree with them on abortion, gay marriage, Obamacare, the Constitution, controlling the border, taxes, states’ rights, spending, judges, school choice, etc., etc.? Those disagreements might be mostly irrelevant if liberals were content to live how they want in states they control while leaving everyone else alone. Instead, liberals have worked incessantly to create an all-powerful centralized government that they believe should marginalize and prey upon people who don’t share their political beliefs. The idealized liberal world is one where you do the work, they take your tax dollars and give that money to people who don’t work as hard as you in exchange for keeping the Left in power. That unworkable liberal philosophy is inexorably marching the country towards bankruptcy and ruin. 

…Which brings us to California and the “Calexit.” Inspired by Britain’s “Brexit” from Europe, a group called Yes California wants to put leaving the United States on the ballot for Californians in 2018. If liberals want California to secede, then conservatives should say, “Godspeed, Libs!” Of course, there are some caveats. Any nuclear weapons and military equipment should stay in the United States. Buy your own military hardware for your new nation. Additionally, large swathes of California aren’t liberal. Roughly half the physical area in California went for Trump over Hillary, for instance. Split the state in two and let the liberal half form its own nation while the conservative “new California” stays in the United States. Given the raw size of California and the deep political differences, the state should be split in two whether there’s a “Calexit” or not.  

That begs an obvious question. The Yes California group has an argument about why Californians should leave the United States, but why should the rest of us want it to happen? 

Well, if you believe that liberalism is destroying the country, getting rid of California would put a big thumb on the scale for conservatism. California has 55 electoral votes that are automatically in the liberal column every presidential election. Spreading those electoral votes across the other states, or, even better, having California leave while a smaller, more conservative California stays in the country would make it much more likely Republicans would be elected. That might literally be the difference between the country having a bright future and going down the tubes. Additionally, California has two liberal senators and 39 out of 53 of its House members are Democrats. You want to cement in Republican control of the House for the foreseeable future? That shift would probably do it. 

 

That alone would be worth getting rid of California, but there are also economic considerations. For one thing, we wouldn’t need to pay California residents Social Security or Medicare any longer. Given that we’re talking about a state with 36 million people where 11% of the population was over 65 in 2015 with that number projected to rise to 18% in 2030, the amount of money saved would be staggering.  

Then there’s the state’s enormous debt,

“Stanford’s PensionTracker.org launched last fall, initially listing local agencies, and last week added data for every state. California ranked seventh highest nationwide for debt-per-household when viewed through rose-colored glasses ($15,618); and third-highest in the nation when viewed through skeptic’s glasses ($77,700).

“I was a little surprised that the unfunded amount per household is as high as it is,” said Joe Nation, public policy professor at Stanford and director of the data project.

All told, California’s public pension systems are $281.5 billion short, including pension bond debt. Through Nation’s lens, they’re nearly $1 trillion in the hole – or $946.4 billion.”

 

Like Detroit, Puerto Rico, and Greece, California is headed for bankruptcy and by the time it’s done, the bill will likely be over a trillion dollars. If we could wash our hands of that problem, it would be good news for the country. 

So, if California wants to say, “Hasta La Vista, Baby,” conservatives across the country should welcome it and do everything they can to facilitate a happy split. (Townhall)