Local News for the End of April, 2017

Yes folks, things in our state are just lookin' "peachy"!

Happening In Olympia

Advocates for a Seattle income tax are planning to take the city to state Supreme Court to overturn statewide income tax ban. If the group of people, brought together by the Transit Riders Union and more, are able to pass a Seattle income tax, they are hoping the tax will then be challenged and get taken up at the state Supreme Court. A decision there could overturn the ruling against income taxes that currently stands, opening the door for a statewide income tax to be introduced in the legislature.

Western Washington

West Point Treatment Plant is still emptying wastewater into the Puget Sound, won’t meet permit standards until mid-May. While mechanical failures have been mostly rectified, the plant is still sending 20 trucks a day – at $700 to $1,000 a trip – to deliver waste to a Renton treatment plant because the West Point Treatment plant has not fully recovered yet. Director of King County Natural Resources and Parks said, “We still have a lot of work to do. We are targeting mid-May, but remember we are relying on biology.” Tolls for the Highway 99 tunnel are no longer expected to be able to cover construction costs. The Washington State Department of Transportation analysis has determined that the estimated toll totals will fall $100 million short with the initial $1 and $1.50 (peak time) tolls the tunnel were supposed to charge. Should the toll rates increase to cover the extra $100 million needed to fund tunnel construction, WSDOT is worried people will use alternate routes – thus lowering toll revenue even more. Will construction on the Highway 99 tunnel ever run smoothly? Eastside commute traffic will increase as two transit centers close for light rail construction. “We know this is going to be a big change for people. This is going to be a difficult time as we make progress toward opening Eastlink. So, we’re just hoping people can find a good option for them before the lot closes,” Rachelle Cunningham of Sound Transit said. It is interesting that a project dedicated to reducing traffic will now be admittedly worsening commutes for Eastside commuters for the next five years. Sound Transit announces more details on ST3 expansions. They have reported they intend to reach Ballard in 2035, West Seattle in 2030 and Federal Way in 2024. The $54 billion package voters approved will take 25 years to complete and the agency is expected to have 24 different projects simultaneously in play by the end of this year. Seattle attorney, Mayor Ed Murray’s public safety advisor, Scott Lindsay will be challenging Pete Holmes for city attorney. Lindsay is running because he doesn’t think Homes has been involved in discussion for what is best for the city. He believes, “The vast majority of repeat defendants coming through the system for low-level property crimes like car prowls are suffering from addiction and very often homelessness. But the office and Pete Holmes have been absent from the discussion.” Seattle Mayor Ed Murray adds diet soda to his proposed soda tax, and lowered the proposed tax from 1.75 cents per ounce to 2 cents per ounce of a tax on sugary drinks. He believes, “we will raise the ongoing $18 million dollars for our education and health agenda,” with the tax.

Here's the Real Reason Why Several Republicans Do Not Want to Repeal Obamacare!

Patriot, A representative from the United Nations sent a letter to the Trump Administration warning that the repeal of Obamacare would be a violation of international law. No, this is not borrowed from The Onion... it comes straight from the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission. We've included the memo below... but please keep reading. This formerly confidential notice claims that -- pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 33/9 -- the United States government is required to ensure "the rights to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the right to social security of the people of the United States of America." (Emphasis ours.) It goes on to state that article 5 (e) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination -- ratified by the United States during the Clinton Administration -- requires the U.S. government to "guarantee the right of everyone to a number of economic, social, and cultural rights, without distinction as to race, colour, or national, or ethnic origin... [which include] the rights to public health, medical care, social security, social services, among others." As a "party" to the United Nations and its treaties, the United States is obligated to provide public healthcare to remain in compliance with international law... a mandate that is wholly repugnant to the American form of government which exists to defend the people's individual rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" under a federation of constitutionally limited governments. But according to the United Nations, if the United States fails to provide government-run healthcare we are "discriminating" and violating "human rights" as defined by an international organization unelected by the American People. If we are to retain our national sovereignty in this age of global governance, we must sever all ties with the United Nations. If you agree it's time to remove the United States from the United Nations -- and the United Nations from the United States (its New York headquarters) -- we're urging you right now to sign the petition to Congress and tell legislators to pass the American Sovereignty Restoration Act and place it on the President's desk in 2017. Defend American Sovereignty! Sign and send the no-cost petition to your U.S. Representative and Senators now! The good news is, President Trump has already slashed U.S. funding for some United Nations programs. But as we've seen, we can't stop there. With the latest memo in mind, its clear that there are decades worth of "agreements" the United States has made with the supranational overseers at the United Nations... and we need to opt-out while there is still time. The United Nations is positioning to be the Biggest of Big Governments -- and the furthest from the People. That's why it's so important that we demand members of Congress to end our membership in the United Nations by passing the American Sovereignty Restoration Act without delay. Specifically, this important legislation... REPEALS the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. REPEALS the United Nations Headquarter Agreement Act. TERMINATES financial contributions to the United Nations from the United States.  WITHDRAWS United Nations presence in United States government facilities and repeal diplomatic immunity. REPEALS United States membership and participation in the United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organizations. REPEALS the United Nation Environment Program Participation Act of 1973. REPEALS United States participation in the World Health Organization.  REPEALS involvement in United Nations conventions and agreements. President Donald Trump has made it very clear that he is determined to serve "America First." That's why it's crucial that citizens demand members of the House and Senate to pass the American Sovereignty Restoration Act and place it on the President's desk. Defend American Sovereignty! Add your name to our urgent petition right away! Please help us spread this message far and wide -- Liberty First, Constitutional Rights PAC P.S. Here is the United Nations document that we told you we would share. Please spread the word about this so that other outraged patriots will take action in defense of our right to govern ourselves.

Why Good Economics Matters Now More Than Ever

Blogger's Note: As someone who's been following economics as a "side interest" over the years, I've learned enough to know that the following article from Sound Money Defense League contains very sound advice which seems to be falling out of acceptance more recently. Thus, the reason I share it here:

======================= 

by Jp Cortez

In a newsletter published in 1970, economist Murray Rothbard wrote, "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

This is an oft-quoted platitude within circles of libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics.

Today, we are seeing the embodiment of Rothbard's fears. The woeful state of economic understanding has reached a critical mass. Economics has taken a back seat to issues deemed more important. What's worse is that when economics is discussed, millennials tend to lean socialist.

I have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money flourish as I work in the field. Yes, I believe that tying a nation's currency to gold keeps government spending in check. This is hardly professional bias though, as we all have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money championed, many just don't recognize it.

This piece is aimed at anyone with a vested interest in maintaining a standard of living higher than that of the depression-era breadline vagabond. Economics transcends race, gender, and political identification.

Let's begin by examining the first of two reasons that good economics is paramount.

Good Economics Is Important Because We Are Seeing a Rise in Bad Economics

Despite the corruption and backhanded actions of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign to win the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders experienced a meteoric rise reminiscent to that of Ron Paul's, whose 2008 presidential campaign trained his supporters' focus on economics.

Paul championed policies in the spirit of economists that I personally revere: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Nobel Prize Laureate Friedrich Hayek, among others. Bernie Sanders's 2016 campaign had an equal but opposite effect. From teenagers to senior citizens, many loved Sanders's critique of the broken system that favors the wealthy and stifles the poor.

His "solutions" are abysmal, yet despite the countless examples of current (and more importantly, collapsed) socialist-Marxist/Leninist calamities, a self-described socialist found a foothold in the United States. The revolution inspired by Sanders is anti-intellectual. The "economics" that stemmed out of the Sanders campaign was not economics at all. His school of economics was built on people shouting about their feelings and promoting egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism. Good economics is grounded in axiomatic truths and empirical facts about the world around us. Sound money keeps governments and central banks (called the Federal Reserve in the US) from endless money printing and devastating inflation. Yes, that means the government won't be able to provide every service that one desires. That is a good thing. Government is the bastion of inefficiency and the epitome of waste. Strictly from an economics standpoint, the market is far better suited at providing products and services. The espousal of socialist policies in economics is dangerous and irresponsible. Fortunately, it doesn't take much intellectual firepower to write off socialism as wildly inefficient. But it does take some. Socialism falls apart quickly when one understands the economic calculation problem, which explains the importance of prices based in subjective value in a free market system and explains how centrally planned economies, devoid of market prices, are doomed to suffer from inefficiencies in the form of widespread shortages and surpluses. Without these rudimentary economic blocks, "free college, health care for everyone, and massive taxation on the 1 percent to pay for these policies" sounds desirable. We must learn, though. We must strive for intellectual growth. We must take the lessons we've learned from history and apply them to the word we live in today: socialism does not work. Socialism kills. (Even Scandinavian socialism isn't as great as socialists say it is). Socialism has been proven to be a terrible economic policy repeatedly. At some point, the value of human lives outweighs the desire for a politician to conduct a social experiment on how quickly he or she can rid their country of any and all valuable resources. That point is now. We must understand that socialism is an exercise in futility and inefficiency. Understanding good economics kills off the allure of central planning that continues to be peddled by politicians on the left. In fairness, understanding good economics helps wade past the bad economics posited by the right as well. For a multitude of reasons, it's a good idea to take a politicians' statements with grains of salt. As far as economics goes, economist Thomas Sowell said it better than I ever could. The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. Sound economics based in sound money policies make it possible to eat reasonably priced meals because inflation tends to be lower in countries that practice these policies. Sound money policies make enacting socialist policies difficult. Understanding fundamental economics is the lynchpin to cultivating an environment conducive to having meaningful debate on other social issues. Which brings us to the second reason why economics is crucial.

Economics Is the Most Important Social Issue of Our Time

We should start by understanding that economics is a social issue. In fact, economics is the social issue. No issue influences individuals (read: all the individuals) within a society more than its economic practices. Living in the United States in 2017 means exposure to all sorts of social issues including – but not limited to – same sex marriage, police brutality, safe spaces, drug legalization, and firearms ownership. To be sure, these issues are important and should be examined with sober eyes. But the issue of economics supersedes this list and every other list. I believe consenting individuals should be allowed to do whatever their hearts desire so long as they aren't violating the rights of another. I stand in solidarity with those who favor legalized same-sex marriages. I stand with those who want to see marijuana legalized nationwide and those who want to own automatic weapons. But herein lies the danger of ignoring economics at the expense of other issues: Being "allowed" to smoke marijuana legally seems insignificant when a loaf of bread costs a month's salary and your loved ones are dying of starvation, doesn't it? I concede the subjective nature of this evaluation, but if I had to choose between the legality of same sex marriages and economic stability, I would choose economic stability without pause. Not because I don't value personal freedom to do as one wishes, but because I understand that with economic stability comes the ability to fight another day for other issues. Brazil, according to Bloomberg, was the second-worst economic performer of 2016. The other side of the coin is more uplifting: Brazil recognizes same-sex unions; allows same-sex marriages; allows adoptions by same-sex couples; allows individuals who identify as LGBT to serve in the military; and so on. Brazil's removal of the proverbial shackles on homosexuals to live as they see fit is a big win for personal liberty, undoubtedly. But one can't help but wonder if the married same-sex couple in Brazil suffering from the terrible economic policies enacted by their country thinks, "13.2 percent of our entire country's population is unemployed. That's close to what the US faced between 1930-1931 as the Great Depression destroyed their economy. We can't afford to feed ourselves or our family and we're subjected to danger and crime as others are desperate to obtain food and money. But hey, at least the government recognizes our marriage!"

Greece is another example of the result of poor economic policies. Riots and crippling tax hikes to pay for irresponsible economic policies are commonplace in Greece, but hey, at least small amounts of cannabis have been decriminalized, right?

I don't mean to belittle the importance of issues such as these. But as millennials, as members of the citizenry, and as people with a stake in the economic health of the nation we inhabit, our efforts are often misplaced. Sound economic policies should be pursued with at least the same fervor as the myriad issues that don't potentially end in economic collapse, death, crime, and general hysteria. America finds itself on the cusp of revolution, but not necessarily the kind you might imagine. The revolution we are headed towards is an intellectual one. Good economics lies at the heart of this revolution. Without good economics, we are powerless against the abuses of the Federal Reserve, the central bank that intentionally devalues the money in your bank account while it finances foreign wars and domestic programs that the government wouldn't have the means to pay for otherwise. Without good economics, we are defenseless against the bad economic policies that lead to extreme levels of pillaging that socialists lovingly refer to as taxation. Without good economics, we subject ourselves to tangible, real-life danger and lose the opportunity to bring about the changes we wish to see.

Just What Does the "Moderate" Muslim Believe?

I've long believed that "moderate Muslims" in our country were not stepping up to the plate in speaking out about the terrorist acts being committed by radicals of their faith, such as the current group known as ISIS. (Actually, Islam is not as much a faith as it is an autocratic ideology wearing the cloak of a religion.)

After every terrorist attack, politicians and pundits reassure us that the atrocity does not represent the true beliefs of the "moderate Muslim majority." But how many moderates are there? And what exactly does "moderate" mean? Military instructor and researcher Hussein Aboubakr explains.

Rich Hypocrisy & The Well Tuned Orchestration of the Left

While the leftist politicians are beating the drums across the country these days to convey the meme that President Trump is illegitimate, crazy, a dictator, a spy stooge of Putin, etc., Lou Dobbs on FOX Business News got Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch on to point out just how hypocritical and orchestrated leftists in the Obama administration were in meddling in foreign country's elections and spying on the Senate Intelligence Committe. Here's the brief explanation on the page for Judicial Watch with the video for viewing as well.

"On April 24, 2017, Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell appeared on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on the Fox Business Network to discuss the Susan Rice Scandal and Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the State Department and USAID regarding the funding of political activities of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation – Macedonia."

The State of the Disunion

April 27, 2017 - Tucker Carlson Show, 2nd & 3rd segments, FOX News Chanel

Tucker: Well, this week Ann Coulter was forced to cancel a speech because a school would not provide a venue or a time, and it was just too unsafe, and you can tell it's not an exaggeration from looking at those pictures. As you can see right now, despite the cancellation, hundreds of people have taken to the streets, anyway. Riot police are out in force to keep the situation under control. This is pretty crazy. Ann Coulter is in San Francisco right now and she joins us live.

Tucker: Um, Ann, just clarify for us, there's been a lot written about this, why were you not able to speak at Berkeley?

Ann: Well, they change the rules every ten minutes, um, I kept agreeing to all of their conditions - they were hoping I would cancel - but no matter how, and I kept saying, "Okay, okay, whatever you want." um, and then they just up and cancelled it, and then they randomly rescheduled it, and, um, then my allies turned tail and ran at the last minute when I thought we'd achieved total victory. So, I didn't have any sponsors for Berkeley.

Tucker: So, but is it...

Ann: My Berkeley cancelled, my sponsors acquiesced.

Tucker: So, but is it fair to say that the bottom line is that the threat of violence is what prevented you from speaking?

Ann: Well, that's what Berkeley claims, or course, there are ways of dealing with violence. That's why we have a police force. That insane press conference that Berkeley administrators and Capt. Alex Yaow, I think his name was, with the Berkeley Police last week... the police captain's argument was, "We can't have any Ann Coulter, there's gonna be violence!" Well, I don't know, call a cop! What's your job? It's like you're on a plane about to take off and the pilot says, "How am I supposed to get this thing across the country?" That's your job!

Tucker: Well, the whole point of having people with guns is to protect your right to say what you think. So, what would you have said, I mean, I guess it's too late, but you've got a venue right here. What would you have said, had you been allowed to speak?

Ann: Yes, well, you're getting it exclusively, so the thugs do not win. Um, well my seditious and hateful speech, the theme of it was going to be, obviously, was going to be a searingly brilliant speech on immigration. Um, but the main point of which was, federal written law, on the books about immigration, developed over generations by both Democrats and Republicans should be enforced.

Tucker: Huh... that was it?

Ann: (Nodding her head) Well, that was the overall theme. (Tucker laughing) The laws, we should enforce them.

Tucker: I agree with you emphatically, but you weren't going to call for war, or violence, or anything like that. (Ann is laughing in response.) Your were just going to say existing laws ought to be enforced, and that was considered too radical.

Ann: ...ought to be enforced. And, you know, I might have a little... I mean, it's topical to this week. I started a Tweet today that I'll be sending out every morning as we watch the progress. Um, the border wall update... number of miles built today, Zero. Number of miles built since inauguration, Zero. Look for the next update tomorrow. I mean, I'm a little annoyed. This was the campaign promise that shook up the political world. You would think that if you were someone like Paul Ryan, after spending the entire Trump campaign trying to undermine Trump, and still to have him elected and be elected in a pretty stunning victory, and winning Wisconsin, Paul Ryan's home state, something Republicans haven't won for twenty years and when - ha, ha - Paul Ryan was on the ticket, you'd think the day after November 8, so, November 9th, Paul Ryan wakes up and Paul Ryan thinks, "I don't think I'll go for my four hour weight lifting routine today, I think I'll start working on the 'signature' promise that just won Donald Trump the election and not wait until April 27th to say to the President of the United States, you know, we're going to have to drop funding for the wall, because we don't want a government shutdown." When, of course, as I wrote in my column this week, they're not funding a wall to avoid a government shutdown. NOT having the wall is the definition of a government shutdown! The basic purpose of government is to keep us safe. If we can't protect our borders, I'd say that's a government shutdown.

Tucker: Yea, it does seem like a pretty basic function of government. Ann Coulter, you always have a place to talk here. Thanks for joining us. 

Ann: Thank you!

New segment:

Tucker: Well, something brand new appears to be going on with free speech on campus and in the country, is it new? We're joined now with actual perspective, author and columnist, Charles Krauthammer. Charles, when you're in the middle of something like this and things seem to be going crazy, and they do seem to be going crazy, the question is, is this really a new thing, does this, it does seem... I've never seen anything like this.

Charles: Well, I mean, we saw some of it in the sixties, and when the university administrators would 'cave in' - a famous case at Cornell, some radical students carrying guns - and by and large administrations were supine, they still are. But the danger here is that we're reaching a situation where thugs threatening violence - basically fascist gangs - can shut down free speech. You talked about how we're fundamentally divided in ways, even down to the foods we eat and what we read [in your introduction tonight]. But the one thing that used to unite left and right, even in the bitterest times in the '50s - McCarthyism - people would say things, like liberals, would say, 'I don't believe, I don't support anything you say, but I'll defend your right to say it.' That was a cliche'. It became, I mean it was so obvious that you could mock it. But where has that gone? If you can't have the government guaranteeing the safety of speakers, then we have lost one of the fundamental uniting elements of our society. If there's anything that unites us, it's a belief in the first amendment. Belief in free speech. Whenever you talk about America, what makes us unique is we believe in liberty, that begin with religious liberty, and it also begins with free speech. And, if you can't get agreement on defending that... I mean, the obligation of any authority, right now, is to say Ann Coulter can speak and we will protect her. That's why you pay your taxes, that's why we have a police, and we are not going to allow a gang of thugs - really fascist gangs, this is how it started in Europe in the '20s and 
'30s, fascist gangs would literally intimidate their opponents to the point where they became dominant - I don't think they're going to take over, this is not Mousillini, but nonetheless, it is very disturbing that in America someone can not speak because there are thugs who threaten violence...

Tucker: I agree with that. I first started reading you when I was a kid, you know, the liberal magazine The Republic, I think everyone on the masthead would agree with you with what you just said. Where are those people, not specifically the writers, but where is the reasonable, principled left, to defend Ann Coulter's right to speak?

Charles: That's the first question I had after your first segment with Mark Reed. Mark Reed is a very smart guy. He's had official positions in the government in New York City. I mean, he's run for N.Y. mayor and lost, but that happens to the best of them. But I mean, he was completely, he was pretending that we don't really have a President because he detests him. He's a divider, I don't like him, so I don't have to respect his authority. This is nuts! This doesn't happen. This is a poisoning and I think it's a sign of decadence. If the left will not stand up for the elementary principles; we have a President, he's elected, he has authority, legitimate authority and we proceed from there. We have free speech and you should not be shut down. If we can't get agreement on those principles, then we really are in a dangerous situation. And it is, I think, a manifestation of decadence, a civilization that doesn't have enough confidence in its own righteousness, in the end, for all of our flaws, if you don't have that kind of civilizational consciousness, you're finished!

Tucker: That is absolutely... I agree one hundred percent, I was hoping you were going to make me feel better; you didn't, but you did explain it. Thank you.

Charles: Well, if you're feeling really bad, I'm still a licensed psychiatrist, and I'm happy to write you a prescription for any depressant. (Tucker laughing)

Tucker: You're the only one person I'd take pills from, doctor. Thank you.

The New Civil War - By Daniel Greenfield

The following post from earlier this month was mentioned by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show last week. As someone who's been paying close attention to this developing situation over the past decade, Mr. Greenfield in my view, hits the nail on the head with incredible accuracy. (Don't miss out on the exceptionally outstanding one minute video at the end of this article.)

Antifa "Ant" in Berkeley, CA earlier this month.

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

The New Civil War

Posted by Daniel Greenfield

A civil war has begun. 

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control. 

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left. 

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning. 

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over. 

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”. 

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason. 

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions. 

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible. 

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values. 

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda. 

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break. 

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within. 

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election. 

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country. 

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves. 

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey. 

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful. 

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear. 

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice. 

But we cannot have both. 

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict. 

That is what we have now. 

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise. 

The question is what comes next. 

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war. 

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials. 

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war. 

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness. 

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders. 

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun. 

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

================================

Food City is a Southern grocery store chain with headquarters in Bristol, Tennessee. This is their one-minute commercial.  Not a word is spoken, and none is needed.

 Now, click on this link and enjoy!

The Communist W/O Guns Have Taken Over Seattle!

Western Washington

 

City of Seattle employees have the right to skip work and join May Day activities without retaliation. The Seattle City Council approved Councilmember Kshama Sawant’s resolution on Monday, granting city employees permission to take an unpaid day of leave on May 1^st for “a reason of faith or conscience.”

Seattle police are preparing to defend businesses and themselves against May Day riots. “We’ve seen officers hit with sticks, we’ve seen bottles, rocks thrown at officers, we’ve seen members of the media assaulted by those devices, we’ve seen the Molotov cocktail,” Police Captain Chris Fowler said. KIRO Radio’s Josh Kerns adds to the concern, saying, “There is definitely more of a threat of violence in the air [this year] than in past years.”

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announces plans to propose an income tax. Murray joins a growing list of liberals campaigning for City Council to create legislation that would demand people with an adjusted gross income above $250,000 be taxed 1.5%. No matter how many times voters push away an income tax… liberals keep bringing the idea back to the table.

Is This Politically Incorrect?

WHAT AISLE IS THE POLISH SAUSAGE IN?

A customer asked, "In what aisle can I find the Polish sausage?"

The clerk asks, "Are you Polish?"

The guy, clearly offended, says, "Yes I am. But let me ask you something.

If I had asked for Italian sausage, would you ask me if I was Italian?

   

Or if I had asked for German Bratwurst, would you ask me if I was German?

Or if I asked for a kosher hot dog would you ask me if I was Jewish?

 Or if I had asked for a Taco, would you ask if I was Mexican?

 Or if I asked for some Whiskey, would you ask if I was Irish?"

 The clerk says, "No, I probably wouldn't."

 The guy says, "Well then, because I asked for Polish sausage, why did you ask me if I'm Polish?" 

The clerk replied, "Because you're in Ace Hardware."

Understanding French Politics

It would be safe to say that most Americans, when they hear about the elections in France on the evening news or radio broadcasts, believe that their election system is pretty much the same as ours. (Let's face it, most Americans don't even understand our own elections process.) Not so in France's "Fifth Republic"! (Here's another article which provides an alternate understanding of the system.)

 An interesting insight into French culture and governance.

Here in this brief video clip, Dick Morris, on Monday, explained the way the French election system is set up and how it's far from similar to ours here in the U.S. 

Yet, Glenn Beck, on Monday pointed out what the mainstream media is NOT telling viewers is going to be the result of these elections; that Europe is once again staging itself for another round of what brought Hitler to  power in the 1930s. For a more clear understanding of why Glenn is saying this, I recommend reading the radio broadcast script below the video on this page. However, if you don't have time to read it all, here's a quote to give you an idea of what he's pointing out:

"Strongman and dictators are on the rise. And we’re seeing it all over the globe. What’s happening in Venezuela is happening in the Philippines. The scariest thing of all: It’s not the dictators, it’s the people. The people are crying out for a dictator."

P.S. In viewing the second link provided above explaining how the elections system in France is set up, you may notice that this page also has an interesting video clip below the article about another topic; climate change. It's clear to me that our world is moving toward a huge battle between ideologies, but only time will tell who's right because the other side is defining science to match their agenda, unwilling to let go of fear and doomsday thinking, and engage in reason and rational thinking.