We are in need of a qualified lawyer prepared to file a lawsuit against Progressive Taxation as a denial of Due Process and Equal Protection of the law. For centuries, people have debated whether the wealthy should pay more taxes than everyone else and what even constitutes the wealthy. The definition of the rich has constantly changed. It has now fallen to not just an individual, but to household income. that can easily be expanded to your children if they still live at home because they cannot afford rent or to buy a house thanks to non-dischargeable school loans for worthless degrees. We have unsettled questions as to who is the rich a person or a family, and then just how much more they should pay on a percentage basis compared to everyone else.
These issues have never been resolved despite the fact that the government has been shifting the definitions and presidential elections constantly push class warfare. This notion of “progressive” taxation has escalated into demand to end all freedoms and even confiscate the wealth of the so-called rich which comes down to the top income tax bracket which was $250,000 was expanded to 37% for $518,401 or more. This issue even sparked one of the early battles over tax distribution. Supporters of progressive taxation favored a graduated tax structure, where the tax rate
would increase with the taxpayer’s income. Opponents of progressive taxation believed that a person should not pay a higher tax rate just because he or she earned a higher income for this denies equal protection of the law and creates class warfare which began with Karl Marx.
Thanks to Marx, the debate over progressive taxation began to intensify at the turn of the 20th century with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax whereby the founders prohibited any direct form of taxation. During the colonial days, a tax they created was a “faculty tax” which did not tax income, but your ability to earn income. Then in 1913, Congress passed its first “lawful” income tax which was progressive because this was the attitude that even dominated the Supreme Court at that time.
Before the creation of the United States, taxes were paid to the United Kingdom by the Colonies who also imposed local taxes. The Articles of Confederation did not give the federal government any power to tax leaving that to the States. In England, the king needed the consent of the people to be taxed which is why he would call Parliament who represented the people. To this day, it is Congress that pretends to have the “consent” of the people to be taxed. Then in 1787, the US Constitution became law and it did give the federal government that power to tax indirectly which was primarily tariffs, and a portion of those taxes had to be given back to the states based on population. The Supreme Court ruled in 1797 what was meant by Direct Taxation (see Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1797))
Interestingly, it took one 51.6-year wave of the Economic Confidence Model where the fiscal mismanagement of the states began to put pressure on further taxation. From 1837, some states began to add income and property taxes. The Civil War led to the Revenue Act of 1861 which allowed a federal income tax which was to expire with the Civil War. This was direct taxation which was then found unconstitutional later in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895). It was finally in 1911 when Wisconsin became the first state to adopt an individual and corporate tax. This was upheld with respect to corporations in Flint v. Stone Tracy Company, 220 U.S. 107 (1911).
It wasn’t until the 16th Amendment in 1913, that the federal government was granted the power to levy income tax on both property and labor and included corporate and individual income tax. This went to the Supreme Court which held that the income tax was then constitution under the 16th Amendment (see: BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)). The income tax debate did not begin until it was no longer the rich being taxed, but it was applied under socialism and Roosevelt with the birth of the payroll tax to affect the pocketbooks of an entire nation with World, people began to pay more attention.
There is no question that many scholars expressed deep concerns about progressive taxations. They criticized progressive taxation on the basis that it was “unfair” to pay greater than one’s proportionate share. Any such proposition that one’s ability to pay is discrimination indistinguishable from race, gender, or religion. The courts just held that it is unconstitutional to draft into the military only boys and not girls. Under these same principles, it is unconstitutional to tax one person at a higher percentage because of his ability to pay. This is the very essence of Marxism which not only violates the Ten Commandments, but it clear divides society creating class warfare.
In 1952, the publishing of “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation,” by Professors Blum and Kalven, did we come to a systematic and very scholarly analysis of progressive taxation. They criticized progressive taxation primarily on economic grounds but conceded its constitutionality. Later in 1985, another book was published: “Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent
Domain” authored by Professor Richard Epstein. Here Epstein argued that progressive taxation was not constitutional suggesting that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause prohibited such progressive taxation.
No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Supreme Court has never definitively upheld progressive taxation. You cannot have liberty and your right to property which turns on your class any more than on your race, gender, religion, or your sexual preference. The Supreme Court should, in fact, find progressive taxation totally unconstitutional. We may need to challenge this now in order to block the Socialist Agenda about to destroy the very freedoms of the United States.
What we need is a real law firm ready and willing to bring a class action lawsuit to start the only effort we have to prevent Socialism destroying our nation like Venezuela or the old Communist Regimes. You do not create prosperity by stealing from one person and handing it to another. If it is illegal to do so if an individual robs another, then the same principle applies if politicians exonerate themselves for committing the very same act. Equal Protection means we must all be equal under the eyes of the law.
Earlier today President Trump made an unscheduled stop at Arcaro and Genell Takeaway Kitchen, a pizza shop in Old Forge, PA. He left the limo, greeted by applause from the awaiting crowd, and the press pool was brought very briefly inside the small pizza place as POTUS greeted its employees and left with some pie.
POTUS showed off one of the pies, and said he wanted to stop here today “because they have great pizza.”
As we enter the crucial 2020 campaign stretch, CTH will endeavor to draw attention to groups and liberty inspired resources who are assembled to make a difference. Today we introduce the “1776 Unites” campaign. [Main Page Link]
“1776” is an assembly of independent voices who uphold our country’s authentic founding virtues and values and challenge those who assert America is forever defined by its past failures, such as slavery. We seek to offer alternative perspectives that celebrate the progress America has made on delivering its promise of equality and opportunity and highlight the resilience of its people. Our focus is on solving problems.
We do this in the spirit of 1776, the date of America’s true founding.”
Get woke – Go broke, strikes again. When you consider the scale of the company and the resources available to them on branding and marketing…. one can only come to the reasonable conclusion that Goodyear is run by idiots.
On the positive side, the boycott response -which I fully support, not because of the originating stupid, but rather because I do not want tires from amplified corporate stupid on my vehicles- just shows the scale of economic backlash from average Americans.
There are more of us than them; they just control the mechanisms that allow us to communicate with each other – nothing more. Remember that !
Earlier today President Trump welcomed a visit by Iraq Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi to the White House. During the oval office meeting the two leaders took questions from the assembled press pool. U.S. media asked about the Steve Bannon arrest earlier today. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. It’s great to have the Prime Minister of Iraq, a very highly respected gentleman all over the Middle East, and respected very much by our country, too. I can say that.
And we will be discussing, today, the obvious: defense — and offense, I have to say. But we’ll be discussing military. We’re also involved in many oil projects and oil development within their country, and I think we’ve had a very, very good relationship since we started.
We’re down to a very small number of soldiers in Iraq now. We defeated the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and it’s — that has been defeated very strongly, and it does have a different feeling to it now that you’ve got it. We had it at 98 percent, and we said, “Well, we can leave.” And then, everybody said, “Would you bring it to 100 percent?” Then we brought it 100 percent.
But the relationship is very good. We have become friends. We have become, I think, friendly. I think our relationship now is better than ever before. But we have very few soldiers in Iraq, and — but we’re there to help. And the Prime Minister knows that. We are there to help. We’re with some people that also — Mike and Mike — we — and Robert. We very much feel that if Iran should do anything, we will be there to help the Iraqi people.
So, that’s where we are. We’re doing big trade deals, we’re doing military deals, and we’re doing military purchases by them, where they’re spending a lot of money on purchasing equipment and they’re building up their military rapidly, and we like to see that.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister, for being here. I appreciate it. Please.
PRIME MINISTER KADHIMI: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank you for receiving us in the White House today. I’m grateful for all the support offered by the United States to Iraq during the war against ISIS.
This support has built our partnership for the best interests for our nation. Mr. President, yesterday we signed many contact — many contracts with American companies — over (inaudible). Iraq is open for American business and investment and for a better future for Iraq and Iraqi people.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER KADHIMI: Thank you.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Very much.
Q Mr. President, what’s your reaction to the indictment of your former campaign aid, Steve Bannon?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I feel very badly. I haven’t been dealing with him for a long period of time, as most of the people in this room know. He was involved in our campaign. He worked for Goldman Sachs. He worked for a lot of companies. But he was involved, likewise, in our campaign, and for a small part of the administration, very early on. I haven’t been dealing with him at all.
I know nothing about the project, other than I didn’t like — when I read about it, I didn’t like it. I said, “This is for government. This isn’t for private people.” And it sounded, to me, like showboating. And I think I let my opinion be very strongly stated at the time. I didn’t like it. It was showboating and maybe looking for funds. But you’ll have to see what happens.
I think it’s a very sad thing for Mr. Bannon. I think it’s surprising. But this was something, as you know, just by reading social media and by reading whatever it is, and by speaking to Mike and Mike and all of them, I didn’t like that project. I thought that was a project that was being done for showboating reasons.
I don’t know that he was in charge. I didn’t know any of the other people either. But it’s sad. It’s very sad.
Q But it’s not just Steve Bannon. It’s Roger Stone. It’s Michael Flynn. It’s Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen. What does it say about your judgment that these are the kind of people who you’re affiliated with —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I have no idea.
Q — and the culture of lawlessness —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah. Yeah.
Q — around people who are involved in the leadership of your 2016 campaign?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, no, there was great lawlessness in the Obama administration. They spied on our campaign illegally. And if you look at all of the things and all of the scandals they had, they had tremendous lawlessness.
But I know nothing about it. I was not involved in the project. I have no idea who was. But I can tell you: I didn’t know the people; the three people that were talked about were people that I did not know. I don’t believe I ever met them.
I don’t think that should be a privately financed wall. I don’t think — it’s too complex; it’s too big. And we’re now up to 300 miles, almost. In another week, week and a half, we’ll be up to 300 miles of wall at the highest level. They were even having construction problems.
I was reading — the little I know about it, I got from you. I was reading, where they were having construction problems with the wall that they were — they had a small area just to show people that they could build a wall, and they were having a lot of problems where it was toppling over and other things. And I didn’t like it because I didn’t want to be associated with that.
We built a very powerful wall. It was a wall that is virtually impossible to get through. It’s very, very tough. It’s very strong, and it’s everything the Border Patrol wanted. And I didn’t want to have a wall that was going to be an inferior wall. And I felt this was going to be an inferior wall.
Q Kris Kobach said you endorsed the wall. Is that true? The project.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So I didn’t — I didn’t know — I didn’t know that. I didn’t know about Bannon’s involvement, but I didn’t know any — I didn’t know the other people. And I — but I do think it’s a sad event.
And, again, Steve has had a great career at Goldman Sachs. He’s had a career with a lot of other people. I haven’t dealt with him at all, over years now — literally, years. And I guess this was a project he was involved in, but it was something that — in fact, you can see I made statements about it a long time ago. It was something that I very much felt was inappropriate to be doing.
Okay. Please go ahead.
(Cross-talk.)
No, go ahead, please.
Q Mr. President, the end of the militia roles in Iraq — it’s one of the very important issues to stabilize the country in Iraq. How America is going to support ending the militia role in Iraq and —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You know, you’re — you’re very hard to understand. Could you maybe help me with it?
Q Mr. President —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wait. Go ahead. Try it again.
Q (No translation provided.)
PRIME MINISTER KADHIMI: (As interpreted.) The United States helped the — helped Iraq enormously in defeating ISIS and also in toppling the Saddam Hussein regime. We are working on building a strong relationship that is based on joint interests between Iraq and the United States, that is based on economic interest for the better future of the Iraqi people and the United States people.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: When I got to — when we came into office, ISIS was running rampant all over Iraq and Syria. And we knocked out the — 100 percent of the ISIS caliphate. But the Obama administration did a very, very poor job. They were running rampant all over. And we came in and we did a real job, and we got rid of that, and that was a good thing.
And now we’re working with Iraq. They use the great American Dollar, which is the most powerful currency in the world. And they’re starting to do well. And we are with them. And this gentleman, in particular, we’ve developed a very good relationship. And hopefully, it’s going to be very strong for your country.
Please.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. There have been 32 attacks — there have been 32 attacks in the last 10 months on U.S. interests in Iraq, particularly in the Green Zone and U.S. military bases. How are you going to help Iraq to halt these attacks by pro-Iranian militia and to hold these people accountable?
And, sir, if I may also, there was some reporting that the U.S. troops will withdraw from Iraq totally in three years. Is this true?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, at some point, we obviously will be gone. We’ve brought it down to a very, very low level. We deal — where there are attacks, we take care of those attacks, and we take care of them very easily. Nobody has the weaponry we have. Nobody has the — anything — of what we have. We have the finest, the greatest military in the world. When somebody hits us, we hit back hard than they hit us. So we handle it.
In addition to that, Iraq has been very helpful, where necessary. But we have been taking our troops out of Iraq fairly rapidly, and we look forward to the day when we don’t have to be there. And hopefully Iraq can live their own lives and they can defend themselves, which they’ve been doing long before we got involved.
Yes, please.
Q Mr. President how do you see the role of the Kurds in Iraq?
Q Mr. President, about — about the bounties — about the bounties: You say you hit back hard, but we haven’t seen any definitive strike back for bounties upon Americans.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you don’t know about the bounties. I mean, you’re telling me — if you know something, you can let us know, but you obviously don’t know very much about it. But if we found out, that would be true; if we found, that would be a very — it would be a fact, what you just said. We would hit them so hard your head would spin.
Go ahead.
Q Mr. President how do you see the role of the Kurds in Iraq? And how is important relationship between Baghdad and Erbil (inaudible)?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, the Kurds helped us greatly in defeating the — as you know, the ISIS, and getting the ISIS — 100 percent of the ISIS caliphate. So we have a very good relationship with the Kurds, and we’ve also treated them very well.
Q Mr. President —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, please.
Q — on the bounties —
Q Yeah. The end of the militia rules in Iraq is very important to — to stabilize the country. How America can help ending the militia rules? And how can help Iraq in the democracy process?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, what we’re doing is we’re helping where we can. But again, that’s a country — that’s a separate country. They have a prime minister, and they have people in office, and they have to run their country. We’ve been in Iraq for a long time. I won’t say whether or not I said we should be there, but frankly, I didn’t think it was a good idea. But I was a civilian, so who’s going to listen to me? But I made my point pretty clear; I guess as clear as a civilian can do it.
But we were there, and now we’re getting out. We’ll be leaving shortly. And the relationship is very good. We’re making very big oil deals. Our oil companies are making massive deals. And that’s basically the story.
I mean, we’re very — we’re very happy with the relationship that we’ve developed over the last couple of years. I thought, before that, frankly, the United States was being taken advantage of. But we’re going to be leaving, and hopefully we’re going to be leaving a country that can defend itself.
Q While you are here in the United States, there were — there were airstrikes on northern Iraq, in Kurdistan region, killing one civilian. I know — in your talks, in your meetings here, you talk a lot about the sovereignty of Iraq. Is that something that you’re looking for help from the United States?
And Mr. President, if that’s something can — if Iraq is asking for help, in terms of the interference from the neighbors — not just Iran, but other neighbors where they’re attacking northern Iraq?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, they’ll have to make a specific request, but certainly, the Prime Minister has my ear. So if he does that, we’ll take a look. They do have — it’s a very unstable part of the world. And I’m not talking about Iraq; I’m talking about the — the whole of the Middle East. It’s a very, very unstable part of the world.
But we’re there to help. And because of the relationship, we would certainly be willing to lend you the kind of support that you need.
PRIME MINISTER KADHIMI: (As interpreted.) Definitely the Turkish attacks are not accepted. On the other hand, the Iraqi constitution also does not allow Iraq to be — to become used to attack any — any neighboring — neighboring country. We are entering dialogue with Turkey to rectify this situation. And I look forward to solving this problem with Turkey and getting our neighbors, the Turks, to understand Iraq’s circumstances.
But once again, the Iraqi constitution does not allow Iraqi territory to be used to attack any neighboring country.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I will say this: The United States, and me in particular, has a very good relationship with Turkey and with President Erdoğan, and we’ll be talking to him. But we have a very, very good relationship with Turkey and with President Erdoğan.
Q Mr. President, just to follow up on the troops question, sir: Do you have a timeframe for the full and complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from — from Iraq?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Mike, what would you say to that?
SECRETARY POMPEO: As soon as we can complete the mission. The President has made very clear he wants to get our forces down to the lowest level as quickly as we possibly can. That’s the mission he’s given us, and we’re working with Iraqis to achieve that.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re at the lowest level now, Jeff — we’re at the lowest level in Afghanistan that we have been in many years. We’ll be down to about 4,000 troops in Afghanistan.
SECRETARY POMPEO: In a couple months.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And that will be when?
SECRETARY POMPEO: A couple months, sir.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, within a few months. A couple of months.
Q Mr. President — one other thing, Mr. President —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: As you know, in Syria we’re down to almost nothing, except we kept the oil. But we’ll work out some kind of a deal with the Kurds on that. But we left, but we kept the oil. And we left the border. We said Turkey and Syria can take care of their own border; we don’t have to do it. And that worked out very well. I remember when I did that, I was scorned by everybody. They said, “This is terrible.”
Well, I did it. It’s now two years ago. And we did it with — Mike Pence went over and met with the various parties and very successfully, and we removed our troops. Nobody was killed. Nobody. And now they protect their own border like they have been for hundreds of years. And we’ll — we’ve left. But we did keep a small force, and we kept the oil. And we’ll make a determination on that oil fairly soon.
Q And just one domestic question, sir: The Manhattan case about your taxes has now ruled that you do need to give your — to turn over your taxes. Do you have a reaction to that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, the Supreme Court said, if it’s a fishing expedition, you don’t have to do it. And this is a fishing expedition.
But more importantly, this is a continuation of the witch hunt — the greatest witch hunt in history. There’s never been anything like it, where people want to examine every deal you’ve ever done to see if they can find that there’s a comma out of place. No President has ever had to go through this. The Supreme Court shouldn’t have allowed this to happen. But no President has ever had to go through this.
But what the Supreme Court did do is say if it’s a fishing expedition, you — my interpretation is essentially, you don’t have to do it. So we’ll probably end up back in the Supreme Court.
But this is just a continuation of the most hideous witch hunt in the history of our country. We beat Mueller. We won at every level in this — in Washington, in D.C. We won at every lev- — level. So, now, what they do: They send it into New York. So now we have an all-Democrat state — all Democrats. And they send it into New York. This should never be allowed to happen to another President.
This is a continuation of the most disgusting witch hunt in the history of our country — all it is. But the Supreme Court said “fishing expedition.” This is the ultimate fishing expedition. Nobody has anything. We didn’t — we don’t do things wrong.
But they’ll say, “Let’s go in and inspect every deal he’s ever done. Let’s get papers from 10 years. Every paper. Every deal he’s ever signed. Maybe we can find where some lawyer made a mistake, where they didn’t dot an “i,” where they didn’t put a comma down someplace. And then we can do something.” This is a disgrace and this should never, ever be allowed to happen again.
All right? Thank you very much.
Q Mr. President, on Navalny, the Russian opposition leader: He was hospitalized, and they think he was poisoned. Is that the U.S. government’s determination, that he was —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We haven’t seen it yet. We’re looking at it. And Mike is going to be reporting to me soon. Okay?
Long time CTH readers are aware of the side-eye position toward Steve Bannon we have always carried. However, that said, this indictment today [pdf here] as contrast against the expressed declaration by AG Bill Barr that “politics will never be allowed to influence prosecutions” seems rather disingenuous. [More on This Later]
At the 30,000 ft level, this action by the Southern District of New York looks timed to create a cloud of demoralization over Trump supporters.
Do not let that effort/intent succeed.
DOJ Press Release: Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced the unsealing of an indictment charging BRIAN KOLFAGE, STEPHEN BANNON, ANDREW BADOLATO, and TIMOTHY SHEA for their roles in defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors in connection with an online crowdfunding campaign known as “We Build the Wall” that raised more than $25 million.
The defendants were arrested this morning.
KOLFAGE will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon in the Northern District of Florida. BANNON will be presented today in the Southern District of New York. BADOLATO will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Wilson in the Middle District of Florida. SHEA will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix in the District of Colorado. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York.
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “As alleged, the defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction. While repeatedly assuring donors that Brian Kolfage, the founder and public face of We Build the Wall, would not be paid a cent, the defendants secretly schemed to pass hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kolfage, which he used to fund his lavish lifestyle. We thank the USPIS for their partnership in investigating this case, and we remain dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud wherever we find it.”
Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said: “The defendants allegedly engaged in fraud when they misrepresented the true use of donated funds. As alleged, not only did they lie to donors, they schemed to hide their misappropriation of funds by creating sham invoices and accounts to launder donations and cover up their crimes, showing no regard for the law or the truth. This case should serve as a warning to other fraudsters that no one is above the law, not even a disabled war veteran or a millionaire political strategist.”
[…] KOLFAGE, 38, of Miramar Beach, Florida, BANNON, 66, of Washington, D.C., BADOLATO, 56, of Sarasota, Florida, and SHEA, 49, of Castle Rock, Colorado, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. (read more)
We at GrrrGraphics have been watching the virtual Democratic Convention extravaganza with a mixture of humor and disgust. We were disgusted that Andrew Cuomo smeared Trump as being ‘dysfunctional’ and ‘incompetent’ for COVID-19 in New York state–even though Cuomo has blood on his hands for bringing the virus to nursing homes.
We were amused that John Kasich chose an actual, literal crossroads location for his speech about our country being at a crossroads. We were disgusted that the Republican turncoat roasted Trump while praising Biden. Kasich has a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We watched Crazy Bernie Sanders spew rote lie after lie about the president. The socialist, ‘progressive’ once again caved in to the political establishment. He supports Joe as eagerly as he supported Hillary. It was amusing to watch AOC briefly nominate the ‘cuck’ Bernie before joining his ranks and supporting Biden. The Republican Kasich was given more time than the DNC gave their rising star, Cortez.
Then we watched arch rapist Bill Clinton’s disgusting display of virtue signaling as he lectured Trump about a disorderly Oval Office. Everyone thought of how Bill ordered a very young intern to service him in said office. I’m sure it was orderly, but why the DNC would allow a man associated with the known pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, to make such a speech underlines the hypocrisy and depravity of the Democrats. Joe is also accused of sexual assault and we’ve seen him too many times on camera sniffing women and children.
Michelle Obama was considered the star of the show. The lying fake news media gushed praised for the former First Lady. She again made the tired claim that she and her hubby were ‘taking the high road,’ and then she immediately took the low road. She accused Trump of emboldening white supremacists and putting the children of (illegal) immigrants in cages. Those cages were built under Obama’s reign, but no matter. Next we’ll get to hear her husband drag Trump into their disgusting mud, and we’ll address that in Part 2.
Joe Biden accepted the nomination, but his speech is yet to come. It should be amusing, and probably disgusting as well.
I found The Book of Trees, by Leanne Lieberman, to be an unusual reading experience. I was struck by its inauthenticity, as the author clearly had a list of grievances and concocted a story line to convey them. Her intent was to disparage and delegitimize Israel as a nation and the Jews as a people – indeed to challenge their very existence – revealing her opinion through Mia.
***
Mia is the 17-year-old daughter of unwed parents in Canada. Her mother is an irreligious, Jewish, Bohemian-type remnant of the 1960s; her father, an atheist, lapsed Catholic, and a travelling musician who was often absent. She is lonely, in need of spiritual grounding. Alluding to her Jewish grandmother, she responded to a Jewish outreach poster and accepted a scholarship to study in Israel with a friend, Aviva Blume, for the summer between high school and university.
From the first day that she can run off on her own, Mia finds beauty in the endless desert and in the mosque on the Temple Mount and the Armenian church within the Old City. She disparages all else – Mrs. Blume, who hosted Mia’s first Shabbat dinner in Canada, as “frumpy”; Mr. Blume, as “fat and middle-aged,” although Mia was touched by the evening and the traditional love song. In Israel, she finds the tourists “dorky,” the Kotel “just a stone wall,” and the wigs worn by orthodox women for modesty “weirded me out.” The young man in class is cute, but “geeky.” The teacher’s kerchief is “ugly” and classes about the laws of kashruth (Jewish religious laws of the suitability of food) are “ridiculous” and “disappointing.”She is often dizzy, her head aches from clenching her teeth, and she was “nauseated” during prayers.However, she finds the non-Jewish American guitarist, Andrew, attractive, and she makes a feeble attempt at limiting her association. The author’s opinions about Judaism and Jews have become obvious.
She takes her first bus trip with Aviva into the Judean Desert, its name derived from Judah, one of the sons of the Jewish Patriarch, Jacob, also known as Israel, but the author has obvious reasons for overlooking the connection. Also ignored are the 3,000 years of recorded Jewish history on this land, including verified accounts of kings, prophets, characters that define the people, their artifacts and values, preferring to imagine credibility for Arabs who have no historical ties whatsoever.
Mia criticizes a grove of neatly spaced trees that had been planted by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), saying they looked unnatural, lacking the undergrowth of a northern forest. “It felt dead, like a tree graveyard.” She belittles the monument that commemorates the soldiers who took the hill in the 1948 War of Independence, battling five Arab armies that attacked the new sovereign state. Aviva suggests that the trees were probably planted over what had been an Arab village, to which Mia responds, “I guess they were determined to keep their homeland,” again endorsing the Muslim story line.
Rather than fact-check prior to writing, Lieberman recently reviewed her own book for credibility; book sales are weak, perhaps due to her tenacious bias. Mia cries for trees she imagines have been planted over Arab villages, but not for the Israelis murdered by those Arab villagers, or for diners killed, crippled or blinded by a jihadi’s explosive belt; or for the homes and playgrounds and thousands of agricultural acreage and wildlife preserves burned to cinders by their youths’ incendiary balloons. She repeats the Palestinian lie of Israeli oppression, and accuses Israel of apartheid, the charges never substantiated. During the pandemic, the Palestinian Authority continues to prioritize payments to convicted terrorists and their families over their people’s well-being. Even though Israel’s economy has suffered and people have died, the Jewish state continues to send aid to the PA and Gaza.
Muslim citizens enjoy more rights in Israel than they do under Islamic rule. The 20th century is packed with Arab raids, terrorism, massacres, revolts, numerous wars, intifadas, and suicide bombings worldwide. Azzam Pasha, secretary-general of the Arab League, declared of Israel on May 15, 1948, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” Islam has been the cause of mass slaughter, devastation and annihilation since its inception and responsible for the more than 37,483 deadly attacks, worldwide (to 8/18/20), since 9/11. They have never declared a desire for peace as Lieberman suggests. and have never enacted laws to abolish slavery or grant individual freedoms. The Book of Trees is a mission in deception for the Palestinian narrative, and it is time to drop the legend of indigenous Palestinians.
The 600,000 – 750,000 Arabs who left Israel according to their own armies’ commands were part of the displaced masses from the Arab-initiated war, and should have been welcomed back to Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Egypt is 36:1 the size of Israel, Iraq 15.7:1, Syria 6.6:1, and Jordan 3.2:1, and the Naqba is the betrayal by their own. Lieberman’s hope that Israel will welcome their avowed enemy and descendants is a wish for Israel’s annihilation. She does not advocate that the 850,000 displaced Jews be permitted to return to the Islamic countries from which they fled at the same time. Yasser Arafat declared that a Palestinian state would be Jew-free, yet the author and others expect Israel to be overwhelmed by their enemy.
From her new lover, Andrew, Mia learns that the Palestinians are “a poor native people who have been uprooted,” and that they want clean water and good schools – basic human rights. She does not know that Israel supplies large amounts of water from its own provisions to Palestinians and Jordan because this desert country has become a world leader of water conservation and desalination, overcoming almost insurmountable obstacles, while Hamas-controlled Gazans refuse to cooperate to improve their lot, and use the water as a political issue. Similarly, Mia seems not to know that Palestinians refused every opportunity to create their own country on land offered by the UN and Israel, and unaware that their children are raised to be murderous jihadis. And how is “good schools” defined when they teach hate against Israel and all Jews, and how to behead their perceived enemy. After the Arabs lost their War of 1967, they still declared, NO peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel, and NO negotiation with Israel.
Mia learns about the checkpoints, but not of their effectiveness at apprehending terrorists before they can gain entry into Israel and discharge their explosive devices among the citizens. Lieberman describes the West Bank as a third-world country, with no infrastructure, their economy in ruins, but appears to be unaware that their more-than-generous funding (among the world’s largest per-capita aid recipients) gets funneled to Palestinian officials, for armaments against Israel and for mothers of jihadi martyrs. Funds earmarked for cement for housing are instead used to construct miles of terror tunnels, and the elite reside in grandeur.
Andrew tells Mia that he volunteers to teach music and tutor English at a Palestinian school, and he rebuilds Arab homes razed by the Israeli military. Once again, Lieberman withholds why these homes have been destroyed. Some were built as illegal acts of defiance by the United Nations against Israeli law; others were erected by nomadic tribes on land that lacked infrastructure and deemed unsuitable for housing (Israel offers to move Bedouins!); and still others were intentionally demolished as reprisal for the families of murderous martyrs.
Upon seeing the Kotel, the remaining Western Wall of the ancient Jewish Temple and Jewry’s holiest shrine (built in 2nd century BCE, destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE), Mia criticizes their prayer customs of thousands of years. (Doubtful that she would be this respectful with other religions.) Lieberman uses Andrew to remind the reader once again, that the Palestinians were “violently” expelled in 1948, their trees and groves destroyed, the innocents killed or imprisoned by the Israeli army. (Read Arab accounts here) Lieberman’s choices of informational sources are no different than if she had contacted Josef Goebbels for data about the Holocaust.
Despite the attempts to discredit and delegitimize Israel, the truth is known. Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, an Arab Muslim leader, told the Peel Commission in 1937: “There is no such country as Palestine! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented. (TK – The Romans invented the term as an affront to the Jews.) There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.” In 1946, Arab-American historian Philip Hitti testified before the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not,” – meaning that there had never been a nation bearing this name.
Syrian President Hafez Assad told Yasser Arafat, “Palestine is an integral part of Syria,” and Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly said, on February 2, 1970, “Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine.”
PLO executive committee member, Zahir Muhsein, said, “The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.” in short, its only purpose is to oppose Zionism and this is one of many war tactics.
Of the numerous Muslim-majority states worldwide, they may all have begun as small parcels of land, no-go zones within cities that expand by force under Islamic rule, but an independent Arab Palestine has never existed – not under Ottoman rule or British rule, not under the United Nations Partition Plan, and not under Jordanian or Egyptian rule. For now, it remains a myth based on deception, and Lieberman’s book for vulnerable children and young adults a sad symptom of our times.
I hope family is doing well. Your latest PB mentions the organized effort by gates and world economic forum to manipulate the entire world.
All of your past teachings have always said that No one can manipulate the World markets as “even Buffett couldn’t corner silver.” Even when they asked you to go in with them in Russia and they had the world bank on their side. Still failed.
So if they are manipulating this extremely organized effort do we think It will succeed? And if It does or doesn’t do you have suggestions for your subscribers as to where the hell we should go?
Like all of your readers I am MUCH!! Less concerned about Covid and Much more concerned about civil unrest and taxation etc
I work and live in NYC🙈🙈🙈
Everything you’ve written has occurred. I awake at night in panic about what to do. Just sell my practice and move to another state/country is a frequent conversation of my wife and I.
Leaving a buisness behind is one hard thing – leaving my other family members behind another. But we are willing to do whatever is best.
You had mentioned that you are going to release an update on places etc
Do you know when this may occur?
Normally I am concerned with equity markets but Socrates has done a great job of keeping us in the market to the long side even when all looked hopeless. Now with all of the “day traders” thinking its 1999 is It time to get a bit defensive as we head into the election cycle?
Much thanks as always!! You may know how much you help all of us, BUT I want you to hear It again. We All Thank you!!
Regards,
JCL
ANSWER: I do not see this attempted manipulation of the world economy as being successful. They are truly out of their minds, but they are a bunch of academics and billionaires who have never walked out of the street and dared to speak to one of the great unwashed. To them, we are all just pawns of finance too stupid to understand what their super-human minds are capable of seeing the future. However, sometimes a pawn can take down a king.
Leaving the cities like New York is ultimately the smart thing to do. However, it all depends on the election. If Trump wins there will probably be more violence from the usual characters. The Democrats have promised to bail out the states if they keep people locked down and unable to vote when possible other than mail. If Trump wins, those states will be hard-pressed for destroying their economies on a wish and a prayer.
The problem you have is that property values will decline in the cities. They are rising even in North New Jersey with people coming in and bidding over asking price. You can at least hedge your bets by trying to sell and rent until you see what happens. At least then you will be in a better position to leave faster.
This is certainly dividing families. Some refuse to think it can get worse. They want to be optimistic. My old professor said two people were standing on the top of the World Trade Center and a gust of wind blew them both off. The pessimist immediately started praying to be forgiven for his since. The optimist, as he was passing the fourth floor, said: Well so far so good!
Just try to be nimble. It is hard to leave – I know. Elizabeth Warren lays it out. They are playing to change America into a socialist country that has failed whenever it has been attempted.
This is our moment. Our moment to decide who we are as a country. Our moment to dream big and fight hard. And yes, our moment to win this battle for the soul of our nation.
But understand this: to make real progress towards social, racial, and economic justice, we have to win big in November. And we can only do that if we work — and persist — together.
As far as the markets go, the indexes are being propelled by a very select few stocks. The broader market is better reflected by the Russel 2000. There is always the risk that summer rallies end up in October panics.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 