Illegal immigrants release ‘Bill of Rights’ - Demand citizenship, birth certificates, medical care

Posted by ShrugInArgentina 8 years, 4 months ago to News
103 comments | Share | Flag

"An immigrant-rights group proposed a “Bill of Rights” for illegal immigrants Thursday, demanding that Americans recognize there are millions already in the country who deserve health care, in-state tuition rates for college and a guarantee of citizenship in the long term."



SOURCE URL: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/5/illegal-immigrants-release-bill-rights/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 14
    Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 4 months ago
    They broke the law in coming and staying. They are by definition, NOT law abiding. They have no rights to stay, and therefore no rights to make any demands when the action being taken against them is only to make them obey the law and L E A V E.

    Time to strike.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 4 months ago
      You sir, are very, very correct in this. Knowingly commiting a crime and then wanting to justify it and claim the reward. Idiots.From the same people who allowed the drug lords to take over their country and now want to come here and tell us what we have to give them. Bah...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 4 months ago
    And your Objectivist point is?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
      The Objectivist point is that, by allowing illegal immigrants to have the "right to travel freely", America has condoned their code of values, including all of their "rights" to things that require our sanction as their victims. The article points to the foolishness of the position that many Objectivists in this forum have taken regarding open borders. Objectivists have mistakenly presumed that all immigrants are of noble character and Objectivist values. In that, Objectivists need to check their premises.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ prof611 8 years, 4 months ago
        I don't understand how allowing them to travel freely implies that we condone anything else. And, although I disagree that open borders should be allowed on Objectivist principles, I don't think it has anything to do with presuming anything about their moral character.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
          The number of people who will immigrate to a new country is proportional to the difference in standard of living between the former country and the new country. A certain percentage of moochers within that population is inevitable.

          You do not have to presume anything about the moral character of the immigrants. If they are immigrants who are not expected to assimilate, they will bring their values with them, as this article clearly attests. Moreover, they will expect that you will at least tolerate, and more likely assimilate to, their values.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ prof611 8 years, 4 months ago
            I really don't understand your reply to my post. Did you not say, "by allowing illegal immigrants to have the "right to travel freely", America has condoned their code of values"? How does allowing them to travel freely imply that America has condoned their code of values?

            And did you not say, "Objectivists have mistakenly presumed that all immigrants are of noble character"? Again, what does this have to do with the existence of open borders?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
              An open borders policy is ultimately self-destructive to the host country. When immigrants are allowed to violate the laws of the host country without sanction, then that is a form of condoning their code of values as being at least the equal of the host country's encoded values (encoded in their laws).

              Regarding the "noble character" argument, the general Objectivist presumption is that no one is allowed to restrict an immigrant from pursuing his/her self-interest. What if the immigrant's objectives are to destroy the host country's (and its citizens) rights? In the American Southwest, many illegal immigrants have openly stated their aims to make that part of Mexico. A number of Muslims have openly stated their desires to take over certain enclaves (Dearborn, MI; an area near Minneapolis, Toronto, London, much of France, etc.) in an effort to eventually convert those areas (and eventually more) into Sharia-compliant areas. If people with such objectives are not restricted from entry, then their values have indeed been condoned. Any country, by accepting entry of people who openly state goals that are contradictory to those of Objectivism, is participating in its own self-destruction and will not live for long. Nations, like individuals, must execute enough self-generated actions to sustain their own lives; however, unlike individuals, nations do not have nearly so many rights. They should only have the rights that individuals delegate to them.

              If anything, the article that started this discussion should forever end the argument that illegal immigrants are "in the shadows". Those who are "in the shadows" do not make demands.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
                I totally disagree. Everyone's ancestors in our country came from another country. I believe in open borders. I just do not believe in public assistance, public education, public healthcare, ad nauseam. This only attracts the looters and moochers. But people coming here to better their lives and even to share some of their colorful and interesting customs are very welcome to me. Our country has stagnated into complacency and we need the constant new blood of people who really appreciate our freedoms. Like Ayn Rand.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
                  The presumption that you are making is that people are coming here to better their lives by their own minds and hands. At least a significant minority are coming because of the public assistance, public education, public healthcare, ad nauseam that they can get at producers' expense, as the aforementioned article clearly documents.

                  I enjoy customs from everywhere, but immigrants bring their non-Objectivist values with them. This includes immigration from the Northeast to Florida, for example. A relatively recent transplant from the Northeast got elected to county commissioner here in Florida ostensibly as a Republican (in name only) and immediately proposed a 6 cent per gallon gas tax to pay for road improvements. While that is a legitimate function of county government, it exemplifies how an open borders policy will only serve to ensure that there will be nowhere that is free from looters and moochers.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
                    I have a much better opinion of the human spirit than you do. Who do you think originally built our country? Immigrants. I do not think road improvements are the job of the federal or state gov't. I believe the only job of the gov't is outlined in the original constitution: courts, congress and the presidency with a check and balance system. Their job is to protect the citizens personal property rights and to protect us against force. I do not believe they should be in charge of infrastructure, schools, etc. So did AR.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 4 months ago
                      The issue isn't "immigrants" its illegal immigrants, people who violate national sovereignty and milk the system (be that welfare, taking an American job, placing their kids in our schools, using our hospitals because people in need can't be turned away). Illegal aliens entirely violate property rights. And yes, the fed gov of any government is given the right by their people to enforce property rights (borders) for the nation as a whole.

                      This is something, after all this discussion, everyone would honestly acknowledge.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
                      Yes, but those immigrants were looking to change their lives. They wanted to abandon their old lives and old philosophies to take part in the culture of America. They weren't coming here to mooch off us because in those times, there were no public handouts for immigrants. Indeed, many immigrants endured terrible working conditions and extreme poverty when they came to the United States and still viewed it as an opportunity for their children to have what they couldn't have had they stayed.

                      The problem with today's immigrants is that the vast majority are illegal or asylum seekers. To jbrenner's point, they don't care one whit about becoming Americans!
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
                        So isn't the answer getting rid of the freebies that draw the moochers?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 4 months ago
                          That's certainly one piece, yes. Eliminate SS, Medicare, Obamacare, and all these other Federal government handouts as the first piece. The second piece is to secure the borders and make sure that the people coming in are the people we want. The third is to get rid of the people we don't want - especially those with criminal backgrounds.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
                      I had a much better opinion of the human spirit when I had a Christian viewpoint of humanity and before I read Atlas Shrugged. AS made me realize just how few people are truly worthy of my respect. That being said, I do respect all contributors to this forum. Anyone with the courage of his/her conviction to participate in this forum is worthy of respect.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
              I think it is a mistake to assume that all immigrants are not of noble character. Gulilty because they are displaced Men.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
                They are not guilty because of where they were born (displaced in your words). However, by not expecting assimilation into the culture of the country to which they are immigrating, the immigrants and their progeny will gradually corrode away the host country's values enshrined its Constitution.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
              See nickursis' comment below: "It's like the rats demanding to be fed with the dog and the cat in the kitchen because they chewed through the wall and entered your home. Would you do that?"
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 4 months ago
            This is my view. We are dealing with the 'Gas Laws' here, and if we do not understand that we will waste a lot of effort. The US border with Canada does not have to be strongly protected, because it is already in equilibrium. The US border with Mexico represents a huge tech and infrastructure difference and we have to have a strong 'container' if we are going to prevent our 'coming to equilibrium' with a Mexican level of tech.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 4 months ago
          prof, I do not see where this is just "travel freely" alone. They are asking for numerous handouts, authority and validation to engage in obtaining free items of value they have had NO connection to. Simply because they managed to slip in illegally and our government is too incompetent to both stop and remove them. It's like the rats demanding to be fed with the dog and the cat in the kitchen because they chewed through the wall and entered your home. Would you do that?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
            once again, your definition of "home" is not my definition nor most Objectivists" definition, including Ayn Rand. As well, people are individuals until they prove to be "rats." Germany "offers" political asylum. They "offer" assistance and training. It is up to the German people to stem the tide of socialism that allows the influx. Trust me, if I were a syrian political refugee-I'd take them up on their offer-freely-and I'd "disappear" as thousands are doing. You get no assistance by disappearing but you don't have to be shunted into makeshift camps either.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 4 months ago
              kh; There are just too many in this country and many others that simply can not think rationally or objectively about the freedom and rights of the individual, nor accept their own individual responsibility for allowing progressive socialist to take over the world we all occupy. The very concept of having to obtain permission from any government bureaucrat or multiples of that most evil of all human occupations, just to travel from point A to point B is one of the most repulsive that I can imagine, or to expand one's opportunities to use their minds more productively and to improve their lives.

              To follow the conservative's marching band to the border, aimed at the immigrant rather than the real culprit behind their concerns, socialist progressive Democrats, is to follow the magician's stock in trade of 'watch my right hand while my left hand does the manipulation', or the pickpockets 'bump on your shoulder while their hands in your pocket'. This is why Rand said that Conservatives would destroy this country, and why the country has gone too far away from individual rights to ever get them back, without a major reset of some type.

              We've reached the point of no use, in attempting to educate or illustrate the values of individual rights and liberty. It's time to just turn away and walk on.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
                Your statement regarding conservatives' aiming at the immigrants rather than the socialist progressive Democrats is a reasonable one. But I ask you to consider, if removing socialist progressive Democrats is a feasible and reasonable goal (It may not be feasible.), how does one (and I do mean one, as opposed to many of us working together) go about doing that? If one were to take a chess (or warfare) strategy, one might have to take out a few pawns before exposing those in real power. The illegal immigration issue is one that should be amongst the easiest starting points for elimination of the socialist progressive Democrats. However, Objectivists' insistence on freedom to travel has made it difficult to starve the socialist progressive Democrats of the votes necessary to entrench their power. Yes, I am saying that Objectivists' insistence on open borders is enabling the socialist progressive Democrats that Objectivists would like to see go away. This is precisely my point. Via insistence on an open borders policy, Objectivists are not self-generating a sufficient number of self-sustaining actions to continue their own lives. In fact, they are being self-destructive.

                You are quite right in that it is time to turn away and walk on. The cancer is beyond treatment.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 4 months ago
                  jim; All I can answer is that's a good pragmatist answer, but if one values individual liberty at all, he must consider that one is either free or not free--like being pregnant or not pregnant, You can't be sorta pregnant as one can't be sorta free. And if you value your own liberty, you can only secure that liberty by recognizing the same for any other individual.

                  If you really don't want the evil of illegal immigrants or wet backs or whatever else you think of them as, coming here and taking advantage of the socialism--get rid of the evil of progressive socialism and socialists. Don't fall for the conservative answer of eliminating just a little bit of individual liberty, just till they can figure out how to eliminate the socialism they secretly support. Tomorrow they'll need just a little more of everyone's liberty for just a little bit longer.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
                    Admittedly, there is pragmatism embedded in the question I asked. My pragmatist comment was "good" in that it remains a valid, uncontradicted point.

                    Nonetheless, your response regarding liberty is a correct one, as is your conclusion. Consequently, both of us have chosen to turn away and walk on. There is no point in further trying to change the system.

                    As an individual, I am unable to get rid of the evil of progressive socialism nor of any other ill in society, and if I were able to do so, Objectivism would correctly tell me that I should not intervene because it is none of my business.

                    The conservative approach is incorrect. While the Objectivist stance on this issue is correct, any liberty we have will only because we are surviving in isolation, rather than thriving. Very sad. In preserving our own liberty, we are getting a hollow victory indeed.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 4 months ago
                      jim; What the individual can do and should do, is to simply learn to stand up and say NO in his life to any activity that infringes in any way on his or anyone's liberty--and that applies to all of this nonsense of political theatre and voting for the least worst that says a little bit of what we would like to here.

                      As to not intervening, you refuse to ever give the sanction of the victim and freely choose to associate with those that share your values. .
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 4 months ago
                Zen, I do agree with you that there is the point of individual responsibility and rights. I do think the issue is complicated in that you cannot apply those concepts when you are held within the framework of the worlds social structure which is built with borders and govt controls. While it would be nice to have totally free access to go where you would, how then do you stop the hordes of those who allowed the govt monster to overwhelm them, and now are running to another place to inflict their own screwed up notions of rights and responsibilities on others. In order to have the freedom and personal responsibility your desire, we would need to remove about 90% of the current population who are infected with stupidity and the belief that either govt can fix and give everything for free, or just believe that you need to give them what you have, because it's "fair". That is exactly what I see this situation as, people who have allowed their state to fail, so they now are in my home saying I have to give them everything because that's "fair". I didn't invite them in my house, so they have no moral right to be in it. As far as the real enemy, I agree it is any political creature, Democrap or Republicrat, who thinks my property is theirs by some inalienable right (taxes, fees or just "law"), however, they have allowed this mess to come to pass because they want to manipulate it for their own ends. None of this has any benefit or moral or ethical right to happen, IMHO.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Susanne 8 years, 4 months ago
        It's the looter credo - that has gone on for so long that the nation, collectively, has engaged in a form of self-hate and self-loathing... and as such, it's ashamed to claim to have pride in itself, the premise being then they give away what they should be guarding selfishly and jealously from those who wish to take it. Instead, like the moocher and the looter, they are so ashamed of what they have they want to - make that feel compelled to - give it away, rather then demand value for value.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by hattrup 8 years, 4 months ago
        "Objectivists have mistakenly presumed that all immigrants are of noble character and Objectivist values. In that, Objectivists need to check their premises. "
        Wait - does that mean it is OK to assume a US "citizen" can be presumed to be of noble character and Objectivists values - or I am getting the wrong premise from that statement?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
          US citizens can NOT be presumed to be of noble character or Objectivist values any more than non-citizens. However, when a society does not intentionally screen looters out via the immigration and naturalization process, it is doomed to what America has now.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 4 months ago
            Your premises regarding Objectivism and immigration are presumptive. Immigrant looters and moochers would have no traction for their irrational demands were it not for the corrupt political power of U.S. citizen looters and moochers in government office.

            If your leg is caught in a bear trap, you don't wrap a bandage around all of it, hoping it will keep out infection. Your first action should be to remove the bear trap.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
              Be my guest. Remove what you consider to be the bear traps (the welfare system and the looters and the moochers), if you can. What I am saying is that the open borders policy is just as big a bear trap as the welfare system. The open borders system is what has empowered the looters to create such a multi-tiered bear trap. The immigration policy from 1924 didn't cause a problem prior to 1965, but Ted Kennedy's immigration policy starting in 1965 most certainly has.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 4 months ago
                My point is that moocher immigration is a symptom of U.S. citizen looters in office giving things away they have no right to. Do you really think moocher immigrants would hear anything but derisive laughter if we had significant entitlement reform? Which is the greater threat to our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness—moocher immigrants or looters in office?

                A moocher immigrant "problem" is a head fake followed by "fixes" that punch our liberty. More looters are hired to manage and implement an "immigration solution" that does not address the cause...and we still have our leg in the looter's bear trap, dying of infection.

                None of your criticisms are the result of Objectivist-based policy.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
                  Your suggestion is that entitlement reform is the solution to the problem. As I have said many times in this forum, it is only a partial solution. Without an active screening process to rid a society of looters and moochers, they will arise again and again.

                  As to the greater threat being moocher immigrants or looters in office, the two are highly intertwined and are symbiotic to each other while both being parasitic to us. The looter problem is fundamentally easier to eliminate through the voting process, but only if moochers do not have an opportunity to elect their looter benefactors.

                  The solution to the bear trap is ... to shrug and leave. This is why I spent time considering a physical Atlantis. However, given the predilection toward open borders amongst Gulchers, a physical Atlantis would soon devolve into yet another moocher/looter paradise.

                  The reason why a largely open borders policy worked in America up through WW2 is that it cost so much to come to America that the travel cost and distance formed a sufficient barrier to entry to moochers. With the advent of inexpensive transportation, this barrier is greatly lowered, only making the entitlement pie that much more enticing.

                  Even if the entitlement pie were eliminated entirely, an open borders policy will result in immigration without assimilation into a culture of value for value exchange. Galt's oath was the key assimilation requirement.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 4 months ago
                    The greatest actors are not in Hollywood; anyone can mimic any oath.

                    I understand some of your frustration. However, we've had looters in office draining the life from our freedom and rights much longer than any immigrant issues or demands. That's our clue.

                    In a company I worked for 15 years ago, I unsuccessfully argued against the cost of HR policies that duplicated everything in Spanish - documentation, signage, meetings, etc. I think it will take rational business leaders to help crack the 'politically correct' coddling that discourages the 'melting pot' we once had.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
                      A famous Objectivist who worked in the film industry was capable of great acting in order to get here.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                        no one owes the truth to those who hold a gun to your head. (Note: there is a difference between property right violation and Men transacting freely with other Men)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 4 months ago
                          https://reason.com/archives/2012/02/1...

                          By committing perjury to obtain entry to the land she proclaimed as the only moral country in history, she lost credibility on the immigration issue and made a mockery of not just American immigration law, but all American laws and values. She did something that was counter to everything else that she claimed both she and America stood for.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                            from the article: "But today we live in a world where a small band of immigration restrictionists have acquired an air of legitimacy by loudly repeating their views. They have created a false moral equivalence between serious criminals and petty visa violators. They wield words such as “illegal” and “law breaker” like assault weapons. They deploy an arsenal of tropes (such as “What part of illegal don’t you understand?”) to quash rational immigration reform. And they have turned “amnesty,” which Ronald Reagan proudly embraced, into a four-letter word that conservative presidential contenders shun. (Congratulations, Rush Limbaugh.)"
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Wnston 8 years, 4 months ago
    Illegal insurgents must be treated as "criminals" - period. No demands, take names and round 'em up then make them pay to relocate them back to their home country. Or, load them up in a C5 air transport and drop them off above their nation's capitol city. That would send a strong message.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 years, 4 months ago
    What a notion. To demand that something be
    provided by someone else. It used not to be so
    much the immigrants who did this (but then, I mean
    when they were legal). But that whole notion goes
    back as far as FDR, and further. So things just
    get worse, and worse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 4 months ago
    The entitled generation takes over slowly but surely. I say keep the citizenship requirements the same, if not tighter, stop translating everything into foreign languages (make them learn our culture and English), And no welfare or goodies for non citizens. Let them come and work here with work permits, pay no SS taxes and such, but get NO benefits- including the minimum wage benefit. Hows that for political incorrectness...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Retired24-navy 8 years, 4 months ago
    I really have no objections to legal immigrants coming to this country. I say legal. These legal persons should be required to get a job or start a business within 3 months or face deportation. They will NOT be allowed any social benefits, except emergency medical. They will have to register in whatever town they decide to settle in and will be monorted for at least 3 months and maby the first year to make sure they comply. No criminal activity permitted or immediate deportation. Visitors should also me required to checkin every few months to make sure they do not over stay their visa. If here to attend school, they passing grades are required to deportation. These are just a few ideas.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
      Kind of like Nazi Germany.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
        On the other hand all of those are currently laws in effect but ineffectual. Like most of the two million or so laws they are only used when targeting someone specific. Usually a citizen.

        Don't blame the Nazi's it wasn't their decision to turn USA into USSA and start a Directorate of Internal State Security. That was a choice of the Government Party.

        Now go vote for them again. Either one of their candidates for President will do the Rino version or the Dino version.

        It's all left wing fascist socialism
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
          Hi MA. I do not blame Nazi's as they did not invent it. I think, if history serves me, just about every great civilization since the world began has fallen to moochers and looters and dictators.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
            Basically started in mid to late 1700's. First wave were the French, that spread and along comes Marx and Engels. I'm leaving out a few but but the refinement was Lenin. The Socialists spread their credo then split into two groups. International (Communists) and National (Italian Fascists and German Nazi's or National socialist workers party. All socialist, all totalitarian and all fascist using it as a meaning ...complete control of everything. People like Mussolini and Lenin met regularly when Il Duce was the head of the Italian socialist party....It came to the us through the university system and was introduced in yet another form and put into practice by Woodrow Wilson. A hundred years later there is still no real difference they are joined at the hip twndlngs. Thus no difference between Eva, Evita and Hillary and Madonna had no problem playing the part.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 4 months ago
              No, I am talking about much earlier civilizations before it was called our by modern-day terms of socialism and communism. I am talking about the Roman Empire, the Egyptian civilizations, all of the ancient civilizations. They all fell due to the same things. Nothing new is happening here. History repeats itself. We need to figure out a way to stop the repetition.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 4 months ago
    Ignorant fools
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 4 months ago
      That's what these moronic, worthless authors will call you if you oppose them. Even a dog under a table knows to respect the hand that feeds. These "humanist" looters do so in the name of their people, their religion, their utter lack of worth. Because they are not worthy, they demand we give them worth - which they have not earned. The more you give them to go away, the more they come crawling back for still more. There is but one way to end this. To finish off every last policy that allows them to continue to make these demands. Until that happens, I personally don't want to be bothered.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
    Other than opinion what are the facts. Define millions. Define deserving. Define guarantee of citizenship. Since you are not speaking as an objectivist I thought I would ask the obvious question. Lest someone think they are objectivist viewpoints.

    Now we are in the right spot. Lakoff country!

    Not sure why a comment aimed at the top keep threading under Mcnabs post..... supposed to be under Evito
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by davidmcnab 8 years, 4 months ago
    Ok. Yeah right. Like while we're at it, why don't we also abolish citizenship altogether and make us all Comrade Citizens of the People's State of Earth. Get rid of nations and national/state governments, and replace them with branches of the People's State government. From each according to his ability, to each according to need. Abolish private wealth, and if anyone starts getting too influential, take them away for Comrade Re-Education Training.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago
      I'm just putting this here to separate my zero from the rest of the good stuff. Then we can pretend to work for what they pretend to pay. Learning neither language be it hopeful nor offered in despair but study the one system which will prove most useful. Marksmanship.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo