All posts by Harvey3

It’s not White Privilege, it’s American Privilege!

It’s not White Privilege, it’s American Privilege – Pulling the Mask off of Collectivist Fascism
Tom WiseDecember 27, 2014

I was sitting on my front porch, in a decent wooden rocker, eating sourdough pretzels from a bag, and drinking bottled water. Now, this may not sound like much to you, but just by enjoying these few things in a few moments of relative liberty, I am among the most fortunate people on the face of the Earth.

I don’t know the statistics offhand (and I’m too lazy at the moment to look them up… Google!), but much of the world is always on the brink of starvation. There’s no reason for me to feel guilty about this, even if I do feel sad. First, if I believe in God, which I do, I know that I was born into this place and time without any input from me, for some reason only God knows. Therefore, I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be, and I only have gratitude that where I’m supposed to be is here and now. Second, what good is a resource or product if it’s not enjoyed? My father always used to say, “Money is for spending.” I didn’t know what he meant then, but I think I know now. Money spent gives forth many things, has a life of its own, and can purchase some temporary thing to make us happy, whether food or some other item of value. Naturally, I could write many paragraphs regarding what money is, what happiness is, and whether or not money buys happiness, but I will leave those philosophies off the table right now.

Contrarily, there are many people who believe just the opposite. They do not think that resources and products are to be enjoyed by those who can afford to have them. They do not believe money ought to be handled by the population-at-large. Well, if the population-at-large ought not handle money, how shall they have what they want and need? An here’s where we get to the ideology which to most of us is alien. Most often, that alien ideology says the government should be sole benefactor of the labor of the many, and that resources ought to be distributed “as needed” by such government. This, of course, is Marxism, and its many branches of Socialism, communism, and other collectivism.

Collectivists are completely taken with the notion that whoever has a “privilege” to enjoy something, which someone else cannot enjoy, is a traitor. No, seriously. They believe the world is already collectivist, and that capitalists and individualists run contrary to this supposed global government. In their minds, they believe the yearning of the proletariat is the real government. They believe people with more wealth and power are oppressors, and not only oppressors, but illegal in their every actions, that is, traitors to this illusory world government.

We, of course, know that our God has created a Torah, a set of laws, which protects private property from theft and larceny, from unequal weights and measures, from vandalism and intentional destruction without cause. We also know that our laws in America protect not only life and liberty, but also private property. So it is with great consternation and puzzlement that we hear the crazed anger and sloganeering of the collectivists who tell us that ownership of property is not a real thing, that “you didn’t build that,” that “businesses don’t create jobs,” and thatwhite people are oppressors who subjugate everyone else.

Never mind that the main portion of these sloganeers are white themselves, obviously living without any belief system in Torah or the laws of Magna Carta, Constitution, and “possession is 9/10 of the law.” Never mind that these white sloganeers are themselves, generally speaking, from middle- to upper-class families, who have probably never been hungry a day in their lives, except on so-called hunger strikes to get attention. Never mind that these white spoiled guilt-ridden liberals have technology, know how to use it, and probably have every other advantage as well. No, never mind those things. They are “good” because they denigrate what they have. Weare “bad” because we don’t denigrate what we have, but treasure it, or at least have fun without guilt.

The newest such rallying slogan is that white people enjoy “white privilege,” which as near as I can figure out means that white people can walk or drive down the street without being harassed by the cops. Of course, this is completely untrue on its face. Bad cops harass everyone. Good cops tend not to harass anyone. But, of course, we are supposed to define this for the sloganeers because that’s part of the punishment! “When you can tell me what you’ve done, young man, you can have your dessert!” Well, the problem here is, the sloganeers don’t actually control our desserts! But they want to, don’t they?
Part of being a collectivist sloganeer is desiring to control the natural resources and the weapons. Part of being a collectivist is desiring to be the very fascist you say you despise! However, if you are a collectivist, you have already assumed that the world is just waiting to be rescued into your fascism.

Another idea of “white privilege” is having access to all the “good stuff.” Apparently, white people have the best education system, the best economic system, and so forth. The reason this is supposedly bad is that white people are bad, and don’t deserve it! Let’s examine that, shall we?

White people are bad, but it’s generally white people who are criticizing this “white privilege.” So, aren’t the white people who criticize also bad? No, of course not! Aha! So it is not being white which is bad, it’s being capitalistand individualist which is bad! We, therefore, come to the first truth about the doctrine of “white privilege” and that is that it is not about a person being “white,” but about “privilege.” We know this because it is the collectivists who are sloganeering, throwing rocks, and inciting riots. Oh yes they are!

So, it’s not that white people are bad, because you can be a “good” white person if you are a collectivist. Accordingly, it is “privilege” which is bad. But… these sloganeers are completely privileged. Are they not bad also? No! They are doing the “good work” of sloganeering, so they are exempt. They are better white people!

Furthermore, the goal of these collectivists is to have such privilege, if you will, distributed among those not privileged. So now the underprivileged will be privileged. Doesn’t this mean these newly privileged are now “bad,” by virtue of their new privilege? No! They haven’t had privilege for the same amount of time as those who have had privilege. Get it? No? Me neither. So it is not privilege which is bad, and not white people who are bad, and not privileged white people who are bad, as long as such privileged things are shared only by the underprivileged and the sloganeers. Are we clear?

So let’s say this comes to pass, and privileged white people (who are not sloganeers) lose their power and wealth. Who gets this power and wealth? Why, the underprivileged and the sloganeers, of course! The first getsrevenge. The second gets due reward! And the formerly-privileged white people? Are they not underprivileged now? No! That is a bad thought! They are not underprivileged, but rather “in their right place.” Get it?

You can readily see how absurd these positions of “white privilege” are. For the problem, even according to the sloganeers, is not really with white people (they are white), or privilege (it will merely be redistributed), or even white privilege (the sloganeers deserve theirs).

In reality, these sloganeers are against American privilege. They say the black man doesn’t get a fair shake in America. Really? Out of all the minorities, and there are many, the black man doesn’t get a fair shake? Considering that the black man is in the White House presently, and that Al Sharpton seems to run our social causes now, and that Oprah Winfrey is among the richest in the world, and let’s not forget all the entertainers, sports figures, and businessmen… I’m not buying it. In fact, there’s no reason for me to buy it. In my lifetime, I’ve seen the black man achieve greatly. If the black man hasn’t achieved all he desires, let him work for it, like everyone else. That is American privilege.

Whether or not anyone believes this, in America, the only thing holding you back is you. Black men have achieved in this country. So have Chinese, and Jews, and Irish, and Italians, and a host of others who were first picked on and placed in a ghetto. I’m oversimplifying for the sake of space, and leaving out scads of history and reforms, but the truth is, America is amazing. Tolerant and forgiving to a fault, and still able to be prosperous and safe. Again, I oversimplify, omitting much doctrine and policy, but America is a privileged place to live.

That’s why people want to live here, and risk their lives getting here. Safe haven, and money.

So, if “white privilege” in America means that white people are not frisked as much as black people, it is surely, in this day and age, not due to race, but due to 1) an increasing police state, and 2) and increasing savagery among the citizenry. If white people are less likely to be savage, due to their circumstances or temperament, the sloganeers ought not say that white people would certainly be more savage if they were deprived. Neither should the sloganeers say that black people, if given more privilege, would change their own temperaments. At best, this is wishful thinking, that people change their temperaments because they have money or power. No, people stay who they are. At worst, it is collectivist sloganeering, inciting among the black people an envy of things they lack. It is instigation of social-economic civil war, a radical communist platform.

In fact, if you read Bill Ayers’ Prairie Fire (ca 1971), you will see that he calls himself a communist, and says that one of the key elements of domestic social action of such radical communists is to incite the black man to revolution. This is one reason why I say Bill Ayers is still one of the most dangerous men in America.

These communists are against American Privilege. They don’t like Americans eating until bursting, because it reminds them that their own ideology causes people to literally starve to death by the millions (Mao, Lenin, Stalin). They don’t like Americans carrying guns because it reminds them that their own ideology causes purges and mass executions. It also reminds them that Americans have power, another privilege the communist does not have.

Don’t be fooled. These sloganeers are the same communists from 1856 and 1956, from Prussia to Congo. They provoke the elite with their rash statements, then hide behind the skirt of proletariat anger. In the current American version, they hide behind the black man’s plight, his urban gang problem, which kills thousand every year in inner cities. But these killings are not the result of white privilege, they are the result of drug wars, thug wars, and respect wars. It’s not from lack of opportunity, but rather wealth of opportunity in drugs, guns, and machismo. And nobody forces these young men to sell drugs, wave pistols, and attack random passers-by. That’s on them.

But it’s not only black neighborhoods which are rife with drugs and guns. White people get involved in every form of drug dealing. Latin Americans have their cartels. Orientals have their mafias.

And it’s not just about drugs and guns. It’s about ruling the world. Arabs have their Caliphate-seekers. The New World Order is continually pulling strings around the world. Africans war for supremacy daily. The Chinese increase their game of Risk for minerals. The Russians are always about conquest.

The sloganeers can represent any of these, but the end-game is the same, domination and hegemony. The “white privilege” gambit is a collectivist strategy, because it incites proletariat anger, and black pride. They use “white privilege” as a metaphor for their mortal enemies, Capitalism and Individualism. Don’t be fooled. This is not about awareness or compassion. This is war.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

What America Thinks January 7 Rasmussen Reports

Voters to Mexico: Stop Illegal Immigrants or Lose U.S. Aid

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

Most U.S. voters think the Mexican government doesn’t do enough to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking and favor stopping foreign aid to our southern neighbor until it does more to prevent illegal border crossings.
Just 14% of Likely U.S. Voters think the Mexican government wants to stop its citizens from illegally entering the United States, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty-five percent (55%) say Mexico is not interested in stopping illegal immigration. But 31% are not sure.
These findings have changed little over the past two years. In May 2010, however, just 13% thought Mexico wanted to stop illegal immigration, but 67% disagreed.

U.S. taxpayers gave Mexico $265 million in foreign aid in 2013, the most recent year figures are available for, and 53% of voters in this country think that aid should end until the Mexican government does more to stop Mexicans and others from illegally crossing the U.S. southern border. Only 31% disagree, but 16% are undecided.
Just 10% of voters believe the Mexican government has been aggressive enough in its effort to stop illegal drug traffickers. Seventy-four percent (74%) say Mexico has not been aggressive enough in fighting this problem, up nine points from 65% in February of last year. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.
A plurality (44%) says government corruption in Mexico is most to blame for the drug violence in that country. Twenty-four percent (24%) blame Mexican drug producers, while 21% think the violence is primarily due to drug users in the United States. Four percent (4%) say something else is chiefly to blame.

The national survey of 800 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on January 5-6, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

At a White House meeting yesterday, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto promised to assist President Obama’s plan to protect up to five million illegal immigrants in this country from deportation. In May 2012, 54% of U.S. voters wanted to demand compensation from Mexico to offset the cost to taxpayers in this country from illegal immigration.
Thirty percent (30%) of voters in this country regard Mexico as a U.S. ally, while just seven percent (7%) consider it an enemy. Fifty-four percent (54%) rate Mexico as somewhere in between the two. This is a more critical assessment than Americans expressed a year ago.
Most Republicans and most voters not affiliated with either major party believe the Mexican government does not want to stop illegal immigration and favor cutting U.S. aid until it does more to stop this traffic. Democrats are far more undecided about the Mexican government, and a plurality opposes a cut-off in aid.
But most voters in all three groups agree that the Mexican government has not been aggressive enough in trying to stop illegal drug traffickers. They also tend to blame government corruption in Mexico for the drug violence there.

Voters who are critical of the Mexican government’s immigration and anti-drug efforts are far less likely to consider the country an ally of the United States.
Nearly half (48%) of all voters think Congress should try to find ways to stop the president’s plan to allow several million illegal immigrants to stay in this country legally and apply for jobs. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think the federal government should only do what the president and Congress agree on when it comes to immigration.
Most voters have said for years that stopping illegal immigration is more important than putting those already here illegally on the path to citizenship.
An overwhelming majority of Americans still believe the United States is losing the war on drugs, but they are more divided over whether money is the answer.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters favor the use of the U.S. military to protect American citizens if drug violence escalates along the Mexican border.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

The national survey of 800 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on January 5-6, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.

IRS nearly crippled – You Believe This Hooey?


IRS officials warn: We’re nearly crippled

The IRS wants both taxpayers and its staff to know this: It’s only going to get worse.

After absorbing a $346 million budget cut, IRS officials are warning taxpayers not to expect their phone calls to get answered or their refunds to be delivered quickly. Employees shouldn’t count on overtime pay, or for empty staff slots to be filled. And lawmakers seeking to reduce the deficit should assume the agency will collect far less revenue than it could have. “We’re well beyond cutting out any fat,” John Koskinen, the IRS commissioner, told reporters after his agency saw its budget slashed for the fifth consecutive year. “And we’re now into cutting, as people say, muscle headed toward bone.”

In all, the IRS is operating with roughly $1.2 billion less than it did in 2010, when the agency’s budget reached its high-water mark of roughly $12.1 billion. The $10.9 billion the agency is slated to receive for 2015 is a 3 percent cut from last year and the IRS’s smallest budget since 2007, Koskinen told staffers in an email this week. Adjusting for inflation, the IRS budget is roughly equivalent to what Congress gave it in 1998 — an era when the agency processed about 30 million fewer returns in a given year. The recent budget cuts have led to far fewer employees at the agency, according to the National Treasury Employee Union, which represents IRS employees. The IRS had just over 83,000 staffers at the end of 2013, around 10,000 fewer than when the budget cuts started and around a quarter less than two decades ago.

Koskinen told staffers in his Wednesday message that an extra $250 million in expenses — which included raises for staffers — only deepened the agency’s budget woes this year. The IRS chief added that, with few exceptions, the agency would only be able to add about one new staffer for every five that exit. The agency’s travel budget will also get slashed, and overtime pay will be for emergencies only — such as if information technology systems break down during the filing season, Koskinen told reporters.

“There is nothing in there that we’re cutting out that we shouldn’t be doing,” Koskinen said about the agency’s budget. “There isn’t any more give in the system.” As a last resort, the commissioner said Thursday, the agency could even hand down unpaid furloughs for staff — essentially shuttering the entire revenue agency for a day at a time.

For taxpayers, Koskinen is already cautioning that the chances of the IRS answering their phone call is no better than a coin flip. The IRS had been answering the phone at about a 60 percent rate. Even if a taxpayer and tax practitioner does get through, they should expect a long wait beforehand, the IRS chief stressed. “Every time I say you can call us, in the back of my mind I almost feel like I should say: ‘You should be prepared to stay on the line for half an hour before you get through. And a lot of you won’t get through to a live person,’” Koskinen said.

The problems taxpayers could face go far beyond the phone, both Koskinen and taxpayer advocates say. IRS drop-in centers handled about 114,000 questions during the 2014 tax-filing season, according to the Government Accountability Office, down from almost 200,000 the previous year. The nation’s taxpayer advocate, an in-house watchdog, said in a report in January that the IRS had helped prepare close to a half million returns a decade ago for lower-income families, people with disabilities, and older taxpayers. The IRS now says it won’t be able to prepare any returns for those taxpayers.

And if a taxpayer does happen to get through on the phone, they’ll only get help on “basic” tax questions during the filing season. Outside of that window, even those taxpayers who filed for extensions won’t get those questions answered. “It is a sad state of affairs when the government writes tax laws as complex as ours — and then is unable to answer any questions beyond ‘basic’ ones from baffled citizens who are doing their best to comply,” Nina Olson, the taxpayer advocate, said this year.

The problem for Koskinen and the IRS is that the budget-cutting zeal for the agency is unlikely to subside on Capitol Hill — particularly if, as expected, the agency’s performance falls off in the coming year. Congressional Republicans remain livid at the IRS for its improper scrutiny of Tea Party groups, and have said they’re not buying the agency’s line that it needs more money and that cuts to the IRS are counterproductive.

A string of top GOP lawmakers trumpeted cutting the agency’s budget as one of their favorite aspects of the recent government funding deal. The Obama administration is expected to unveil new rules for the tax-exempt groups at the center of the Tea Party controversy next year, which will likely further anger Republicans. But on top of that, as Koskinen pointed out this week, Congress started rolling back the IRS’s finances well before news broke about the agency’s singling out of conservative groups.

Republicans also don’t agree with the commissioner’s take that he can’t wring any more efficiencies out of the IRS’s budget, having blasted the agency’s past spending on conferences and Koskinen’s decision to award employee bonuses. “Violating the trust of the American people by wasting taxpayer dollars, targeting groups based on their political beliefs, and not cooperating with congressional investigations does not warrant a budget increase,” Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), who leads the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the IRS, said about the most recent spending deal.

Koskinen has said that he’s trying to make a long-term argument to lawmakers to increase the IRS’s funding, talking up the agency’s outdated technology systems and laying out how those improvements will streamline matters for taxpayers. As he pushes for more funding, the IRS chief is also warning that the budget cuts will lead to the agency collecting $2 billion less in revenue — with the main beneficiary being tax cheats. But Koskinen also acknowledged his pitch hasn’t gotten much traction yet.

“We haven’t done a part good job of articulating what that vision is,” he said.