June 25, 2018

HAPPY Monday. Buddhist Zen Cartoons To Make You LAUGH! I Just Laughed So Hard, I Cried! Enjoy :D

 

FREEDOM: Words of Wisdom Shared by Osho

‎"Be respectful of yourself,
and be respectful of others.
Be proud of your freedom.
When you are proud of your freedom,
You want everybody else to be FREE.
Because your freedom has given you
so much LOVE and so much GRACE.
You would like everybody else
in the world
to be FREE, loving, and graceful."
~ by Osho ♥

Freedom is Responsibility by Osho ❤

Freedom is Responsibility
written by Osho

Everybody wants freedom as far as talking is concerned, but nobody really is free and nobody really wants to be free, because freedom brings responsibility. It does not come alone. And to be dependent is simple: the responsibility is not on you, the responsibility is on the person you are dependent on.

So people have made a schizophrenic way of life. They talk about truth, they talk about freedom, and they live in lies, they live in slaveries – slaveries of many kinds, because each slavery frees you from some responsibility. A man who really wants to be FREE has to accept immense responsibilities. He cannot dump his responsibilities on anybody else. Whatever he does, whatever he is, he is responsible.

Responsibility and freedom go together. If you don't want to take responsibility, you can't have freedom either. The two come together or they go together. If you shun responsibility, you have to accept slavery in some way or other.

Now, you had dreamed about freedom without ever thinking that great responsibility will follow. Freedom you have, but you have not fulfilled the responsibility. Hence, sadness lingers around you. You are absolutely capable of removing this sadness. If you were capable of destroying your slavery, your chains, you are certainly capable of being creative.

Freedom means you will have to be responsible for every act, for every breath; whatever you do or don't do, you will be responsible.

People are really in deep fear of freedom, although they talk about freedom. But my own experience is: very few people really want freedom ; because they are subconsciously aware that freedom will bring many problems that they are not ready to face. It is better to remain in cozy imprisonment. It is warmer, and what will you do with freedom? Unless you are ready to be a seeker, a searcher, a creator... Very few people want to go on a pilgrimage or to go into deeper silences of the heart, or to take the responsibility of love. The implications are great.

You will have to dispel that darkness, otherwise sooner or later you will enter into a prison. You cannot go on burdening yourself with sadness. Before the burden becomes too much and forces you back into slavery, into imprisonment, change the whole situation by being a creative person. Just find out what is your joy in life, what you would like to create, what you would like to be, what you want to be your definition.

Freedom is simply an opportunity to find a definition for yourself, a true, authentic individuality, and a joy in making the world around you a little better, a little more beautiful – a few more roses, a little more greenery and a few more oases.

Madame Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, used to carry two bags in her hands, always. Either going for a morning walk or travelling in a train – those two bags were always in her hands. And she was throwing something out of those bags – from the window while sitting in the train – onto the side of the train.

People would ask, "Why do you do this?"

She would say, "This has been my whole life's habit. These are seasonal flower seeds. I may not come back on this route again, but that does not matter. When the season comes and the flowers will blossom, thousands of people who pass every day in this line of railway trains will see those flowers, those colours. They will not know me. That does not matter.

"One thing is certain: I am making a few people happy somewhere. That much I know. It does not matter whether they know it or not. What matters is that I have been doing something which will make somebody happy. Some children may come and pluck a few flowers and go home. Some lovers may come and make garlands for each other. And without their knowing, I will be part of their love. And I will be part of the joy of children. And I will be part of those who will be simply passing by the path, seeing the beautiful flowers."

June 24, 2018

Ethical Dilemma

Ethical Dilemma

You are driving down the road in your car on a wild, stormy night, when you pass by a bus stop and you see three people waiting for the bus:

1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about.

Which one would you choose to offer a ride to, knowing that there could only be one passenger in your car.

Think before you continue reading. This is a moral/ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a job application. You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you should save her first. Or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and this would be the perfect chance to pay him back. However , you may never be able to find your perfect mate again.

The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming up with his answer. He simply answered:

"I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him take the lady to the hospital. I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the partner of my dreams."

Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought limitations. Never forget to "Think outside of the Box."

Philosophy Class Final Exam Question

Philosophy Class Final Exam Question

A philosophy professor walks in to give his class their final. Placing his chair on his desk the professor instructs the class, "Using every applicable thing you've learned in this course, prove to me that this chair DOES NOT EXIST."

So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing, students are preparing to embark on novels proving that this chair doesn't exist, except for one student. He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.

Time goes by, and the day comes when all the students get their final grades and to the amazment of the class, the student who wrote for thirty seconds gets the highest grade in the class.

His answer to the question: "What chair?"

Question Everything With BOLDNESS!


"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude."

~ by Thomas Jefferson
one of America's Founding Fathers
and author of our Declaration of Independence

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian. Great Read!

Mises Institute (Mises.org)
written by George Reisman
November 11, 2005

My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?
Did you catch that description above? Remember next time you hear the Left call a free market Capitalist, a Nazi. The Left thrives on perpetuating lies because the end justifies the means.

Everything the Marxist Democrats in America advocate, Hitler did! You want to confiscate Americans guns, and have a complete gun ban like Hitler did before the mass roundups of the political opposition! You advocate euthanasia, Hitler did that. You want abortion, even after birth. Hitler did that. You want a centralized government-run universal health care system imposed on the country. Hitler did that. You want to raise the income tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, to an exaggerated amount. Hitler did that. You want businesses to be heavily weighed down by government regulations. Hitler did that. You want to use groups like Antifa to intimidate, stalk, harm, your political opposition into silence. Hitler did that with SS and SA. What you really want is to kill the political opposition, known as mass extermination, or anyone who doesn't think like you, Hitler did that. (emphasis mine)
Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism's imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)

At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The government's control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system. This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.

The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.

We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?

The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.

But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.

Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.

And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes above the ceiling price.

In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of "economic crimes," in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.

Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar to that of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, in which practically anyone might turn out to be a police spy and in which a secret police exists and has the power to arrest and imprison people. If the government is unwilling to go to such lengths, then, to that extent, its price controls prove unenforceable and simply break down. The black market then assumes major proportions. (Incidentally, none of this is to suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror instituted by the Nazis. The Nazis began their reign of terror well before the enactment of price controls. As a result, they enacted price controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.)

Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government's regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls. For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.

Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia, in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the government the owner of the means of production, all black-market activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state property. For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia who turned out products that they sold in the black market were considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.

Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government's economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty.

Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual's economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual's life a nightmare.

Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.

Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?
This right here describes the Marxist Democratic party in America. Democrat ruled city, and state cronic hellholes, and they blame everyone else but themselves for the decades of unsafe and dilapidated communities. (emphasis mine)
It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.

Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.

A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.

The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers' terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work 'round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people's attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people's misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers' terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.

It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas. Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers. The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.

Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.

I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.

In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.

The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.

The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.

As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature.

June 23, 2018

USA: U.S. Press Sec Sarah Sanders Kicked Out Of Restaurant Because She Works For Trump. Owner Responds. Protesters Harass DHS Sec Nielsen At Her Home. Protesters Confront Florida AG At Theatre.

Daily Wire
written by Ryan Saavedra
Saturday June 23, 2018

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said on Saturday that she was kicked out of a restaurant by the owner because she works for the Trump administration and because of her political views.

In a tweet, Sanders said she politely left Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia after the owner told her to go because of her affiliation with the Trump administration:
"I’m not a huge fan of confrontation," Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner, told The Washington Post. "I have a business, and I want the business to thrive. This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals."

Wilkinson said that several of her employees were gay and that they knew that Sanders had defended the president's call for a ban on transgender troops in the military.

"Tell me what you want me to do. I can ask her to leave," Wilkinson claims she told her staff. "They said yes."

Wilkinson then said that she identified herself to Sanders and asked for her to come out to the patio with her for a private word.

"I explained that the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation," Wilkinson said. "I said, 'I'd like to ask you to leave.'"

Wilkinson indicated that Sanders was respectful and said she would go and offered to pay for the food that was being prepared.

"I said, no," Wilkinson said. "It’s on the house."

Stop acting like we're in some 3rd world nation. If you want things to change attend Town Hall meetings, write letters to your representatives, VOTE. Stop this madness. My gosh. In America, we have the basic human "Right to Privacy" that you on the Left have no concept of what that means. You don't understand civility. (emphasis mine)

TeleSUR English published Published on June 23, 2018: Protesters Gathered Outside DHS Secretary Kristjen Nielsen’s Home. The audio of the detained children separated from their parents was played outside the house of Department of Homeland Security Secretary (DHS) Kirstjen Nielsen.
Comparing us to Nazis is horrible. The Marxist Democratic Left has you so damn brainwashed that you should be fearful of your lives. You can click the Twitchy article link above to read the Bloomberg writer's psycho tweets. You people on the Left want to confiscate Americans guns, and have a complete gun ban like Hitler did before the mass roundups of the political opposition! Everything you people on the Left advocate, Hitler did! You advocate euthanasia, Hitler did that. You want abortion, even after birth. Hitler did that. You want a centralized government-run universal health care system imposed on the country. Hitler did that. You want to raise the income tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, to an exaggerated amount. Hitler did that. You want businesses to be heavily weighed down by government regulations. Hitler did that. You want to use groups like Antifa to intimidate, stalk, harm, your political opposition into silence. Hitler did that with SS and SA. What you really want is to kill the political opposition, known as mass extermination, or anyone who doesn't think like you, Hitler did that.

Sooooo, please stop your lunacy. Take your meds, or ask the doctor to give you new meds. Because, you, are, really, creeping us out. You've become the pod people from the classic movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The clips below are how all of you on the Left are acting toward anyone who does not think like you, or you hate.
(emphasis mine)

This is how the movie 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' starts.

This is how the movie 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' ends.

The Twilight Zone: The Obsolete Man. This is another example of what the Marxist Democratic Left in America reminds me of. The Left wants to make anyone who doesn't think like them "obsolete".

Great read: Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

June 22, 2018

INDONESIA: A Court Hands Death Sentence To Islamic State-Linked Muslim Cleric For Militant Terrorist Attacks. Islamic Terror The Left Tells Me Is Made Up By Mossad And CIA And Doesn't Exist.

Reuters News
written by Agustinus Beo Da Costa, Darren Whiteside
Thursday June 21, 2018

JAKARTA - An Indonesian court on Friday sentenced to death a cleric linked to Islamic State, for masterminding from his jail cell a string of deadly militant attacks across the world’s largest Muslim-majority country.

The ruling comes as Indonesia struggles to rein in a rising tide of homegrown militancy, inspired in part by the extremist group Islamic State, with parliament approving tougher anti-terrorism laws last month.

Aman Abdurrahman, 46, is considered the ideological leader of Jemaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD) - a loose grouping of Islamic State sympathizers in Indonesia.

“The court sentences the defendant to death,” said the judge, Ahmad Zaini, adding that Abdurrahman had been proved guilty of “carrying out terrorism”.

Abdurrahman bowed and touched his forehead to the floor on hearing the verdict, but did not respond to the judge’s query whether he would appeal against the ruling.

He was convicted of planning a 2016 gun-and-bomb attack in the heart of Jakarta, the capital, that killed eight people, including four attackers.

Abdurrahman was also proved to be behind a suicide attack last year that killed three police officers at a Jakarta bus station and the bombing of a church in Samarinda on Borneo island that wounded four children.

He was serving a sentence in a maximum security prison at the time.

Abdurrahman’s defense team told reporters the sentence was “too harsh”.

“He himself does not have the desire to appeal because he does not recognize the court or Indonesian laws,” said Asludin Hatjani, a lawyer for Abdurrahman, adding that the defense team had a week to consider filing an appeal.

Earlier, dozens of masked and heavily armed police officers stood guard as Abdurrahman, handcuffed and wearing an orange prison jacket over a blue shirt and black trousers, was escorted into the South Jakarta courthouse by counter-terrorism officers.

Security experts have raised concerns that a harsh penalty for the cleric could trigger retaliatory attacks by followers.

“The verdict provides moral support for the counter-terrorism community, but it will also make Abdurrahman a martyr to the jihadist community, whether he is executed or allowed to spend years on death row,” Concord Consulting, a risk advisory group based in Jakarta, said in a note.

Suicide bombings last month in Indonesia’s second largest city of Surabaya that killed more than 30 people and were carried out by families with young children, were linked to JAD cells and were the country’s deadliest in nearly two decades.

The U.S. State department says the JAD grouping is a “terrorist” organization linked to numerous attacks.
The Wall Street Journal
written by Anita Rachman and Ben Otto
Friday June 22, 2018

JAKARTA, Indonesia—An Indonesian court sentenced an Islamic State-linked cleric to death, a rare decision that underscores a hardening mood against terrorists in the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation.

The decision Friday against Aman Abdurrahman, founder of Indonesia’s most dangerous pro-Islamic State group, comes after public shock over family suicide bombings last month and the subsequent passage of an antiterrorism law that gives police in this sprawling nation of more than 250 million people expanded powers to detain terror suspects. More than 100 suspected terrorists have been arrested since the bombings.

A panel of five judges found Abdurrahman guilty of inciting followers to commit acts of terror—including a gun-and-bombs attack at a Starbucks in downtown Jakarta in January 2016, the first attack in Southeast Asia explicitly linked to the Syria-based Islamic State.

“The very important role he played in disseminating his sermons online made his followers carry out bombings that resulted in casualties and fear,” Chief Judge Akhmad Jaini said.

Indonesia had largely contained the terrorist threat since the peak of al Qaeda-linked attacks in the early 2000s, but the rise of Islamic State—including the group’s ability to claim territory last year in the five-month occupation of Marawi in the neighboring Philippines—has left officials here fearful that a new generation of militants is regrouping.

In court on Friday, Abdurrahman knelt and touched his forehead to the ground when a judge announced the death sentence, the first for a terrorism conviction here in more than a decade. Capital punishment in Indonesia is carried out by firing squad.

Asludin Hatjani, a court-appointed defense lawyer, said his client didn’t want to appeal the decision. The cleric has refused to recognize the court’s legitimacy to try him. Mr. Hatjani called the sentence “forced” and said Abdurrahman shouldn’t be held responsible for whether his writings and sermons inspire followers to commit terrorism.

Abdurrahman has spent much of the past 14 years in jail on bomb-making charges, for helping organize a militant training camp and on the charge of inciting attacks. The U.S. has called him the de facto leader of Islamic State supporters in Indonesia and declared him a “specially designated global terrorist.”

‘The very important role he played in disseminating his sermons online made his followers carry out bombings that resulted in casualties and fear.’ —Chief Judge Akhmad Jaini

Police and U.S. authorities say Abdurrahman has been a link for Islamic State in Indonesia despite his incarceration, serving as a translator of the group’s texts and recruiting followers to fight in the Middle East until he was placed in isolation in after the Jakarta attack that killed four bystanders and four attackers.

Abdurrahman has lost influence in isolation, but his writings remain standard study material among pro-Islamic State groups.

Indonesia suffered its most dramatic terrorist attacks in years when two men who police said were associated with Abdurrahman’s group led their wives and children in suicide bombings at churches and a police station in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second-largest city. The bombings were the first in the country to involve women and children.

The Surabaya attacks “provided the mood” that led to capital punishment sentencing, said Noor Huda Ismail, a terrorism expert and founder of the Institute for International Peace Building.

Some terrorism analysts criticized the decision to invoke the death penalty, saying it would help expand his influence.

Abdurrahman “alive has sparked divisions within the extremist movement,” said Sidney Jones, director of the Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict. “The government may be losing a chance to exploit the divisions that exist.”

Corrections & Amplifications
Akhmad Jaini is the chief judge in the case. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that his name is Ahmad Zaini. (June 22)

CHINA: The Annual Yulin Dog Meat Celebration Opened Without A Hitch On Thursday A Day After A South Korean Court Announced It Had Ruled That The Slaughtering Of Dogs For Meat Was Illegal.

Channel News Asia
written by AFP staff
Friday June 22, 2018

YULIN, China: As South Korea moves closer to banning dog meat, diners tuck into bowls of stewed canine in southern China, where activists are rethinking their tactics to counter a notorious festival that butchers thousands of dogs.

The annual Yulin dog meat celebration opened without a hitch on Thursday (Jun 22), a day after a South Korean court announced it had ruled that the slaughtering of dogs for meat was illegal.

Activists say the ruling could pave the way for the outlawing of dog meat consumption in South Korea, but there is less progress in China where advocates fear their tactics have been counterproductive.

Eating dog to mark the summer solstice is a tradition in China's Guangxi region, where the festival has been held since 2009 to mark the occasion in the town of Yulin.

Despite rumours last year that Yulin authorities would ban dog meat sales altogether, many restaurants advertised the controversial offering this week with the veiled moniker of "fragrant meat".

Carcasses were on display for purchase in the city's open-air markets - though there were fewer of them than in previous years, locals said.

The Dongkou wet market downtown bustled with shoppers meandering past piles of dogs laid out atop butcher stalls for them to inspect. Others hung from hooks, their faces locked in a rigid grimace.

Market workers pulled in cartfuls of dead dogs while sweaty men blow-torched the fresher carcasses to remove any remaining fur. On the street, a man transported two live mutts in a cage on the back of his scooter.

As police patrolled outside the market premises, one woman bought a full dog for 662 yuan (US$102), saying she would eat it with her family to celebrate the summer solstice.

"It's very tasty," another local surnamed Chen told AFP, insisting "they're all strays - strays and pets are different".

Chen did not consider it cruel to consume the meat during what the Chinese zodiac system deems the Year of the Dog, quipping: "don't you eat chicken in the year of the rooster, and pork in the year of the pig?"

But vendors were more discreet than usual.

They cooked in narrow alleys or inside their restaurants instead of preparing dog dishes in front of patrons, ushering diners inside and not serving outdoors.

MAO DOG BAN

Thousands of dogs are butchered during the event, the animal protection organisation Humane Society International estimates - a fraction of the more than 10 million consumed each year in China.

Animal rights activists have typically attended the festival to purchase ill-fated dogs and save them from slaughter, said Qiao Wei, an activist from the Si Chuna Qiming Animal Protection Centre.

But now they feel that working to establish a general ban on the dog meat trade would be much more effective.

"We have no hope that we can bring change just by going to Yulin," he said. Simply buying dogs "doesn't help".

International animal rights groups concur, saying that focusing so intensively on dog meat consumption in just one city at an annual event risks becoming counterproductive.

"It would be far better to have a holistic campaign that works collaboratively across the country, engaging the government and public to acknowledge animals as our friends, not food," said Jill Robinson, founder of the Hong Kong-based Animals Asia Foundation.

Chinese (Marxist Communist) leader Mao Zedong had banned dog ownership for being bourgeois, but the ranks of China's rising middle-class are now full of proud and loving dog owners.

This year, the foundation set up an online portal where Chinese citizens can report restaurants that operate illegally.

Tipsters have already flagged some 1,300 restaurants in 153 cities, with over 200 of them shut down, forced to stop selling the meat, or issued warnings, said Robinson.

Before the festival, animal protection groups from around the world submitted a letter with 235,000 signatures to Beijing, calling for the event's abolishment.

CHANGING WAYS

The tide appears to be turning against dog meat consumption elsewhere in Asia, and Chinese animal lovers like Zhang Huahua, a 62-year-old retired lecturer-turned-activist, sense change is in the air.

Zhang came to Yulin all the way from her home in the southern province of Guangdong to submit a letter with recommendations to the local government.

Her hope is to save dog lives by changing the system itself.

In South Korea, where one million dogs are believed to be eaten annually, a court ruled that meat consumption was not legitimate grounds for killing canines, after an animal rights group accused a dog farm operator of slaughtering dogs "without proper reasons" and violating building and hygiene regulations.

Last April, Taiwan banned the consumption, purchase and possession of both dog and cat meat, with offenders facing a fine of up to Tw$250,000 (US$8,170).

But many in Yulin viewed the news with a shrug.

"They can do what they want," said a resident surnamed Huang, who nonetheless wasn't fond of the taste of dog himself.

USA: The National Border Patrol Council Just Identified Peter Fonda As A ‘Domestic Terrorist’ After The Actor Advocated Terrorizing Agents’ Children.

Border Patrol Council - BPUnion.org
written by NBPC
Thursday June 21, 2018

Once again, we have a deranged liberal “star” born with a silver spoon in his mouth who thinks play-acting as a “tough guy” in a movie equates to being a tough guy in real life. This guy is the lowest of the low!

Here are Peter Fonda’s recent tweets:
Yes, this is what passes for “inclusion, acceptance, kindness, feminism, gender equality, love and peace” in the world of so many liberals. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. How about the “Be Kind” stickers on cars and “Love Trumps Hate” motto that are so popular in liberal circles? Do those apply here? And the really hilarious part about Fonda’s tweets encouraging domestic terrorism is his avatar on Twitter flashing a “peace” sign.

Peter Fonda and his sibling “Hanoi Jane” Fonda have been extremely wealthy since birth. They can afford armed guards, luxury, private schools and massive home security measures. Border Patrol agents cannot afford these things. We actually work for a living. This is the same Peter Fonda who advocates taking guns away from average Americans on one hand and then encourages domestic terrorism against average Americans on the other hand. Think about that for a minute. How wise were our Founding Fathers to include the 2nd Amendment in our founding documents?

Law enforcement isn’t pleasant Peter, it isn’t a movie where you are constantly being catered to by sycophants and you’re pampered, protected and made to think you’re really someone better than the rest of us. You aren’t! For us, the bad guys and the constant danger are real. Ask the Tucson agent who was shot last week by illegal aliens, Peter. Yes Peter, the bullets were actually real. Do his traumatized children deserve to be terrorized at their schools because he’s a Border Patrol agent. What about his wife? Should she be hunted down and terrorized too? What about the children of agents who have been killed in the line of duty Peter? Should they be terrorized at school as well?

Peter, you are a despicable, hateful, spoiled, and entitled punk. Your life of privilege since birth is not what most of us deal with. We have to work hard every day to make a living for our families. Some of us do dangerous jobs that most Americans wouldn’t touch. Our children have to put up with enough as it is. Demonizing us is low. But encouraging domestic terrorism against our children is unforgivable. Encouraging violence against the President’s son is unforgivable. Asking people to kidnap the DHS secretary, strip her naked, put her in a cage and letting people poke her with sticks demonstrates just how unhinged you really are.

Peter, seek some mental health treatment. You need it!
Yahoo News
written by Jeremy Fuster, The Wrap
Wednesday June 20, 2018

Sony Pictures Classics released a statement Wednesday evening condemning actor Peter Fonda’s tweet about Donald Trump and his son, Barron, but says it will not remove Fonda from the film “Boundaries,” which the indie distributor will release this weekend.

“Peter Fonda’s comments are abhorrent, reckless and dangerous, and we condemn them completely,” the statement read.

“It is important to note that Mr. Fonda plays a very minor role in the film. To pull or alter this film at this point would unfairly penalize the filmmaker Shana Feste’s accomplishment, the many actors, crew members and other creative talent that worked hard on the project.”

Fonda made the tweet during a late-night online rant against Trump and his administration’s family separation policy against undocumented migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles,” the actor wrote in all-caps. “And see if mother will stand up against the giant a-hole she is married to.”

The tweet received a swift backlash, with Donald Trump Jr. calling Fonda a “sick individual” in a response tweet. Fonda deleted the tweet and issued an apology.

“I tweeted something highly inappropriate and vulgar about the president and his family in response to the devastating images I was seeing on television,” he wrote. “Like many Americans, I am very impassioned and distraught over the situation with children separated from their families at the border, but I went way too far. It was wrong and I should not have done it. I immediately regretted it and sincerely apologize to the family for what I said and any hurt my words have caused.”

Fonda has a minor role in the upcoming film “Boundaries,” which will be released on five screens in New York and Los Angeles this weekend. After condemning Fonda on Twitter, Trump Jr. noted Fonda’s presence in the film and floated the idea of him being removed from the final cut, comparing it to ABC cancelling the hit show “Roseanne” just hours after lead star Roseanne Barr posted racist tweet.
BIG difference between Roseanne Barr and Peter Fonda's tweets. Roseanne Barr made ONE REPLY TWEET about ONE PERSON she was demeaning who she doesn't agree with politically. Roseanne Barr had her entire legacy destroyed by the entertainment industry for this offense. Peter Fonda on the other hand, wanted to cause physical HARM to children and adults he doesn't agree with politically. Peter Fonda's apology is meaningless because he was making arrangements with others how it was to be premeditated. He set off a storm with Antifa, the para-militant wing of the Marxist Democratic party who are eager to injure, even kill the opposition. Peter Fonda is a horrible human being.  I will reiterate, and keep reiterating, WE ARE NOT A 3rd WORLD NATION, stop trying to turn us into one. (emphasis mine)
“I wonder if they will apply the same rules to [Fonda] that they did to [Barr.]” Trump Jr. tweeted. “I have a strange suspicion that they won't [sic] do anything.”
UPDATE 6/22/18 at 9:25pm: I added the tweets below.