Seems Breitbart (and Drudge?) Being Paid BIG Bucks for Glowing Trump Coverage

Reaganite Republican ^ | 19 January 2016 | Reaganite Republican

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Trump has never done anything like this except for the 20 years that he donated to Democraps in exchange for favors.

I’m outraged by this allegation!

[Yosemitest]

Trump is a SOCIALIST.

Socialism


The theory of socialism, while similar in many ways to communism, is less extreme and more flexible.
For example,
although government control of the means of production is one possible solution,
socialism also allows for workers' cooperative groups to control a factory or farm together.

Rather than crushing capitalism and overthrowing the bourgeoisie, socialist theory allows for the more gradual reform of capitalism through legal and political processes,
such as the election of socialists to national office.
Also unlike communism, in which the proceeds are divided based on need, under socialism the proceeds are divided based on each individual's contribution to society.

Thus, while communism requires the violent overthrow of the established political order, socialism can work within the political structure.
In addition, where communism demands central control over the means of production (at least in the initial stages),
socialism allows for more free enterprise among workers' cooperatives.



Communism and Socialism in Action


Both communism and socialism were designed to improve the lives of ordinary people, and to more equitably distribute wealth.
In theory, either system should have been able to provide for the working masses.
In practice, however, the two had very different outcomes.

Because communism provides no incentive for people to work - after all, the central planners will simply take your products,
then redistribute them equally regardless of how much effort you expend
- it tended to lead to impoverishment and immiseration.
Workers quickly realized that they would not benefit from working harder, so most gave up.
Socialism, in contrast, does reward hard work.
After all, each worker's share of the profit depends upon her or his contribution to society.

Countries that implemented one or another version of communism in the 20th century include Russia (as the Soviet Union), China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and North Korea.
In every case, communist dictators rose to power in order to enforce the reordering of the political and economic structure.
Today, Russia and Cambodia are no longer communist, China and Vietnam are politically communist but economically capitalist, and Cuba and North Korea continue to practice communism.

Countries with socialist policies, in combination with a capitalist economy and democratic political system, include Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, India and the United Kingdom.
In each of these cases, socialism has achieved the moderation of capitalistic drives for profit at any human expense, without disincentivizing work or brutalizing the populace.
Socialist policies provide for worker benefits such as vacation time, universal health care, subsidized child-care, etc. without demanding central control of industry.

In short, the practical difference between communism and socialism can be summed up this way:
Would you prefer to live in Norway, or in North Korea?

[Yosemitest]

What better way to start that with a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN TED CRUZ President of the United States of America !

[Yosemitest]

It fits my APPLE.
You need to DUMP WINDOWS !

[Yosemitest]

You have NO understanding of SOCIALISM !

[Yosemitest]

I SAY AGAIN:

Donald EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump has been a PROVEN SOCIALIST for years, now !

If he talks like a SOCIALIST,
if he acts like a SOCIALIST
if he supports OTHER SOCIALISTS,
THEN there's NO DOUBT ABOUT HIM !
HE'S A SOCIALIST !

[PIF]

Not on windoz - OSX 10.68 here - perhaps it was something to do with this version of FF. Don’t know, don’t care.

[PIF]

Are you preaching to the choir or are you talking to somone else?

[JayGalt]

This is an important issue to you, I understand. However the cases where Trump used eminent domain some one else had started the process first and sold the project with the case pending (Atlantic City). In any case Eminent Domain exists for a reason and is legal. It is a necessity of life. If you want to limit its applications then there are legal ways to accomplish that.

I attach no blame to Trump for designing and building projects that brought wealth and renewal to towns such that the town voted to utilize eminent domain. Suggesting that the public good (as decided by the local governments) sometimes will win over individual property rights is not socialism.

By the way we agree. I think there should be a more stringent process before anyone is forced to give up their land, city governments are not always impartial and we are supposed to live in a country of Laws. However I attach no blame to the developers who follow the laws as written. The blame if there is blame is on the city governments and our Congress.

[Yosemitest]

I'm trying to wake these TRUMP IDIOTS up, and get them to realize that

they are voting for someone
who is going to STAB THEM IN THE BACK !

NEVER TRUST A SOCIALIST !

Let us remember ...

"You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept Communism outright.
But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism
until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism.
We won’t have to fight you;
we’ll so weaken your economy
that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands. "


Nikita Kruschev, Former Soviet Premier

[Yosemitest]

PONDER THIS, along with Trump and "Eminent Domain FOR PRIVATE USE" !

Ted Cruz: President Can IGNORE Unconstitutional Supreme Court Decisions
Thursday, 10 December 2015, by  Selwyn Duke

Are we Americans meant to be governed by the rule of law or the rule of lawyers ?
For a long time now we've been under the latter, with the belief that
whatever five unelected judges on the Supreme Court say must go for 320 million citizens.
But presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (shown) has now challenged this opinion,
siding with no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson,
who long ago warned that such an opinion would make our Constitution a "suicide pact."

Cruz fired his shot across judicial supremacy's bow in a recent appearance on EWTN, a global Catholic network, while being interviewed by Princeton University professor Robert George (video below. Relevant portion begins at 13: 52).

CANDIDATE CONVERSATIONS 2016 WITH ROBERT GEORGE - 2015-11-25 ( 52:05 )
Asking Cruz about "judicial power," George pointed to the Supreme Court's checkered past rulings, mentioning the Dred Scott case, the 1905 case of Lochner v. New York, Roe v. Wade, and this year's Obergefell v. Hodges faux-marriage decision.
The professor then said, as presented by Crisis magazine:

Some people say that a president must always accept the court's interpretation of the Constitution
no matter how dubious that interpretation is;
that we have to treat it as the law of the land,
binding not just on the parties to the case
but on other officials of government, beginning with the president.
Abraham Lincoln though, as you know, vehemently disagreed with that idea of judicial supremacy, saying that
to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases,
no matter what,
no matter how usurpative,
no matter how anti-constitutional,
would be for the American people - and I quote now the Great Emancipator -
"to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

George then asked if Lincoln was right and if Cruz would defy the court on Obergefell, to which the senator responded:

I agree with President Lincoln
and courts do not make law. ...
The court interprets the law, applies the law. ...
And, you know, this is an area of really striking divide in this presidential election. ...
They're [sic] quite a few Republicans who, when the gay "marriage" decision came down,
they described it as the settled law of the land.
It's final;
we must accept it,
move on and surrender.

Those are almost word for word Barack Obama's talking points
and I think they are profoundly wrong.
I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate.
It was lawless.
It was not based on the Constitution.
I agree very much with Justice Scalia, who wrote a powerful dissent saying, this decision is a fundamental threat to our democracy. ...
And indeed, Justice Scalia, in the penultimate paragraph of his dissent
, predicts, harkening back to President Lincoln defying Dred Scott,
that state and local officials will REFUSE TO OBEY this LAWLESS decision.
It is remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice saying that would be the consequence of this.

In point of fact, Justice Scalia issued a stern warning to the Court in his Obergefell dissent, quoting Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 and writing,
"The Judiciary is the 'LEAST dangerous' of the federal branches because it has
'neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment;
and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm'
and the States,
'even for the efficacy of its judgments.'
With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them -
with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court -
we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence."

The reality is that
the judiciary has no men under arms;
it cannot enforce its rulings.
Enforcement is the executive branch's role,
and the Court has no ability to coerce a president into acting on its decisions.

But isn't this just a matter of might makes right?
Doesn't the court have the legal authority of its judicial-review power to nullify or invalidate a legislative or executive action it deems unconstitutional?
Doesn't this give it the moral high ground?

The Constitution is our land's supreme law, above, of course, the Supreme Court;
this is why the Court will rule against a law citing the Constitution's authority and not merely its own.
Yet where does the notion that the Court has judicial-review power -
and that all three branches of government must be constrained by its judgments - come from ?

It is not in the Constitution but was declared by the Court on, in essence, its own authority - in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

So the Court gave the Court its oligarchic powers.
And "oligarchic" is not too strong a word, nor a new characterization.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote two centuries ago,
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed,
and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
He further said that if the judicial-supremacy thesis is sound,
"then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se" - a suicide pact.
For judicial supremacy gives to one branch alone, continued Jefferson,
"the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others,
and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. ...
The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

And the twisting continues apace as our Republic twists in the wind
and we are governed by the ruler and not the rule.

Justice Scalia made mention of this in his Obergefell dissent as well, writing,
"It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me.
Today's [marriage] decree says that
my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

One of the basic ideas behind our American government is "balance of power," both between the feds and the states and among the three governmental branches.
Judicial supremacy makes a mockery of this,
confusing the Supreme Court with the Supreme Being
and giving one branch -
whose prominent members aren't even elected by the people
and cannot be recalled by them -
complete TRUMP POWER OVER the other two.
To consider it legitimate
is to believe
our Founders FOUGHT ONE TYRANT living overseas
IN THE NAME OF ESTABLISHING A TRIBUNAL OF NINE TYRANTS on our own soil.

But they didn't, which is WHY judicial supremacy was NOT written INTO the Constitution.
To accept it is to yield to circular reasoning:
"The courts have the ultimate say in the meaning of law.
And how do I know?
The COURTS have told me so."

" ... THAT IS FIVE UNELECTED JUDGES DECLARING THEMSELVES AS 'THE RULERS' OVER 320 MILLION AMERICANS ... "
SO ... you can now SEE that

TED CUZ does NOT support "EMINENT DOMAIN" FOR PRIVATE USE !

That video from 13 minutes 50 seconds until 23 minutes 40 seconds REALLY IS WORTH YOUR TIME.
The whole video is worth your time.

Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington ( 59:47 )
Published on Sep 28, 2015

It really IS worth your time.

[PIF]

I tried and got hated, attacked, name called, etc. They just do not see it, or maybe they don’t want to or are liberals to begin with - most of the attackers have not created an ‘about page,’ if that helps.

The irony certainly escapes them of having conservative Republican movement which will try to nominate and get elected a die hard liberal Democrat ...

Personally, I’m sick and tired of the juvenile banter and ad hominem attacks by these people. Makes me want to go for Jeb instead, much as that is like voting for Hillary or Bernie. This whole thing absolutely stinks with a pack of worthless, inexperienced, done nothing candidates.

[papertyger]

If that doesn't bother Trump supporters, there's really something wrong with you...

Or Romney didn't pay his taxes....

[Yosemitest]

Don't quit!
KEEP HAMMERING THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH THE TRUTH !

"Makes me want to go for Jeb instead, much as that is like voting for Hillary or Bernie. "

Shove them OFF the cliff.
PUNISH THEM, and DESTROY THEM !

[PIF]

They are over here now:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3386063/posts?page=45