Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

worldwide drugstorepremarin with worldwide shipping valtrex canadaand Im buy in online pharmacy and bactrim generic and clomid new zealand no rx.viagra australia without prescription. And you can order propecia best of medications arimidex
Ray Haynes

Musings on California – 2030 – From Antifa to Fa, The Rise of The Socialist Hoodlums

The question today is whether we should let California back in the union? I am arguing against it, and this is why.

The question that most people ask is how California fell so fast, and why people began leaving. I could have predicted it, in retrospect it makes perfect sense. It was the natural progression of socialism in every place in which it has been tried. Once California separated itself from the “safety net” of the United States Federal Government and the US Constitution, individual protections collapsed and the socialist politicians, who believe they are imbued with special knowledge and understanding of social justice, began taking things from its productive class, under the guise of “helping” those in need. The citizens of California, faced with the choice between theft of their life savings or the ability to seek asylum in the US, chose asylum.

The problems began with the implementation of the single payer health system. It just cost too much. The original system included “illegal” aliens (an anachronism, because the first thing the California government did was legalize all those who had crossed the US border illegally, and then gave them all welfare, food stamps and free health care). They then taxed jobs, through a so-called payroll tax to pay for it all. Of course, it didn’t. As “free” health care started taking over, the interest groups that made money off of the health care system (most notably the nurses union), started demanding more money for less hours, and the groups that used the system started overusing it, going to doctors and health clinics because they had a cold and it was free (Nyquil cost them $5.00, drugs at the health clinic, though they cost $50.00 to the government, were free to the user). Costs went out of control.

The first reaction of the political class was to raise property and income taxes, which forced many seniors to lose their homes and retirements. The government’s solution to that ” senior” problem was to build government run “senior centers,” to which it moved the now poor and displaced seniors. The problem for the seniors, however, was the government employees who ran these centers were ordered by the California government to cut the cost of health care for these seniors. That order caused many of these centers to make the decision that health care for these seniors would be “futile” and thus the centers were permitted to withhold needed health care. The resulting deaths of California’s senior population caused a number of families to care for their family members at home, and family members chose to provide health care to the parents and seniors. Since these seniors were “entitled” to free health care from the California government, the mandated withholding of care by the senior centers did not control costs as anticipated by the government. That led to a barrage of “home inspections” by adult protective services at the family homes. The government inspectors would then claim that home based care was “senior abuse.” Families were investigated and prosecuted until they placed these seniors into the senior centers, leading to the death of many otherwise healthy seniors. Families, who cared about their parents began to flee California, just to protect their parents lives.

But that was not all.

Employers left in droves. As unions were mandated for every business, no matter the size, and “workplace” requirements, such as “for cause” termination requirement (which led to a government licensing bureau, that is, an employer had to get a government permit to fire someone) took over, businesses simply decided to leave California rather than fight the system. The government tried to keep them there, by instituting another “permit” system, that is, a company had to have a “permit” to close down and move, but that requirement could not be enforced in the US, so companies just left, and left the California government with a “diplomatic” crisis with the US states, who refused to recognized the California “worker” protections.

The worst however were the masked, black-shirted thugs that began appearing in various cities. No one was quite sure who they were, but they began using violence on anyone who didn’t adhere to their version of fairness. Calling themselves “Antifa” (for “anti-fascist), they became little more than jackbooted thugs used to silence critics. Anyone who spoke up against the efforts of the California government to institute its form of “social justice” would soon find their homes and cars burned, and their families harassed and beaten. These masked hoodlums could move about the cities unhindered by police, who would stand by and allow the violence in the name of “free speech.” Criminal justice systems watched silently as gangs of antifa enforcers ran rampant, and attacked churches, community groups, and other gatherings that did not live by their so called code of social justice.

One writer made the comparison of the black masked Antifas to the brown shirted Hitler youth, or the Italian fascist enforcers, or the Red Guard of the old Soviet Union. That writer ended up dead by mysterious means. No law enforcement investigation followed, and the message was clear to the purveyors of public information. Antifas were off limits, and their activities were protected. They had moved from Antifas to Fas.

(stay tuned for part 3, the rise of the wall)