At the first Democrat dumb-dumb debate, Bill de Blasio issued this economic decree:
We need to “break up corporations when they don’t serve our democracy.”
That tells you all you need to know about the state of the Left in America. And that actually passes for standard fare with Democrats.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio calls himself a Democrat but he’s really a Socialist. In a recent interview with New York Magazine, he admitted that he wants to get rid of private property.
Take a look at this:
In 2013, you ran on reducing income inequality. Where has it been hardest to make progress? Wages, housing, schools?
What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be.
I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development…
Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents.
Perhaps the Mayor could lead by example and give up all of his private property first.
Original see
But no, I disagree: De Blasio is not some kind of socialist, he’s a commie.
By Katherine Lam – Published July 07 | Fox News
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio defended his decision to join protesters at the G-20 summit in Germany a day after an NYPD cop was assassinated in the Bronx.
De Blasio appeared on the “Ask the Mayor” segment on WNYC’s “The Brian Lehrer Show” Friday, calling in from Hamburg. The mayor departed Thursday evening to attend protest events, keeping hush about his plans until hours before he left.
De Blasio told Lehrer the government of Hamburg invited him to come about 10 to 12 days ago and he was going to announce the trip earlier this week.
“They wanted, I think, to represent the fact that there are a variety of views in the United States on how to proceed on the big issues that face this planet, particularly on climate change,” de Blasio said.
De Blasio continued to attack Trump, with the mayor saying, as the “leader of the biggest city in the country,” he has the responsibility to represent the U.S. differently from the president.
“We are not going to be intimidated by President Trump and we are not going to turn away from our values,” de Blasio said. “I have said many times this is not someone you get something done by compromising with or yielding to. He only understands strength and we have to show strength.”
De Blasio is expected to attend several events surrounding the G-20 summit in the next two days, the mayor’s press secretary Eric Phillips wrote on Twitter. De Blasio will also be a main speaker at the Saturday demonstration “Hamburg Zeigt Haltung,” or “Hamburg Shows Attitude.”
The trip will also include a visit with his son, Dante, who is currently in Berlin for a summer internship, The New York Post reported.
Protesting G-20 and Trump is far more important than a cop being assassinated in the city. He cares nothing about those optics either. But that’s how commies roll.
He has a “responsibility,” as mayor, to attack the president but no responsibility to the police who protect the city. It’s the height of elite arrogance. Lecture us on “values”.
And say hello to Obama, I’m sure you’ll cross paths.
Hey, De Blasio, that guy you are protesting in Germany, and aligning against, cares more about protecting the people and preserving the peace in your city than you do. Every day.
Big Bird DeBlasio goes off to join the “Welcome to Hell” protests. Duty and values call. Wonder if he’ll get the t-shirt?
Or sinks it… whichever the case may be. I don’t know.
I’m going to take a blank sheet of (internet) paper and make a big mess. I don’t know where all this is going to go, or where it will end. It will evolve.
I could make a list of things and characters, then draw lines and arrows connecting them. That would be even a bigger mess. So I’ll try it in writing. It could cover a lot of ground.
Ferguson revealed a political tactic, or was it more of a law enforcement strategy to deal with protestors? It started with the governor. If you read the tea leaves, Gov. Nixon thought the answer to the protestor problem would be to let them riot and cede businesses and property to them, to do as they wish. That might appease protestors immediate needs. Rather than enforcing the rule of law and civility, just react to the results. Cops stand down and businesses and property owners are sacrificed, not to mention entire communities.
But then even that was not enough to satisfy the perpetual protestors. Wouldn’t they only want and demand more? Rational persons would think so. When they can let the public be overwhelmed by hordes of others, then protestors aren’t taking on police or governmental authorities directly. It’s a tradeoff to protect the powers that be from taking the brunt of it. Confrontation could be more controversial and costly, they reason.
And that fits right in line with the protestors’ goals who are all about some forced sense of equality between haves and have nots. Material property is a natural outcropping of their philosophy. So Nixon decides to give them what they want, let them run roughshod over other innocent bystanders. That would seem to divert the clash from being aimed at him and his fellow political class.
Is this becoming the default strategy for dealing with out of control protestors? In other words, to legitimize protestors’ concerns in word and, in deed, to let them have their way. Let them shut down communities and resources.There were early warnings of this with OWS. But can they let this go on and on? Though the public at large eventually gets tired of being sucker punched.
There’s that old saying that “you can’t make all the people happy all the time.” So why even try? But at what cost will they try to make some of the people happy, that’s the question?
Protestors got the message and responded in kind. They unleashed their wrath — over exactly what is debatable — on their fellow citizens and businesses alike. Make it as hard for people to carry out their daily activities as possible. Make their fellow citizens pay. Set up demonstrations in malls and storefront entrances; shut down bridges and travel; take over the streets of entire neighborhoods interrupting services and transportation. Make life a hell for their so-called neighbors who have nothing whatsoever to do with their grievances. That will get their message across, while chanting hate toward cops.
For law enforcement’s part, just let protestors continue in an attempt to avoid a clash between authorities and defiant thugs. Sounds like a plan, doesn’t it? That’s what people like De Blasio are doing under the guise of ‘feeling the pains’ of this movement and appealing to its violent undercurrent.
Try writing a letter to your elected representatives sometime expressing your grievances about something and see what result you get. It sort of feels like you are talking into a tin can and string. Even after a landslide election against political elites, they defiantly interpret the results however they choose. It’s as if they were elected to invent reality.
The left’s method has long been to get pols attention with chaos and temper tantrums, and they have. Their defiance cannot be ignored. So much so that some politicians made the decision that a sacrifice must be made on the part of some people, to try to satisfy others. But in extension, it’s the same thing they’ve always done by playing their class warfare. Have one group opposed to others, long as the infighting suits the objectives of the power-hungry ruling class.
Then look at libs reaction from major media to elected officials, to the Stalingrad leftist minions. Days ago they were talking about the situation on Fox. Juan Willams was schooling his colleagues on how “we love protests”… that we may not agree but “we’ll defend to death your right to protest”. But those are hollow words we’ve come to expect from the Left. Look at Tea Party protests and rallies. Defense was not their response.
After seeing emails about what was going on in the IRS, targeting conservatives and Tea Parties, and down through the ranks of liberal media, they were not at all sympathizing with “protests” — let alone defending them. They were all about shutting them down by any means, and using government to do it. Liberals objected and rejected permitting for them, saying they would be disruptive. Remember all that? Now Juan trots out his boilerplate talking point about the freedom of protests. Liberals’ allies in the media railed against the movement, painting them as bigots and racists. Let’s forget that.
Al Jazeera has an editorial that made a similar conclusion to mine but by comparing these protestors to the original Boston Tea Party. (more of a disservice to them and history but that is another matter) After making that analogy, it said we are a nation that has not experienced revolt and revolution — at least in modern times — that we tend to put faith in our constitutional system to avert such. So far it has worked, it continued, and we have solved problems through the rule of law. It characterized the current situation as so out of control, by people so distrusting of the very system, that it begs the question: what it will take to put Humpty Dumpty back together again? It theorizes this might be the storm that does us in, after pointing out popular revolutions frequently happened elsewhere. It was not hard to see where they were going, or how their readers might interpret their hypothesis. So the implication is this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
What to say about such an extravagant theory… only it’s not so extravagant in the scheme of things. We have people dead set on getting their way, despite cost or means, who will call it justice if successful. I resent the comparison to the Tea Party though, but it was throughout the piece. Many of these Leftists have been hankering for a righteous revolution for decades. There are rent-a-protestors and communist sympathizers, who latch on to any popular protest movement. (not so much to Tea Parties…)
It even acknowledges the shortfall of Wall Street Occupiers to capture this much fervor. I had to think a little about that one. But it’s amazing what some good old racism can do for you. Two questions spring to mind: 1) was the tradeoff worth it; 2) do the protestors win and replicate this formula on all grievances? Precedent anyone? Are we in uncharted waters? Can their discontent do irreparable harm?
I tend to agree with some of Al Jezeera’s piece. For the most part, because of the mixed reactions and messages protestors have been getting. It’s something academia has aligned itself with. Race-baiters and racists have found a niche. Marxists found another vehicle. Why would any of its factions want to let go when it seems they are getting something in return? Do cops being executed bother them? Not in the least.
But many of these organizers always accused the Right or Tea Partiers of stirring up contempt and anti-government sentiments, holding them responsible for things like Gabby Gifford’s shooting. How quickly the Left and racists have come full circle to endorsing an anything goes, by any means strategy. I do mean anything goes.
The race and all the other interests are becoming mere factors of the whole, or turning into a means within a means. Is it life boat time?
RightRing | Bullright
Calling all courts and arbitration boards, we have an issue. When the progressives’ battle winds up on NYT headlines, it makes you want to sigh and say, “there they go again.”
By MARC SANTORAMARCH 4, 2014
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, standing shoulder to shoulder in Albany with thousands of parents and students who rallied in support of charter schools, vowed on Tuesday to defend the movement and offered a sharply different vision for their place in the educational system than Mayor Bill de Blasio’s.
“We are here today to tell you that we stand with you,” Mr. Cuomo said. “You are not alone. We will save charter schools.”
Mr. de Blasio has pledged to slow the growth of charter schools in New York City, and announced last week that he would block three schools from using space in traditional public school buildings. The move was denounced by charter school leaders, who promised to show up en masse in the state capital to voice their dissent.
Mr. de Blasio, who also traveled to Albany on Tuesday to once again press for a tax on the city’s wealthiest residents to pay for universal prekindergarten, last week dismissed their efforts as a “sideshow.”
Mr. Cuomo’s decision to speak at the rally brought the issue center stage, sapping some of the attention from Mr. de Blasio’s rally, and set up yet another political battle between the new mayor and the governor — one that might have wider national implications since the efficacy of charter schools is a subject of debate across the country.
Cuomo standing shoulder to shoulder with parents kind of makes me want to grab a Teddy bear…. almost. Touching. But politics makes for some strange bedfellows, sometimes. Now, would Cuomo actually listen to those concerned parents? How’s that common core doing?
Personally, I’d like to see a good knock-down, drag-out fight among progressives anywhere – steel cage match. Not that it would do much good.
RightRing | Bullright
Right Ring 