Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and his killers took over the Democratic party.
Few know that Lincoln was aided by the Russian Czar, who sent war ships to San Francisco. The Czar knew full well that Lincoln’s enemies were the international bankers, that is, the Rothschilds. The banksters especially hated Lincoln for his debt free Green Back currency, and it was they who sponsored Booth to kill the President, as they later killed Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, and tried to kill Reagan and Trump.
Democratic “liberalism” is touted as tolerance, but the term really means melting pot or monoculture.
Liberals want to “transform” society for a “better future”. In reality, utopia can never happen, but on the way down that deluded road, do-gooders destroy what was time tested and sustainable. Nature has been creating a better future for millions of years. If it hadn’t, life would be extinct.
It is better to have separate distinct unique cultures and communities that guard their sovereign differences with walls, than to think that melting everything together under centralized technocracy could be positive.
Walls are boundaries. If we don’t have personal boundaries we will destroy ourselves. If we don’t have local and state/provincial boundaries we will lose our unique communities. If we don’t have national boundaries we will lose our unique nations.
Palestine for example, needs a wall against Israel. (Our taxes pay for destruction of Palestine, something many “liberal” supporters of Israel fail to mention.)
The liberal streak within us thinks that walls or barriers in general are intolerant. This is confused thinking, for walls are boundaries, and boundaries are not intolerant, boundaries are sane and define sanity.
What looks like “cultural diversity” today, will look a rootless blend in 100 years, therefore, those touting “cultural diversity” are holding a gun to their own nations. European cities, for example, are finished. The surrounding rural people will build a wall of intolerance and keep them enclosed and starve them out. This is a natural and predictable outcome. This is what will happen to London for example, a melting pot of urban consumers that prey on surrounding rural producers. It will be the rootless urban globalists against the rural rooted indigenous.
By the way, it is important to see the United States from Native American eyes. Think about that.
An Ethiopian friend told me that in her homeland, some of those extra millions of males in China (due to use of ultrasound and then abortion of girls) are finding black wives. Will there be any traditional cultures left in Africa in future? She says the values and standards she grew up with are now gone, washed away by “tolerance”, globalist money, and let’s be honest, overpopulation.
In one hundred years will there be any traditions anywhere in world or just the globalist melting pot of “tolerant” monoculture?
In future will there be a need for tolerance if no one has roots to remember?
Will everyone alive have been “transformed,” if they have survived glyphosate, vaccines, radiation, and wifi?
Or will we return to sanity and local control and be intolerant of invasive tech and sponsored globalist migrants/invaders?
Lastly, this guy Andrew Wang is running for President to up the Chinese profile in world. He is not a free agent, he is a front.
It will become more apparent that Hollywood is now owned by Chinese as we see more Chinese actors and subtitles and even credits in Mandarin.
Wang’s purpose is to introduce us to more melting pot. Both my wives were Asian, so I am as guilty as anyone, and not a racist against Chinese. I don’t regret my choice of wives, as watering down my Khazarian blood seemed positive, and I have taught my kids to love the Earth where they live, and defend it.
We just need walls again.
Ask yourself, could Andrew Wang ever defend a wall around anything? The only thing he can defend is the liberal socialist utopian insane agenda of transformation, a doublespeak word for destruction.
He is a globalist through and through.
Andrew Yang, Presidential Candidate, Proposes Spending $3-4 Trillion Annually on Money for Everyone
Written by Warren Mass Wednesday, 20 March 2019
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang, founder of the non-profit Venture for America (VFA), filed his paperwork to run for president of the United States on November 6, 2017.
Yang, who will seek the Democratic Party nomination in 2020, has recently campaigned in electoral-vote-rich and solidly Democratic California, addressing 3,000 supporters in San Francisco on March 15.
Part of Yang’s platform is his plan for giving every adult American $1,000 a month.
He asserts that the idea of a guaranteed income not only has wide historical support — including from Thomas Paine, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman — but it has already been implemented in Alaska.
Yang’s reference to Alaska pertained to the Alaska Permanent Fund, which was created by an amendment to the state constitution. It sets aside a certain share of oil revenues that are distributed to Alaska residents that have lived within the state for a full calendar year. The most recent annual dividend in 2018 was $1,600.
“What they are doing with oil money in Alaska, we can do for all of us around the country with advancing technology,” Yang told the crowd, many of whom waved “Yang Gang” and “Humanity [Melting Pot] First” signs.[There are thousands of languages still remaining in world. “Humanity” means monoculture and destruction of unique communities, yet “humanity” sounds compassionate and “tolerant” doesn’t it? This is how we have been socially engineered. – Ray Songtree]
A March 20 article in the Sacramento Bee summarized Yang’s policy proposals.
Yang has proposed what he calls “the freedom dividend.” Under his plan, all American adults over the age of 18 would get a $1,000 check from the federal government each month. The estimated cost would be a massive $3-4 trillion per year. For comparison, the current size of the national debt is $22 trillion. Yang claims that his massive spending plan aims to end poverty and grow the economy.
Yang said much of the money would be taken from current welfare programs. He would also impose a value-added tax (VAT) on large corporations who don’t currently pay what he calls a “fair share” in taxes. Under his plan, people who are currently on welfare or social programs would have the option of keeping their existing benefits or receiving $1,000 per month.
On the matter of immigration, Yang has what the Bee described as “mixed views.” He is in favor of offering “undocumented immigrants” (a euphemism for illegal aliens) a “pathway to citizenship.” He says he is “pro-immigrant, generally.” He does not believe rounding up and deporting illegal aliens is an option. However, he wants to reward people who enter the United States legally or come to the country for college.
“One of the things I would do is staple a green card to the diploma of any international student who graduates from one of our universities,” he said. “It doesn’t make sense to educate someone and then send them away to compete against you.”
It is difficult to label Yang, but although he is a self-made entrepreneur, his positions certainly tend to lean more toward progressive socialism than toward traditional economic conservatism.[Mr. Wang. Why not just eliminate the IRS and the FED that charges Americans to print our money? – Ray Songtree]