Post has attachment
Just something a little bit funny I created to make a laugh:

Post has attachment
New Video: Jeff Sessions wants to steal more of your stuff.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Net Neutrality Simplified

Internet service providers can act and charge differently, depending on many factors. At first glance, that might sound unfair. A part of Net Neutrality promises to force "equality" by turning ISPs into a public utility with oversight from the FCC. The really cool part is that FCC commissioners are all angels who would never take bribes, never have friends or family in the Industry, nor do they have mere human biases.

How else will Net Neutrality save us from all the greedy non-angels?

By forcing the same speed and cost for whatever size or type of data being sent. Ooh a wonderfully simple answer that at first sounds fair and wonderful! So does Santa Claus. Until you look deeper. Basic economics dictates the Internet services we want would become equally expensive, not equally cheap. What? How?

Think of it like this. Right now it is cheaper to ship a letter than a bowling ball through UPS. Logical, right? It takes more fuel and effort to ship the bowling ball. But if the government stepped in and forced UPS to charge the same amount to ship either, do you think shipping light-weight items like letters would stay cheap like they are now?

Full article here:

Post has attachment

Reformism: The Fair Housing Act of 1968


“We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization, black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion and love.....What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.” - Robert F. Kennedy

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601-3631) is also known as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Congress passed the act in an effort to impose a comprehensive solution to the problem of unlawful discrimination in housing based on race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. The Fair Housing Act has become a central feature of modern Civil Rights enforcement, enabling persons in the protected classes to rent or own residential property in areas that were previously segregated. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is charged with enforcement of the act. It issues regulations and institutes investigations into discriminatory housing practices.

The law was signed by President Johnson during the national riots that were breaking out after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The passage of the Fair Housing Act came after the failure of two earlier federal initiatives. A 1962 Executive Order, signed by President John F. Kennedy, directed all departments of the Executive Branch to take appropriate actions to prevent discrimination in all federally administered housing programs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained language in Title VI that prohibited housing discrimination in any program receiving federal financial assistance. Although Title VI provided that a recipient of funding who was found in violation could be prevented from continuing receipt of governmental assistance, this sanction was rarely used.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discriminatory conduct by a variety of legal entities. The act defines "person" to include one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, receivers, and fiduciaries. In addition, municipalities, local government units, cities, and federal agencies are subject to the law.

The act explicitly defines a list of prohibited practices involving housing, including sales, rentals, advertising, and financing. Its primary prohibition makes it unlawful to refuse to sell, rent to, or negotiate with any person because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, familial status, handicap, or national origin. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 added extensive provisions that apply to discrimination against disabled persons and families with children 18 years of age and under.

It is illegal under the Fair Housing Act to discriminate in the sale or rental of a dwelling because of the disability of the buyer or renter, a person who will reside in the dwelling after it is sold or rented, or any person associated with the buyer or renter. It is not illegal, however, to refuse to rent or sell housing to an individual, with or without a disabling condition, whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. Newly constructed multi-family dwellings must be designed so that the public and common-use portions are accessible to people with disabilities.

The Fair Housing Act also prohibits discriminatory advertising practices in the sale or rental of housing. Advertising may not disclose a "preference, limitation or discrimination" based on any of the protected categories of persons. The media company that runs an offensive advertisement or other statement may be held liable, as may the advertiser. Subtle advertising strategies, such as the selective use of minority-identified media for the marketing of segregated and over-priced housing to minorities, and the use of code words, such as "exclusive" neighborhood, in the text of the realty classified advertisements, violate the act. The law reaches unpublished statements including discriminatory expressions and conduct, such as a landlord's instructions to his rental agent, superintendent, or other employees that they should either not rent to blacks or that they should give a preference to whites or certain other ethnic groups.

The law makes it illegal for an owner or his agent to represent to any member of any statutorily protected class that a dwelling is unavailable for inspection, rental, or sale, when, in fact, it actually is available. The act has been found to have been violated by a realty firm that posted "sold" signs on the lawns of a white neighborhood in an attempt to discourage minorities from purchasing houses in the neighborhood.

The Fair Housing Act also sought to end a practice called "blockbusting," the practice by realtors of frightening homeowners by telling them that people who are members of a particular race, religion, or other protected class are moving into their neighborhood and that they should expect a decline in the value of their property. The purpose of this scheme is to get homeowners to sell out at a deflated price. In alleged blockbusting cases, the courts have focused on what was heard, rather than what was said. Even in the absence of wrongful intent by the real estate salesman, or explicit reference to a protected class, liability will attach if the reasonable homeowner believes that the salesman is trading on his assumed fear of minorities to stimulate that homeowner to list his house for sale.

How Does This Relate to Reformism?

A Variable-Rate Mortgage, Adjustable-Rate Mortgage, or Tracker Mortgage is a mortgage loan with the interest rate on the note periodically adjusted based on an index which reflects the cost to the lender of borrowing on the credit markets. The loan may be offered at the lender's standard variable base rate. There may be a direct and legally defined link to the underlying index, but where the lender offers no specific link to the underlying market or index the rate can be changed at the lender's discretion. The term "variable-rate mortgage" is most common outside the United States, whilst in the United States, "adjustable-rate mortgage" is most common, and implies a mortgage regulated by the Federal government, with caps on charges. In many countries, adjustable rate mortgages are the norm, and in such places, may simply be referred to as mortgages.

What all of this jargon basically means is that the government allows lenders to make predatory loans to people knowing that interest rates are going be to going up over time, knowing full well that it is very possible that the borrower may not be able to compensate for the increase, and also knowing full well that their practices are likely in direct violation of the financing regulations of the Fair Housing Act.

Another thing that is not commonly announced is that these predatory loans are most usually commonly approved for African Americans and other minorities, the very people that are supposed to be protected by the Fair Housing Act. In addition to this, there are a laundry list of federal assistance programs that are available to people who are in jeapordy of losing their homes because the rate on their loan rose to an unmanageable level, and their lenders are technically required, per the Fair Housing Act, to inform them about these options. However, many lenders take advantage of their borrowers ignorance of the law and never inform their borrower of these options, and this includes federal lending agencies. They do so, of course, because they want to turn the property over as quickly as possible so as to sustain their profit margin. See, the government gives to the people in one hand and takes away from them in the other.

#refusetocooperate, #wearewatching, #getyourhouseinorder, #deathbeforedishonor, #discrimination, #HUD, #africanamerican, #fairhousingact, #predatoryloans, #investing, #mortgage, #interestrates, #reformism, #corruption, #raceriots, #borrower, #lender, #property, #renter, #federalgovernment 

Post has attachment
Video that totally debunks everyone who defends and admers Staloin 

Post has attachment
New video: For every $1 billion given to private charity, the government has to tax and spend $3 billion just to catch up.

Post has attachment
Video: Generation Z Has a "Libertarian Streak".

Post has attachment

Reformism: The Civil Rights Act of 1964

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was vigorously and vociferously opposed by the Southern states. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law nonetheless." - Henry Rollins

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the nation's premier civil rights legislation. The Act outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and the right to vote. It did not end discrimination; however, but it did open the door to further progress. Although the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments outlawed slavery, provided for equal protection under the law, guaranteed citizenship, and protected the right to vote for African Americans, individual states continued to allow unfair treatment of minorities and passed Jim Crow laws allowing segregation of public facilities. These were upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896), which found state laws requiring racially segregated facilities that were "separate but equal" to be constitutional. This finding helped continue legalized discrimination well into the 20th century.

The real reason that this is still a problem is that African Americans, once they realized that white people were only willing to take change so far, never organized a strong enough movement to resist this restraint placed on them by the white powers. There are several reasons why this is, a couple of which will be the topic of subsequent articles on reformism. One particular method is political isolation. The dominant political parities, north or south, create Gerrymandered voter districts so as to isolate the voting power of their African American populations. If that is not possible, they attempt to buy off their African American voters with all black voter districts, or districts where the population is so black that a black representative cannot fail to be elected. Voter ID laws are now another method that are being used to attack poor people's ability to participate in politics. These laws are almost always targeted at poor African Americans. They also created housing and welfare projects that were intentionally designed to target poor African American communities in America's poor inner cities. These programs were meant to keep African American populations localized and away from white population who were moving out to suburbs in what came to be know as the "White Flight Movement." The white powers intentionally recreated segregation.

There is, of course, also the influx of illegal narcotics into America's inner cities. By now, formal and legal historical documents have proven to be true what was once shouted off by the federal government as ludicrous lies and demented conspiracy theories. The CIA and other agencies of the federal government have colluded and now collude with foreign governments and criminal syndicates to secure, ship, and distribute some of the most addictive drugs on the planet onto American streets and into the hands of American citizens. Further, it does so purposely to keep the American people doing anything stupid like becoming socially aware and standing up for their rights. From the fifties to the mid-seventies, the drug of choice was Heroin, and it had a powerful hold on on people.

However, in the mid-seventies a more local and more addictive drug hit the scene, Cocaine; and in the early eighties, a new cheaper form of the drug hit the streets, Crack. The Crack epidemic was by far the worst drug epidemic in US History, and it was intentionally set off by the government to generate a cover for the United States' illicit operations with these foreign governments and criminal syndicates. It was to be known as the; "War on Drugs," and worse, it intentionally targeted the African American community, so as to ensure that they would never seriously challenge their position in the American social structure ever again. One of the ways that this was made so was by using these drugs to criminalize African Americans, which made it impossible for them register to vote, and thus, interact in the political power structure. See, the government gives to the people in one hand and takes away from them in the other.

So, finally, one last time, what does this say about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It essentially means that it is not worth the paper that it is written on, and it means that the only way that African Americans are going to get the real justice that they deserve in this country is if they use more aggressive measures to get it. Now, this does not necessarily mean that they need to use violence to get the equal treatment that they deserve, but it does mean that they need to start to use more unconventional organizing methods that will catch their oppressors off guard. Further, when the hammer is dropped by the white man, they need to be able to withstand the blow, which means they need to be able to unite under one flag, and they need to be able to work without the help of other races. This really needs to be a modern Black Power movement of sorts. Finally, more legislation is not the answer to their problem, especially if it signed by the hand of the very same oppressor that continues to keep them down.

#refusetocooperate, #getyourhouseinorder, #wearewatching, #deathbeforedishonor, #civilrights, #LBJ, #blackpower, #JFK, #whiteflight, #suburbs, #voterid, #heroin, #cocaine, #crack, #blackpanthers, #CIA, #africanamericans, #warondrugs, #gerrymandering, #discrimination 

Anarcho capitalism isnt truly anarchism, but it is the closest it can get without failing.
Wait while more posts are being loaded