Hasbro, the makers of the iconic family game Monopoly, released a new satirical socialist-themed spin on the old classic, drawing vocal reactions from the left and the right.
Monopoly is a vastly popular game that challenges players to engage in pretend capitalism, purchasing the most “property” as they seek to monopolize the board. Hasbro recently released a spinoff version of the game called Monopoly: Socialism, which mocks the anti-capitalist economic system. A professor from Rutgers University went viral on Thursday when he purchased the game and posted a series of 20 tweets critiquing its negative depiction of socialism, creating a flurry of online debate.
Conservative documentary maker and political pundit Dinesh D’Souza reminded his Twitter following of socialism’s negative economic effects.
However, not everybody found the parody game to be so insightful. Some on the left alleged that it doesn’t do enough to “understand” socialism and how it might theoretically work.
Other pundits joined the conversation to slam those who play the game. AV columnist Reid McCarter published an article suggesting that it’s made “by dipshits for dipshits.”
Professor Nick Kapur, who seems to have made the parody Monopoly go viral in the first place, agrees with McCarter. According to him, the only possible target audience for such a game is “hate-filled Boomers raised during the Cold War.” source
I am NOT hate filled. I just think that Capitalism is one of things which has made America great from the beginning. Sadly, I think that Atheists, Socialists and God-haters in general have almost destroyed our country.
Well, I think that the timing of bringing this version of the iconic game out is simply brilliant!
The herd mentality of the Left is appalling. You want a snapshot of these people?
AOC typifies the minds of the Leftist herd.
And you can bet that the meetings of globalists behind iron doors, has become a marathon – NOT just a meeting. These people still have the rotten taste in their collective mouths over the 2016 election.
They just did not see that coming. And man, did it put a hitch in their plans for the world!
Bernie Sanders has had a love affair with Russia for most of his life. But I am sure that it broke the Comrade’s heart when he saw the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The young followers of Comrade Bernie have NO clue about the real plans this man has for America. He is the globalist’s dream for the U.S.
Remember – the only thing standing in the way of the NWO is a strong America.
And if Comrade Bernie ups his game and prevails as the Democratic candidate, and then goes on to beat our president; America will be as Benjamin Franklin stated so articulately:
Part of the speech from Franklin during The Constitutional Convention:
“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” ~Benjamin Franklin
I’m sure that I do not need to tell the reader that the “despotic government” of which Benjamin Franklin speaks is the LEFT. They are the enemy of our Constitutional Republic.
An article to send to your Leftist friends and family:
So much for Danish socialism: Bernie Sanders’s spending plans would Sovietize the U.S.
Insisting he’d only like to make America into ‘Denmark,’ and always mocking concerns about socialism’s historic record, Bernie Sanders keeps coming up with ever grander sweeping socialist spending proposals. His latest is a $16 trillion “greener” new deal, which would end carbon production in the U.S., permit only government ownership of renewable energy and imprison U.S. energy executives. It comes on top of a slew of other massive spending proposals.
The whole thing has got the left cheering wildly, declaring Bernie in ‘beast mode.’ The crowds are unmistakeably big at Bernie rallies, too. On Twitter, Sanders is getting scads of ‘likes,’ for it, with more than 17,000 here and 34,000 here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drew more than 122,000 ‘likes’ for her recent praise of Bernie here, and another plus-55,000 here.
John Merline at Issues & Insights decided to run the numbers on just what Sanders is proposing that’s drawing all those cheers, and found something alarming:
So let’s do the math. Over 10 years, Sanders wants to spend: almost $33 trillion on Medicare for All, more than $16 trillion on a Green New Deal, $2 trillion on free college and debt forgiveness, $3.5 trillion on a jobs guarantee, and $1.8 trillion on new Social Security benefits. Add it all up, and it’s more than $5.6 trillion a year. Assuming that every one of these programs costs more than Sanders claims, the grand total would easily reach $6 trillion a year.
Numbers are building blocks, and it’s the implication of those numbers that’s what’s really scary. Merline found those, too:
For those keeping score, that would more than double the size of the federal government, which this year will spend a total of $4.5 trillion.
Looked at more broadly, it would result in the federal government’s claim on the economy climbing to 48% of GDP. When you add in state and local government spending, total government share of GDP would top to 62%.
That would make the U.S. a far more socialist nation than Finland (where government spending accounts for 57% of GDP), Denmark (54.5%), Sweden (49.6%) or Norway (48.8%), and to the left of every other industrialized country.
That’s a government takeover of the economy. And to pay for this, billionaires would not be sufficient, he writes – Americans would see their taxes tripled down the line to pay for all this free stuff. That’s assuming static-account ledgering of course, nobody going Galt and simply saying ‘I’m not going to produce.’ Color us skeptical on that being how it is going to work.
Bottom line: that this isn’t Denmark Sanders is proposing, given the size of the U.S. economy he’s proposing to effectively take over, this far more similar to the size percentage of the economy the Soviet Union controlled. Same place where Sanders spent his honeymoon, the country he’s always identified with historically. He’s going big.
When you throw in that under Sanders greener new deal, all alternative energy would be socialized as the property of the state (public ownership, they call it) and Bernie himself tweets that energy executives would be imprisoned, you start to get a whiff of the coercive flavor that inevitably comes of an authentic government takeover of the economy such as Sanders is proposing. Short story: Sanders is not serious about turning America into Denmark, he just wants you to think he is.
It’s actually very chilling. One of these days, someone like Bernie may well take power. The pendulum swings here, and the crowds are big at the Bernie rallies, meaning a lot of truly enthusiastic supporters, convinced that paradise is around the corner with a government takeover, same as Lenin and Hugo Chavez convinced their comparable crowds. America could never become the USSR or Venezuela as a result of Bernie’s takeover of America’s energy industry, could it? They’re sure it can’t, because Bernie says Denmark.
The numbers tell a different story. Read the whole thing here.
In Benjamin Franklin’s quote, remember he talked about the people becoming so corrupt? We are there, brethren.
The appalling number of babies murdered in the womb coupled together with the SCOTUS redefining marriage to mean between any two people (gay marriage) leaves America in a very vulnerable state.
Do you really think that our Holy God will continue to bless America? He loves and blesses His Remnant of believers. Whomever wins the 2020 election will be who God allows to win.
If you’re ever looking for me and can’t find me; it’s probably because I spend a good portion of my time in FACEBOOK JAIL.
For the reader who is not familiar with those terms, here it is in a nutshell:
Facebook places people who speak TRUTH in what we have come to call “Facebook Jail.” You see, TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH. So if you speak about gay marriage, transgenderism, abortion, etc., Facebook watches your page, and when they feel that you have transgressed their “Community Standards” they put you in an adult TIME OUT. Most of the time this if for about a week but sometimes much longer.
Those in Facebook Jail cannot post anything in groups in which they are not admins or moderators. Facebook wants to keep our Truth Telling to a minimum.
Getting Us Ready for Real Jail
It dawned on me today, that perhaps FB is conditioning us for the near future. What do I mean by that? Isn’t it obvious to the reader that this punishment on social media is a foreshadowing of what is to come in our lives – I mean in our REAL LIVES?
I have a feeling that I will wind up in real jail. After all, Jesus said:
“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yetbecause you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.Remember the word that I said to you,‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.Butall these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me” (John 15:18-21).
But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.”But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed” (1 Peter 3:14-16)
The founder of Veggie Tales has spoken about LGBT issues and the imminent affect it will have on Christian children’s programme creation.
In an interview with The Christian Post, Phil Visher has opened up about the fact that LGBT will be a subject that writers and creators will not be able to ignore.
Visher, who founded the enormously successful Veggie Tales programmes, told The Christian Post, “Parents are definitely going to have to deal with a growing LGBT presence in children’s media.
“It’s going to show up more and more as the world has decided that LGBT issues are in the same categories as race and civil rights issues. So to say you shouldn’t have a same-sex couple on ‘Sesame Street’ is the equivalent of saying you shouldn’t have a black couple on ‘Sesame Street.’”
The popular children’s cartoons, books and merchandise brand is now owned by DreamWorks, part of the gigantic Comcast company. From 1993 to 2004, VeggieTales videos were produced in Chicago, Illinois. After Big Idea Production fell into bankruptcy in 2003, VeggieTales was purchased by Classic Media in 2004 and production moved to Nashville, Tennessee.
In 2012, DreamWorks Animation purchased Classic Media. When DreamWorks launched production on the Netflix series VeggieTales in the House in 2013, production was split between studios in Nashville, Chicago, and Glendale, California.[15] In 2016, Comcast’s NBCUniversal bought DreamWorks Animation and since then, Universal Studios currently owns the rights to VeggieTales.
Each Veggie Tales episode teaches a moral life lesson through a biblical world view. The lessons include dealing with peer pressure, handling bullies, forgiving others, fighting temptation, handling fear, listening to parents, having self-esteem and being compassionate. It was created by Phil Vischer and Mike Nawrocki, who both perform many of the characters’ voices.
“I think it (LGBT) will have to be addressed at some point; I do think it’s a matter of time,” he continued. “It’s tricky because it’s so divisive.
“I think it would be difficult for a couple of reasons. First: the nuance of how to treat LGBT issues isn’t agreed upon within the Church; and secondly, some parents may want to have that talk with their kids.” source
Brethren, do you see what I see here? The writer of the article above encourages parents to have “a talk” with their kids. But before that, he says this:
“First: the nuance of how to treat LGBT issues isn’t agreed upon within the Church.”
And he is just telling the truth! There was a day when true Christians would not be divided on issues such as homosexuality. But those days are gone.
Maybe, before these parents have a talk with their kids, they should have a long talk with the Lord.
Some may say “Well, the parents who affirm homosexuality can’t be Christians.” That begs the question “Are they truly Christian but are conflicted over this topic?” I don’t know the answer to that.
I think that the “Christians” who are affirming homosexuality are of the Social Justice False gospel pretend Christians. And in that case – I do not believe that they are or were ever born again, blood washed Believers in Jesus Christ.
I know that I believe everything in the Word of God. I don’t make up a narrative and put a spin on Bible verses to fit neatly into that narrative. I believe that the Whole Bible is the infallible Word of God.
Do I believe that we should be kind to homosexuals and transexuals? Of course! Not only should we be kind to them, but we should be praying for them.
But do I believe that the Bible teaches us to affirm sexual sin?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
And that is what we are being asked to do. And THAT is why I say that I will probably wind up in jail.
It’s not a pleasant thought, but it will give me new people with whom I can share the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ!
The politically correct camp would no doubt make this a case of xenophobia – but is it? Is it not the right of Americans to say NO to thousands of so-called refugees?
I say “so-called” because this is part of the forced migration by the U.N. Don’t let ANYONE tell you something different.
In 2015, the U.N. came up with the Sustainable Development Goals initiative. Typical jargon from the U.N. It sounds good on its face, but when you really look into it, you see that it’s just more Globalist Garbage.
I’ve written a few articles through the years about this “forced migration.” Do people actually think that this happened spontaneously with no funding or organization?? And there is NO part of this which can be called humanitarian.
As we’ve watched Europe morph into something almost unrecognizable in the past 4 years, the U.S. has been invaded on our southern border. Do you not realize that without a proper vetting of these people, many jihadi Muslims are coming over in the midst of the crowds!?
Here is a piece I wrote about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG):
When Saudi Arabia was asked if they were taking in Muslim migrants, they answered by saying “no” they were not. They said that their contribution to the migrant “crisis” was to build mosques in the host countries.
Trump admin to consider allowing local governments to veto refugee resettlement
Amid a week full of executive realigning of immigration policies with the original laws passed by Congress, the Trump administration is setting its eyes on another proposal to give the American people more of a say in the future of their society. NBC is reportingthat according to a draft proposal, “the federal government will resettle refugees only where both the relevant state and local governments have consented to participate” in the resettlement program.
This is a proposal I have long championed and wrote about in my book. While immigration in general is a national policy and was designed to be dealt with at a federal level, as I explain in chapter eight of Stolen Sovereignty, refugee resettlement is different:
In some respects, refugee resettlement is a more destructive form of social transformation for local communities than any other form of immigration. Unlike other categories of immigration, refugees by definition do not go through the organic process of becoming immigrants. They are brought over and resettled, often in large numbers concentrated in specific localities, with no acclimation to American culture or the ability to support themselves. Despite the plethora of resettlement assistance programs run by the State Department, HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement, and taxpayer-funded NGOs, most refugees wind up on the full array of welfare programs. Most important, they strain the public services and public education of the local jurisdictions that are forced to accept them.
Thus, communities are transformed in a matter of a few years (just look at Minneapolis or Lewiston, Maine), all at the behest of international officials, unelected State Department officials, HHS bureaucrats, and parasitic contractors who have everything to gain and nothing to lose by endangering the communities and saddling them with a fiscal burden. The states and the taxpayers have no say in the matter.
No legal body in this country — from Congress to state legislatures — would approve the resettlement of tens of thousands of Somali refugees if they had to affirmatively approve it today. Unfortunately, in the most grotesque violation of the social contract and consent-based citizenship, the most radical forms of cultural transformation are in the hands of unelected entities. This proposal would right this ship and empower the people.
When we bring in such large numbers of immigrants, we are inevitably importing the values of their part of the world instead of a manageable number of individuals yearning to champion our values. Should we not be concerned with the social transformation of our democratic values and the culture of some of our small and mid-sized cities?
Let’s take a city like Amarillo, Texas, for example. It is a relatively small city in the heartland of our country. In recent years, without any input from the locals or state officials, the federal government – at the behest of private taxpayer-funded contractors – has resettled a couple thousand refugees from the most radically divergent cultures. Since 2002, according to the WRAPS State Department database, Amarillo has been sent 352 refugees from Congo, 718 from Iran, 396 from Iraq, and 605 from Somalia. There are no numbers on the secondary migration, but refugees are all on a fast track to citizenship, after which they can bring in family members and commence the chain of migration from the same countries of origin. Amarillo has the most refugees per capita of any city in Texas.
This social transformation without representation not only violates the promise of federalism and governance by the consent of the governed, it violates the Refugee Act of 1980. The statute clearly directs the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to “insure that a refugee is not initially placed or resettled in an area highly impacted by the presence of refugees or comparable populations.” When making this determination, the director of the ORR is supposed to take into account “the proportion of refugees and comparable entrants in the population in the area,” “the availability of employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources,” and “the likelihood of refugees placed in the area becoming self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance.” (Sec. 412. of the Immigration and Naturalization Act 8 U.S.C. 1522.)
In addition to violating the conditions of refugee resettlement, the feds have violated federal law over the past few decades. The law requires the federal government to coordinate with local officials at every stage of the process, including “advance consultation with State and local governments.” The word “state” is mentioned 41 times in section 412 of the INA. Such consultations rarely take place.
Ideally, given the amount of illegal immigration and bogus asylum we are dealing with at our border, Trump should set the refugee cap at zero for the coming year. At the very least, he should direct HHS to only settle refugees in areas where local officials agree. If the forces of social transformation think their ideas are so popular, why are they scared of input from the communities? If we fought a revolution over “no taxation without representation,” it’s only appropriate that we allow no social transformation without representation. source
Brethren, the last sentence of the article is so powerful – I’m going to post that again:
“If we fought a revolution over “no taxation without representation,” it’s only appropriate that we allow no social transformation without representation.”
I do believe that our Founding Fathers would agree!
