I'm with her! I will never drive a Tesla! I will not enable evil, and I don't care who they are, family or not, and how much money they have.
I love this country! When I became an American citizen, I swore an oath of Allegiance to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all foreign and domestic enemies.
I see Elon Musk, Donald Trump and all his cronies as a threat to the United States Constitution and will raise my voice every opportunity I have against this threat.
When becoming a U.S. citizen, individuals swear an Oath of Allegiance, not the Bible, pledging to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and laws against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. This oath, part of the naturalization ceremony, is a formal promise to be loyal to the United States and to uphold its laws.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Oath of Allegiance:
This oath, taken at the naturalization ceremony, is the final step in becoming a U.S. citizen.
Content of the Oath:
The oath includes promises to renounce allegiance to other countries, support and defend the U.S. Constitution and laws, bear true faith and allegiance, and potentially bear arms or perform noncombatant service when required.
Swear to God:
The oath concludes with the phrase "so help me God," signifying the solemn nature of the promise.
Not a Bible Oath:
While the oath may be administered with a Bible, it's not the Bible itself that is sworn upon. The oath is a declaration of loyalty and commitment to the U.S.
Importance of the Oath:
The Oath of Allegiance is a crucial step in becoming a citizen, symbolizing a new citizen's dedication to their new homeland and its values.
demagogue /ˈdeməˌɡäɡ/
noun
- a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational arguments."a gifted demagogue with particular skill in manipulating the press"
verb
US
- rhetorically exploit (an issue) for political purposes in a way calculated to appeal to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people."he seems more interested in demagoguing the issue in media interviews than in dialogue."
- This is Donald Trump to a T
Alice Miller explains beautifully in her book For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of Violence, pages 42 and 43: "Just as in the symbiosis of the "diaper stage," there is no separation here of subject and object. If the child learns to view corporal punishment as "a necessary measure" against "wrongdoers," then as an adult he will attempt to protect himself from punishment by being obedient and will not hesitate to cooperate with the penal system. In a totalitarian state, which is a mirror of his upbringing, this citizen can also carry out any form of torture or persecution without having a guilty conscience. His "will" is completely identical to that of the government.
Now that we have seen how easy it is for intellectuals in a dictatorship to be corrupted, it would be a vestige of aristocratic snobbery to think that only "the uneducated masses" are susceptible to propaganda. Both Hitler and Stalin had a surprisingly large number of enthusiastic followers among intellectuals. Our capacity to resist has nothing to do with our intelligence but the degree of access to our true selves. Indeed, intelligence is capable of innumerable rationalizations when it comes to the matter of adaptation. Educators have always known this and have exploited it for their own purposes, as the following proverb suggests: "The clever person gives in, the stupid one balks."
Now that we have seen how easy it is for intellectuals in a dictatorship to be corrupted, it would be a vestige of aristocratic snobbery to think that only "the uneducated masses" are susceptible to propaganda. Both Hitler and Stalin had a surprisingly large number of enthusiastic followers among intellectuals. Our capacity to resist has nothing to do with our intelligence but the degree of access to our true selves. Indeed, intelligence is capable of innumerable rationalizations when it comes to the matter of adaptation. Educators have always known this and have exploited it for their own purposes, as the following proverb suggests: "The clever person gives in, the stupid one balks."
For example, we read in a work on child raising by Grünwald (1899): "I have never yet found willfulness in an intellectually advanced or exceptionally gifted child" (quoted in Rutschky). Such a child can, in later life, exhibit extraordinary acuity in criticizing the ideologies of his opponents--and in puberty, even the views of his own parents-- because, in these cases, his intellectual powers can function without impairment.
Only within a group--such as one consisting of adherents of an ideology or a theoretical school--that represents the early family situation will this person, on occasion, still display a naïve submissiveness and uncritical attitude that completely believes his brilliance in other situations. Here, tragically, his early dependence upon tyrannical parents is preserved, a dependence that--in keeping with the program of "poisonous pedagogy"--goes undetected. This explains why Martin Heidegger, for example, who had no trouble breaking with traditional philosophy and leaving behind the teachers of his adolescence, was not able to see the contradictions in Hitler's ideology that should have been obvious to someone of his intelligence. He responded to this ideology with an infantile fascination and devotion that brooked no criticism.”
Elon Musk is a genius, but his brilliance in technology and innovation doesn’t automatically translate into expertise in public policy. When it comes to Social Security, he’s outside his lane. Calling it a Ponzi scheme may make for a great soundbite, but it’s a fundamental mischaracterization.
Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. Not even close.
A Ponzi scheme is a form of financial fraud that lures investors with the promise of high returns. Instead of earning those returns through legitimate investments, the scheme pays earlier investors using money from newer ones. Eventually, the model collapses when there aren’t enough new participants to keep it going, leaving most people with significant losses.
This is what happened to those who trusted Bernie Madoff, operator of one of the worst Ponzi schemes in history. Ponzi schemes are illegal, deceptive, and doomed from the start.
Social Security, in contrast, is a government-run, pay-as-you-go tax program. It’s fully transparent; you know exactly where your money is going. The payroll taxes you and your employer pay are used to provide income to today’s retirees, people with disabilities, and surviving family members of deceased workers. This isn’t a con, it’s a social contract.
So why the confusion? Part of the issue is that Social Security does, on the surface, resemble the flow of a Ponzi scheme: money coming in from the young to support the old. But similarity in structure doesn’t make it fraudulent. The program does not promise high returns; it promises a modest, inflation-adjusted benefit to support people as they age.
A Ticking Clock on American Freedom
Is Elon Musk the Ultimate Scam Artist?
Birds of a feather flock together. They are all con artits.
https://sylvieshene.blogspot.com/search?q=birds+of+a+feather+flock+together
No comments:
Post a Comment