YouTube socialist Carlos Maza slams the wealthy but lived in luxury

Like so many others who want to impose the same socialist paradise that has been such a glowing success in places like Cuba and Venezuela, this guy is a fraud. The only problem he has with the gap between the rich and the poor is that it is not wide enough. These clowns are all about maintaining the illusion that they care about the common man and woman while they live in walled compounds to make sure they do not encounter any who are not on the servant staff. 

Carlos Maza doesn’t like rich people. The social media socialist with more than 150,000 followers on Twitter and YouTube combined regularly uses his platforms to rail against the wealthy and powerful and urges fans to be skeptical of their opinions. “Just found out James Carville — who spends his time lecturing Democrats for being ‘too far left’ — lives in an absolutely obscene four-story mansion,” Maza said in one such example from February — blasting the longtime Democratic strategist and posting a photo of Carville’s old home to his Twitter account. “Dear god can we STOP taking political advice from the ultra-wealthy,” he bemoaned. “You really have to respect this guy’s grift. Constantly dressing in normal clothes on TV to feign relatability [sic] while living like this. Masterful con artist” “We should treat gay people the SAME WAY we treat straight people: Eating them when they get too rich,” he said in another post. Like any good online socialist, Maza raises money for his internet presence through a Patreon account, where “comrades” — a word Carlos uses to describe his supporters — can fund him in increments of $2, $5 and $10 a month. But if Maza wants to start eating the rich — he may have to have to begin with his own family. Through his clan, the millennial firebrand is connected to multiple Florida mega-mansions, a $7.1 million pad on the Upper West Side purchased under an LLC — and a yacht by luxury boat-maker Donzi. Maza’s mother Vivian Maza was one of the first employees at Ultimate Software, a Florida-based behemoth which now employs more than 5,000 people. Starting in 1990 as an office manager, she ultimately rose to become the group’s chief people officer in 2004. In addition to her day job, Vivian Maza also developed a very close personal relationship with company founder Scott Scherr — so close that an independent assessment of the company in 2016 cited the relationship as a “corporate governance concern.” The report said they believed the pair to be “more than just co-workers” and have a “familial relationship.” The two later became engaged, and the couple has lived together for years, with Scherr being a de facto stepfather to Carlos. Public records show Vivian, Scott, Carlos and sister Isabel all registered to vote at a five-bedroom, eight-bathroom waterfront palace in Boca Raton, Florida. The property sold in 2018 for $10.8 million according to realty website Zillow. Scherr also unloaded a four-bed, four-bath home in 2015 mansion in Weston, Florida, for $1,850,000 in 2015.

YouTube socialist Carlos Maza slams the wealthy but lived in luxury

Diamond And Silk And An Unusual Sight These Days On The Streets Of San Francisco

You’re offended, I’m offended, all God’s children are offended!

Second in a series on the assault on Free Speech.

Let’s start with a premise. The US Constitution does not guarantee the right to anyone to not be offended. In fact, if anything it ensures our freedom to offend one another in the free exercise of speech and religion. There are exceptions, of course, and some of them are quite legitimate while others that have wormed their way into our laws are clearly inspired by a desire to control public discourse and this is always dangerous.

For those who may not have ever bothered to read it, this is what the First Amendment actually says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The language is simple and unambiguous, but God bless the lawyers, we have mountains of case law parsing and speculating just what it is supposed to mean. In doing so they have twisted and turned and bent and turned inside out this basic freedom until it has become a mere shadow of what it was intended to be.

There are many things that offend me, just as I am sure there just as many if not more that offend you. And that’s okay because nowhere in the First Amendment does it soften the idea by saying “unless it hurts someone’s feelings or makes them feel bad or is unpopular or not approved by self appointed elitist guardians of the public domain.”

Some of this hypersensitivity on the part of the perpetually offended is silly and would be laughable if it were not so dangerous to the liberties we cherish. For example I have never understood why atheists get worked up over religious displays such as a cross, Star of David, Menorah or Nativity scene in public. If atheists don’t believe in God then why are they so traumatized by references to what they proclaim to be a fairy tale?

Another place that has become a hotbed of hyperventilation is the college campus. The mere announcement that a conservative speaker has been engaged to give a talk is enough to touch off the wailing, whining and whimpering along with threats, intimidation, and all too often, violence. If there is anywhere that diversity of opinion and vigorous debate should have a home it should surely be the very places that aspire to higher learning. When only one point of view is tolerated that is not learning it is indoctrination.

Political correctness, McCain-Feingold, ANTIFA and the assault on free speach.

I have always been pretty much an absolutist when it comes to free speech. No matter how offensive what you have to say might be to me I do not have any right to prevent you from saying it. I can respond to it, criticize it, denigrate it or simply ignore it. But l do not have any right to prevent, obstruct, punish or interfere with what you have to say.

That being said, it is well established that in a civilized society speech that has as its reason bringing harm to others should at the very least be regulated and in some cases – child pornography for example – should be illegal. Where the danger lies in a free society is in allowing these legitimate concerns be used to stifle opposing viewpoints. I contend that is precisely what is happening in the free world today, not just in the United States but in many countries with a supposedly free press.

Today I am beginning a series of articles on the attack on free speech and the increasing danger it faces. I hope you will join me and please contribute in the comment section.