The Democrat Party’s hard leftward ideological movement continues by the day. As Marxism and Socialism take root, its important to expose where the left wants to take the country, and the naivet of the wizards of smart driving this leftward lurch.
The quoted excerpts below, in grey, came from Ryan Cooper’s article: The Dawn of American Socialism in The Week.
“When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many Western observers concluded that the old Marxist dream was dead forever…But they spoke too soon. I have previously covered the two major schools of thought on the American left:
The Brandeisians, who would reform American capitalism with anti-trust policy and regulated competition; and
The social democrats, who would reform it by jacking up taxes to create an enormously more generous welfare state.”
Of course Bernie Sanders, who was robbed by Hillary Clinton and the DNC in the 2016 democrat primary, is the poster child for American “Democratic Socialists”.
“There is substantial overlap between these groups, and indeed they are more complementary than in direct conflict.
Socialists, by contrast, stand somewhat apart from both groups. They are united in pushing the political boundaries leftwards far beyond their current limits, either in Europe or America.
The full-throated socialists would insist on going past Denmark, and even exceeding Norway’s Socialist high-water mark.”
How far left do they intend to go? Hugo Chavez left? If further left than any European country, provide an example from elsewhere, say Venezuela?
Here’s an interesting paradox for leftists. The following facts about Norway, one of Bernie Sanders’ beloved Scandinavian countries, come from the CIA World Factbook:
- “Discovery of oil and gas in adjacent waters in the late 1960s boosted Norway’s economic fortunes.
- Key domestic issues include immigration and integration of ethnic minorities, maintaining the country’s extensive social safety net with an aging population, and preserving economic competitiveness.
- The country is richly endowed with natural resources such as oil and gas, fish, forests, and minerals.
- Norway is a leading producer and the world’s second largest exporter of seafood, after China.
- The government manages the country’s petroleum resources through extensive regulation. The petroleum sector provides about 9% of jobs, 12% of GDP, 13% of the states revenue, and 37% of exports…Norway is one of the world’s leading petroleum exporters.
- To help balance the federal budget each year, the government follows a fiscal rule, which states that spending of revenues from petroleum and fund investments shall correspond to the expected real rate of return on the fund, an amount it estimates is sustainable over time.
- Electricity from Hydroelectric 88.4% of total installed capacity”
Norway owes its fortunes to energy production. The very leftists that want the US to emulate countries like Norway want to shut down American energy production due to “Global Warming.” Cooper sites Alaska as well. Once again, the state refund to Alaskan citizens comes from oil industry tax revenue. That level of production is the exception, not the norm.
“Bernie Sanders, self-identifies as a “democratic socialist,” but in practice he is much more concerned with bringing America up to the top standard of the developed world rather than leapfrogging past it. In his speeches and writings, the fact that America is the “richest country in the world” and yet fails to achieve a European standard of decency is a constant refrain. Bernie Sanders does support much public action on housing, but that does not include directly building and owning housing for the masses.”
So even far left Bernie Sanders comes up soft according to Ryan Cooper, since Sanders fails to advocate for state owned housing.
“Socialists aim higher than this. Instead of merely building out a Europe-style welfare state, they would:
- Make it the most generous on Earth.
- They would directly build and own things like housing.
- Instead of merely taxing capital, they would bring a considerable portion of the national wealth under direct democratic control.”
No mention by socialist Cooper of the fact that the US is nearly $21 Trillion in debt, and climbing. America’s current social programs apparently aren’t close to being enough.
Where is all of this new funding going to come from? He proposes getting it by annexing private wealth into the leftist hands of democrat party statists. Taking private property, a classic Marxist move, never works out well, but why let the records of human history get in the way of socialist utopian dreams.
How does he propose achieving these goals?
“Their first objective is Mass organizing, a critical task if socialists are ever going to exert real influence.”
But what would they (socialists) do with that power? Cooper proposes:
- Create an “American Medicare-for-all system paid for with progressive taxation. It would entail profound and highly disruptive reform of the system, but the money is there.
- Building out or improving state-owned enterprises. State-operated airline or rail network, which generally perform decently. European state companies have long been snatching up all sorts of British contracts, to run them for easy profits.”
“The money is there”! Deep analysis here, just trust the socialist. A common goal among socialists, Democratic Socialists, other leftist radicals, is government funded healthcare. Kill the private market, and let unanswerable bureaucrats handle your life care.
There is no more wasteful, stunted, slow and ineffective enterprise in the world than big government. Imagine how far Apple or Amazon would have gotten if they had been taken over by the federal government?
If state operated enterprises are so easy to make profits with, why is AMTRAC such a perpetual taxpayer failure? What about California’s $ Billion bullet train boondoggle!
- “A return to public housing. Socialists would attack the problem head-on by directly building them on public land. They would be open to a wide socioeconomic spectrum, and priced accordingly. Because there would be non-poor people occupying the majority of the units and paying something closer to market-rate rents, the investment would pay for itself indeed, in tighter rental markets it would quickly become a huge revenue source. Fourth, it would take some pressure off the private market, and help keep rents down there as well.”
- “Now what about the heart of capitalism, private companies? An evolution of the traditional socialist priorities on this question is what might be called “sovereign wealth fund socialism,” whereby the government scoops up ownership of a broad swathe of the economy by simply buying lots of stock. A sovereign wealth fund would allow the government to capture some of that money, and use it to the country’s benefit.”
Of course Cooper only thinks about socialist like himself as being smart enough to know what constitutes the “country’s benefit”. He never considers that others might disagree with his utopian vision. Again, this is very common of Marxists. They see themselves as smarter than everybody else.
Marxists/socialists are the least educated people in the world when it comes to markets, and understanding how they work. We are to take Cooper’s word that the wealthy would occupy his government owned housing, paying the freight for the poor. Distorting the market, he says, would be good for rental prices.
Cooper advocates for a sovereign wealth fund, where the federal government just buys up a huge chunk of the private sector. Where is the government going to get the money for that? Imagine your tax bill! Sovereign wealth fund? How about paying off America’s national debt first?
It’s also important to bring Venezuela into the equation. Cooper’s discussion seems to fit right in with what Hugo Chavez instituted there. Now the IMF projects Venezuela’s 2018 inflation rate to exceed 13,000%.
“For an example of how this works, albeit on a small scale, you need only look to the 49th state. Funded by oil revenue, Alaska’s wealth fund has about $55 billion in assets, and pays out a yearly dividend to every Alaskan; in 2016 the figure was $1,022.
Either you could simply kick it back out to the population, or spend it on public works without needing to raise taxes, or whatever goodies you want.“
Once again, there is no mention by Cooper of America’s strangling debt. As Margaret Thatcher once said:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
“That is the future utopia that socialists are striving for
If the Brandeisians and the social democrats achieve some measure of success in the next few years, how much further to press things will be a natural question. I say you might as well try especially given the wretched performance of American neoliberalism over the past generation.
Let us experiment boldly, and see how perfect we can make this union.”
The strongest argument against Cooper comes from his own words.
He states that the vision is a:
“future utopia that socialists are striving for.”
There are no utopias. No such animal exists, so socialists are going to destroy America in search of unicorns and fairy dust.
Finally, Cooper closes with:
“Let us experiment boldly, and see how perfect we can make this union.”
Experiment? The world is strewn with the wreckage of countries that Marxists, socialists, leftists have experimented on. America, the last bastion of freedom, must not become another one.
Democrats mastered the art of destroying republicans. Look no further than what they did to Sarah Palin. They’ve been at it again for at least a year and a half trying to take out Donald Trump, and they are using the same tactics on him as were used upon Palin. It’s time to expose the trick, and in so doing the “magic” of how it’s done.
Democrats are using, unsuccessfully so far, the playbook of radical democrat community organizer Saul Alinsky. In his book, Rules for Radicals, which he dedicated to Lucifer, Alinsky taught four distinct steps on how to destroy one’s political opposition:
- Pick a Target
- Freeze the Target
- Personalize the Target
- Polarize the Target
Let’s dissect these steps as they’ve been used on Donald Trump.
- Pick the Target: This step is fairly simple in concept according to Alinsky, but difficult to do, as targets are always trying to shift blame and focus to others. The target must be a personification, not something general and abstract. Don’t attack General Motors he says, but GM’s President! Given President Trumps victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016, he was an inevitable target. I think that its safe to say, given history, that the left will Target EVERY republican elected President.
- Freeze the Target: Alinsky states any target can always say,
“Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well? When you freeze the target, you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all the others to blame.“
Alinsky teaches to attack the target, and then pay attention to who comes forward to defend it, for they are also to blame, and may come next. Republicans are very slow to defend those who’ve been targeted, including the President, and many in the Never Trump movement join in the attack.
How many Americans are afraid to defend him, for fear of bringing attention to themselves, succumbing to intended intimidation? If millions came out en mass to support him, progressives wouldn’t know what to do.
We don’t have to look hard to see examples of leftists attacking those defending President Trump. Marc Levin in March of 2017 was vilified when he laid out the case of how the FISA Court was used by the FBI and Justice Department to spy on Trump and his campaign. Currently, GOP Congressmen like CM Nunes, are under assault for daring to expose Obama Administration corruption and police state abuses of power.
- Personalize the Target: Alinsky teaches to never take your focus off of your target, and with that focus comes a polarization. He instructs that radicals must “TURN THE TARGET INTO THE DEVIL”, never allowing anything positive to be said about it.
“Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband? This becomes political idiocy.“
It’s overtly obvious that the democrats, minion media and Hollywood are following this step religiously.
Straight out of Saul Alinsky, democrats Parse every word, every handshake, every tweet and create a narrative of destruction. Per Saul Alinsky, never/ever allow your target to get credit. Alinsky teaches fighting as dirty as possible.
“In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
Democrats have called him every vile term in their playbook, often in the same sentence: racist, Islamophobe, anti-semite, misogynist, homophobe, yawn – you get the picture.
- Polarize the Target: Specifically, here’s the growing list of radical democrat efforts to “Polarize” Donald Trump.
- Release and weaponization of the Fake Hillary Clinton funded opposition research dossier. Ongoing.
- Following a clear win in the 2016 election, democrats cried for recounts in multiple states to overturn Trump’s electoral victory. This effort failed quickly.
- In concert with the recounts, democrats tried to intimidate Electoral College electors pledged to Trump and disenfranchise American voters by switching their votes to Clinton. This effort also quickly failed.
- Convince the American People to abandon President Trump and to call for his impeachment over a false, Russian Collusion Hoax. After 18 months of investigations, despite, the minion media’s efforts to create it, no evidence of “Russian Collusion” has been found. Dying a slow death.
- As the Mueller Russian Hoax floundered, democrats and the media began to change the narrative to convince Americans that the President was actually guilty of Obstruction of Justice, and should be, once again impeached. Ongoing as Mueller plots to construct a process crime.
- Never to run out of plans, democrats and the minion media attacked the President’s mental fitness and health to govern, trying to convince us that he should be removed under the 25th Amendment.
- A new tactic appeared, as a spin off from the Mueller Russia Collusion Hoax. President Trump’s right to attorney client privilege was revoked when his, long serving lawyer Michael Cohen came under legal attack in order to turn him against the POTUS. One by one the radical left attempts to remove the President’s allies.
- Convince the country to elect democrats in November’s midterms, after which they will move to impeach. The Articles of Impeachment don’t matter, as Alinsky wrote “In war the end justifies almost any means.“
The problem for democrats employing the Saul Alinsky page of their playbook is that President Trump isn’t your typical republican.
He won’t allow democrats to solidify step 2, which makes the next two much harder. President Trump outmaneuvers democrats, and his critics, and won’t stay in place.
A classic example is the “Fake News” meme. The minion media is one of the main weapons democrats use to carry out Alinsky’s strategy. Investigative reporter Sarah Attkisson describes the genesis of fake news. She traces it back to Hillary Clinton supporters, big money doners, and media allies. Their plan was to use the meme to blunt attacks against Hillary. However, as Attkisson explains “…something happened that nobody expected. The anti-fake news campaign backfired. Each time advocates cried fake news, Donald Trump called them “fake news” until he’d co-opted the term so completely that even those who [were] originally promoting it started running from it — including the Washington Post,”
By pointing out the media’s radical bias, and outright lies (ex. Fake News Awards), President Trump, in a “hostile takeover” blunted their impact, and in a reverse Alinsky effectively turned them into a “Target”. He instinctively uses Alinsky-like counter attacks, which progressives are not equipped to counter. In addition, and most importantly, he moves forward on a pro-America agenda that helps all Americans.
Democrats falsely call him a racist, yet he lowers unemployment via expanding the economy, leading to the lowest black unemployment level since tracking started.
Democrats falsely call him a fascist, yet he returns power to the states, reducing, not like democrats who increase, the power of the federal government.
Democrats falsely label him an antisemite, yet he fulfills a campaign promise and recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, promising to move the US Embassy there. NOTE: This same promise was made, and broken by Obama, Bush and Clinton.
Democrats falsely cry that the Republican passed tax cut law will crush the middle class, yet money flows through corporations into the bank accounts of their employees. Starting in February, federal withholdings will also reduce, adding fuel to expose these ridiculous charges.
Early progressives (i.e. statists), like fascists in the first half of the 1900s, saw great value in war. It wasn’t the fighting that they craved, but the singular focus on mobilizing the nation’s population towards a common goal dictated by the state. Peacetime obstacles like liberty and individual rights, eroded or evaporated under nationalistic fervors whipped up in time of war greatly simplifying the state’s power expansion.
America saw this in WWII where citizens willingly sacrificed giving up sugar, or butter to support the war effort. Children enthusiastically scoured their neighborhoods for metal and rubber drives. Consumer product factories were happily converted to supply the military with equipment, and Americans did with less, or did without. Slogans like “Do with less-so they’ll have enough” were shown all over the country. Total war was responsible for total civil mobilization.
Progressives continued to crave this war state power, and modern progressives came up with a strategy to get it free from the ravages of a hot war.
They invented global catastrophism (creating Mountains out of Mole Hills) as a rallying cry, to not only mobilize our nation, but all nations in common. Liberal Fascism states:
“the left has looked to everything from environmentalism and global warming to public health and diversity as war equivalents to cajole the public into expert-driven unity.”
They were wildly successful in the effort! What remains to be seen is “catastrophism’s” lasting effect. Will people wise up when the prognostications of doom don’t materialize, or will progressives get away with changing their narrative as they have in the past (ex. “Global Warming” vs “Global Climate Change”).
The left lionizes Margaret Sanger. She is so revered that Planned Parenthood gives out an award bearing her name, and it was won by Hillary Clinton in 2009. Hillary said of Sanger:
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously her courage, her tenacity, her vision . . . And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.” Read more
Margaret Sanger is worthy of study, as she ironically gave birth to “birth control” in the United States, and its become a cornerstone of the progressive democratic agenda. Planned Parenthood, which Sanger founded, holds tremendous power within the Democrat Party, and as shown above, is idolized. But is Sanger worthy of such admiration, or is she worthy of condemnation?
What were her thoughts, teachings, deeds and who were her friends and close associates? Answering these questions should solve the Sanger riddle.
What is her Democrat Party Connection?
Sanger founded and edited The Birth Control Review from its inception until 1929. Under her leadership, the magazine featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position.
Founded Planned Parenthood and one of the Founding Foremothers of the Progressive Movement. 1
What did Sanger Teach?
“…woman has, through her reproductive ability, founded and perpetuated the tyrannies of the Earth.” 2
“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers…will cease only when she limits her reproductivity and human life is no longer a thing to be wasted.” 2
“THE MOST serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families…prostitution, the oppression of labor, child labor, or war…The large family is the one thing necessary to the perpetuation of these and other evils and is therefore a greater evil than any one of them.” 2
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 2
“We want a world freer, happier, cleaner we want a race of thoroughbreds.” 3
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” 4
“The effort toward racial progress that is being made to-day…is practically wasted…the fact that the ever increasing tide of the unfit is overwhelming all that these agencies are doing for society. They will continue to mark time until they get at the source of these destructive conditions and apply a fundamental remedy. That remedy is birth control.” 2
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.” 2
“The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” 5
“Prevent useless people from ever existing through “birth control”, controlling who gets the right to be born” 1
“Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.” 6
“While I personally believe in the sterilization (Note: Sanger advocated for “forced sterilization”) of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” 6
“Under her leadership, the magazine (Birth Control Review) featured articles that embraced the eugenicist position. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did.”
“The statistics indicate at any rate a surprisingly low rate of intelligence among the classes in which large families and uncontrolled procreation predominate. Those of the lowest grade in intelligence are born of unskilled laborers (with the highest birth rate in the community); the next high among the skilled laborers, and so on to the families of professional people” 7
Was Margaret Sanger a racist?
“Spoke at women’s branch of Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J., getting numerous invitations to speak at other smaller groups” 8
“Sanger’s ties to the Eugenics Movement were extensive”
“The first and main point is to secure the general intellectual acceptance of Eugenics as a hopeful and most important study. Then, let its principles work into the heart of the nation” 7
“society at large is breeding an ever-increasing army of under-sized, stunted and dehumanized slaves” 7
“By education, by persuasion, by appeals to racial ethics and religious motives, the ardent Eugenist hopes to increase the fertility of the “fit.”…These stocks, he says, are to be found chiefly among the skilled artisan class, the intelligent working class.” 7
“Birth Control which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method” 7
“Throughout its 284 pages (reference to Sanger’s 1922 book The Pivot Of Civilization), Margaret unashamedly called for the elimination of “human weeds,” for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of “morons, misfits, and the maladjusted” and for the sterilization of “genetically inferior races.” 9
Margaret Sanger’s Racist Friends and Associates: you are known by the company that you keep! Here are a few:
Hans Harmsen – “Hans Harmsen, a German physician, was an important scientific and academic supporter of Nazi policies in the 1930s and 1940s, such as the inhumane 1933 sterilization law that mandated coercion.”
“Harmsen became the president of Pro Familia,the German affiliate of Sangers’ International Planned Parenthood Federation, in 1952.”
Harry Laughlin –“The logical conclusion is that the differences in institutional rations, by races and nativity groups represents real differences in social values, which represent, in turn, real differences in the inborn values of the family stocks from which the particular inmates have sprung. These degeneracies and hereditary handicaps are inherent in the blood.”
“He promoted Nazism during the 1930s, approving of its racist laws.”
Lothrop Stoddard – “A famous racist whom Margaret Sanger actively engaged to work with her organizations.”
Clarence Gamble – “Gamble was a racist and ardent eugenicist. He was actively involved in the eugenic sterilization group, Birthright (later the Human Betterment Association), and opened more than twenty eugenic sterilization clinics in the Midwest and the South.”
Guy Irving Burch – “…he wrote that he had worked to prevent sound American stock from being replaced by alien or negro stock, whether it be by immigration or by overly high birth rates among others in this country.”
Margaret Sangers’ legacy of Eugenics and “purifying the American gene pool”.
“79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.”
“Between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups” 10
What Sanger promoted in “Birth Control” and what we think of “Birth Control” today are different things. She did promote contraception, and abortions, but she also advocated for forced sterilizations and eugenics, both of which would be considered heinous acts today, even crimes against humanity.
If Margaret Sanger did not fully believe in and support eugenics, then why did she print so many articles about it in her magazine The Birth Control Review, and associate with so many others who tried to institutionalize it?
Answering the question about Margaret Sanger creates an ever bigger question, why is she so loved by the Democrat Party?
“Today, 500,000 unborn black babies die a year. The most dangerous place for a black child today is in the womb of its own mother.
The Child has a 50% chance of living or dying.” 11
1 Hillary’s America.
2 Margaret Sanger (18791966). Woman and the New Race.1920.
3 1926 edition of the newspaper for Reading, Pennsylvania (The Reading News – Times).
4 Margaret Sanger commenting on the Negro Project in a letter to Clarence Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939.
5 A Plan for Peace, 1932.
6 “Birth Control and Racial Betterment”, Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review.
7The Pivot Of Civilization, Margaret Sanger, 1922.
8 Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, Page 366.
9 Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, George Grant. (ebook page 1210).
10 The Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Abortion Surveillance Report.
11Stolen History: Revealing the Truth to Unite America
Bernie Sanders, and his army of supporters, cite countries like Denmark as utopian ideals that they wish to transform America into.
Denmark, along with other Nordics, Sweden, Norway and Finland, runs a current account surplus, and its public finances are in good shape. It is often cited as a good example of democratic socialism, a combination of socialism with a multiparty democracy. Even President Obama is feeling the Nordic burn.
Here are the top 5 reasons why Sanders et. al. are wrong to tout these countries as models for America.
1. Each of these nations have small populations compared to the United States. The table below ranks US state populations vs. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway. Sweden, by far the most populous Nordic Nation, would only rank as the 10th most populous state. The rest would rank 22nd or higher. Applying socialist policies from such small nations at a national level in the US, which is over 30 times bigger, is a dubious proposition at best.
2. Instead of looking to Europe for answers, we should look across the United States for them. The Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
America’s 50 states, not to mention its territories, serve as policy laboratories, for experimentation, study, and replication when effective.
Texas, for example, is a great state to model other state economic policies after. It produces a disproportionate share of America’s recent economic growth and outlook. Where appropriate, national policies should be put in place to improve the economic climate for states and their people to prosper. Why weren’t Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, Facebook, AT&T, Ford Motor, Exxon Mobil, GE, HP, etc. created in Sweden?
California used to be America’s breadbasket, and model economy. But like Sweden, progressives and socialists are slaying the goose (capitalism) that laid the golden egg (wealth generation), and Americans are leaving California. Government by its nature is corrupt, our founders knew this. The larger, more powerful the government, the greater the risk of corruption.
3. Unfortunately, like most socialist utopian goals, the truth of progressive policies are typically founded on fallacies, or the outright misrepresentation of history. “Nordic-philes” insinuate that socialist economies and welfare programs brought them wealth. This is incorrect.
Take Sweden for instance, Swedish economist Johan Norberg exposed the problems with Bernie’s adulation in this YouTube video.
Stefan Molynux goes into greater detail and pulls in the other Nordic States in his YouTube video “The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism.”
– The bottom line is that Sweden made its wealth as a free trade, open capitalist economy. The socialist welfare system came recently, and is drowning the world’s former #4 economy. Sweden is now retreating on its welfare promises, at the same time Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are promising massive expansions of government programs in the United States.
4. Instead of looking at these Nordic States, which are slowly taxing themselves out of wealth, you should study Venezuela, as the most recent country to succumb to socialist dogma. In 19 short years, Hugo Chavez took Venezuela from a prosperous, oil-exporting nation, to a near failed nation state as a direct result of instituting socialism.
UPDATE: Following my initial post, Leon Krauze from Univision asked Bernie Sanders this very question. If Bernie Sanders can’t face up to answer this question, his supporters likely won’t either.
5. Marxist, progressive, and liberal politicians constantly search for the utopian application of the most destructive economic model in world history.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.” British PM Margaret Thatcher
There is never enough wealth transfer: ex. Switzerland’s welfare programs aren’t enough for many of its people, and it could be the first country to enact a national basic income when the Swiss vote this June 5th. Such a measure will swamp Switzerland’s economy.
Update: The Swiss voters resoundingly defeated the initiative (77% against, 23% For). Some of the main arguments against, beyond the enormous cost was:
“…disconnecting the link between work done and money earned would have been bad for society…Theoretically, if Switzerland were an island, the answer is yes. But with open borders, it’s a total impossibility, especially for Switzerland, with a high living standard…If you would offer every individual a Swiss amount of money, you would have billions of people who would try to move into Switzerland.”
Interesting comments from the very people Sanders wants to emulate. They same arguments are made against unchecked illegal immigration and it’s impacts on American’s social welfare programs.
BOTTOM LINE: The answers to prosperity and freedom are within America’s borders. If you want socialism, move to Venezuela. If you want prosperity, stick with what made America the greatest economy in the world. Shrink the federal government’s power, and let Americans drive the economy.
Some things just don’t need an explanation:
I never thought that I’d see an American President see communism, socialism and capitalism on the same moral level. Mr. President, Communism doesn’t work anywhere! Unfortunately, Obama isn’t alone in the Democrat Party.
Some Other Disappointing Democrat Party Marxist Data Points:
- Democrat NY City Mayor Bill DeBlasio – Communist Supporter, Marxist
- Top Presidential Advisor, Democrat Valerie Jarrett – Communist Family Tree
- President Obama – Communist/Marxist/Socialist Roots
- Democrat Darling Senator Bernie Sanders – Democratic Socialist/Socialist/Marxist
- Van Jones White House Appointment – Communist/Marxist History
- Elected National Democrat Politicians – Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the US Congress
Friday’s organized protest and counter rally at a Donald Trump Campaign rally in Chicago thankfully ended with minimal violence. Political analysis, including comments from GOP Presidential contenders Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz are pointing to Trump’s tone as the reason for the protests.
Cruz: “When the candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence, to punch people in the face, the predictable consequence of that is that it escalates.”
According to Fox News, Kasich said in a statement that the seeds of division his campaign had planted finally bore fruit, and it was ugly.
Seeking political advantage while camouflaging the purveyors of anarchy only serves to increase the chances of violence the next time, and there will be a next time, whether Trump is involved or not.
There is great danger in mis-diagnosing the cause of this protest, and the cause has nothing to do with Trump.
Some of the protesters chanted Bernie! Bernie! and carried Sanders campaign signs. Some called themselves Chicago community activists, likely in the Saul Alinsky/Barack Obama model.
MoveOn.org executive director Ilya Sheyman stated that his organization was responsible for organizing the violence. Since MoveOn.org endorsed Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, will Bernie be asked to condemn them?
America is increasingly witnessing massive, confrontational and at times violent demonstrations. From Ferguson, MO to Baltimore, MD huge crowds formed, long before Trump came on the scene as a presidential candidate on 16 June, 2016. Many other people and organizations were, however, on the scene and playing pivotal roles in these uprisings.
Increasingly militant organizations like Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panthers are present, and radicals like terroristBill Ayers promote these protests. Funding comes from people like democrat and Marxistbillionaire George Soros through sponsored organizations like Move On.Org.
The strategy behind creating, organizing, and capitalizing upon such movements and demonstrations comes straight from the radical left, having its roots in the writings and teachings of Carl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Saul Alinsky, Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven, and the many leftists in America who were taught their tactics and are now putting them into practice.
“You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste”, words spoken by Rahm Emanuel, Obamas former Chief of Staff, underscores the thinking. If you can’t have an organic crisis, create it. Use the ensuing unrest and violence to push your agenda forward.
Blaming Donald Trump for this is like blaming someone for getting robbed in their own home. We must assign the blame where it belongs, or there will be ever more protests with ever more violent results.
Blame the protest organizers. Blame those that fund the protests. Blame those that pay to bus in protesters. Blame the ones that attack constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Blame the ones in the administration who bread a climate of extremism and excuse those that rise to commit violence. Don’t provide a scapegoat!
The GOP isplaying with fire. Blaming Trump, in order to score tactical election points, excuses the destructive leftist strategy at play. Allowing it escape scrutiny will only cause larger, and likely more aggressive attempts to shut down political rallies, and perhaps even the GOP Convention. This in turn is a dagger at the heart of American Democracy; for without freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, we have no America!