Look at the latest compilation of economic reports on the Drudge Report below. It’s all great news! Are voters really so ignorant of the connection between the great economy and the fact that the Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House. I hope not. The economy is great because the Democrat-socialists are not in power. On Tuesday, the Republicans need to retain control of the House and Senate. After that the people need to hold their feet to the fire and remind them to work towards solving some of our major problems.
Thanks to the Communist-Socialist ascendency in Venezuela, what was once the wealthiest Latin American country now has many of its people adjusting to shortages of food, water and life-giving energy needed to heat and light their homes and neighborhoods. Common prescriptions and life-saving medicines are almost impossible to obtain there. Widespread hopelessness has led to a spike in suicides. Can this happen in the United States? The answer is: Yes.
Venezuela should be a warning to all who are mesmerized by socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Socialism, and those who sell it will wreak havoc on our nest eggs and living standards. Look at the buying power of those who have worked hard and saved their money in Venezuela. Their life savings will hardly buy a loaf of bread due to hyperinflation. This is not opinion. Investigate for yourself.
Beware of politicians that promise “free” stuff like college tuition or healthcare or other shiny giveaways in return for votes. U. S. Senator Cory Booker has recently proposed that the government force taxpayers to award payments of $50,000 to poor people as a means of raising them out of poverty. Don’t be weak – don’t take that poisoned bait. If somebody gets something “free” it is because somebody else worked hard to pay for it, or will have to in the future. Think of it this way, you work hard year after year, but under socialism someone else in government decides that you are too successful and that some lazy ass shit is entitled (in the supposed causes of fairness, equality, and social justice) to what you have worked so hard to earn. (Of course, not all people in poverty are “lazy ass shits,” but there are many.) Or perhaps this or that politician and his supporters argue that needy refugees are entitled to the wealth you have worked so hard for and saved. A reason will always conveniently be found to argue why government planners are more qualified to control the assets of its citizens. Your wealth used to be your property, but under socialism, your property will be controlled and squandered by the state. Large scale redistributions of wealth lead to large-scale decreases in productivity – everyone in that society becomes poorer. This increases equality not in luxury, but rather equality in poverty.
To put it in simple terms, essentially socialists put their faith in government to solve societal problems which is done at the expense of freedom and individual and local decision-making. Opposite the socialists are those who want to place finite limits on the power of government. They do not put blind faith in politicians and bureaucrats because history teaches that rulers with too much power become tyrants and abusers of the people. These anti-socialists instead value individual liberty, and understand that the free association of individuals into charities etc. is a much more effective means of improving society.
In 2013, when President Nicolás Maduro was elected, one of his campaign promises was that he would approve an increase in the minimum wage that would be between 38% and 45% by the end of the year. What Maduro and most of the people who have supported him do not understand is that wage increases without corresponding productivity increases will lead to inflation. In Venezuela it is even worse than that – the socialist government’s takeover of private industry and the gross mismanagement of it has led to a large-scale decrease in productivity. Under these self-inflicted circumstances wage increases will never keep up with monetary hyperinflation. Venezuelan money is practically worthless. This has destroyed the life savings of any and all Venezuelans who have worked hard and saved.
Below are excerpts translated from a Spanish-language website. Notice the obviously flawed rhetoric that focuses on the ethical and moral reasons for imposing socialism – the desire for greater equality. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Well it only took 14 years for Hugo Chavez and his socialists to ruin the lives on 32 million Venezuelans.
Bolivarian Socialist Project leaves hunger and misery in Venezuela
Thousands of Venezuelans migrate to Latin American countries in search of better living conditions
Since 1999, Venezuela has suffered from the deterioration of its productive system, as a result of the application of social, economic and political programs that, far from favoring the lives of its citizens, have left them submerged in conditions of critical poverty. This process of economic collapse, initiated by the ex-president Hugo Chávez has its continuation in the government plan of the current president Nicolás Maduro Moros, with its disastrous consequences for the 32 million Venezuelan inhabitants.
Little by little more Venezuelan citizens were added to the Chávez government, in view of the need to live in conditions of social equality … by a socialist model that would provide everyone conditions of social equality.
The focus of Chávez’s government program was based on the full realization of 21st century socialism… through the ethical and moral rebirth of the Venezuelan nation. This restructuring had at its roots the fusion of the values and principles of the humanist currents of socialism. Its ultimate goal was the supreme social happiness for every Venezuelan. (Ahhhh…. dream on….)
In 2013, Venezuelans were overwhelmed by a deepening economic crisis, which has left them unemployed, victims of organized crime, facing the loss of the purchasing power of the monthly salary of families, extremely high inflation and no food supply and of medicines. Currently, a significant number of Venezuelans are unable to meet their primary needs and live in conditions of extreme poverty.
Here are some English-language stories that will help explain what has been going on with Venezuela.
When reading this keep in mind that Chavez came to power in 1999 – coincidence?:
So, the pretty, young Latina is a blazing star that has the left-wing media foaming at its mouth. Ocasio-Cortez may have opinions, but she is not a well-informed person when it comes to politics and socialism as a matter of policy. But she is photogenic. She has a nice smile. In other words, she is nothing short of a superficial know-nothing. She has pretty much proved this every time she has opened her mouth. It is telling that this hollow political candidate is so highly celebrated by the progressives in media, academia and Hollywood. It is a reflection on them.
Human nature will always be at work when it comes to flirting and sometimes embracing socialism. A large percentage of people simply cannot resist the temptation of “free” stuff, whether it’s the promise of free phones or healthcare or college tuition or whatever. This is because a large percentage of the population is ignorant of history and economics. But in this type of mind, the history and economics of socialism and its effects are unimportant – in fact they don’t count. What counts is how irresponsible politicians stimulate their imaginations to think how things could be (but never will be).
As far as socialism and electing socialists is concerned, a socialist is another word for a statist – one who thinks the state should be used to regulate people’s behavior down to the minutest detail in order to bring order and prosperity, etc. to the community as a whole. The problem is that those who you hand over the reins of socialistic power to are flawed human beings like everyone else. And as Lord Acton pointed out, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Once a people forfeit their individual rights to the rights of the state, which is also one result of socialism, they often lose their ability to change the government that has begun abusing them.
One only has to turn to Venezuela to see the ruinous effects of socialism. Many people there no longer have access to the basics for survival like bread and medicine. There has been a surge in Venezuelans committing suicide. Young mothers have turned to prostitution to support their families. People who want to reverse societal decay are murdered or imprisoned by their government and its cartel friends.
Several Americans have contributed to this humanitarian tragedy by their support for the late Venezuelan dictator who started it all, Hugo Chavez. Where are these boosters of socialism now? (Oliver Stone, Sean Penn, Michael Moore)
Will someone in the media ask Ocasio-Cortez why socialism has not worked in Venezuela? Doubtful. Jimmy Kimmel? Alec Baldwin? Maybe Rachel Maddow? Not that long-ago Venezuela was the wealthiest of all Latin American countries. Now it is a land of misery and starvation thanks to the socialist government there. But the Venezuelan people are reaping what they have sown. The socialist Hugo Chavez was democratically elected by the people. When Chavez asked for more dictatorial power the people gave it to him. Venezuela is yet further proof that democracies are capable of committing suicide. This should be a warning for all to see. Resist socialism. Save the United States from the fate of so many others who were tempted by the false promises of socialism.
P. S. Here’s what some very smart people have observed of socialism and it’s kindred forms governing –
“Socialism is a wonderful idea. It is only as a reality that it has been disastrous. Among people of every race, color, and creed, all around the world, socialism has led to hunger in countries that used to have surplus food to export…. Nevertheless, for many of those who deal primarily in ideas, socialism remains an attractive idea — in fact, seductive. Its every failure is explained away as due to the inadequacies of particular leaders. ” ― Thomas Sowell
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in constraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville
“There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as de Tocqueville describes it, ‘a new form of servitude.’” – Friedrich von Hayek
“No government of the left has done as much for the poor as capitalism has. Even when it comes to the redistribution of income, the left talks the talk but the free market walks the walk. What do the poor most need? They need to stop being poor. And how can that be done, on a mass scale, except by an economy that creates vastly more wealth? Yet the political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it.” ― Thomas Sowell, Controversial Essays
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.” –Margaret Thatcher
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” –Thomas Sowell
“Everyone may be called ‘comrade,’ but some comrades have the power of life and death over other comrades.” ― Thomas Sowell, Knowledge And Decisions
Ludwig von Mises:
“The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments.”
“The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster.”
Mises correctly identified a temptation that many people find too hard to resist – “the illusion that socialism will make them richer.”
“Government is the great fiction through which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.”
Dear Connie Chung:
Your heartfelt Washington Post letter – a recollection of how you were sexually violated decades ago does not prove that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of anything. Let’s be honest, preventing the Kavanaugh confirmation is the primary reason you wrote your piece. Timing is everything. The fact that you voted twice for Bill Clinton, a known sexual abuser, begs the obvious question: why did you not “come out” before when you had multiple opportunities – in support of Juanita Broderick or Paula Jones, or Monica Lewinsky? Suddenly, we now hear from you 20 years after the blue dress was stained by Clinton in the Oval Office. There were surely plenty of other relevant opportunities for your coming out moment – Harvey Whinestein or Bill Co…Les Moon… Matt L. – though they were not conservative nominees for the Supreme Court that needed to be derailed by the political left. Your coming out now during the Kavanaugh ambush appears to be not much more than a transparent political play. I don’t think you want it viewed as such, but it was your choice.
Connie Chung’s past experience with sexual abuse is not evidence in any other case of sexual abuse. Some high profile sexual abuse accusations have in fact been true, some only partially true and some completely fabricated (think UVA and Rolling Stone) as has been determined by juries in our courts of law. Courts are flawed too, and don’t always get it right. Has Connie Chung’s “coming out” suddenly now reversed the innocence of the men accused in the UVA case, or North Carolina, or Barry (in the (Dunham case)? Dear Connie, I hope you and your fellow Americans are smarter than the “Believe Woman” mentality. Humans do not always tell the truth. No gender is excepted. Also, it is well known that our memories of events near and far are not always accurate, no matter how sincerely we believe them. It’s unlikely that we’ll ever know the “truth” in the Ford/Kavanaugh case of 35 years ago. It is not far-fetched to think, given the low character of the inhabitants in Washington, that the Kavanaugh accusation is merely a politically motivated attempt by Democrats to prevent a Trump nominee from becoming the next member of the Supreme Court.
If sharing your story with the rest of us is so traumatic, will you will one day conclude it was worth sharing? Kavanaugh’s fate will perhaps in large part determine that, I suppose.
Let’s be honest, our personal preferences for Supreme Court nominees are not evidence in support of the guilt or innocence of Judge Kavanaugh. The overwhelming point is that the timing of the accusation is quite fishy – like a dead fish reeking in a trash can on a hot summer day. Resist emotion. Embrace critical thinking. Compassion for all.
Question: What is the basic role of the Supreme Court? Do most people have a clue? Sadly, they do not.
“The very media, founded on communications and automata, especially television, can communicate illusion as well as reality, and that is all right as long as we know the difference.” –Dr. William O. Baker, patriot genius and former leader of Bell Labs, from his speech at Northwestern University, July 12, 1976.
It’s very hard to reach anyone at Twitter unless you tweet them, which I refuse to do. I wanted to voice a complaint directly to their management, but since I don’t tweet, I’ll voice my opinion here instead. My issue is with Twitter, Inc. itself. Too few people control platforms such as Twitter/Facebook and thus are able to “nudge” the masses in a direction that matches the values and world views of Twitter/Facebook’s leaders and their company cultures. Generically speaking this was not necessarily wrong when done transparently, but in this day and age of algorithms, supercomputers and social media, it is not at all transparent. Many people are being influenced and manipulated by online platforms without their knowledge. It is pretty scary. Why should I care what issues or stories Twitter/Facebook has chosen to label as “trending” conversations? I choose to leave myself out of that artificially created herd to hopefully think, explore and learn for myself.
Twitter, Inc. leans progressive-left. I know that means they don’t like conservatives and Republicans – people who favor more “traditional” values. That’s OK, because I don’t like their politics and social views. For instance, what is Twitter’s obsession with sexual orientation, especially the LGBT kinds? Why should I care if my auto mechanic or plumber or whoever is straight or gay? Judging from the content on Twitter’s website one might begin to think that being straight in this modern era is an oddity. But I digress…
My main point is that I know that Twitter suppresses tweets and conversations that go against their political views and promotes (trends) conversations that support their political and social views. They cannot suppress all of the things they don’t like because that would be too obvious and they don’t want to appear obvious in their bias. The latest evidence that Twitter does this: Kris Paronto’s tweet excoriating former President Obama for the Benghazi fiasco. Paronto offended Twitter with his comment. They shut him down.
Paronto, a former U.S. Army Ranger and CIA security contractor, was actually in Benghazi when Americans came under attack there in 2012 on the anniversary of 9/11. The murders of four Americans there could probably have been prevented by the Obama administration. Ambassador Chris Stevens had requested more security; none was sent. Instead he was murdered and his body paraded around the streets. Two other Americans, security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by jihadi mortar fire. U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Specialist Sean Smith was also killed. There was a coverup. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton li*d about it. Ambassador Susan Rice l*ed about it. President Obama li*d about it. Kris Paronto was at Benghazi. He was an eye-witness. His observations and opinions carry weight. He is not a politician. He tweeted about it. Twitter’s censors deleted his tweet. Thus, Twitter provides cover for the Obama/Clinton derelicts responsible for the death of four Americans at Benghazi and their ongoing li*s to coverup the truth of that mess.
Benghazi was a fiasco that could have been avoided, except the Clintons didn’t like Ambassador Chris Stevens. There is gossip that he had crossed them. It may well be true. So Secretary Clinton assigned him to the most dangerous outpost in the world with minimal security. Professionals in the State Department knew it was a good possibility that Americans in Benghazi would come under attack. Hillary knew it too.
Read the National Review article about Benghazi here.
The coverup of what really happened in Washington and at Benghazi was criminal and was done simply to hide the truth, which was necessary for Obama to get re-elected in 2012. The coverup was also about protecting Hillary and her future ambitions. It was one of the ugliest examples of political blood sport in modern American history. Yet Twitter must censor Kris Paronto. The coverup continues.
Yes Twitter, yes Jack Dorsey, you are falling shy of living up to your stated values:
“We believe in free expression and think every voice has the power to impact the world.” – Twitter, Inc.
Blah, blah blah… more false advertising.
I have no doubt that Twitter/Facebook are part of the crowd that is in competition to take Trump down or at least prevent him from a second term. The people who control social media’s online platforms are not merely unbiased facilitators of communication. Instead they are using their dark genius as much as lies within their power to shape political and social conversations, which, in turn, will shape the future of our world. It’s very 1984.
Food for thought: Why does “progressive” San Francisco have such a homeless problem? Could it be that there is a correlation between progressive policies and a certain level human dysfunction? Which states tend to be generally in better fiscal health, ones controlled by Republicans or ones controlled by Democrats? Throw out the exceptions (if there are any) and you will see the correlation.
P.S. Predictably, some will dismiss my views about the Benghazi scandal as being some sort of wacky conspiracy theory. I say to them: read the Congressional Benghazi report. Look at the known facts of the case. If you are a Democrat or a liberal, be a grownup and make an honest assessment of that history. Regarding Twitter/Facebook’s shenanigans -there are so many examples of funny stuff going on behind the scenes at these online platforms it is impossible to conclude they are merely non-partisan facilitators of free speech. Only an ostrich would believe that.
Dear Governor Cuomo:
Trump was not remotely believable when he walked back his Russian election meddling comment at Helsinki by saying, “The sentence should have been, ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.'” So too is your administration’s explanation not believable as it tries to walk back your comment that America “was never that great.” Of course, America has been and is considered by many people to be great – how else do you explain (you who condone illegal immigration into the United States) why so many emigrants risk their lives to come to the United States? Which is it Governor Cuomo? How do you reconcile those two things? You cannot.
I know what you were up to when you said that America “was never that great.” You were pandering to potential voters who see themselves as victims and who have been brainwashed by party, media and academia to think America is built on a racist, sexist, homophobic foundation. I understand your ambition, but please don’t trash the country that gave you and your family so many great opportunities. That behavior is very low.
On our original founders:
“So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, which had been their resting-place for above eleven years; but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up their eyes to heaven, their dearest country, where God hath prepared for them a city ( Heb. xi. 16), and therein quieted their spirits.
When they came to Delfs-Haven they found the ship and all things ready; and such of their friends as could not come with them followed after them, and sundry came from Amsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night was spent with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment and Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love. The next day they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to hear what sighs and sobs and prayers did sound amongst them; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithy speeches pierced each other’s heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangers that stood on the Key as spectators could not refrain from tears. But the tide (which stays for no man) calling them away, that were thus loth to depart, their Reverend Pastor, falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks commended them with most fervent prayers unto the Lord and his blessing; and then with mutual embraces and many tears they took their leaves one of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of them.”
“Let the reader with me make a pause, and seriously consider this poor people’s present condition, the more to be raised up to admiration of God’s goodness towards them in their preservation: for being now passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectation, they had now no friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no houses, or much less towns, to repair unto to seek for succour: and for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the country know them to be sharp and violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search unknown coasts. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts, and wilde men? and what multitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned their eyes ( save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or content in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all things stand in appearance with a weather-beaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew; if they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.”
Our original founding document – the Mayflower Compact (1620):
“IN THE NAME OF GOD AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, &c.& c., Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and the honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; Do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience,” etc.”
“A democracy, more perfect than antiquity had dared to dream of, started in full size and panoply from the midst of an ancient feudal society.” — Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” 1835
Gov Cuomo: If America isn’t and wasn’t ever great then why did your ancestors leave Italy to come here? More importantly, you imply that there are other countries greater than the United States. So I ask – why are you even still here?
One other thing, Governor Cuomo, your official website is like one big campaign ad – I cannot believe the people of New York put up with it. It really is an abuse of your office.
Disclaimer: By receiving this correspondence Andrew Cuomo agrees to receive a lifetime of well-deserved criticism from the patriotic defenders of Lady Liberty.*
*The following disclaimer appears on Governor Cuomo’s official website:
“Disclaimer: By submitting this form you are agreeing to receive email updates from the State of New York.”
In other words if you want to voice your opinion to the governor’s office or ask for help you will be subject to a constant barrage of propaganda, like it or not. Just another friendly and delicate touch brought to you by the State of New York, Andrew Cuomo, governor.
P.S. Governor Cuomo may think my words too harsh, but I think when politicians say stupid things and promote damaging policies and ideas they need to be called out for it. I am sure Governor Cuomo is a big supporter of free speech, which is a right guaranteed to all Americans by our Bill of Rights.
Bernie Sanders, July 27, 2018, MSNBC:
“Look, as I’ve said before, yeah, I think people have the right to go into a restaurant and have dinner,” he said.
I would like to ask Bernie and his true-believing followers: from where does the right to dine in a restaurant come? Is it a God-given right? If so, all humans prior to the invention of the development of the modern-day restaurant were denied that right. Cro-magnon man was deprived of his right. Hunter-gatherers were denied their right. Neanderthals were deprived of their right. Paleo-indians were discriminated against.
Vote-seeking politicians seem very ill-educated when it comes to rights. They toss the “right to” this and the “right to” to that out all the time. It sounds good to the unthinking person, and may garner attention, good feelings and hopefully votes at election time, but such ideas have no basis in reality.
But if the right to dine in a restaurant is not a right that can be found to be granted by God or Nature, then perhaps it is a secondary right guaranteed to some people by the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps it a right guaranteed by an obscure Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Alas, I cannot find it. Perhaps Mr. Sanders can point to it. Let’s go back further – was the right to dine in a restaurant debated in the Continental Congress? Was it a grievance the founding fathers brought to the attention of King George III? Is it a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence? I’m coming up empty. I find it nowhere.
Can it be found in Magna Carta?
Perhaps there is a more recent law guaranteeing the right to dine in a restaurant. That would be wonderful for all when hunger sets in each and every day. Everyone, including those who could not afford to pay for dinner out, could invoke this elusive statute and protect their right to free dining. Having no money would not cancel this right. On the other hand I would feel a tad sorry for the restaurant owner struggling to make ends meet while working 80 hours a week. Will the servers still be tipped on the value of the meal and their hard work? Knowing human nature, even some people who can afford to dine out might feign a reduced state of financial affairs. But the “right” that Mr. Sanders espouses must be upheld. The restaurant owner must respect the rights of others even if it means feeding those who cannot afford to pay for their meal. It may sound redundant, but after all, a right declared by Mr. Sanders is a right. Period. It must be respected.
People have other rights as well according to Mr. Sanders. They include free healthcare, and free higher education. And so I presume the Bernie supporters who work at hospitals and universities will be the first in line to willingly forego their salaries under this new order of utopia. If higher education is truly free then the administrators, professors, cafeteria workers, maintenance workers, and janitors must all work for free for there will be no money to pay them.
Such utopian thoughts are invigorating and encourage the imagination. Many other undiscovered rights are still yet to be discovered for the benefit of mankind.
My point is that rights are not to be spoken of lightly. The language of many politicians is intended to confuse. People need to cut through the crap and use their brains. People need to think clearly about these things. I would suggest start by reading a classic book on political or economic philosophy. Email me for suggestions.
Minor point here: I’ll venture an educated guess – behind his apparent defense of Trump’s Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders after the Red Hen incident in Lexington, Va. is Senator Sanders’ attempt to appear moderate in the face of an ever increasing radicalized (and violent) left-wing – a very real appendage of the Democrat party. It’s his calculated political move to appeal to independents and otherwise civil-minded Democrats who are being turned off by the radical tactics of the deranged Trump haters. This leads me to make an observation: Bernie Sanders is already running for President again.