Views on the News
Views on the News*
The Constitution is the greatest instrument of government ever produced by man. It has proven itself remarkably sturdy, facilitating popular government in the United States amid enormous changes through the centuries. What is amazing about the Constitution is how radical it is, not only by the standards of 1787, but even by our own today. The system of government it delineates is one that is both deeply libertarian and profoundly republican. Heavily influenced by the “commonwealth” tradition of English political thought, especially the writings of James Harrington, many Founders believed that land ownership was a crucial component of citizenship. Property owners, by this reckoning, were ideally suited to exercise the independent judgment required of the citizen, which meant a lot of people, including propertyless men as well as women, were left on the outside looking in. Worse, the Constitution sanctioned slavery, undermining its moral vision and ultimately leading to the Civil War. The main improvement that subsequent generations have made upon the Constitution is expanding the definition of citizenship. However we have left largely untouched the Founding vision of what civic participation entails, and it is here that we find two ideas that, even so many years later, are still audacious. The first is the notion that civil liberty must be nearly absolute. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak, to assemble, and to worship, with no caveats whatsoever. The Second Amendment empowers the people to arm themselves, as an alternative to standing armies, which had historically been tools of oppression. The remaining amendments in the Bill of Rights keep the government from abusing the rights of privacy, ensure fair and humane treatment in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, and underscore the limitations of federal authority. The Bill of Rights employs clear and unambiguous language to outlaw every major tactic that tyrants had heretofore employed to suppress the people. These rights remain inconvenient to this day, so civil authorities are still interested in reading them in the narrowest terms they can get away with. A broad view of the Bill of Rights interferes with a “tidier” execution of government. We see such arguments all the time, the good of the nation requires a little less free speech, a more constricted view of religious freedom, confiscation of private arms, wider latitude for law enforcement, and so on. Even by today’s standards, the Founding generation was decidedly libertarian in its conception of what each citizen was entitled to say and do. The second idea is a radically republican conception of the state. “Republicanism” had long been around as a governing ideal; the notion being that government should serve the citizenry and, in some respect, reflect its views. Political philosophers had usually reckoned that the best way to accomplish this task was to blend different forms, like democracy and aristocracy, to keep the defects of any one system from undermining the whole regime. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted government founded solely upon the people, with no self-appointed or hereditary authority. We see their radicalism in the fact that they affirmed this commitment in 1787, when popular government in the United States seemed to have been foundering for many years. The national government was impotent during the 1780s, and the state governments were often no different than mob rule. But instead of seeking reconciliation with George III, or some reinstatement of mixed estates, the delegates to the Convention chartered a government that addressed the “inconveniencies of democracy” while remaining “consistent with the democratic form of government.” Since at least Woodrow Wilson, progressives have grumbled about the Founders’ achievement, often complaining that the Constitution does not facilitate vigorous government. Moreover, the Constitution assumes a process of civic deliberation that still rubs people the wrong way. It establishes Congress as the fount of all legislative authority, and by extension it empowers the people who elect the legislature. Over the years, Congress’s power has been shoveled off to unelected bureaucrats and judges. This view, quite popular in today’s Washington, D.C., is a reimagining of the old notion of mixed estates, whereby certain groups of people (in this case, the credentialed experts) effectively enjoy a permanent place in government regardless of their numbers in society. The Founders rejected this view, in favor of a robust civic republicanism whereby the people do the hard work of governing themselves. It is an exhilarating vision of human freedom, and an uncompromising call for self-government. It is the boldest, most far-sighted system of government the world has yet to produce. It will still be remembered as the turning point in human history — the moment when average people finally claimed control of government for themselves and their posterity.
(“Our Radical Founders” by Jay Cost dated September 25, 2017 published by National review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451679/americas-founders-radical-then-now )
In the District of Columbia, the members of the ruling party should be labeled Republocrats. It was precisely against the Republocrats that America voted in 2016, voting against the party of professional bureaucrats, against the best experts in the world on spreading the American wealth around. Republocrats prospered in Washington regardless of who won the last election. Republocrats have an impressive experience of survival in any election outcome. Trump, from their point of view, is an outsider, not worthy to be in the White House because he is not a hereditary Republocrat.
· One of the branches of the Republocrats, better known as the Democrat Party, has long forgotten its democratic roots and has been completely taken over by supporters of the left ideology. However, as we recall from Marxism, this socialist party selected only what it considered necessary, and rejected everything else as unnecessary. This branch of the Republocrats is the most closely knit, and almost always follows Lenin’s norms of party life. The Democrat Party was founded as a party of low taxes and a limited federal government, but Obama had completed the transformation of the Democrat Party into a party of high taxes and a big federal government.
· Another branch of the Republocrats, better known as the Republican Party, is in a much more difficult situation. Like their Democrat colleagues in the Washington swamp, the Republicans for many years were threatened with a takeover. Several generations of conservatives tried to redirect the Republican Party toward the right ideology, but the takeover by the conservatives was not crowned with success. Republicans remained loyal to their founder Lincoln and his ideas about a strong federal government. This, is the main internal contradiction of the Republicans – the low-tax party is incompatible with the idea of a large federal government.
Consequently, in regard to a strong central federal government, these two branches of the Republocrats have come together and found common ground. Both Democrats and Republicans are talking about Washington DC, as a strong centralized federal government, but they are constantly fighting over the level of taxation. This internal contradiction of the Republican point of view causes Republicans to act as classical conservatives and as classical Republicans at the same time, without even realizing it. Classical Republican conservatives in Congress, on the one hand, want to repeal ObamaCare, but on the other hand, the cancellation of ObamaCare will reduce the role of the federal government, and classical Republicans cannot tolerate that. Trump-the-conservative in his first ideological speech at the United Nations General Assembly reminded everyone of Reagan, Churchill, and Thatcher. His words: “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented” will enter the history textbooks. As the words of Reagan entered the textbooks: “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and Hell where they already have it.” As the words of Thatcher entered the textbooks: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” As the words of Churchill entered the textbooks: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Meanwhile, Trump-the-Republican agreed with the leaders of the Republocrats about the increase in U.S. public debt. Trump-the-Republican conducted a thorough purge of the White House staff – now there are almost no conservatives left. Meanwhile, Trump-the-Conservative fills vacancies of federal judges with strict conservative judges only. The Democrat Party took two centuries to make a 180 degree turn, from the right party to the left party, and the Marxists will never allow it to turn back. The Republican Party was and remains a centrist and contradictory party, and their transition to the right ideology is postponed indefinitely. In America, there is one large and many small purely left parties, but there is not a single major purely right-wing party, although there are many small ones. Trump is opposed by a monolithic Democrat party, and there is no unity among his Republican supporters. Will Trump-the-Conservative overpower Trump-the-Republican? With or without Trump, sooner or later, the ideological vacuum should be filled. It is necessary to return to the constitutional foundations of our country. It's time for a major right-wing party in America, a party of low taxes and a limited federal government.
(“Will Trump-the-Conservative Overpower Trump-the-Republican?” by Gary Gindler dated September 25, 2017 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/will_trumptheconservative_overpower_trumptherepublican.html )
It is the best and worst of times for progressives and liberals. Politically, their obsessions with identity politics and various racial and gender -isms and -ologies have emasculated the Democrat party: loss of governorships, state legislatures, the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. Democrats are now reduced to largely a coastal, big-city party. It can certainly pile up lots of blue electoral votes, and, thanks to California, Democrats can capture the popular vote, without necessarily winning presidential elections. The old liberal idea that the new demography is progressive destiny did not work out as planned. When the Blue Wall crumbled; Hillary Clinton lost a sure-thing election. Large Latino populations in red Texas and blue California are not likely to turn either one into a swing state. Inner-city voters so far have not transferred prior record levels of turn-out and bloc voting to candidates of the Hillary Clinton sort. Identity politics did not ensure that the white liberals who created it were always exempt from the natural boomerang of their own ideology. Yet culturally, the progressive octopus continues to recalibrate popular life according to the new orthodoxies shared by a minority of the population. Indeed, the octopus has formidable and far-reaching tentacles that reach into every crevice of modern American life. Most Americans are quite willing to concede spheres of partisanship, but not lawlessness. Some colleges, such as Evergreen State or UC Berkeley, while public and tax-supported, are, by definition, leftist in the manner that a private Hillsdale College or Saint Thomas Aquinas are traditionalist and conservative. Whereas conservative colleges are calm and tolerant of dissent; liberal colleges, with public monies, are hysterical and often Stalinist when confronted by opposing views. That disconnect is unsustainable. Most citizens are fine with the fact that Fox News is the conservative cable-channel bookend to the progressive MSNBC. Americans realize that a different sort of crowd goes to a NASCAR race than watches the Tour de France. What is bothering half the country is not such ideological birds-of-a-feather tribalism per se, but rather the progressive attempt to undermine all shared public institutions by turning them into left-wing megaphones and in the process condoning the use of violence, obscenity, and racialism. So it is not quite accurate to complain of the “politicization of everything,” given that the phenomenon is largely a progressive project in which nothing is much sacred from left-wing political hectoring: our vocabulary, the very cars we drive, even the TV shows we watch. Network news was always liberal, yet in the last decade, ABC, NBC, and CBS, along with PBS and NPR, as well as their cable counterparts such as CNN, have become veritable progressive operatives. Mention of transgenderism, gay marriage, abortion, global warming, and identity politics will be massaged to promote a progressive position that was once held only by minority, until the position morphs into an intolerant mainstream orthodoxy that does not allow dissent. Sometimes the scripted metamorphosis takes just a few years. Obama’s loud support of traditional marriage in 2008 changed to support for gay marriage in 2012. When he left office, he conformed to the idea that only homophobes agreed with the position he’d held a few years earlier. Bill Clinton’s stance not too long ago on legal-only immigration would reduce him to a nativist racist by today’s progressive standards. Half of America no longer goes to the movies, for reasons that transcend the advent of cable TV and computer viewing. They are bored with the latest predictable remake of a far better earlier movie, now updated with tattooed, white villains speaking in a Russian, South African, or southern accent, diabolically seeking to harm a young, picture-perfect progressive social-justice warrior as she uncovers the racist, sexist, and homophobic machinations of an evil corporation or government agency, run by a white male cabal, that aims to pollute the water, dirty the air, or rob noble progressive victims. Much of America finds Hollywood a boring Pravda enterprise. It is hypocritical too in the Soviet style of a privileged apparat, given that movies are the products of huge corporations and multimillionaire actors who live apartheid existences. Sports used to be sacred, but not now. ESPN op-eds dressed up as sports analyses are not subtle. The working-class audience is often assumed to be bigoted in some way; the wealthy and elite sportscasters, athletes, and media celebrities imagine that they themselves are virtuous and exempt from their own criticism. Colin Kaepernick was the straw that broke the viewing audience’s proverbial back. He is lionized as Martin Luther King Jr. rather than portrayed as a confused young man of so-so talent, pampered by a multimillion-dollar salary. He and his newfound followers will not stand for the anthem of the country that ensured that the National Football League would be the most ethnically diverse athletic corporation in the world, with the most highly compensated players, and dependent on fans who would scrimp to pay outrageously high sums for tickets and cable packages just to see a simple football game, only to be insulted as the supposedly guilty party. The result is Orwellian on two counts. One, the NFL is an admirably meritocratic enterprise, absolutely immune from the progressive dictums of “proportional representation” (diversity in the workplace and university must reflect the race, gender, and ethnic ratios of the general population) and “disparate impact”. Otherwise, the NFL, as in the case of universities or other publicly subsidized entities, would demand that player rosters “look like us.” That is, they’d make the necessary adjustments to ensure affirmative action for underrepresented Latino, Asian, and white players, in the manner that UC Berkeley currently takes steps apparently to keep it from becoming an Asian-majority university based on merit and skills. The subtext of not saluting the flag seems predicated on the notion of a racist white America, which in overwhelming numbers watches, enjoys, and pays for a mostly black NFL. Two, the subtext of not saluting the flag seems predicated on the notion of a racist white America, which in overwhelming numbers watches, enjoys, and pays for a mostly black NFL. Major weather disasters are now almost immediately contextualized in progressive terms and not just by politicians. A drought is proof of climate change, but so is a deep freeze. Storms or the doldrums, it doesn’t matter: Greedy corporations and clueless, in-hock consumers are the carbon culprits. A tsunami or a receding sea, fog, or sun; climate change did it. When everything is proof of climate change, then nothing is. Before 2017 there may have been a decade-long dearth of hurricanes into the Caribbean. All the pop-culture talking heads, from somber pundits to late-night television hosts, explained Hurricanes Harvey and Irma in a drearily similar way: Americans’ wasteful consumption of carbon energies had heated the planet and brought down upon them a Biblical retribution of bad weather. The reason was not the obvious one that coastal states have long shorelines on the tropical Gulf of Mexico. Instead, they were hit by Nemesis because they were red states with populations more likely to doubt theories of catastrophic man-made global warming. Nothing is spared from rank politicization. The weary messaging is everywhere and always predictable. As the progressive octopus squeezes the country, its dominance comes at a price. Lately fewer and fewer want to waste precious time watching the pampered adolescents of the NFL. Most yawn that Mark Zuckerberg and Pope Francis have given one too many sanctimonious rants that project their own hypocrisies. One too many sober and judicious ex-diplomats (of the sort whose mellifluous prior appeasement led to a thermonuclear North Korea) bores us with warnings about Trump’s “incendiary rhetoric.” Apparently in 2016, the deplorables and irredeemables struck back. Donald J. Trump symbolically served as a radiologically hot CAT scan that revealed long-festering inner metastases, which he unpleasantly saturated the patient until the cancers within slowly began to fester and shrink, even as the convalescent resented the harsh therapy as much as he did the symptoms of the disease.
(“The Progressive Octopus” by Victor Davis Hanson dated September 26, 2017 published by National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451741/progressive-octopus-grips-country-sermons-lawlessness-hypocrisy )
The more the Democrat Party becomes the party of fringe groups and phony fringe issues, the more their power will evaporate into the political ether. Add to this list the proliferation of national anthem protests by grown-ups who are paid enormous salaries to play a game. The political Left cite the First Amendment, but they clearly haven’t read it. The First Amendment is not a magic force-field that shuts down everyone else’s free speech and makes protesters immune to criticism. The First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law which stops President Donald Trump from criticizing those protests. The NFL has the power to fine players for protesting the national, but they’ve chosen not to. NFL ratings were down an average of 8% last year, and, according to a J.D. Power survey, a plurality of those who tuned out blamed Kaepernick and the anthem protesters. With hundreds of channels, a blu-ray player, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, and paired with the identity politics fatigue, it’s never been easier to change the channel. Considering the CTE controversy, the national anthem controversy, the domestic violence scandals, and its lack of international popularity, the NFL’s current dominance feels about as permanent as hipster beards, skinny jeans, and pumpkin spice everything. A YouGov poll found 85% of Republicans, 34% of Democrats, and 59% of independents disapprove of kneeling during the national anthem. That’s why office-holding Democrats equivocate on the issue and try to take both sides. They want to keep the far-Left, anti-American faction of the party happy, but they’re way underestimating the degree to which their pandering alienates the majority of Americans. Democrats lost the House in 2010; lost the Senate in 2014; then lost the presidency in 2016. They lost the Supreme Court in 2017; lost over 1,000 seats in state legislatures over that same time period; and lost all the special elections to fill seats vacated by Trump administration appointees. The GOP is destroying them in grassroots fundraising. They’re almost certain to lose more Senate seats in 2018. The reason is simple: Kamikaze politics. They’ve let America-is-the-problem, identity-politics-driven, leftist fringe groups become their voting base. Embracing anti-American attitudes, whether directly or tacitly, is political suicide. Smearing decent, hard-working middle-class Americans is political suicide. Democrats were once the party of hard-hat-wearing, flag-waving, working-class people, but they’re becoming the party of ultra-rich elites and leftist mobs. The only way to save the Democrats: Stop embracing positions based on the volume of the person screaming them; Stop marginalizing the thoughts and feelings of people who aren’t on television, who aren’t millionaires, and who don’t have time for any political advocacy beyond voting because they work all day; Stop branding everyone who disagrees with you as a racist, white supremacist, homophobic, xenophonic deplorable; and Stop pretending strong emotions are an acceptable substitute for facts and evidence. Democrats, stop being afraid to stand up for America!
(“National Anthem Protests and the Disappearing Democratic Party” by Eddie Zipperer dated September 25, 2017 published by PoliZette at http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/national-anthem-protests-disappearing-democratic-party/ )
In a culture where humorless leftists scolds seek to impose their rule upon us normals by sucking every drop of joy out of life, it is the conservative smartass who is the true subversive. If you want someone who snarks truth to power instead of speaking consensus coastal truth to the powerless, you gotta step to the right. Lisa de Pasquale is one of these conserva-revolutionaries, a young woman who is in equal parts funny and fearless with a new book, The Social Justice Warrior Handbook: A Practical Survival Guide for Snowflakes, Millennials, and Generation Z. Felonia von Pantsuit thinks the central message of 1984was “Mindlessly obey the ruling caste,” but the undeniable fact is that our institutions have failed us, and no one presuming to speak from authority deserves your unthinking, reflexive trust. Sarcasm and cynicism are not merely appropriate responses to decades of lies and failure by those posing as our betters; they are torches we can now use to burn down the whole rotten edifice of progressive cultural tyranny. With The SJW Handbook, she turns her flamethrower on that most annoying manifestation of liberalism's intellectual bankruptcy and infatuation with tyranny, the Social Justice Warrior. SJWs are the leads in a giant personal psychodrama they want to suck us all into. They aren’t traditional heroes because they’re far too goofy. Think of SJWs as the nerds in Revenge of the Nerds, except these nerds aren’t sympathetic fringies. They’re malignant manipulators who act like the jocks and want to make the rest of us as miserably friendless and loveless as they are. Instead of giving their victims wedgies, the babbling bullies of the left want to whine us into submission. These suburban-born aspiring Red Guards aim to lead their own Cultural Revolution from safe havens within academia and deep in the fetid bowels of the internet, but they'd just be yet another group of hapless leftist losers except that they discovered how to exploit a key vulnerability. SJWs succeed for one reason, too few people simply burst into laughter when these mayo-loving white people with dreads and daddy issues announce that today they identify as black, or that prominent Jewish conservatives are “Nazis,” or that some women have penises. SJWs deserve nothing but contempt and the merciless ridicule that goes with it. Yet, we Americans are usually reflexively too polite to deliver the verbal beatdowns these dorks deserve. Because we are genuinely nice people, we generally assume that other people are acting in good faith even when what they are saying is manifestly idiotic. We tend to think, “Hmmmm, that sounds really insane, but I should give this person the benefit of the doubt and react in a polite manner.” What we should think, and say, is “You’re stupid, so stop talking and finish filling my latte order.” SJWs prey on that default presumption of good faith, knowing that normals will assume SJWs sincerely mean whatever idiocy they spew. The truth is that all this nonsense about micro-aggressions and such is just a way to impose their fussy control over us. Lisa is having none of their nonsense. The SJW Handbook is just that, a faux guide to how to be a crying, bitter baby demanding that mommy and daddy submit to his, her or xir's increasingly ridiculous commands. Lisa provides a template for us to do what we all need to do all the time – see through their lies and strip them of their power by ruthlessly mocking these proto-fascist “geebos” until they flee back to their safe spaces. The SJW’s weapons are words, and they depend on our default courtesy to make us respectfully listen to whatever stupid thing they have to say. That needs to stop. Lisa’s book is a welcome diss track that should motivate us all to provide the proper response to these campus communists and academic anarchists the next time they start flapping their quinoa holes.
(“Unleashing the Power of Mockery on Annoying Social Justice Warriors” by Kurt Schlichter dated September 21, 2017 published by Town Hall at https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/09/21/unleashing-the-power-of-mockery-on-annoying-social-justice-warriors-n2383828 )
The Anti-Fascism movement has been in existence since the 1920’s in various forms and originated as a loosely organized movement to fight the spread of Fascism in Europe. Antifa is NOT actually true Anti-Fascism! Antifa is a well-organized and well-funded group with the expressed purpose of fighting against “White Supremacy”, which they claim is Fascist, but this is NOT what Antifa is either! Antifa is a new and uniquely American group of professional (organized and paid) violent anarchist with one objective: to destroy America’s current, Constitutional Republic form of government so it can be replaced with a Fascist form of government and become part of the “New World Order”. Ultimately Antifa itself is an organized fascist group! If you watch any video footage of Antifa “anti-rally” or “anti-protest” activity you will see that they show up in large numbers wearing mask and protective gear and carrying weapons. These weapons include clubs, bottles, balloons filled with urine and feces, and sling shots to use to launch projectiles, including the urine and feces projectiles, at the police and legal rally or protest participants. The Antifa thugs were not only allowed to gain strength during the Obama Administration, they were allowed and even encouraged to become openly violent with the knowledge that they would not be arrested or charged with any crimes regardless of what they did. The Left and the Main Stream Media are still screaming that everything bad is caused by the “Alt-Right” groups and their Conservative supporters. The Left and Main Stream Media rarely say anything negative about Antifa or any other violent hard left group. The good news is that police departments, including Berkeley recently began to stand up to violent protesters, including Antifa. The police are actually forcing the violent protesters to disperse, making arrest and charging people with crimes, and some are being charged with felonies, and are also being prosecuted, not simply being released to walk away! More important, some of the “leaders” of previous violent protest have recently been arrested and charged with crimes. Far Left college professors are actually losing their jobs for disgusting public statements supporting violence against Conservatives, Right Wing groups and police. It is unarguable that Antifa should be on the “Domestic Terrorist List” condemning all hate groups! Things are not changing fast enough for most of us but they are changing for the good of America!
(“Antifa is Absolutely Not What They Claim to Be!” by Hardworking1 dated September 23, 2017 published by iPatriot at http://ipatriot.com/antifa-absolutely-not-claim/ )
Democrats embrace socialism that has always failed, whether it was a form of state socialism or the various utopian communities started in the United States and Europe over the last couple of hundred years. Others praise the benign socialism that is practiced within the family, churches, some social or civic groups where the members look out for each other in case of need. Socialism works as long as it is voluntary and members are free to leave. Government socialism is coercive and denies the fundamental right to opt out, no matter how repressive or incompetent it becomes. The socialist countries killed a couple hundred million of their own citizens during the 20th century — Soviet Union (62 million), communist China (78 million), and the national socialists, aka Nazis, in Germany (21 million). Even today, Cuba, North Korea and the new dictatorship of Venezuela have their defenders, despite the clear and obvious repression and human misery. State socialism is incompatible with liberty, and if a majority of the people are aware of the facts, socialism loses.
· Thus, the first thing the socialists do is deny free speech to others, with the false claims that their opponents are engaged in hate or repressive speech so they must be silenced. The current denial of free speech on college campuses and by “Antifa” is the opening round.
· The next step is to take control of education, by regulating what is to be taught, leaving out those parts of history that would result in enlightened citizenry. At the college level, the goal is to obtain a uniformity of thought, so professors that encourage diversity of thought or defend free markets are blackballed by the educational establishment.
· The third step is to stamp out any opposition press, which can be done by a combination of staged public protests, bogus attacks on the owners of media who oppose authoritarian socialism, including phony tax charges, assorted frivolous lawsuits, and false charges of criminality. At first, left-leaning members of the press applaud the attacks and elimination of their competition, but once in power the socialists most often purge their original supporters.
· Freedom of assembly and right to own guns are denied on the basis that they are a threat to public order. California already has some of the most restrictive gun laws, and conservative and libertarian groups are being denied the right to assemble on some of the state college campuses.
· The socialist/authoritarians are hostile to religion. Bernie Sanders has been openly hostile to religion, and this past month Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Dick Durbin of Illinois attacked a Catholic woman who had been nominated to a U.S. federal court because of her religion.
· Businesses are either nationalized or regulated to such an extent that they become agents of the state. ObamaCare has been an attempt to destroy the private medical insurance market and much of the private medical industry, including the right to choose your own doctor. The current efforts by many Democrats to have “single payer” (total government) medical care is an overt attempt to socialize one-sixth of the American economy. Energy companies are increasingly regulated with the excuse they are contributing to global warming, but the real agendab is to totally control them. Banks and other large financial firms can barely move without permission of a government regulator.
Defenders of socialism always claim that they are “democratic socialists” and will preserve basic freedoms. A basic freedom is the right to own property, but socialists invariably seize it, or tax and/or regulate it to such an extent that the individual has, in effect, lost her or his property. The socialists destroy freedom of the press by nationalizing the media or harassing the opposition newspapers by denying them paper. There have been many calls to require the Federal Communications Commission to regulate political content over the airways or on the internet. Socialism destroys individual initiative, and when the economy fails to produce, the socialists normally respond with a new round of regulations and other oppressive measures, causing the economy to fail further. The result is the socialists progressively become increasingly authoritarian. Socialism can be reversed, most notably in countries with a long tradition of civil liberties and free markets, such as the United Kingdom and Sweden. After the socialists had driven the British economy into the ground, Margaret Thatcher, with considerable effort, was able to reprivatize the economy and restore essential liberties. Sweden, which had become a wealthy country with a free-market economy, began to stagnate with the introduction of socialism in the 1960s and 1970s. In the mid-1990s, Sweden began to reverse course by reprivatizing, establishing a voucher system for schools, and privatized social security accounts, and as a result, the economy has rebounded. State socialism is a product of ignorance, and thrives among those who have not read history, let alone Orwell and Hayek.
(“If oppression could inspire happiness” by Richard W. Rahn dated September 25, 2017 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/25/socialism-has-not-delivered-utopia/ )
There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. No updates have been made this week to the issue sections.