What we have to fear . . .

What will America look like if Joe Biden wins the election November 3rd and the Democrats take control of the U.S. Senate?  Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris have promised measures so drastic that they should strike fear in the hearts of Americans who care about democracy and the protections afforded individuals in the U.S. Constitution.

A Democrat Senate could grant statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which would add four Senators, all of whom presumably would be Democrats. This step would not only result in several immediate catastrophes but would throw any balance between the two parties into the gutter. One party states are one step away from into one-party dictatorships.

It would mean the end to the Electoral College, a system that protects the residents of the less populous states from majority large state domination in all future elections. It would also likely result in the Democrats packing the Supreme Court with a sufficient number of new justices to guarantee none of their policies would be overturned by the Court.

Further, the totalitarian impulses of the Democrat Party would be institutionalized reducing freedoms of the First Amendment to the Constitution, such that government would have the power to restrain unpopular speech and religious practices if they conflict with government authority. These may seem far-fetched, but let me assure you they are not. All have come before the Supreme Court and were one vote away from being entrenched by the Court. Examples of governors implementing such restrictions during the pandemic should demonstrate how close we are as a nation to losing the freedoms that have stood us in good stead for 234 years.

On the other side, stands Donald Trump who is accused of being a racist, a Nazi, a liar, and a million other negatives, but accusations are all the Democrats and the media have going for them. His policies have won over millions of adherents by achieving a great economy prior to the arrival of the pandemic and providing benefits and services to Blacks, Hispanics, women, the elderly and infirm. If re-elected he will stand up to the Democrats’ wet dreams of unbridled power. That’s the choice Americans face. That’s the decision you must make on November 3rd.

Appeasement: Our Western Illness

I suspect when asked if they know what the word appeasement means most educated people will say, “Yes. It has to do with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain giving part of Czechoslovakia to Adolph Hitler in 1938, claiming he had achieved “peace in our time.”

In fact, however, the lesson of appeasement was not learned. It is alive and well, causing myriad problems in our Western political universe. I’ll relate examples offered by Natan Sharansky in his extended essay “Defending Identity” and then point out how the appeasement disease still survives in the West in the 21st century.

Natan Sharansky is one of the most well-known of a group that came to be known as the “refuseniks.” He was exiled to Siberia by the Soviet Union because of his refusal to confess his crimes and name his co-conspirators. His crimes were these: He was active in publicizing human rights violations by the Soviet Union and he sought to move to Israel.

Eventually, Sharansky and the other refuseniks won. They delivered a deathblow to the Soviet Union as a result of their courageous refusal to cooperate even when faced with death. His case gained widespread support from ordinary citizens throughout the West. Ronald Reagan helped push the Soviet regime into the dust bin of history, but his voice alone without Sharansky’s moral stand, would have run up against a brick wall.

After moving to Israel, Sharansky was invited to serve as a minister in two administrations. He very publicly resigned from both because the prime ministers were engaged in appeasing Israel’s enemies in ways Sharansky believed would be devastating for the young nation.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak entered into negotiations at Camp David with Yasser Arafat. Sharansky objected when Barak offered Arafat more than any other Israeli leader had offered the Palestinians, including a pledge to divide Jerusalem. Why? He believed Barak was foolishly appeasing Arafat who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israelis. In return for peace, Barak was willing to give up important locations essential to the Jewish people’s historical identity­­.

The second time Sharansky resigned from an Israeli government was in 2005 when Ariel Sharon decided to evacuate Gaza––a strip of land along the Mediterranean that was home to twenty-one Jewish communities. He argued that doing so unilaterally would not bring peace to Israel, nor would it improve life for the Palestinians. Unfortunately, his prediction came true. Gaza has turned out to be an open sore on Israel’s southern flank with no clear resolution in sight.

The common thread of the two situations was the leaders were willing to appease their enemies––giving up a lot in return for little or nothing. Despite the common narrative that Israel is responsible for the lack of peace in the Middle East, the truth, the reality of the situation is that Israel has consistently offered concessions while consistently losing opportunities to stand firm on principle.

Another example cited by Sharansky is Oslo––the 1993 Agreement that was supposed to bring about a resolution of the conflict that began with the formation of a Jewish state in 1948. Sharansky argues Oslo was flawed for two reasons. First, it failed to deal with the fact that Yasser Arafat was a dictator. Strengthening him was the worst thing that could have happened to the Palestinian people as can be seen today given that nothing close to democratic rights exists in the PLO-dominated territory. If we in the West believe our rhetoric––that all human beings are entitled to certain basic rights, why do we keep ignoring the fact that the Palestinians lack the right of free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion and the right to choose their own leaders?

The second evil perpetuated by Oslo was Israel’s failure to insist that the PLO recognize the Jewish people’s right to a Jewish state in its current location. Failing to demand that concession has meant the PLO could continue to foster hatred of Jews, pay the families of deceased or imprisoned terrorists, and claim their right to the entire region. The consequence was that Israel has had to devote a major portion of its population and resources on security.

Western International Appeasement

America and Europe have consistently tried appeasement in dealing with China and Iran resulting in greater problems amplified today by the economic and military agreement between the two nations. The entire world is endangered by the aggressive policies these nations display today in large part because they do not believe the West will go beyond rhetoric to stop them.

The case of Iran is the clearer of the two. Iran’s aggression in its region has led to wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, with resulting tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands of refugees. How has the West responded? President Obama tried to buy off Iran with a foolish deal that asked them to postpone becoming a nuclear power in return for a huge financial payment. Fortunately, President Trump revoked America’s part of the agreement, but Europe has demurred, emboldening Iran to continue to be aggressive on several fronts.

Many advanced the theory that by playing nice with China they would reform their totalitarian practices. Instead China today is an aggressive dictatorship, repressing ethnic minorities, attempting to take over Taiwan and Hong Kong and dominate the South China Sea region, while pushing on its border with India. China’s economy has grown thanks to the West’s willingness to ignore China’s predatory policies in return for access to its market. In response, China engaged in the theft of Western technology and limited its market in multiple ways while undercutting Western economies with its state-owned enterprises.

The West’s failure to demand Iran and China conform to Western human rights practices in order to receive the benefits of our technology was and remains a huge mistake. President Trump is correct in placing demands on both countries, although I worry that U.S. pressure can only achieve limited results without Europe’s support.

Domestic Appeasement

Appeasement is a popular ploy in the U.S. to tamper down demands by domestic populations. I’m not arguing that minority communities don’t deserve a share of our nation’s riches, but instead of policies that expand equal opportunity, our political class has favored hand-outs to selected representatives, enriching a few at the expense of the many.

The failures of hand-out programs such as welfare, public housing and affirmative action is evidenced by the fact that 60 years after this policy was started as Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the same groups are legitimately pointing out that they have greater poverty, greater unemployment and greater numbers in prison that the majority population.

The Great Society created a political class that each year comes to Washington claiming to represent their people while asking for more money and more programs. Sadly, the poverty program cheerleaders refuse to recognize that enormous progress has been made outside these poverty programs simply by people taking advantage of opportunities to get an education and obtain skills that could be translated into economic advanced.

The Trump presidency demonstrated that more could be accomplished for minorities by means of an expanding economy than all the handout programs combined.

The Alternative to Appeasement

Appeasement is the tendency to believe giving in to the demands of others can put an end to the problem. Even when the demands are legitimate, there has to be a price paid before an exchange can be effective. As Natan Sharansky demonstrated giving in to Israel’s enemies without getting sufficient concessions in return was disastrous.

We have learned that in the case of demands made in foreign relations, the dominant side has to view those making the demand as enemies with regard to that specific negotiation. Mexico and Canada were America’s enemies when trying to replace NAFTA. Thinking in that mode resulted in an one hundred percent better agreement. Iran and China are our enemies, not our friends. As a result, a quid pro quo should be required of any agreement.

In domestic conflicts, financial aid should only be given when the receiving community has agreed to honest and thorough record-keeping demonstrating that the aid went to the intended audience. If that had been done in the past, the record of fraud and abuse in these programs would have been cut in half and needy people would have gotten help. But even beyond accounting, receiving communities must agree to engage in additional steps on their own behalf, such as requiring recipients to participate in programs designed to elevate them out of poverty. An example would be schooling for those who are not proficient in English; another would be schooling for adults who dropped out of school without completing high school.

Appeasement is giving in to demands without asking anything in return. It is often agreed to out of guilt. Its time to recognize appeasement didn’t end with Nevile Chamberlain. Its continuing record of failure in international and domestic relations should teach us a lesson. Leaders must display backbone. Giving in may gain short-term peace, but rarely solves the problem and typically results in worse problems down the road.

Who will be making decisions if Joe Biden becomes President?

If Joe Biden wins the presidency in November, the question we’ll be asking for the next four years is who is making the decisions? It’s no secret that Biden is dealing with diminished mental capacity. That’s nothing to be ashamed of. It happens to the best of us as we age. The question, however, that must be answered before you vote for Biden is who actually will be making the decisions if and when Biden’s ability to do so declines?

Some argue the vice-president will be in charge. After all, she—he’s announced he will pick a female of color––will take over if Biden’s issues become so severe that he can be persuaded to resign or if he dies while in office. Yet there are other contenders––unknown and unnamed people who are advising Biden today and who might be added to his team if he wins the election.

As a result, the public may not known who has made a key decision about a major issue, or who is really in charge, but the bigger issue is whether the Biden team will be able to make decisions in a timely fashion in a crisis?

Most likely there will be a battle among a variety of players including Biden’s wife and family, the vice president, and his advisors. As these players battle it over who is making the decisions, they might become parallelized if and when access to Biden becomes restricted due to his health issues. Will the players be able to act without his signature? That represents a potentially dangerous situation––particularly when it comes to dealing with foreign leaders.

Some plan to vote for Biden because they dislike Donald Trump. Such voters should know that they may be creating major problems for the country should a mentally disabled man become president. Is that a price that’s worth paying to get rid of a man whose list of accomplishments is long and praise worthy?

Is the problem white supremacy?

If you ask protesters what justifies their anger, most will tell you what happened to George Floyd is not unique––meaning a black man being killed by a white police officer, and that if the person being arrested was white, the officer would have acted differently.

That response is both right and wrong. It’s wrong in that Officer Chauvin has an extensive record of involvement in incidents that had to be investigated for behavior outside what is required of a member of the Minnesota Police Department, some of them involving whites. So in one sense the problem was this one officer and a system that failed to remove him from the force years ago.

Yet, it’s also true that there have been too many instances of white police officers engaging in behavior that caused serious injury or death to blacks without sufficient justification. Although the number of such incidents has declined precipitously in the past four decades, any such action that cannot be justified by circumstances, such as strong belief the person being arrested has a weapon and intends to use it, is unacceptable. The question is how we deal with those incidents. Is rioting––violence against police officers, theft and property destruction appropriate or justified? I think not.

Yet some will suggest the problem is not a few “bad” cops or improper or insufficient training; rather they claim American society is structurally organized to the disadvantage of black people––that whites enjoy racial privilege and therefore America is a white supremacist society.

This accusation cannot be backed by the numbers. Any attempt to do so must run up against data that shows that status of black Americans has risen from the lows of the first half of the 20th century under the separate and unequal Jim Crow system to to full legal equality with whites. Compare the number of black doctors, lawyers, police chiefs, school superintendents and principals, college presidents, corporation executives, and media personalities, etc. with any point in the past to 2020. Compare the status of black women in America in 1965 or 1995 to the present and you’ll see extraordinary progress. Compare the number of blacks enrolled in America’s colleges to any point in the past. Are there still blacks living in poverty? Yes, but that’s true for whites and Hispanics as well. Poverty is primary a class, not a racial, problem.

So why do some people think white supremacy is a dominant characteristic of American society? The source of the accusation is a Left professorate that has fostered this notion which has been picked up by the mainstream media and the Democrat Party. Faculty at elite colleges have for the past forty years marshaled selective incidents and partial data to justify this thesis which elevates them at the expense of their students. To be a militant on campus is the highest status a black or minority professor can achieve. In fact, if one is not militant, one is suspect and in danger of not getting tenure or promoted.

Why, you may ask, has the mainstream media bought into this thesis? The media plays to a left-leaning audience as a reflection of the composition of the reporting and editing staff. To be sympathetic to the poor, discriminated against and disadvantaged, makes these people feel good about themselves. It helps them ignore the hypocrisy of their privilege as members of a part of society that holds itself above criticism. While not condoning violence, the media’s desire to blame Donald Trump for everything they perceive to be wrong with America shows they will not condemn those protesters who go too far.

And what about the Democrat Party: why have they bought into the white supremacy argument? The answer is obvious. To be the champion today of the victims of white America enables Democrat candidates to gloss over the fact that their Party has been in control of our major cities as well as the states with the highest black population for the past 70-80 years. It is their party that ought to be held responsible for any lack of progress in those communities. So if police departments aren’t getting rid of people like George Floyd’s murderer, black people ought to look to the elected officials in those cities and hold them responsible.

There are a tiny number of whites who believe they belong to a superior race––a concept that is so vapid and without merit that any thinking American should know it could only be held by a few deranged individuals. The vast majority of white Americans seek justice and equality for all Americans. To suggest otherwise requires the accuser to identify laws and/or policies that advantage one race over another.

Americans must continue to work to live up to the ideals of the founding fathers who believed all men (and women) are equal and deserved to be treated that way. We’ve come a long way, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t more to that needs our attention. Let the discussion continue so that we can all share our views and identify problems that need to be addressed, but let’s also take a moment to glory in the progress. For without recognizing success, future progress will never be enough.

 

Garbage in, garbage out

Many of you might remember the early days of computer programming when the mantra was “garbage in, garbage out.” That needs to be applied to today to computer models predicting the severity of the coronavirus. A few examples should suffice.

The authors of an op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Post admit as much when they quote Anthony Fauci saying “Models are as good as the assumptions you put into them” at the end of an article in which they expose how sketchy the assumptions are that have been put into such models as the one out of University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation that Fauci and others have been relying on.

One of the factors that is not included in any of these models that viruses mutate. A study from China (which of course would need to be replicated) found thirty strains of the virus that causes COVID-19. The author writes, “Sars-CoV-2 has acquired mutations capable of substantially changing its pathogenicity.” The implication of that finding is that the reason some people who are otherwise healthy get very sick and die while others are asymptomatic might be that the strain they came in contact with might be more virulent.

The models are being used today to justify extreme social distancing including shutting of all but “essential” businesses in most states. Suggestions that some states and counties can ease these restrictions have been met with outcries, claiming to do so invites more deaths. The problem with that assertion is that unless one knows FOR CERTAIN the number of people who have been infected by the virus the fear of tens of thousands of additional deaths is not backed by fact.

Some recent evidence suggests more people have had the virus that previously known, including people who had mild cases or who are asymptomatic. But the bottom line is we don’t have sufficient answers to make clear-cut policy decisions. As a result, governors and other elected officials are playing safe––not wanting to be blamed for causing deaths.

Unfortunately, there is a price to pay for being overly cautious in terms of millions of people’s livelihoods. The longer the country is shut down the harder it will be to get back up and the longer it will take. The exact price also cannot be calculated because we don’t have those answers either.

We do know there is a limit to how long the federal government can print money and distribute it to everyone in the country. One factor is that the debt even at zero interest will have been repaid. Another more immediate factor is that printing more money could result in rapid inflation––which coupled with scarcity of certain goods will have its own social cost.

My advice to governors is not to take the entire burden on yourself. With the assistance of your legislature and executive agency personnel, set broad guidelines for when certain types of businesses can reopen in each county of your state. That way when deaths occur you can deflect the blame and justify the policy. Some states are facing bankruptcy. It’s time to fight that war as well as the one brought about by the virus.

Socialism: The Impossible Dream. A review of Bernard K. Johnpoll’s 1981 study, subtitled, “The Rise and Demise of the American Left*”

I was fortunate to have taken a class with Professor Johnpoll in the 1970s when I was a graduate student at the University at Albany. He was sui generis––a cigar smoking, iconoclastic, child of Communists who admired people who flirted with the Left while despite concluding that their dreams can never be achieved.

Why never? The conundrum socialists have been unable to solve for two hundred years is how to get from present circumstances to the “cooperative commonwealth.” Further, they have not and never will reach a consensus on what the cooperative commonwealth looks like. Each person has his own vision of utopia, which makes it easy for the leaders of the Russian, Chinese and Cuban revolutions to get away with calling their un-cooperative societies socialism and imposing their totalitarian rule on their subjects.

In The Impossible Dream, Johnpoll dissects the history of the socialist leaders, movements, and organizations in the U.S. from the early nineteenth century to the 1970s. Based on extensive use of primary and secondary sources, he documents his thesis that these organizations and movements were bound to fail despite their high ideals.

The Long History of Protesting Capitalism

In the early days of industrial capitalism in England and the United States people chafed at the negative side effects of the “industrial revolution”––the lack of restraints on working conditions that chewed up people in the name of profit.

Not that pre-industrial societies lacked poverty or suffering, but what prevented the rise of reform movements in that era was an absence of a clear path to a better world. Once technology, starting with steam engines, introduced the possibility of a world where you were not tied to your previous station in life, reformers and reform movements sprouted like dandelions.

The primary critics of early capitalism were craftsmen whose skills were becoming irrelevant in the face of a new competitive environment where products could be produced in large numbers and sold for less than hand-crafted items. Combining religious images like the golden rule with visions of how industry could be re-organized, Robert Owen and others preached the coming of a society built around cooperative communities. Although the model communities Owen and others set up invariably failed––and did so very quickly by the way, they planted seeds which others sowed in the fertile fields created by early capitalism’s destructive excesses.

The goal of socialism––whether Marxian, Christian, or communitarian, is to take over ownership of the “means of production” and put it in the hands of the workers. The problem socialists have never solved, according to Johnpoll, is how one gets there. Nowhere was that more evident in the reformers’ dealings with the working class.

Labor Unions versus Socialism

In the nineteenth century, while reformers were preaching their individual variants of the total reformation of society, workers who couldn’t wait for the arrival of the cooperative commonwealth, began to form labor unions. For a time the interests of socialists and unionists were allied because owners backed by the police and legal system of the state resisted––often by force––all efforts of workers to organize.

Once the unionists demands began to be translated into law, however, their leaders broke with the socialists. When he expelled the socialists from his American Federation of Labor in 1903, Gompers said, “I want to tell you, Socialists, that I have studied your philosophy; read your works upon economics, and . . . I have heard your orators and watched the work of your movement the world over . . . Economically you are unsound, socially you are wrong, industrially you are an impossibility.”

For Gompers and others, socialists wanted to revolutionize all of society, while unionists were satisfied with improving the present-day lot of their members. This caused huge problems for socialists––some eschewed ameliorative gains while others saw reforms as the path to God’s kingdom on earth. Either way they failed again and again to win over the working class.

Socialist leaders, most of whom did not come from the working class, had an even harder time when it came to the problem of whether or not to participate in the electoral process. Some felt socialism could be brought about democratically, while others felt the owning class would never allow that to happen and only through an uprising by the working people of the world could a revolution that overthrew capitalism be accomplished.

Throw in conflicts born of ethnic differences and leaders personalities and you have a history of organizations being formed, making temporary gains, and then failing apart. It happened over and over again. Each generation of leaders thought this time will be different: this time the workers will vote for us or respond to our call for a general strike or join our socialist labor union. When that didn’t happen, they always had fellow socialists to blame.

Johnpoll clearly admires the reformers of the nineteenth century more than those of the twentieth with a few exceptions. Early reformers didn’t have experience to guide them and they paved the way for positive changes in society once social opinion or historical circumstance convinced the political party in power to implement reforms. They didn’t achieve their dream, but we take for granted many of the reforms they called for, from an end to child labor to unemployment insurance, from compulsory education to the right to collective bargaining.

Are Today’s Democrats advocating Socialism?

In recent years, the rhetoric in the Democratic Party in favor of some form of socialism has escalated. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016 and remains one of the favorites in the 2020 race. This time around nearly the entire cast of presidential candidates is advocating one or more programs that amount to increased governmental control over various aspects of the production and distribution of goods and services. Health care and the environment are the most prominent areas where socialistic policies have won favor with the Party’s activist base, but except for Sanders none of the others seem willing to go full bore and denounce capitalism.

From a historical perspective what the Democrats are moving towards is more like the system that ruled the Soviet Union than the cooperative commonwealth envisioned by nineteenth century social philosophers––including Karl Marx. The Soviet Union was a totally statist society in which the state apparatus controlled everything, including personal choices in many areas. (There was nothing communistic about it.) We’re not there yet, but that’s the direction we’re heading in––namely, the sacrifice of personal liberties on behalf of the “common good.”

The problem is who defines what’s good and proper. In the Soviet Union, it was the Communist Party. In the US today, the federal bureaucracy has assumed the responsibility for defining specifics of vaguely wording legislation, often going against the will of the current chief executive.

The fact that we still elect the president is a critical difference between the U.S. and the Soviet Union because it offers the possibility that the power of the state can be restrained. Yet, to the average citizen, there’s little difference when waiting to get an appointment with the VA hospital in the U.S. or the poor quality of socialized medicine in the former USSR.

Ultimately, most reformers are totalitarians. They don’t like conditions in the present. Fine. They see a better world. Fine. They want to impose their vision of a better world on everyone else. Not so fine. We only have to look at Russia, China, and Cuba to understand what happens to the individual when reformers grab the power of the state. The individual becomes acted upon, not an actor. That’s the danger we’re facing in the U.S. in 2019. Reading Johnpoll’s Impossible Dream can help elucidate why the future world painted by today’s reformers is impossible to achieve no matter how appealing the picture.

Coda: Marx’s scientific socialism predicted the most advanced capitalist societies would be the first to undergo a conversion to socialism. Clearly that prediction was wrong. Lack of economic development where the elements of a capitalist system are non-existent or weak, is often coupled with a non-democratic political system, while in the US, where democracy while not perfect, is nevertheless deeply embedded, capitalism has raised the standard of living of the entire society even under the restraints of social legislation. Like democracy, capitalism is the best option available on a list of imperfect choices.

* An earlier version of this review was posted on Amazon and Goodreads in 2014.

 

Wake Up People: Stop Fear Being Called a Racist

A self-defined Black caller to a national talk show today made a point I’ve been trying to make for a long time––namely, that the term racist has become bastardized to the point where it is meaningless. Still many people fear being called a racist, and as long as people act stupid to avoid that label, there are those who will bring it out and slap it on.

Race to start is an artificial category. It came into use centuries ago by those who wanted to oppress others on the basis of artificial distinctions, such as religion (used by Christians to define non-Christians as heathens), use of language (non-English speakers were considered inferior) and oh, yes, skin pigmentation. Over time, the effectiveness of that practice came to be diminished as overwhelming evidence showed that not all Jews are money-grubbers, not all Irish are drunkards, and not all people of African origins are incapable of higher learning.

That there are still a tiny number of idiots who buy into the notion that there are groups of people all of whom share certain negative physical traits is unfortunate, but their number is infesimal and they are powerless as a group.

Now, let’s examine why some people still throw the term racist around at their political enemies. First, they do it because the media will report it without questioning it the way they would question they would if someone accused a political opponent of being a satan worshiper. Second, it elevates the accusers in their own eyes, justifying their willingness to by-pass traditional rules for discourse on the floor of the House of Representatives (Nancy Pelosi), and to their willingness to make accusations without feeling obligated to provide evidence or answer questions explaining the basis of their charges (Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar).

The mainstream media plays a sad role in this spectacle. For instance, when President Trump criticized four female Congresswomen for their anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric, he was accused of being a racist even though he didn’t refer to the women’s race or even mention them by name.

On a side note, it’s interesting how it’s possible today to self-define yourself as a person of color. Rashida Tlaib comes from an Arab background. Arabs don’t normally define themselves as people of color, and what about Ocasio-Cortez? Her parents are from Puerto Rico, but does that make her a person of color? Is everyone with a Hispanic surname a person of color? Yet both claimed they were victims of Trump’s racism. Again, the media seems to fear being called a racist since they never challenge anything these women say––not matter how absurd.

The only way to put a stop to the irresponsible use of the term racist is to stop being afraid of being called one. That doesn’t mean you have to have been pure of thought throughout your entire life. It doesn’t mean you can’t ever have used the “N” word or had a momentary negative thought about a whole group of people on the basis of their religion, national origins or eating habits. You’re not a racist if you don’t believe that there are groups of people who share negative physical characteristics that justify their being treated as second-class citizens. Pure and simple.

Once people stop being afraid of the term, those who love to use it will find their power diminished and they’ll move on to something else. Meat-eater perhaps?!

 

The Wall: Another Take

How does one explain the fact that prominent Democrat politicians not so long ago advocated the very same policies sought by the Trump administration with respect to the southern border and Central American migration crisis, but won’t back those policies as long as he is president?

Here are the facts:

When campaigning, Obama told migrants to leave their children at home. He also built the detention centers where children by law are kept separate from their parents when the parents are required to remain in custody. At one point, Pelosi and Schumer favored constructing a wall, knowing a partial wall has made southern California safer.

A wall makes sense to cut down on the dangerous and, as we saw recently, the often fatal efforts of people to cross into our country illegally. To oppose it is to advocate the idiotic position that there should be no borders and that anyone who wants to come here should be able to do so.

Having a policy of not screening would-be immigrants for health problems can’t be defended logically. Why do people who apply for the right to immigrate have to undergo medical tests when those who cross our southern border illegally do not? Do we really want to welcome those carrying contagious diseases? Do we really want to provide free health care to all of Central America?

What about dealing with criminal behavior by illegals above and beyond their coming into the country illegally? Why are Democrat politicians protecting people who commit serious crimes, as well as interfering with efforts to detain and deport them?

The answer to the above questions is simple. The Democrats would rather play politics, counting on the naiveté of the voting public. It is absurd to deny that an open border is an invitation to those who would smuggle guns and drugs into the country. It is absurd to give carte blanche to ‘coyotes’ who make false promises to would-be migrants and then abandon them in dangerous situations. It is absurd to allow those who kidnap the children of poor families to use as a ruse to get into the country.

Has the voting public considered the cost of having a million undocumented illegals enter the country each year? Have people looked at the cost of all those free programs from free health care to free higher education? Doesn’t playing compassionate savior mean tax money that should be helping American citizens attend college without having to take out loans won’t be available?

The problem comes back to the decision the Democrats made not to allow Trump to accomplish what he promised during his campaign. By labeling his motives racist they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the voters, getting them to endorse policies that are harmful to the country and to many of them personally.

Here’s my question for you, dear reader. Even if Trump’s motives were impure––which I don’t believe­­­­­––is that sufficient reason to obstruct policies that are necessary, reasonable and rational? Is giving him a “victory” so unthinkable that the Democrats will continue to jeopardize the safety and well-being of our citizenry?

The migrants too are victims of the Democrats game. They suffer, not the politicians. Will their dreams be realized? It is unlikely. Some may land in communities where they can get off-the-books jobs mowing grass and harvesting fruit, but many will resort to crime––to prostitution, to drug and gun smuggling, and who knows what else in order to survive. That’s the reality.

Is the U.S. responsible for the conditions in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua? Marxists will say yes because they blame private property, free enterprise and the rule of law for all of the world’s problems. Is that where the Democrat Party wants to live? Hopefully, the American people will take a look at life under communism and “democratic” socialists countries before they endorse that solution. A better choice for the rest of the world––one that is working in many countries––is to adopt our system as a model.

Legalizing Pot = Legalizing Trouble

Those championing the legalization of marijuana are selling phony stories invented by pr firms in the employ of governments seeking tax revenue and would-be pot entrepreneurs. They falsely claim pot is not a gateway to harder drugs; that legal pot will be safer; and that legalization will help those suffering from pain. Let’s look at the facts.

The notion that pot reduces the pain of physically ill is in doubt as a result of a recent study in Australia. What about pot as a gateway? A recent American Journal of Psychiatry paper reported cannabis users three times as likely to graduate to opiates. What about safety? Legal pot is more than ten times stronger than the pot smoked in the 1960s and 1970s. Eleven percent of psychosis cases in emergency rooms in one study were heavy pot users. But the least-known danger is the connection between cannabis and violence.

The voices of mental health professionals who have seen the connection between marijuana, mental illness and violent crime has been largely ignored. Overseas studies support the connection. A Swiss study, for example, found young men with psychosis who use pot had a 50 percent greater likelihood of becoming violent. An Australian study re-enforces that connection.

In the U.S., one only needs to look to Colorado. Earlier this year, USA Today reported “Pot is sending more people to the hospital in Colorado with extreme vomiting, psychosis” backing up an earlier analysis reported in the Denver Post which found pot use linked to increased crime and driving fatalities.

We’ve heard and ignored all the glowing promises for other solutions to social ills. Legalized gambling is supposed to stop illegal gambling. All it’s done has increased the number of problem gamblers while illegal gambling has not been shut down. The truth is that those dreaming of big profits and big tax revenues are selling America a bill of goods. They will get rich while the average citizen and health community deals with the fall out.

It’s fools’ gold to think regular use of an addictive substance doesn’t have negative social and familial consequences for those who use it. Who’s going to come out on top––those who want the money or those who care about their children and their community?

Is there such a thing as Democratic Socialism?

There are only two types of socialists: those who believe socialism will come by revolution––the uprising of the working class––and those who believe socialism can be voted in. The problem comes after socialism arrives. Then little distinguishes the policies that are advanced and the means by which they are implemented.

In the Soviet Union, the Communist Party implemented its policies by force, using the police and military to get people to do the party’s bidding. There were no individual rights in the Soviet Union, except for the Party’s top leaders of course. In Argentina, where socialism was voted in, the police and military have become the means by which a socialist dictatorship remains in power. Today people have numbers written on their arms to show their place in the food lines. Echoes of the Holocaust.

So, is there such a thing as democratic socialism? The answer is no. There are European countries that have adopted some socialistic policies, but none are truly socialist societies. Private ownership of wealth and property cannot be allowed to exist under socialism. Corporations and small businesses may operate under severe restrictions in Europe, but they exist in all European countries. In a truly socialist society any attempt to restore capitalism even by electoral means has to be crushed by force. Take Cuba as another example where the people do not have political liberty and where private ownership is extremely limited.

What would “democratic socialism” mean in America? Loss of individual liberties in the name of the society as a whole. Loss of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion. Those losses would not be labeled as such. They would be announced as great accomplishments for the “working class,” but they are inevitable.