The Democrats Lurch More Antisemitic

UPDATE, two explicitly anti-Semitic women voted in by Democrats. GATESTONE has more:

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. Most of the media coverage since their election on November 6 has been effusive in praise of their Muslim identity and personal history.

Less known is that both women deceived voters about their positions on Israel. Both women, at some point during their rise in electoral politics, led voters — especially Jewish voters — to believe that they held moderate views on Israel. After being elected, both women reversed their positions and now say they are committed to sanctioning the Jewish state.

America’s first two Muslim congresswomen are now both on record as appearing to oppose Israel’s right to exist. They both support the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. Both are also explicitly or implicitly opposed to continuing military aid to Israel, as well as to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — an outcome that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, they favor a one-state solution — an outcome that many analysts believe would, due to demographics over time, replace the Jewish state with a unitary Palestinian state.

Ilhan Omar, who will replace outgoing Rep. Keith Ellison (the first Muslim elected to Congress) in Minnesota’s 5th congressional district, came to the United States as a 12-year-old refugee from Somalia and settled in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, in the late 1990s.

In her acceptance speech, delivered without an American flag, Congresswoman-elect Omar opened her speech in Arabic with the greeting, “As-Salam Alaikum, (peace be upon you), alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah), alhamdulillah, alhamdulillah.” She continued:

“I stand here before you tonight as your congresswoman-elect with many firsts behind my name. The first woman of color to represent our state in Congress. The first woman to wear a hijab. The first refugee ever elected to Congress. And one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress.”

Omar faced some controversy during the campaign, including a disturbing report that she had married her own brother in 2009 for fraudulent purposes, as well as a tweet from May 2018 in which she refers to Israel as an “apartheid regime,” and another tweet from November 2012, in which she stated: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

[….]

After her primary win on August 7, however, Tlaib radically shifted her positions on Israel, so much so that Haaretz suggested that she pulled a “bait-and-switch.”

In an August 14 interview with In These Times magazine, Tlaib was asked whether she supported a one-state or two-state solution. She replied:

“One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work…. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

Tlaib also declared her opposition to US aid for Israel, as well as her support for the BDS movement.

When asked why she accepted money from J Street, Tlaib said that the organization endorsed her because of her “personal story,” not her policy “stances.”

In an August 13 interview with Britain’s Channel 4, Tlaib revealed that she subscribes to the specious concept of intersectionality, which posits that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fundamentally a dispute between “white supremacists” and “people of color.”

When Tlaib was asked about her position on Israel, she replied, “I grew up in Detroit where every single corner of the district is a reminder of the civil rights movement.”

When Tlaib was asked whether, once in Congress, she would vote to cut aid to Israel, she replied: “Absolutely. For me, US aid should be leverage.”….

JIHAD WATCH also chimes in with the Left’s love for diversity at the expense of hatred:

The hijabed (and therefore pro-Sharia) Ilhan Omar, meanwhile, is even more hateful than Tlaib. According to the Daily Wire, in 2012 Omar tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel.” Challenged about this tweet much more recently, she doubled down and attacked the man who called attention to the tweet: “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.”

There is much, much worse about Omar. David Steinberg of PJ Media has done extraordinary work in shedding light on aspects of Omar’s record that the establishment media has steadfastly ignored. Steinberg reports that Omar has “faced allegations — soon backed by a remarkable amount of evidence — that she had married her own brother in 2009, and was still legally his wife. They officially divorced in December 2017. The motivation for the marriage remains unclear. However, the totality of the evidence points to possible immigration fraud and student loan fraud.” What’s more, she swore to apparent falsehoods in court.

But Leftists rarely have to answer for their corruption, and in a Democrat House, Omar will much more likely be celebrated than investigated. She and Tlaib will enjoy establishment media accolades as they pursue their hard-Left, anti-American, anti-Israel agenda. Their presence in the House of Representatives may be evidence of “diversity,” but it is also a disquieting sign of the continued dominance of identity politics, and the increasing balkanization of the American body politic. Forthrightly pro-America, pro-Israel candidates would stand little to no chance in either of their districts. And that is indicative of a much larger problem.

More HERE as well

Continuing with the Older Post…

EDITOR’S COMMENTS

Democrats lurch not just Leftward, but incestuously as well. Ilhan Omar won the Democratic primary for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District late Tuesday evening, beating her [Democrat] opponent, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, who outspent her (DAILY CALLER). Remember, she is the woman busted by POWERLINE and JIHAD WATCH for marrying her brother. She is anti-Israel, as well as being most likely against homosexuals and Jews… although she won’t speak about it.

Keith Ellison won his bid for Minnesota Attorney General. This is a man I have posted about often, as well as others regarding Keith’s racist ties (GOP, TABLET MAG, WASHINGTON FREE BEACON, WEEKLY STANDARD, NATIONAL REVIEW, and others like JIHAD WATCH). His anti-Semitism is legend (really, the anti-Semitic/anti-Israel Democrat voters in that district), as well as the newest charge of treating women like Muhammad. Alan Dershowitz even said he would leave the Democrat Party if Ellison was elected DNC Chair. I guess the number two spot doesn’t count?

NOT to mention a man (“Christine” Hallquist) masquerading as a woman who won HIS primary as well. That doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the self-described PROGRESSIVE platform he ran on. He beats around the bush (pun intended) when asked about his obvious socialism.

Add the socialist cherry on top and you have quite a mix!

Etc., etc.

(ACE OF SPADES has a good wrap up of the latest election nonsense.)


Another Post Combined


  • Eight House Democrats have met with notorious racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan during their time in Congress
  • Four of those House Democrats now refuse to denounce Farrakhan (and two others have misled the public about their prior relationships with him)
  • Farrakahn’s close ties to the Democratic Party have re-emerged as a political issue after he was revealed to have been closer with several House Democrats than they let on. (DAILY CALLER)

There also seems to be ties with the up-n-comer Ayanna Pressley to the Nation of Islam.

THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLES come from Aretha Franklin’s funeral. THE DAILY CALLER fills us in on this apparent “doubling down” on “black Hitler”:

The legendary singer’s funeral prominently featured Farrakhan alongside former President Bill Clinton and MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton.

Holder now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) and is reportedly weighing running for president in 2020.

“When asked, Mr. Holder participated in a photo taken with the people on stage at the Aretha Franklin services. It was in no way an endorsement or expression of support for anyone,” NDRC spokesman Patrick Rodenbush told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.

Rodenbush did not answer whether Holder is willing to condemn Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.

Farrakhan’s ties to the Democratic Party have become a source of controversy after a photo emerged showing then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama standing with Farrakhan in 2008.

[….]

Following the publication of the Obama-Farrakhan photo, other prominent Democrats including Reps. James Clyburn of South Carolina and Maxine Waters of California were revealed to have attended events with Farrakhan and have since declined to denounce him.

Clyburn has said he is willing to consider running for Speaker of the House if Democrats retake the lower chamber in November’s midterm elections.

Illinois Rep. Danny Davis described Farrakhan in February as an “outstanding human being” and admitted the two had a personal relationship.

After Davis’s office falsely told the Anti-Defamation League that the congressman had been misquoted, he doubled down on his relationship with Farrakhan in a March interview with this reporter.

Davis easily won his primary in March despite the Farrakhan controversy.

Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison repeatedly attended meetings with Farrakhan during his time in Congress, despite claiming that he had cut ties with the anti-Semite decades earlier.

Despite misleading the public about his Farrakhan ties, Ellison has remained the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and last month won the Democratic nomination for Minnesota attorney general.

The leaders of Women’s March, a popular progressive activist group, similarly sparked controversy by declaring their support for Farrakhan.

The group’s cofounder, Tamika Mallory, attended a Nation of Islam convention where Farrakhan espoused anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Mallory later defended Farrakhan and repeatedly refused to condemn him.

(Updated Info from My HAWAII VACATION CONVERSATION WITH A DEMOCRAT)

JUMP to Trump analogy

Give it a second to load… this is rendering from Facebook…

About Time. We know from a long-time aid to the racist UFO black nationalist anti-Semitic cop killing cult leader that Obama and Farrakhan were close. And we have photos of Michelle Obama with this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader’s wife.

And we know this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader was brought into Obama’s church for an award one Sunday, and we also know that this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader’s personage was placed on Obama’s church’s magazine cover not once, but three times. We also know that some of this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader’s sermons/speeches were sold in Obama’s church’s book store during his tenure, as well as these outright racist books:

  • A Black Theology of Liberation;
  • Black Theology & Black Power

(I purchased these and other books myself from Trinity United Church of Christ’s book store online, which was called – Akiba Bookstore)

Here is a small sample to make the point about these books:

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

“The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods” — James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.62

“White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” — James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64

…BUT…

…we haven’t had a clear picture of Barry Soetoro with this racist UFO black nationalist cop killing cult leader… until now:

(Photo credited to Askia Muhammad via TPM)

NATIONAL REVIEW has a lot on this just released photo, but here is the main issue:

A journalist announced last week that he will publish a photograph of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that he took in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, but did not make public because he believed it would have “made a difference” to Obama’s political future.

THE PHOTOGRAPHER, ASKIA MUHAMMAD, TOLD THE TRICE EDNEY NEWS WIRE THAT HE “GAVE THE PICTURE UP AT THE TIME AND BASICALLY SWORE SECRECY.”

(emphasis added)

BREITBART also joins in to explain the cover-up:

“I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy,” Muhammad said in an exclusive interview with the Trice Edney News Wire this week. “BUT AFTER THE NOMINATION WAS SECURED AND ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL THE INAUGURATION; THEN FOR EIGHT YEARS AFTER HE WAS PRESIDENT, IT WAS KEPT UNDER COVER.”

As for any debate that the photo could have made a difference in the outcome of the Obama presidential election, Muhammad is emphatic: “I INSIST. IT ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE.”

(emphasis added)

Our country would have been better off if it had been released, and the press were doing it’s job rather than worshiping Obama as a Messianic figure.

ANALOGY

Gotta keep black racism on the DL in order to get into the Presidency. Mmmm, this is as good a time as ever to update my analogy replacing Bush here to reflect Trump vs. Obama:

…I will use Trump in my analogy. Let us say for twenty years Trump attended a church that twice prominently displayed David Dukes likeness on the cover of their church’s magazine which reaches 20,000 homes, and a third time alongside Barry Mills (the co-founder of the Aryan Brotherhood). Even inviting David Duke to the pulpit to receive a “lifetime achievement award.” Even selling sermons by David Duke in the church’s book store. Authors of sermons sold in Trump’s church’s bookstore teach in accordance with Christian Identity’s view that Jews and blacks are offspring of Satan and Eve via a sexual encounter in the Garden of Eden. In the church’s bookstore, the entire time Trump attended, books like Mein Kampf (Hitler) and My Awakening (David Duke), and other blatantly racist books were sold. Even members of the Aryan Brotherhood felt comfortable enough to sit in the pews at times… being that the pastor of Trump’s church was once a reverend for the group.

…if Trump had gone to a church like that I would walk arm-n-arm with my Democratic comrades in making sure he would never be President. Wouldn’t this be expected of me?

Here is the “not”-analogy of Obama:

Obama’s pastor not only was a minister in The Nation of Islam, an anti-Semitic/racist group, but the church’s book store sells sermons by Louise Farrakhan, who teaches that the white man was created on the Island of Cyprus by a mad scientist, Yakub. (Mr. Farrakhan also believes he was taken up on a UFO to meet God, and was told he was a little messiah, take note also that he was directly involved in the deaths of police officers as well.) Louise Farrakhan was featured twice on the church’s magazine which reach 20,000[plus] homes in the Chicago area. Even placing on the cover with Louise Farrakhan a third time the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad. Elijah Muhammad likewise taught that the white man was created by Yakub 6,600 years ago. Walter, Louise Farrakhan teaches that the Jews in Israel do not belong there, and that the true Jews are the black people. Louise Farrakhan was invited into Obama’s church, to the pulpit and given a “lifetime achievement award.” In fact, the New Black Panthers and members of the Nation of Islam often times sat in the pews for sermons by Rev. Wright, whom Obama called a mentor. Not to mention Obama’s wife pictured with racist, anti-Semetic, UFO cult members.

So I expect you, [insert Leftist name], to join arm-and-arm with me on finding out why the media, and Democrats who are so concerned about racism let such a man into office, when, if the tables were turned, I wouldn’t want in office.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ is correct when he says “that any Democrat who meets with the ‘bigot’ Louis Farrakhan should resign from office, and said there should be no tolerance for any association with the Nation of Islam leader.” Continuing he notes,

“Farrakhan is a bigot,” Dershowitz said on Fox News. “He is far worse than David Duke. Why? Because Farrakhan has a large following, David Duke is a joke.”

“He ought to be treated the way we treat David Duke,” he said. “If any Republican dared to meet with David Duke, that would be the end of their career.”

“It should be the end of the career of any Democrat who has any association with this bigot Farrakhan,” Dershowitz added.

Keith Ellison, the No. 2 Democrat at the Democratic National Committee, had said he stopped meeting with Farrakhan before 2006, but it was later confirmed he was at a private meeting with Farrakhan in 2015.

Washington Post gave Ellison four Pinnochios for lying when he said his relationship with Farrakhan ended more than a decade ago.

“This is the leadership of the Democratic Party,” Dershowitz said…….

See much more here:

Here is my video a few months before the 2008 election:

Karl Marx: 1st To Suggest Political Genocide On Massive Order

(originally posted June 2013)

You always hear that the right is fascist, WRONG! Here is a short clip from a documentary that is able to respond quite well to this charge. One should watch the whole DOCUMENTARY, its cheap enough. But this snippet can be used as a great — embeddable — answer to the left leaning challenge that Nazism and Marxism is any different.

All quotes from THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF MARX AND ENGELS (also at MARX & FRIENDS IN THEIR OWN WORDS):


  • “…the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.” — Karl Marx, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848.  (See entry of 29 Jan. 2007)
  • “By the same right under which France took Flanders, Lorraine and Alsace, and will sooner or later take Belgium — by that same right Germany takes over Schleswig; it is the right of civilization as against barbarism, of progress as against stability. Even if the agreements were in Denmark’s favor — which is very doubtful-this right carries more weight than all the agreements, for it is the right of historical evolution.” — Friedrich Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung 10. Sep. 1848 (See entry of 8 Jan. 2005)
  • “And as for the Jews, who since the emancipation of their sect have everywhere put themselves, at least in the person of their eminent representatives, at the head of the counter-revolution — what awaits them?” — – Karl Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung 17. Nov. 1848)
  • “Every provisional political set-up following a revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that.” — Karl Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung 14. Sep. 1848
    (See entry of 9 Jan. 2005)
  • “Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary holocaust. [“world storm” ? J.D.] For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary. …these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character [A general war will] wipe out all these racial trash [Völkerabfälle – original was given at Marxist websites as “petty hidebound nations” J.D.] down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” — Friedrich Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849

  • “We discovered that in connection with these figures the German national simpletons and money-grubbers of the Frankfurt parliamentary swamp always counted as Germans the Polish Jews as well, although this dirtiest of all races, neither by its jargon nor by its descent, but at most only through its lust for profit, could have any relation of kinship with Frankfurt.” — Friedrich Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 29. Apr. 1849 (See entry of 17 Jan. 2005)
  • “Germans and Magyars [of the Austro-Hungarian Empire] untied all these small, stunted and impotent little nations into a single big state and thereby enabled them to take part in a historical development from which, left to themselves, they would have remained completely aloof! Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness… In short, it turns out these ‘crimes’ of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history.” — Friedrich Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 15 February 1849 (See the entry of 6 April 2005)
  • “To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood which we are being offered here on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply that hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution. … Then there will be a struggle, an ‘unrelenting life-and-death struggle’ against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and most determined terrorism  not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!” — Friedrich Engels, “Democratic Pan-Slavism” Neue Rheinische Zeitung 15. Feb. 1849  (See entry of 16 Jan. 2005 and 3 April 2005)
  • only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution there will be a struggle, an ‘inexorable life-and-death struggle’, against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and ruthless terror not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!”  — Friedrich Engels, “Democratic Pan-Slavism, Continued,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 16 February 1849 (See entry of 29 Jan. 2007)
  • “We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” — Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels “Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849 (See entry of 29 Jan. 2007)
  • “The workers must try as much as ever possible to counteract all bourgeois attempts at appeasement, and compel the democrats to carry out their present terrorist phrases. They must act in such a manner that the revolutionary excitement does not collapse immediately after the victory. On the contrary, they must maintain it as long as possible. Far from opposing so-called excesses, such as sacrificing to popular revenge of hated individuals or public buildings to which hateful memories are attached, such deeds must not only be tolerated, but their direction must be taken in hand, for examples’ sake. …from the first moment of victory we must no longer direct our distrust against the beaten reactionary enemy, but against our former allies [the democratic forces], against the party who are now about to exploit the common victory for their own ends only. … The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff, to put themselves under the order, not of the [new] Government, but of the revolutionary authorities set up by the workers. … Destruction of the influence of bourgeois democracy over the workers [is a main point] which the proletariat, and therefore also the League, has to keep in eye during and after the coming upheaval. …to be able effectively to oppose the petty bourgeois democracy. In order that [the democratic party] whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat.” — Karl Marx “Address to the Communist League” March 1850, cited in E. Burns (ed): A Handbook of Marxism 1935, p.66-68.
  • “Removed and expelled members, like suspect individuals in general, are to be watched in the interest of the League, and prevented from doing harm. Intrigues of such individuals are at once to be reported to the community concerned.” — Rules written by Karl Marx and others for the Communist League (Art. 42) 1850 (See entry of 18 Jan. 2005)

  • “Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.” — Karl Marx, “Forced Emigration”, New York Tribune 1853 (See entry of 29 Jan. 2005)
  • “Even with Europe in decay, still a war should have roused the healthy elements; a war should have awakened a lot of hidden powers, and surely so much energy would have been present among 250 million people that at least a respectable battle would have occurred, in which both parties could have reaped some honor, as much honor as courage and bravery can gain on the battlefield.” — Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, “The Boring War”, 1854 (See entry of 13 March 2005)
  • “Those dogs of democrats and liberal riff-raff will see that we’re the only chaps who haven’t been stultified by the ghastly period of peace.” — Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels (Letter, 25 February 1859) (See entry of 11 Feb. 2005)

“Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loan-mongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.

Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.

The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.”

— Karl Marx, “The Russian Loan”, New York Daily Tribune, 4 January 1856 (See entry of 20 May 2009)

The Bible Assumes Private Property and Business Ownership

(Originally posted February 2011)

Here is a great quote from Dr. Grudem:

A. PRIVATE PROPERTY

According to the teachings of the Bible, government should both document and protect the ownership of private property in a nation.

The Bible regularly assumes and reinforces a system in which property belongs to individuals, not to the government or to society as a whole.

We see this implied in the Ten Commandments, for example, because the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15), assumes that human beings will own property that belongs to them individually and not to other people. I should not steal my neighbor’s ox or donkey because it belongs to my neighbor, not to me and not to anyone else.

The tenth commandment makes this more explicit when it prohibits not just stealing but also desiring to steal what belongs to my neighbor:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exod. 20:17).

The reason I should not “covet” my neighbor’s house or anything else is that these things belong to my neighbor, not to me and not to the community or the nation.

This assumption of private ownership of property, found in this fundamental moral code of the Bible, puts the Bible in direct opposition to the communist system advocated by Karl Marx. Marx said:

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.

One reason why communism is so incredibly dehumanizing is that when private property is abolished, government controls all economic activity. And when government controls all economic activity, it controls what you can buy, where you will live, and what job you will have (and therefore what job you are allowed to train for, and where you go to school), and how much you will earn. It essentially controls all of life, and human liberty is destroyed. Communism enslaves people and destroys human freedom of choice. The entire nation becomes one huge prison. For this reason, it seems to me that communism is the most dehumanizing economic system ever invented by man.

Other passages of Scripture also support the idea that property should belong to individuals, not to “society” or to the government (except for certain property required for proper government purposes, such as government offices, military bases, and streets and highways). The Bible contains many laws concerning punishments for stealing and appropriate restitution for damage of another person’s farm animals or agricultural fields (for example, see Exod. 21:28-36; 22:1-15; Deut. 22:1-4; 23:24-25). Another commandment guaranteed that property boundaries would be protected: “You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in the inheritance that you will hold in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess” (Deut. 19:14). To move the landmark was to move the boundaries of the land and thus to steal land that belonged to one’s neighbor (compare Prov. 22:28; 23:10).

Another guarantee of the ownership of private property was the fact that, even if property was sold to someone else, in the Year of Jubilee it had to return to the family that originally owned it:

It shall be a Jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan (Lev. 25:10).

This is why the land could not be sold forever: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me” (Lev. 25:23).

This last verse emphasizes the fact that private property is never viewed in the Bible as an absolute right, because all that people have is ultimately given to them by God, and people are viewed as God’s “stewards” to manage what he has entrusted to their care.

The earth is the LORD’S and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein (Ps. 24:1; compare Ps. 50:10-12; Hag. 2:8).

Yet the fact remains that, under the overall sovereign lordship of God himself, property is regularly said to belong to individuals, not to the government and not to “society” or the nation as a whole.

When Samuel warned the people about the evils that would be imposed upon them by a king, he emphasized the fact that the monarch, with so much government power, would “take” and “take” and “take” from the people and confiscate things for his own use:

So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day” (1 Sam. 8:10-18).

This prediction was tragically fulfilled in the story of the theft of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite by Ahab the wicked king and Jezebel, his even more wicked queen (see 1 Kings 21:1-29). The regular tendency of human governments is to seek to take control of more and more of the property of a nation that God intends to be owned and controlled by private individuals.

SOCIALISM likewise is the taking over of private property, industry, and the capital of a man’s labor. Here is a good working definition of socialism followed by Professor Richards describing it as well:

In order to have a “favorable” view of socialism one must have either forgotten what the entire world learned about socialism from the late nineteenth century on, or have never learned anything about it in the first place. The latter is obviously true of much of the younger generation.

Socialism started out being defined as “government ownership of the means of production,” which is why the government of the Soviet Union confiscated all businesses, factories, and farms, murdering millions of dissenters and resisters in the process. It is also why socialist political parties in Europe, once in power, nationalized as many of the major industries (steel, automobiles, coal mines, electricity, telephone ser­vices) as they could. The Labour Party in post-World War II Great Britain would be an example of this. All of this was done, ostensibly, in the name of pursuing material “equality.”

In the foreword to the 1976 edition of his famous book, The Road to Serfdom, Nobel laureate economist Friedrich Hayek wrote that the definition of “socialism” evolved in the twentieth century to mean income redis­tribution in pursuit of “equality,” not through govern­ment ownership of the means of production but through the institutions of the welfare state and the “progres­sive” income tax. The means may have changed, but the ostensible end—equality—remained the same.

Hayek’s mentor, fellow Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, explained in his classic treatise Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, that the wel­fare state, the “progressive” income tax, and especially pervasive government regulation of business were all tools of “destructionism” in the eyes of the socialists of his day. That is, he observed that the proponents of socialism always employed a two-pronged approach: (1) the government takeover of as many industries and as much land as possible, and (2) attempts to destroy existing capitalist societies with onerous taxes, regula­tions, the welfare state, inflation, or whatever they thought could get the job done.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism (New Jersey, NJ: Regnery, 2016), 4-5.

Democrats Favor Socialism Over Capitalism… Sorta

Here Dennis Prager discusses a recent poll showing that Democrat are in LOVE with socialism. USA TODAY notes the following about the poll:

According to a Gallup poll published Monday, a majority of Democrats no longer hold a positive view of capitalism, while nearly 60 percent of them feel good about socialism. More than 70 percent of Republicans, on the other hand, see capitalism positively, while only 16 percent of them have a positive view of socialism.

The positive view of socialism among Democrats, and those who lean Democrat, actually dropped a point from 58 percent in 2016. But in those same two years, positive feelings about capitalism plummetted from 56 to 47 percent

At one point Prager notes that socialism hasn’t made one dime in money… which made me think of this quote from an excellent book:

  • A 2009 study by the Swedish Economic Association discovered that the Swedish economy had failed to create any new jobs on net from 1950 to 2005. Thanks to conservative reforms, however, progress was finally being made, and Sweden’s national debt went from 80 percent of GDP in 1992 to 40 percent by 2008.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism (New Jersey, NJ: Regnery, 2016), 79.

MiLENINal’s And The Ol’ Lie

Are Republicans ready to take this challenge from the far left seriously? Matt Gorman from the National Republican Congressional Committee weighs in on ‘Fox News @ Night with Shannon Bream.’

In one of the funniest posts in a while, TWITCHY want to shorten Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s name:

We need a nickname for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It’s too long to type it all out. Post your suggestions here….

  • “She Guevara”
  • “Bolshichick”
  • “Bolshevik Barbie”
  • “Alex from the East Bloc”
  • “Bronxhevik”
  • “MARXandria”
  • “MiLENINal”

Michael Medved discusses the growing popularity (popularity should be in quotes) of socialism. News organizations like the AP have headlines that say “Democratic socialism surging in the age of Trump,” but what does “surge” mean? While it is still worrisome that soo many young people do not know what socialism is, the membership rates are still nowhere near the NRA, of 5,000,000[+] persons.

DNC Chair Says Socialism Future of Democrat Party

This will ALL server to splinter the Democrats.

WESTERN JOURNALISM writes about the exchange:

“What does this tell you about where the Democratic Party is going today?” Press said.

Perez responded by saying his daughters “were both texting me about their excitement over Alexandria, because she really, she represents the future of our party.”

The 28-year-old Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, who want to abolish capitalism in favor of an economy run by the state or “the workers.”

RUSH LIMBAUGH discusses what the turnout for this young socialist REALLY says:

CALLER: It’s just amazing that the Democratic Party is literally turning itself inside out now because of this one primary election. And I don’t know what the numbers were in terms of the turnout, but it can’t have been very large in an election where —

RUSH: It was a sizable — she beat this dinosaur by like 15 points, and the polls had him winning by 35. It was a shocker, there’s no question.

[….]

RUSH: The turnout in the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was under 20%. The caller was right. The turnout less than 20%. That was easy pickings for some dedicated Democrat socialist to take over some district. That’s easy.

[….]

RUSH: So, yeah, the turnout in that race won by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was under 20%. Folks, do you realize that if this clown, Crowley, had just got his base out, that this whole thing would not have happened? She wins this election with less than a 20% turnout. Our caller was right. The Democrats are going bonkers thinking this is the new wave in the Democrat Party.

And if Crowley, the incumbent, if your standard, ordinary, everyday Democrats, I know they’re a dwindling few, but if they had just shown up. But look at this. There’s another thing about this. We’re constantly told the Democrats have all the enthusiasm, right? The Democrats, they’re chomping at the bit! They can’t wait to get rid of Trump!

Now, I know Trump was not on this ballot. I know this was a primary. And I know it was just Ocasio-Cortez versus Crowley. But where was all this Democrat enthusiasm? I’ll guarantee you that Crowley’s voters thought he was a shoo-in because he’s the kind of Democrat that wins elections with nobody voting anyway. Just one of these guys for whom the seat has been eternal and expected.

But here comes this socialist-Marxist exciting a small percentage of that district and they’re the ones that showed up and turned out. But even if they get a hundred percent turnout of all the socialist-Marxists, that’s not gonna be enough to take back the House of Representatives. So they are, I think, what do you say, lying to themselves, fooling themselves. But it’s why the Democrats are concerned.

It’s not just that the Pelosi and the Schumer types would rather have their Marxism and socialism camouflaged. It’s not just that. It’s that they know that that wing of the Democrat Party in terms of raw numbers is really tiny. Not enough to win a national election, I mean, not even close. So you have a turnout of less than 20%, the seat turns, and now everybody’s talking about how this is a revolution in the Democrat Party? Give me a break. What it’s gonna end up doing is dividing and fracturing the Democrat Party.

POWERLINE adds to the fray!

…But most voters apparently aren’t convinced. Rasmussen Reports finds that given a choice between free enterprise and socialism, the overwhelming majority prefer freedom:

[V]oters reject socialism in no uncertain terms.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 74% of Likely U.S. Voters prefer a free market economic system over a socialist system. Only 13% think socialism is a better economic system, and just as many (13%) are undecided.

Of course, it is depressing to think that 13% of voters are dumb enough to want socialism, and being undecided between free markets and socialism is like being undecided between Bar Refaeli and Nancy Pelosi. But I suppose you could find 13% of poll respondents who will say the Sun rises in the West….

Our Founders Hated “Direct Democracy”

(Originally posted in April of 2015)

Take note of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution reads:

  • “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government

I tell my kids that we do not have a democracy, but a Democratic REPUBLIC; and I am basing these on the Constitution and the authors (and signers) understanding of it (commonly referred to as “original intent”).  Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America but chose not to.  In fact, they made very clear that we were not – and never to become – a democracy:

James Madison (fourth President, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the “father” of the Constitution) – “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general; been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

John Adams (American political philosopher, first vice President and second President) – “Remember, democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration) – “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.”

Fisher Ames (American political thinker and leader of the federalists [he entered Harvard at twelve and graduated by sixteen], author of the House language for the First Amendment) – “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.  These will provide an eruption and carry desolation in their way.´ /  “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty.”

Governor Morris (signer and penman of the Constitution) – “We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate… as [it has]  everywhere terminated, in despotism….  Democracy!  Savage and wild.  Thou who wouldst bring down the virtous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.”

John Quincy Adams (sixth President, son of John Adams [see above]) – “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”

Noah Webster (American educator and journalist as well as publishing the first dictionary) – “In democracy… there are commonly tumults and disorders…..  therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government.  It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”

John Witherspoon (signer of the Declaration of Independence) – “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”

Zephaniah Swift (author of America’s first legal text) – “It may generally be remarked that the more a government [or state] resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”

CATO Article:

Critics have long derided the Electoral College as a fusty relic of a bygone era, an unnecessary institution that one day might undermine democracy by electing a minority president. That day has arrived, assuming Gov. Bush wins the Florida recount as seems likely.

The fact that Bush is poised to become president without a plurality of the vote contravenes neither the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. The wording of our basic law is clear: The winner in the Electoral College takes office as president. But what of the spirit of our institutions? Are we not a democracy that honors the will of the people? The very question indicates a misunderstanding of our Constitution.

James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these two-fold divisions — the separation of powers and federalism — provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn’t that principle essential to our form of government? The Founders’ handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that?

The filtering of the popular will through the Electoral College is an affirmation, rather than a betrayal, of the American republic. Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Nonetheless, such fidelity will strike some as blind adherence to the past. For those skeptics, I would point out two other advantages the Electoral College offers.

First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas. In the 2000 election, for example, Vice President Gore could have put together a plurality or majority in the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and California.

The victims in such elections would be those regions too sparsely populated to merit the attention of presidential candidates. Pure democrats would hardly regret that diminished status, but I wonder if a large and diverse nation should write off whole parts of its territory. We should keep in mind the regional conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an important part of our federalist system — a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power, but even in our own time we have found that devolving power to the states leads to important policy innovations (welfare reform).

If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic.

How did the terms “Elector” and “Electoral College” come into usage?

The term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.” In the Federalist Papers (No. 68), Alexander Hamilton refers to the process of selecting the Executive, and refers to “the people of each State (who) shall choose a number of persons as electors,” but he does not use the term “electoral college.”

The founders appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire (962 – 1806). An elector was one of a number of princes of the various German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had a right to participate in the election of the German king (who generally was crowned as emperor). The term “college” (from the Latin collegium), refers to a body of persons that act as a unit, as in the college of cardinals who advise the Pope and vote in papal elections. In the early 1800’s, the term “electoral college” came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as “college of electors.”

The Free Market vs. Nationalization In Protecting the Environment

(See PRAGER U’s PLAYLIST) Here is an excerpt that the above video compliments.

It is a hallmark of socialist governments everywhere to nationalize heavy industries like petroleum, and, in the process, turn them into government-supervised environmental criminals unaccountable to property owners and consumers. For example, when privately owned British Petroleum (BP) caused an accidental oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it immediately established a $20 billion fund to pay future claims of damages and did everything it could to clean up the mess. It had legal obligations and its corporate reputation at stake. When the Mexican government’s oil company, Pemex, causes an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico—and there have been many—it claims “sovereign immunity” from any legal damages. In the first five months of 2015, Pemex was responsible for three catastrophic oil rig explosions in the Gulf of Mexico that caused several deaths, numerous injuries to oil platform workers, and generated air and water pollution. Pemex claimed that the explosions caused no oil spill, but satellite images taken by Greenpeace Mexico showed a two-and-a-half-mile long oil slick reaching from the exploded oil platform. “Pemex has proven time and time again that you cannot trust their statements,” said Gustavo Ampugnani of Greenpeace Mexico.

The United States is not immune from socialist-d riven environmental problems. Many utility compa­nies, for example, are government-owned with less than stellar results. In 2015, to take just one recent example, the people of Flint, Michigan, were alerted to a fright-cuing environmental debacle. The city government, supposedly in an effort to save money, switched its city’s water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River, despite the fact that the Flint River had long been known to be extraordinarily polluted. The Flint city government (and the state’s Department of Environ­mental Quality, according to a class action lawsuit) failed to properly treat water from the Flint River. The result was that city residents drank and bathed in water full of lead and other dangerous chemicals.

For many intellectuals, the attraction of socialism is that it is “rational”; it is a “planned” economy, planned by people like them. In reality, the environ­mental and economic results of socialism are a litany of disaster.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism (New Jersey, NJ: Regnery, 2016), 120-121.

Exactly Like The NAZI Youth

It doesn’t matter if your libertarian atheists, or Democrats (which all of the below are), if you step out of line with the end goal (socialism), violence from the Left is the consequence in and failing society.

Antifa Mob Shouts Down Dr. Yaron Brook, Assaults Students At King’s College In London (DAILY WIRE)

A mob of masked Antifa members stormed a lecture hall at King’s College in London on Monday night, shouting down — and then shutting down — an event being held by the Ayn Rand Institute featuring Ayn Rand Board of Directors chairman Dr. Yaron Brook and internet personality Sargon of Akkad.

According to The Washington Times, the event, hosted by the King’s College Libertarian Society, was supposed to be a “discussion about Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism … followed by a question and answer period.” But the event took a turn for the terrifying when Antifa burst into the hall, made their way to the stage and began threatening the speakers with violence. Fights broke out on stage.

Dr. Brooks was lucky to escape unscathed. Audience members were able to catch the shocking incident on video, but the student recording was attacked……..

  • In order to become ‘Führer’ of Germany, Hitler felt that speeches and propaganda were not enough to win him the election. His own private army, the SA, helped him; they beat Communists up, interrupted their meetings and deterred their campaigning. Next, Hitler had about 4000 Communists arrested and imprisoned. The newspapers were shut down. SA were waiting in the streets to beat anti-Nazis up. (IN)

Progressives Shout Down Christina Hoff Sommers At Portland Law School (HOT AIR)

Christina Hoff Sommers was scheduled to speak today at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. Yesterday, in anticipation of her arrival, a coalition of progressive groups led by a local chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild announced they would be protesting her appearance. Specifically, a letter released by the group said that Sommers was a “known fascist” and that her invitation to speak was an “act of aggression and violence” toward others.

In case you had any doubt, the violence and aggression they are talking about here is speech. “Free speech is certainly an important tenet to a free, healthy society, but that freedom stops when it has a negative and violent impact on other individuals. There is no debate here.” Here’s the letter in full….