“If someone calls it socialism,” said Rev. William Barber at the August meeting of the Democratic National Committee, “then we must compel them to acknowledge that the Bible must then promote socialism, because Jesus offered free health care to everyone, and he never charged a leper a co-pay.”

Barber’s statement brought secular progressives to their feet in thunderous applause. That included DNC chair Tom Perez, who says that democratic socialists like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represent “the future of our party.” That’s a party once headed by men like John F. Kennedy, who warned of the “fanaticism and fury” — the “ruthless, godless tyranny” — of the “communist conspiracy.”

Describing the U.S. Constitution and the Bible as “socialist documents,” the Rev. Barber exhorted the faithful: “If you want to have a moral debate, bring it on, baby!”

A moral debate on socialism and Christianity, pastor? Sure, let’s have it.

But there’s no need to pick on Rev. Barber. He’s interchangeable with any number of “social justice” proponents on the Religious Left. His statement actually pales to what was published in the Jesuit-run America magazine a few weeks ago — a stunning piece titled “The Catholic Case for Communism.” The column, which was written by an America staff writer named Dean Dettloff, came with a defense and explanation by America’s editor-in-chief, Fr. Matt Malone, S.J., called “Why we published an essay sympathetic to communism.”

The spectacle prompted one reader to comment, “What will America publish next, ‘The Catholic Case for Atheism’? or ‘The Catholic Case for Satanism’?”

That’s no laughing matter. The Roman Catholic Church in the 1937 encyclical Divini Redemptoris referred to communism as a “satanic scourge,” a “truly diabolical” instrument of the “sons of darkness.”

Can you imagine a publication in 2019 defending such an ideology? What did communism produce in the interim, between 1937 and 2019? Only 100 million corpses or so.

What Did Lenin Think of Religion?

But back to this democratic-socialism infatuation by many on the modern Religious Left. I dealt with this not long ago in a recent piece laying out at length what the Catholic Church has taught about socialism and even its alleged more “democratic” variants. Here, too, this article could run thousands of words with endless examples, including some from the very founders of socialism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and past democratic socialists and Social Democrats refuting this stuff. Socialism is, in Marxist theory, the final transitionary step to communism.

Here today, I’ll offer merely a snapshot from Vladimir Lenin himself — who, for the record, was a Social Democrat. Yes, you heard that right. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union began life in 1898 as the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. In 1903, at the party’s 2nd Congress, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin split their Bolshevik faction from their rival Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were self-professed Social Democrats.

And what did Lenin say about religion? “Religion is opium for the people,” wrote Lenin in December 1905, echoing his hero, Karl Marx. “Religion is a sort of spiritual booze.” That was a mild assessment from a man who wrote that “there is nothing more abominable than religion,” and “all worship of a divinity is a necrophilia.” Yes, necrophilia.

Sticking to this 1905 statement, Lenin saw socialism as incompatible with religious belief: “Everyone must be absolutely free to … be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule.” He declared: “Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.” Sounding like a 21st-century secular progressive in America, Lenin insisted that “religion must be declared a private affair.”

Of course, once Lenin and his Bolsheviks took over a decade later, they refused to tolerate religion even as a private affair. In fact, even in that 1905 letter, Lenin conceded as much: “We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned.” In his Soviet state, the Party was the supreme, infallible authority, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would relentlessly pursue what Mikhail Gorbachev called “a wholesale war on religion.”

Lenin continued, stating that in order “to combat the religious fog … we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers.” Lenin wanted a political system “cleansed of medieval mildew.” He wanted to halt “the religious humbugging of mankind.”

‘Religion is the Opium of the People’

Other examples from Lenin? I could go on and on. These are tame examples taken from a decade prior to when Lenin came to power and began murdering by the thousands. This is the restrained Lenin. Still, one can see the absolute repudiation of religion vis-à-vis communism, socialism, and democratic socialism.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Four years later, in May of 1909, Lenin repeated: “Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the cornerstone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion.” Here, Lenin was writing explicitly on behalf of fellow “Social Democrats.” What he wrote is worth quoting at length, given what our Christian “democratic socialist” brethren now assert:

It is the absolute duty of Social-Democrats to make a public statement of their attitude towards religion. Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i.e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. … Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organization, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class. …

Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion. … We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion.

This combat must be waged in order to reverse religion’s hold on the “backward sections of the town proletariat” — that is, the town idiots.

No Place for Religion in Socialism

Could a pastor (perhaps the Rev. Barber) or a priest who subscribes to America magazine be a fellow Social Democrat and member of the Party? Apparently, even in Lenin’s day, a peculiar priest or two must have occasionally considered hooking up with Lenin and his Social Democrats. Lenin himself reflected on the absurd thought:

The question is often brought up whether a priest can be a member of the Social-Democratic Party or not, and this question is usually answered in an unqualified affirmative, the experience of the European Social-Democratic parties being cited as evidence. But this experience was the result, not only of the application of the Marxist doctrine to the workers’ movement, but also of the special historical conditions in Western Europe which are absent in Russia … so that an unqualified affirmative answer in this case is incorrect.

It cannot be asserted once and for all that priests cannot be members of the Social-Democratic Party; but neither can the reverse rule be laid down. If a priest comes to us to take part in our common political work and conscientiously performs Party duties, without opposing the program of the Party, he may be allowed to join the ranks of the Social-Democrats; for the contradiction between the spirit and principles of our program and the religious convictions of the priest would in such circumstances be something that concerned him alone, his own private contradiction. … But, of course, such a case might be a rare exception even in Western Europe, while in Russia it is altogether improbable. And if, for example, a priest joined the Social-Democratic Party and made it his chief and almost sole work actively to propagate religious views in the Party, it would unquestionably have to expel him from its ranks.

If a left-wing priest was foolish enough to join the Party, Lenin and the boys would accept his help (Lenin is infamous for allegedly referring to such people as “useful idiots”). But if the strange priest ever tried to share his faith with the fellas, well, he would be shown the door and the boot.

Lenin knew better. So, too, did Marx: “Communism begins where atheism begins,” he asserted.

The Antithesis to Religion

Once the Bolsheviks took over Russia, atheism was required of Party officials. Any lingering religious sentiment by the Party member must be purged. This was likewise true for the American communist apparatchiks. “Many workers join the Communist Party who still have some religious scruples, or religious ideas,” conceded William Z. Foster, head of the Communist Party U.S.A., in testimony to Congress, “but a worker who will join the Communist Party, who understands the elementary principles of the Communist Party, must necessarily be in the process of liquidating his religious beliefs and, if he still has any lingerings when he joins the Party, he will soon get rid of them.”

This is why religious people generally have historically understood communism and socialism to be antithetical to religion: the communists and socialists told us they were.

You know you’re in spiritual darkness when not even the religious can be counted on to refute the anti-religiousness of communism and socialism.

I know that some Religious Left Christians will take issue with this article focusing on the likes of Lenin and William Z. Foster. Fair enough. But that’s my focus here in this article (just one of numerous I’ve written on socialism and communism), and it isn’t irrelevant. These things have been thought about for a long time. This isn’t new.

This is crucial history that the modern Religious Left surely doesn’t know, no doubt because it was never learned. Our universities have failed to teach this material, instead criticizing anti-communism and anti-socialism. We are now reaping what we’ve sown. You know you’re in spiritual darkness when not even the religious can be counted on to refute the anti-religiousness of communism and socialism.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and chief academic fellow of the Institute for Faith and Freedom at Grove City College. His latest book (April 2017) is A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century. He is also the author of 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative. His other books include The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

The Economic Dimension Of Liberty Protected By The Constitution

“Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“The enviable condition of the people of the United States is often too much ascribed to the physical advantages of their soil & climate …. But a just estimate of the happiness of our country will never overlook what belongs to the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government.”

– James Madison

America’s Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words “free enterprise’ are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above.

Already, in 1787, Americans were enjoying the rewards of individual enterprise and free markets. Their dedication was to securing that freedom for posterity. The learned men drafting America’s Constitution understood history – mankind’s struggle against poverty and government oppression. And they had studied the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers.

They were familiar with the near starvation of the early Jamestown settlers under a communal production and distribution system and Governor Bradford’s diary account of how all benefited after agreement that each family could do as it wished with the fruits of its own labors.

Later, in 1776, Adam Smith’s INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and Say’s POLITICAL ECONOMY had come at just the right time and were perfectly compatible with the Founders’ own passion for individual liberty. Jefferson said these were the best books to be had for forming governments based on principles of freedom.

They saw a free market economy as the natural result of their ideal of liberty. They feared concentrations of power and the coercion that planners can use in planning other peoples lives; and they valued freedom of choice and acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of such choice as being the very essence of liberty. They envisioned a large and prosperous republic of free people, unhampered by government interference. The Founders believed the American people, possessors of deeply rooted character and values, could prosper if left free to:

The American Founding generation fought a long, bloody war to free themselves from a tyrannical government, only to see the people eventually embrace the very system they struggled to throw off.

That may seem like a stinging indictment, but careful examination of U.S. governance today reveals that it rests on essentially the same philosophical foundation as the 18th century British system Americans rejected.

The founding generation developed a brand new conception of government, resting it on the consent of the governed and the idea that governing institutions must operate within constitutional constraints. Today, we still see the vestiges of those founding ideals in political rhetoric and popular conscience, but the U.S. government long ago threw off constitutional fetters and now functions much like the English system Americans fought to free themselves from.

In Rights of Man, Thomas Paine captured the essence of American constitutionalism that evolved during the Revolution, characterizing the Pennsylvania constitution as “a political bible.”

“Nothing was more common when any debate rose on the principles of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority, then for members to take the printed Constitution out of their pocket, and read the chapter with which such matter in debate was connected.”

In America, law was king and constitutions stood as the supreme law of the land.

It wasn’t that the British system lacked a constitution, but its unwritten nature and the English conception of its place in the political order was vastly different than the one that evolved in the American states.

In American thought, constitutions remained above governments. They limited the action of every governmental branch, and political systems were subject to words of their constitutions. In short, constitutions stood as the supreme law of the land, and the entire system of government flowed out of them.

The Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution captures the essence of American constitutional thought.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” [Emphasis added]

In the English conception, the constitution was not a superior law set above the government. In a sense it was the government. The actions of Parliament, the courts and the King formed the substance of the constitution and were in no way limited by it.

In the British system, the people were not sovereign – Parliament was. In essence, the government itself enjoyed supremacy. As historian Gordon S. Wood put it in the Creation of the American Republic, any limits on Parliament were strictly theoretical – even moral and natural law restrictions. Constitutional and legal limits only bound lawmakers as far as lawmakers were willing to be bound.

For the Englishman, there was no distinction between the “constitution or frame of government” and the “system of laws.” They were the same. Every act of Parliament was, in essence, part of the constitution. Wood quotes Blackstone to make this point.

“The English constitution therefore could not be any sort of fundamental law. Most eighteenth-century writers…could not conceive of the constitution as anything anterior and superior to the government and ordinary law, but rather regarded itself, as ‘that assemblage of laws, customs and institutions which form the general system; according to which the several powers of the state are distributed, and their respective rights are secured to the different members of the community.’ The English constitution was not, as the Americans eventually came to see with condescension, committed to parchment.” [Emphasis original]

Wood makes the implications of this system crystal clear, writing, “All law customary and statutory was thus constitutional.”

In a nutshell, the 18th century British system the Americans went to war to free themselves from rested on a living, breathing constitution. The government itself defined and enforced whatever limits it might have. Essentially, it was unlimited in power and authority.

As American political thought evolved, the English systems became absurd. Political power was conceived as limited, first by principle, and second by the will of the people as expressed through written constitutions.

The founding generation believed equity – justice according to natural law or right – bound and limited all political power. Government served a limited purpose, as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, “to secure these rights,” life, liberty and property. It followed that the people establishing government retained the right and authority to maintain it within those limits. Government was not supreme; it was merely an agent of the people. Written constitutions served a limiting purpose. They provide the “political bible” Paine referred to, specifically circumscribing the scope of governmental power. As Paine put it:

A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution, is power without a right.”

Within this philosophical framework, a sovereign government institution such as Parliament is fundamentally tyrannical.

Even a casual look at American governance today reveals a system having much more in common with the 18th century British model than the one the founding generation forged nearly 250 years ago. America operates under a “living breathing” constitution with the U.S. Supreme Court taking on the role of sovereign.

In 1776, the British Parliament acted with absolute sovereign authority. Today, the federal government rules with that same kind of unlimited power. The federal government determines the extent of its own authority through the Supreme Court. Any limits on Congress or the president are merely theoretical, constrained only by the whims of five out of nine politically connected lawyers. Every opinion of the Supreme Court becomes “part of the fabric of the Constitution.”

For all practical purposes, the federal government today operates without any limits at all. Everything the federal government does and approves is considered “constitutional.”

Even though the founders committed the U.S. Constitution to parchment, judges, politicians and academics have morphed the meaning of words and changed the character of the “supreme law of the land” into something that the framers and ratifiers would scarcely recognize.

Americans won the Revolution, but they squandered the fruits of victory in a quest for government solutions to every problem. Instead of a limited government committed to protecting basic rights – life, liberty and property – we have an institution that attempts to control every aspect of our lives.

We have become what our forefathers sought to destroy.

Mike Maharrey, Tenth Amendment Center

Major Poll Has Great News For Trump” [Daily Wire story]

A new poll has some astonishing news for those who keep seeing President Trump losing in polls in head-to-head competition with the leading Democratic Party presidential candidates Democrats: All three leading Democratic candidates — former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — have lower favorability ratings than President Trump.

It makes sense, at least if there are still Americans who love freedom.

The Democratic Party has become decisively, openly and unflinchingly ANTI-freedom. They are now — officially and by the open admission of each of their candidates — in favor of repealing the Bill of Rights, including the First and Second Amendments. They oppose borders. They openly celebrate terrorist members of Congress. They tolerate — and in some cases endorse — openly violent little savages (Antifa) who throw violent and dangerous temper tantrums in the streets, often with no opposition by the police in Democratically-run cities, and then go home to their parents’ basements.

Democrats and leftists hate people, they hate liberty, they loathe freedom of association, and they won’t even hear about free markets. They are all about unlimited taxation, unlimited wealth redistribution. You don’t support such ideas when you love humanity and the potential for human greatness and achievement. You only support socialism when you’re a sour old parasite, embittered by envy and other psychological neuroses.

It’s no longer a stretch to call them Communists. The myth of “democratic socialism” is a laugh. If you gain the consent (likely through voter fraud) of 50.5 percent of the population to murder 49.5 percent of the population, this doesn’t make murder right. Nor is it right with respect to enslavement of 49.5 percent of the population, who will be forced to work for and pay the way of those whom these tyrannical socialists manage to get into their coalition.

No matter what President Trump’s actual or perceived weaknesses, the loathing and contempt that Democrats so openly express toward freedom, liberty and the U.S. Constitution can only go so far. President Trump naturally benefits.

Keep in mind that President Trump has NO support from the media, NO support in public schools or universities, NO support in the influential technology industry, NO support in the entertainment or sports culture that most voters pay attention to … he has almost no support anywhere, except among people who still love the freedom we have left. It’s as simple as that.

When you spit on people’s freedom, you’re spitting on people’s right to exist. You can do it in the name of “I love you” or “I care about you”, but it’s still spitting. Mabye there ARE enough Americans left who at least sense the contradiction here. A lot of them have been emotionally, physically and sexually abused or tormented by their own families. Maybe they can recognize the same thing in their politicians. “Oh, I’m not hurting you. I love you. I am here to take care of you”. Beyond creepy.

Here’s hoping the poll is right, and that it holds.

—-Dr. Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

“Public Enemies List: Trump supporters face boycotts, bullying amid calls to be named and shamed” [Fox News headline]

“They want to cost people their livelihoods just because you don’t agree with them politically,” Sam DeMarco, Allegheny County councilman and chairman of the county’s Republican Party, told the local CBS affiliate. “It’s not just absurd, but I believe it’s dangerous.”

DeMarco continued, “People who they just don’t agree with, they want to take and punish. I absolutely believe this is a fascist behavior, and I totally reject it.”

This is real.

Anyone who’s a Trump supporter knows that opponents of the President feel justified in expressing any feeling they wish against opponents. Reason and persuasion are not their methods. Today’s leftists/Democrats are basically of the Antifa mentality: Destroy by any means necessary. Antifa does it physically and through violence. Most opponents of President Trump seek to do it through sneering, intimidation, slander and threats.

Once upon a time, American leftists presumably thought they had reason, facts and logic on their side. They didn’t resort to the level of attack and slander they use now. Many of them didn’t use any. They may have been wrong, but most of them were not evil. They were naive and uninformed enough to believe that socialist “utopias” in places like Cuba and the Soviet Union were genuinely the way of the future.

Today, American leftists obviously don’t believe they have reason, facts and logic on their side. So they resort to the only thing that’s left: Force. Force can take many forms. The obvious form is violence. However, threats, lies and intimidation are an equally potent form of manipulation.

What’s most revealing about Antifa — the terrorist spokespersons of today’s American left — are not their tactics of violence and intimidation against ordinary Trump supporters. What’s most revealing is the total silence and lack of opposition from the Democrats and leftists we now may assume they represent.

Ultimately, the liars and the terrorists are at war with reality. Their methods betray their real insecurity. It doesn’t mean they cannot and will not do a lot of damage along the way. But in the long run, they cannot win, because the destructive, nihilistic nature of statism and socialism cannot create anything. All they have ever done is destroy.

Leftists know it. Today’s leftists are neither innocent nor ignorant. I cut them no slack. And it’s why they continue to intimidate. My advice to Trump supporters or anyone else who still loves freedom? Fight the leftists with everything you’ve got. Buy weapons of self-protection.

The aftermath of the next election — however it goes — will not be pretty. We have to face reality. Arm yourself with good intellectual arguments — not because leftists will ever listen, but so you’ll know them and feel confident in your right to live as a free man or woman. Start with Ayn Rand. Note that her ideas enrage the worst of the leftists, more than those of any other thinker. When you read her works, you’ll understand exactly why.

And most of all: See leftists as the pathetic, weak people they are. Because every time they open their mouths to lie, scream, cry, attack or threaten, they have told you all you need to know. They have no truth or logic on their side. All they have is hatred of Trump — and hatred of YOU. Hate is what animates and motivates them.

It will ultimately get them nowhere.

—by Dr. Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Here it is, Labor Day weekend 2019. Most take it for granted that without the labor movement, we would all be slaves working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

It’s naive and ignorant to assume such a thing. Think about it. What makes life easier, both in and out of the workplace? Technology and innovation. Does government pass laws commanding innovation? Did the labor movement cajole and legislate improved standards of human living into existence? Or did those things come about because (1) certain people choose to think/invent and (2) the profit motive in the free market makes it worthwhile for people to do so?

Take child labor laws. We’re led to believe that without child labor laws, young children would still be working in factories and retail stores today, even if all our other economic and technological expansion had occurred. Absurd! Does it occur to anyone that people who made their children labor did so only because it was required for the whole family to survive? And that once the standard of living improved enough, and once capitalism had made the economy grow enough, that no reasonable parent would want his 10-year-old in the work force? Government child labor laws get the credit for what only a free, innovative and expanding marketplace could ever have done. Ditto for other labor laws.

Are people really ignorant and naive enough to assume that parents in 1850 or 1880 wanted their little children to work any more than parents in 2019? And that without an order from the government, such activity would never have stopped?

I don’t like to celebrate “Labor Day” because it’s really just a way to celebrate socialism-lite and the labor movement. But by celebrating the coercion of the labor movement, you’re really saying it’s a good thing for government to intervene in the economy. Unfortunately, anything arguably “good” done by the government would have happened anyway, and anything else the government does only hampers, stifles or decimates economic growth.

If it’s workers and ordinary people you really care about, then it’s free markets and capitalism you ought to celebrate. Why? Because these are the only things that lead to innovation, economic growth and improvement in the standard of living for all. Even charity thrives much better under capitalism. Contrast the situation in Venezuela with any semi-free market country and you’ll see what I mean. Capitalism leads to human happiness. The socialism of the labor movement, in all its forms, leads to stagnation, misery and ultimately despair.

The deeper issue is that labor does not lead to economic growth. Human thinking does. Thinking gives rise to action and it’s the only thing that makes activity rational, purposeful and productive. Mindless action is random mental illness. Purposeful, accountable and productive labor is only made possible by the free, innovative markets of capitalism. It’s the precise opposite of what we’re taught, but it’s true.

It’s human thought and innovation by the business geniuses of the world who give people engaged in labor something to do. It’s true that labor is very important. But it will never be as important as the thought that gives rise to it.

We shouldn’t celebrate Labor Day. We should celebrate Human Mind Day. And the only system that fosters the development of the human mind — through science and free enterprise — is freedom, which includes both economic and political liberty. No matter how much we’re told otherwise, it will always be the case.

Michael J. Hurd

How did Democrats get so radical?

Bill Clinton signed welfare reform and capital gains tax cuts. Although very leftist himself, even Barack Obama was not the full-blown socialist-Communist today’s crop of Democrats are. Joe Biden, a consistent leftist for 50 years, gets to run as a “moderate” alternative to those who seek 90 percent tax rates (evidently he only wants 70 percent). How did it all happen?

The answer is simple: There was nowhere left to go.

Back at the end of Obama’s term, I wrote about how leftists are grouchy. It was before Donald Trump was taken seriously as a presidential candidate. They had already realized all their semi-socialist dreams. They had Obamacare, high taxes, unprecedented regulation and all the rest. They accomplished everything Democrats had promised for decades, and more. The Republican Congress, run by cowards, gave leftists even more than what they demanded. Democrats and politically connected socialists controlled much of the economy. What was left?

There was nothing left…other than the final two legs of the Constitution: The First and Second Amendments.

Going after the right to self-defense — including from the government, most of all — and the right to free speech … that’s what they have left. And they’re going for it. Antifa. 90 percent tax rates. Medicare for all. Free college for all. Guaranteed income for all. Hatred of Jews and Israel — it was always there. Donald Trump is merely their excuse. They wanted it all along, and there was nothing else to go for.

It had to happen, sooner or later. Your underlying premises scream for a consistent conclusion. The party of high taxes, little or no economic growth, perks for the connected rich while punishing real achievement and success — “You didn’t build that” — all had to lead to the only possible, consistent conclusion: totalitarianism.

Leftism/socialism is a hateful philosophy. It’s based on hatred of achievement, profit, individual well-being and success. Leftists either lack these things and envy those who possess competence; or possess competence themselves, and hate themselves for it. Hence the manifestation of socialism. Socialism soothes two of the sickest psychological maladies: Unearned guilt and envy.

You can say you’re not ideological. The fact remains, as I tell people every day in the therapy office: Your ideas underlie your emotions. Ideas are always implicit in your emotions. You cannot escape ideas any more than you can escape emotions. You just can’t!

So that’s it. Leftism had to lead to this. Forget President Trump. He was merely the catalyst. He’s the excuse.

Leftism is the sociopolitical equivalent of suicide-homicide. Yes, it’s THAT bad. Our liberty and freedom are the oxygen we breathe. Our liberty and freedom are what they seek to destroy. There’s no more room for civil differences of opinion. You can’t have civil differences of opinion with people who despise your liberty and want to take it all away. You have to stand up to them as you stand up to any emotional or physical abuser, or any tyrant: Tell them you’re not going to take it anymore, and you WILL fight back.