I’m on vacation for two weeks, but rather than leave the faithful readers without a Friday rant to stir up their animosity, I decided to go to the archives and revisit a couple of Frank on Friday Golden Oldies.  The following offering was posted on July 15, 2016.  For my fellow New Jersey residents, condemned as we are to death by a thousand taxes, it is a sobering reminder that things have only gotten worse.

As I write this from New Jersey, the land of the fee, with the roads badly paved, our Legislature has reached an impasse on a plan to increase our gasoline tax by 23 cents a gallon.  For many years, New Jerseyans have had the privilege of paying “only” 14.5 cents a gallon.  We never actually had an opportunity to enjoy this uncharacteristic gesture of government largesse, however, because New Jerseyans struggle under the crippling load of the highest overall tax burden of any of the 50 States.  Let’s recap.

New Jersey’s income tax is double the national average, and one of the highest in the nation.  The corporate tax is 33% higher than average, and the 2nd highest in the nation.  Our property taxes are twice the national average, and the highest in the nation.  Our sales tax is 27% higher than the average sale taxes in other States.  Our cigarette taxes are the 2nd highest nationwide. Then there are the estate and inheritance taxes.  That’s right, New Jersey is one of only three States that has both.  Adding insult to mortality, New Jersey’s estate tax exemption is the lowest in the nation at $675,000.  Given Jersey home values, that means that, if you own an average value home and some furniture, you’re over the limit.  What’s more, the estate and inheritance taxes each top out at 16%.

New Jersey is the most expensive place to die in America.  Put another way, when it’s cheaper to do anything in New York, you know you’re really getting screwed.  One way to look at it is that the exorbitant cost of death motivates New Jerseyans to keep living, so that they can keep paying all the other taxes. Insidious.  The burden is so bad that New Jerseyans with money are leaving the State in droves.  Think the rich don’t pay enough?  The recent departure of a New Jersey billionaire for Florida put the entire State budget at risk. 

Against the above-detailed tax landscape, our leaders repeatedly told us that it was only fair that the gas tax should be raised.  Why you ask?  Well, because New Jersey’s gas tax was not the highest in the nation.  A prime example of government logic hard at work.  So, back to the gas tax.  This year there was near unanimous agreement that the gas tax had to go up.  Why so urgent?  The Transportation Trust Fund, from which NJ spends $1.6 billion a year on road projects, is empty.  Why is it empty?  Maybe because New Jersey spends over $2 million per mile on road construction, maintenance and administration.  That’s three times more than the next highest state, and 12 times the national average. Wow!  Since New Jersey spends so much on roads, we must have the best roads in the country, right?  Wrong.  New Jersey roads are tied for 48th out of 50 for the worst urban roadways.  The solution?  Raise taxes, so that we can spend $2 billion a year on the roads.  Where does all that money go?  Mostly to unions and road contractors, then back to politicians.  The unions and contractors are paid top dollar to produce some of the worst roads in America, then the unions and contractors send “contributions” to the politicians, who approve more road spending.  An elegant means of keeping the graft equally spread around.

And so, it came to pass that New Jersey politicians, led by Governor Christie, concocted a plan to raise the gas tax.  In the name of “tax fairness” (a little known concept in New Jersey) while the gas tax was to go dramatically up, this was to be offset by tax reductions.  Oh, the horror!  The plan would eliminate the estate tax over a four-year period; increase the Earned Income Tax Credit from 30 percent to 40 percent of the federal level (because those who pay no tax at all deserve a raise); exempt retirees from paying state income taxes on up to $100,000 of retirement income; and allow the deduction of charitable contributions to New Jersey charities from state tax returns.

Tax fairness is where the plan ran into trouble with Democrats.  The Legislature failed to pass the proposal by July 1.  One Democrat legislator even was quoted as saying, “Tax fairness? We don’t need that.”  At this writing, no solution has emerged.  The Governor has closed down all road projects.  The unions, contractors and politicians can go only so long without a fresh infusion of tax dollars, so I expect they will break the logjam.  Even had the bill passed, the tax increase was immediate and the reductions were phased in over several years.  Sounds all too familiar, doesn’t it?  At the end of the day, I’m quite sure that the beleaguered taxpayers are in for one more good hard screwing.  Fairness?   We don’t need no stinkin’ fairness.

POSTSCRIPT – The NJ Legislature passed the tax bill in October 2016, raising the gas tax 158%, from 14.5 to 37.5 cents a gallon.  The estate tax was eliminated, but the inheritance tax remains.  The sales tax was reduced by a whopping 0.375%.  We still can’t deduct contributions to NJ charities.

The tax bill included a provision increasing the gas tax automatically whenever less gasoline usage results in lower revenues.  Perhaps because there are so many Teslas on NJ roads, the gas tax keeps going up.  It’s now 49.1 cents per gallon, up 338% in 10 years.  Oh yes, and our roads still suck.

In my life I have been accused of many things, but naivete has never been one of them.  On the contrary, I’ve always been afflicted with a maddening tendency to perceive things as they really are, while all around me are content to pretend that all is well.  It’s been a burden, especially when you work for the government.  Government functionaries who have risen to what they believe to be great heights are acutely reluctant to listen to the truth.  Because my name is Frank, I always had an overpowering compulsion to point out the obvious flaws in plans that my superiors considered to be genius.  These inconvenient truths never were welcome.  That’s probably why I never got ahead.

Now, as I rush headlong toward senescence, I’ve had an opportunity to reevaluate my beliefs.  I find myself disallusioned.  At first, I wanted to pursue a medical career.  I thought that medicine was the highest calling.  What could be more important than the practice of medicine?  There could be no better job then relieving the pain and afflictions of other human beings.  But that avocation was not to be, at least not for me, because I was incapable of mastering the mathematical skills necessary to pursue a scientific career.  In point of fact, I couldn’t understand the simple old math, let alone the New Math of algebra, geometry, and calculus.  Regardless, those who could master those skills were people I looked up to, until recently.

Having failed at science, or at least, having conceded that I would never make a competent scientist, I turned to what I considered the next best thing – government.  I took to heart Grover Cleveland’s maxim that “public service is a public trust.”  I threw myself into the study of political science.  I gained an understanding of political philosophy.

I studied history, because understanding the past was the best way to understand the present.  You can’t see where you’re going if you have no idea where you’ve come from.  As a result, I revered public servants, believing that most were dedicated to upholding our Constitution, and bettering the lives of their fellow citizens.

I grew up during a time in which people who expressed their discontent with government complained that there basically was no difference between Democrats and Republicans.  There once was something to that.  Both Republicans and Democrats once believed that there were limits to political disputes.  National security was non-political.  Politicians said, and believed, that “politics stopped at the waters’ edge.”

Before World War II there were groups like America First that advocated for isolationism.  Charles Lindbergh headed that group.  But when Pearl Harbor was attacked, all that dissent ended.  America First disappeared, and Lindbergh volunteered his services to helping America win the War.

Republicans and Democrats battled one another, to be sure.  But their differences were tempered by an underlying imperative.  The national interest.  Our disputes were about the best way to promote American values.  All public officials understood that there was a limit to public spending.  All public officials, regardless of their Party, agreed that our borders had to be secure to stop illegal immigrants from gaining access to our country.  That group once included Democrats such as Il Duce Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden.

All that changed, and not so long ago.  Democrats may be the worst offenders, but both Parties are to blame.  Somewhere along the line, we lost the notion that being an American meant that, sometimes sacrifice is necessary.  Those who fought World War II were called The Greatest Generation.  They understood sacrifice.

They were people who survived the Great Depression.  They were no strangers to sacrifice.  They didn’t expect the government to solve all their problems, and before FDR’s New Deal, government never pretended it could do such a thing.

I’m not blaming FDR.  He was confronted with 32% unemployment, widespread hunger and despair.  His New Deal programs were considered to be radical at the time, but what times they were.  Detractors labelled the programs Socialist, sure.  But when detractors suggested that the Roosevelt Administration should consider the “the long term effects of the programs,” FDR’s advisor Harry Hopkins was correct to point out, “People don’t eat in the long term.”

Throughout, America was exemplified by the rugged individual.  Americans valued hard work.  Americans looked up to those who excelled in their chosen fields.  They wanted only an opportunity, not a handout.  The American spirit was exemplified by General George Patton’s famous speech to his Third Army troops.  “When you, here, every one of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players and the All-American football players.  Americans love a winner.  Americans will not tolerate a loser.”

Somehow, we lost that spirit.  Somehow, we forgot JFK’s admonition, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  Our shared values have been forgotten.  We no longer value excellence.  The greatest achievers are scorned.  We no longer admire winners.  We somehow decided that the desire to win was a negative, and that we shouldn’t even keep score.

We no longer teach children to be proud to be an American.  We teach them instead to be ashamed of their country.  We no longer teach civics, history, the value of hard work, and independence.  We instill instead an expectation of dependence, and entitlement.  Is it any wonder that the American work ethic has been replaced by grievance?

Under these circumstances, it’s not surprising that young people are willing to discard all it means to be American, and are willing to scrap the system of government that has been the envy of the world, in favor of the vain promise of a nonexistent socialist paradise.

Even liberals once understood that this was a bad idea.  Let me quote the late Rob Reiner’s President Andrew Shepard from The American President, “America isn’t easy.  America is advanced citizenship.  You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s gonna put up a fight.”

Somewhere, the fight went out of us.  For today’s leftists, citizenship is a dirty word.  We lost our reverence for public officials.  We lost our respect for the government.  Maybe we just grew up, and we finally realized that the government doesn’t do things for us any more, it just does things to us.

Even my first love, for medicine has been tainted.  Before Covid, we really thought that people like Anthony Fauci served only science, and not themselves.  Now we know better.  The medical professionals we looked up to proved themselves no better than politicians, which is pretty low.  They forgot about advancing public health, and permitted crooked politicians to attempt to steal our freedom.  The medical professionals either were incompetent, or they were complicit.  There’s no third option.

So if we can’t trust our government, and we can’t trust the medical professionals we relied on, what’s left?  We once relied on the most highly educated among us to lead the way.  Now we can’t do that.  As this is written, members of the DSA are openly advocating for the cancellation of our Constitution, and the installation of a totalitarian Marxist dictatorship.  And the members of our population most dedicated to supporting this outrage are the most highly educated among us.

When the waitress and the iron worker can comprehend facts and realities that escape the Ivy League PhDs, something is seriously wrong.  To repeat, I’m disallusioned.

Maybe it’s just the season.  Somehow things seem to get a bit less serious in the Summer.  People take time off from their jobs.  Less meaningful work seems to get done in the Summer.  People are on leave.  Some even take leave of their senses.

There’s a British magazine called The Economist.  As the name implies, the magazine is run by economic experts, and it generally deals with economic issues.  The editors are not only journalists, they’re British journalists.  That description virtually screams wimpy left wing A-holes, but don’t take my word for it.  Here’s the description from Allsides.com.  “The Economist takes an editorial stance in the radical center of classical and economic liberalism that supports free trade, globalization, open immigration, and social liberalism.”

They want globalization (ala George Soros), no borders (ala the DSA) and social liberalism (translation – Woke bullshit).  It would be bad enough if the magazine simply stuck to economic issues.  We expect journalists to be Woke A-holes.  It’s what they do.  But now they’ve gone too far.

Now The Economist has attacked – wait for it – The Paw Patrol.  The magazine recently published an article entitled The Dark Underbelly of Paw Patrol.  For those of you without young children or grandchildren, the Paw Patrol is an animated children’s television series, on the air since 2013.  It features a group of puppies, led by a boy named Ryder.  They live in a town called Adventure Bay, and in every episode they fix seemingly intractable problems, most of which were caused by adults.

The pups all have special skills and responsibilities.  Their leader, Chase, drives a police car.  Marshall is a Dalmatian in a fire truck.  Bulldog Rubble is in charge of construction.  Labrador Zuma does water rescues in his boat.  Rocky handles recycling, and Tracker specializes in jungle rescue.  Skye handles air rescue in her helicopter, Liberty does urban rescues, and Everest does snow rescues in a snowplow.

The pups spring into action when emergency situations require their skills.  When incompetent, corrupt former Mayor Humdinger screws up and puts lives in danger, the Paw Patrol saves the day.  When a natural disaster threatens to wipe out the town, the pups come to the rescue.  Their motto, “No job’s too big, no pup’s too small.”

The kids eat it up, and why not?  In its own silly way, Paw Patrol teaches them they can accomplish just about anything they set their minds to, if they work hard, remain faithful, and work as a team.

So what’s The Economist’s beef?  Let them tell it in their own words.  Apparently, there are certain parents who have decided that Paw Patrol, while amazingly popular, has subliminal messages which are pernicious.  That’s the problem with Woke A-holes.  They can’t accept the obvious; that Paw Patrol is harmless entertainment for kids that can do them no harm and may do them some good.

The Woke must search for a hidden message, and if there isn’t one, they just make one up.  Isn’t is strange that the shallowest dolts among us are always searching for a deeper explanation?

The people who have tried to sell us white privilege, safe spaces, global warming, defund the police, legalized theft, and free everything, now have broken the Paw Patrol code.  They’ve uncovered the truth.  “Paw Patrol is authoritarian neoliberal propaganda,” which “encourages complicity in a global capitalist system that reproduces inequalities.”  The only deep thing in that analysis is the horse shit.

The magazine condemns Chase because he wears a police uniform.  This makes the whole show “pro-police copaganda.”  For the record, Chase carries no gun, and no handcuffs, and in the countless hours I have been treated to the Paw Patrol’s exploits, I have yet to see Chase arrest anybody.

No matter.  The Woke morons figured it out.  The game is up.  The fact that town leaders call on the pups, who the morons have labelled “unaccountable freelancers,” is “a sly advertisement for privatized State services.”  Can you believe this shit?

But there’s more.  According to the Woke morons, Paw Patrol also is sexist.  Because the Woke never let facts get in the way of their feelings, they got this one wrong too.  According to The Economist, it’s sexist because the pup Skye, who the magazine tells us is the only girl, only wears pink.  However, Liberty also is female.  Then there’s Everest.  She doesn’t wear pink, and she drives a snowplow.  To the red neck ultra-conservative morons, the subliminal message might be that Everest is an LGBT pup.  But I digress.

In an attempt to appear high-minded and oh so cultured, the magazine supports its condemnation of Paw Patrol with a quote from C.S. Lewis, of Chronicles of Narnia fame.  “A children’s story that can only be enjoyed by children is not a good children’s story.”  The magazine concludes that Lewis “would not have liked Paw Patrol.”  Lewis made that quote, to be sure, but, as usual, one quotation led the Woke idiots to the wrong conclusion.

C.S. Lewis said some other things too.  “To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death — these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man.  Their realization is almost as necessary to our virtues as to our happiness.  From their total frustration disastrous results both moral and psychological might follow.”

“Since it is so likely that (children) will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage.  Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.”

“Once you were a child.  Once you knew what inquiry was for.  There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them.  Become a child again, even now… You have gone wrong.  Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth.”

These quotes run directly contrary to the Woke agenda.  “Your home is your castle” smacks of royalty and the protection of personal property.  “Enjoy the fruits of your labours” is clearly capitalist.  And urging parents to educate their children as they see fit, and encouraging us to make inquiries to get to the truth isn’t encouraged by the Left, which seeks to stifle any and all dissent.

The Economist warns that “There is a reason that dictators try to control the stories told to the young.”  The Woke morons running the magazine know that all too well.  So-called progressives have been shoveling Marxist propaganda into the minds of the young for more than 100 years.

Paw Patrol isn’t authoritarian propaganda, and there’s nothing subliminal about it.  Its messages are quite simple.  Here’s what Paw Patrol has taught my grandson and me.  When people you care for are in danger, you do what you can to try to help them.  No matter what your background, you can make a contribution.  Whatever job you do has value, and you have value.  And although you may have doubts and fears, they can be overcome, as long as we all work together.

Those themes are reinforced in every episode of Paw Patrol.  How anyone could find such values pernicious, subversive, or in any way negative or dangerous is beyond me.  Maybe The Economist should confine itself to trade policy and interest rates, and leave normal, well-adjusted people, and especially our children, the Hell alone.

All the political news nowadays centers on the so-called Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).  The recent victories by DSA candidates in a number of Democrat primaries has sparked debate about whether the DSA will take over the Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party has undergone a steady shift to the Left side of the political spectrum, but the emergence of the DSA is something else again.

Once upon a time, the Democrat Party was composed of members from all parts of the ideological spectrum.  While some Democrats today like to call their Party “a big tent,” that actually used to be true.  As recently as the early 1980’s, conservative Democrats existed, and they were both socially and fiscally conservative.

People like to talk about the Kennedy tax cuts, but that’s a misnomer.  JFK never got them passed.  LBJ got them done, but even with a House and Senate ruled by his own Party, it wasn’t easy.  LBJ first had to prove to Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Harry Byrd that the federal budget would be cut.  Find me a Democrat today, or a Republican, who’s ever passed a budget, much less wanted to cut one.

The Democrat Party always had its liberals as well.  LBJ used to call Hubert Humphrey “a bomb thrower” for his liberal ideas.  Humphrey would be too conservative for today’s Democrats.

Despite what you may have been told by the media, America has always been a center-right nation.  But because the Democrat Party was that big tent we hear about, that didn’t mean the Republicans were in control.  Quite the opposite.  Until recently, to win the presidency the candidate had to be somewhere in the middle.  Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis were failed candidates because they were too far Left.  Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were more moderate.

Because Democrats understood that the public shied away from candidates considered too far Left or extreme, they avoided the liberal label.  As the shift to the Left continued, they became “progressives,” yet they continued to avoid being considered extreme, and by no means would they ever want to be seen as socialist.

Remember that, when Il Duce Obama was elected, after pledging to “fundamentally transform” the U.S., he vehemently denied being a socialist.  Sure, he supported socialized medicine, and he started the wasteful socialist Green energy scam, but he didn’t want the socialist label.  Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden ran as phony moderates, as well.

But now, the DSA has arrived, and they’re not pretending to be moderate anymore.  While some Democrats and their lapdog media pretend that the DSA is nothing radical, that’s simply not the truth.  But don’t take my word for it, listen to the DSA itself.

In a recent interview, DSA co-chair Megan Romer was asked to state the DSA agenda.  She did not shy away from controversy.  Romer stated unequivocally that, among other things, the DSA wants to abolish the Senate, replace the presidency and the Supreme Court with functionaries answerable to a unicameral House of Representatives, abolish ICE, abolish borders, grant amnesty to all illegal aliens, defund national defense, government ownership of large corporations, and “largely” abolish prisons.  If other socialist  regimes are any guide, I think “largely abolish prisons” means they would keep some open to house political prisoners.

The DSA makes no effort to hide its intent. “Complete victory will require building a new society from the ground up.”  “Our goal is communism.”  They really mean it.  The DSA website talks of “a world without capitalism,” in which you can “work as much as you are able, and no more than needed.”  Only Karl Marx could have said it better.  “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

If you’re hearing the truth about the DSA for the first time, it’s only because, like any of the previous socialist takeovers, a compliant, and complicit, media is required to hide the truth and pass the propaganda.  So-called journalists seem to make a habit of denying that communism is a bad idea.  In the 1930’s New York Times columnist Walter Duranty apologized for the Stalinist purges (slaughters) of millions as a necessary means of eliminating class distinctions.

More recently, New York Times reporter Herbert Matthews became famous by getting a 1957 interview with Fidel Castro.  Matthews portrayed Castro as a reformer, who would hold free elections and restore the Cuban Constitution.  He repeatedly reported that Castro was not a communist and that, indeed, he was anti-communist.  Matthews was so convincing that the U.S. ended its military aid to the Batista government, and Castro’s revolution succeeded in 1959.  Once in power, Castro announced he really was a communist.  The New York Times reporting was so bad that some suggested that Castro should take out an ad in the paper saying, “I got my job through the New York Times.”

In a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan sounded the alarm about the DSA.  She pointed out that, although our system of government is not without its pain and injustices, as Winston Churchill famously said, “Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.”

Noonan rightly acknowledged that young people, the demographic that makes up the bulk of the DSA have legitimate concerns about affordability and job opportunities.  Unfortunately, the young are ill equipped to reject the siren song of socialism; a world where buses are free, rents are frozen, and only the rich are taxed.  They have been the victims of socialist indoctrination throughout what passes for education in America.  And that education does not include any instruction on history other than the notion that America is a land of oppression.

The young think that they can elect socialists, put the government in control of every aspect of their lives, and continue to enjoy the same freedoms that they now enjoy.  Of course, this is the same fantasy that was embraced elsewhere in the past.  In every case, the triumph of socialism brought hardship, brutality, and the deaths of more than 100 million inhabitants of the socialist workers’ paradises.

We could use some common sense reforms to our government, to be sure.  We might get our national finances under control, eliminate fraud to make sure government benefit programs really benefit the needy, ensure fair elections, and help young people get into useful jobs that could support their families.  None of these things will be accomplished by putting the DSA in charge, and destroying the Constitution.

A DSA led socialist system will end up like all of its murderous predecessors, with destitute, miserable people, empty store shelves and forgotten liberties.  If the young people flocking to the DSA think a socialist system will permit them to live rent free, drive their Teslas, and play video games while ordering from Doordash, they are sadly mistaken.  They soon will realize the cost of free stuff, and there won’t be time for gaming, because they will be in line at the government run food store waiting for their weekly allowance of gluten free bread.

Simply put, if you think that socialism will make your life easier, the joke’s on you.  The DSA’s poster boy, Karl Marx, sagely predicted all this.  “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, and second as farce.”

During the Vietnam war, LBJ famously told us that, “the ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there.”  We all know how that turned out.  The recent influx of Socialist/Communist political candidates in the Democrat Party implicates a domestic hearts and minds situation.

Did you ever wonder how Democrats who consider themselves Progressive can advocate for clearly foolish or destructive policies in the face of overwhelming facts proving them to be terrible ideas?  I’m not talking about genuine differences of opinion, or differences as to the best way to handle a problem.  I’m talking about their support for policies that plainly are bat-shit crazy.

For example, erase all national borders and admit 15 or 20 million uneducated, destitute illegal aliens, so we can immediately add them to our welfare roles and classrooms.  Don’t vet these invaders, so admit hundreds of thousands of alien criminals.  When these criminals rob, rape and kill Americans, demonize any citizen who points this out, and assure us that illegal aliens commit fewer crimes than citizens.  Don’t prosecute the criminal aliens for their crimes, and don’t prosecute citizen criminals either, unless they’re conservatives who did something heinous like praying in front of an abortion clinic.  And of course, never deport anyone.

Demand that the U.S. stop all aid to Israel, the only democratic Mideast country, and for almost 80 years, our best and sometimes only ally in the region.  Demonize all Jews, call Israelis Nazis who practice genocide, and demand that Americans exhibit unlimited tolerance for Muslims, no matter what they do or say, or who they kill, even though Muslims are the least tolerant people on the face of the Earth.

Exhibit hate for your own country.  Demonize the entrepreneur who creates jobs because he makes a profit.  Tax the successful members of the community to the point where they leave, taking your tax revenue with them.  Preach for the repeal of the Constitution, and advocate for violence and the restriction of personal freedoms, “in order to save our democracy.”

If all of the above seem stupid and crazy, it’s only because it is.  And yet, all of the above, and many more insane notions are part of the Socialist/Communist agenda being pushed by the so-called Democratic Socialist of America (DSA).

Now, the people who are behind the ruinous policies being pushed by the DSA know exactly what they’re doing.  There is a relatively small number of instigators, including villainous billionaires like George Soros and Roy Singham who are financing the movement, whose goal is the toppling of the U.S. system of government, to be replaced by a New Order.  Soros’ Open Society Foundation is the leading proponent of this.

Soros has said that “American supremacy is the greatest threat to the world today.” Soros wants to subordinate national sovereignty to international law and institutions.  Like most leftist hypocrites, Soros gained his wealth from capitalism, but he now denounces capitalism.  And the financiers are aided by useful idiots like Bernie Sanders.

If the populace could be made to understand precisely what the DSA had in store for it, I have no doubt that the Communist message would be rejected.  And therein lies the rub, and the answer to the question, “If the DSA policies are so demonstrably bad, why are so many voters supporting them?”

We’re back to Hearts and Minds.  For many years, the late Rush Limbaugh spoke of “the low information voters.”  These were the people who had very little political information, and thus could be swayed by falsehoods that were spread by media outlets.  The ranks of the low information voters have swelled of late.  And sadly, most of the newcomers to the “low information” ranks are some of the most highly educated young people in the land.

How is this possible?  Educational malpractice.  For more than 100 years, the Progressive movement has been hard at work pushing the Progressive/Socialist agenda on our students.  John Dewey, who is hailed as a Progressive educational “reformer,” was pushing a collectivist message.  He rejected personal freedom, individualism, and liberty, that is, the foundation of our Constitution, and favored the Soviet system.  He wanted to establish “a New Order.”  Sound familiar?  Dewey didn’t start kindergartens to begin formal education at an earlier age, he did it to get the children away from their parents’ influence as soon as possible.

Every attempt at the establishment of a Socialist/Communist “workers’ paradise” has ended in abject failure.  One would think that the experiences of the Soviet Union, Maoist Chi, Cambodia, North Korea, the European eastern bloc counties, and Cuba should provide more than enough evidence to prove the Communist way should be avoided at all costs.  These regimes were responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million of their own residents, after all.  But our young “intellectuals” haven’t gotten the message.

It’s a sad commentary on our educational system, that the more formal education one has, the more susceptible he or she is to the Communist message.  The blue collar workers understand what communism means, and they oppose it.  Yet young unmarried women, with graduate degrees from places like Oberlin or from Ivy League institutions have embraced the siren song of communism.

It’s a classic “Hearts and Minds” paradox.  The supposedly highly educated know nothing that didn’t come out of the mouth of one of the leftist professors who dominate college campuses.  And sadly, the information age ushered in by the explosion of the internet has largely become an opportunity to spread misinformation.  The truth is available on the internet, to be sure, but it’s not easy to find.  The material I mentioned above about John Dewey can be discovered only if you go though 6 or 7 pages of fawning articles celebrating his genius as an educator.

If you accept whatever your search engine or social media site spits out, and many if not most young people do, you don’t get facts, you get propaganda.  Progressives get away with this because, for them, facts are not important.  It’s not a matter of knowing the truth based on the facts.  The Progressive doesn’t need to “know” “the truth,” he “feels” “his” truth.  It’s hearts and minds.  The people with the minds are spreading the Communist bullshit, that’s being soaked up by those with the maleducated hearts.

Because they were never taught history, young people who may have spent $200,000 or more for an education are some of the most ignorant people in our society.  It’s the main reason that DSA candidates are winning primaries of late.  As this is written, Abdul El-Sayed, a DSA backed candidate has been declared the winner of the Michigan Democratic Senate primary.  In truth, Michigan Democrats didn’t have much of a choice.  It was Jihad Johnnie El-Sayed, or a woman whose best attribute was her resemblance to Wednesday Adams.

El-Sayed is supported by Hasan Piker, a DSA “influencer” who denounces capitalism, while reaping millions of dollars are year from podcasts, and who owns a $3.4 million home in Beverly Hills, and drives a $200,000 Porsche.  Piker is the self-appointed “Ayatollah of Woke.”  He is wildly antisemitic.  Piker has is an apologist for the sexual violence perpetrated on Israelis on October 7th.  “It doesn’t matter if rape happened on October 7th.  It doesn’t change the dynamic for me.”  Piker has said he has “no issue” with Hezbollah, the world’s the most heavily armed terrorist organization in the world.

El-Sayed opposes capitalism, wants Medicare for all, opposes ICE, and says he want to “get the money out of politics.”  The general election in November will be a test of just how far the DSA poison has seeped into our society.  Unsurprisingly, the bulk of El-Sayed’s votes came from the area around the University of Michigan and other colleges, where the victims of educational malpractice have been taught to expect most things in life for nothing.

That’s the problem with Communism.  Everything is free, but there’s damn little of everything.  That’s why workers in the Soviet Union used to say, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.”  Overcoming the feelings stirring in the Hearts of the highly educated ignoramuses is a difficult task.  Better to appeal to the Minds of the two-thirds of the population that didn’t go to college.