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 21, 2017.  Sadly, now 9 years later, it’s proof that the most expensive government on the face of the Earth is unable, or unwilling to make hard decisions about healthcare.

According to our national anthem, America is supposed to be the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.  There may have been something to that when Francis Scott Key wrote those words in the early 19th Century, but not anymore.  These days, America seems more like the land of the sick and the home of the scared.  The ongoing battle over the replacement of Obamacare is just the latest proof.  Think we’re not the land of the sick?  Just turn on your television.  For good or ill (mostly ill), Americans get most of their information from a screen.

Maybe I’m dating myself, but I remember television commercials for happier products.  We had Tony the Tiger, we could See the USA in our Chevrolet, Hertz put us in the driver’s seat, and blondes had more fun.  And even if they were selling some over the counter remedy for some ailment, it was enjoyable. Speedy Alka Seltzer, and the guy who “can’t believe I ate the whole thing.”  Even the woman with Excedrin headache No. 76 was more laughs than the stuff we are getting now.  Today, every commercial break reminds us that the world is being run by drug companies and trial lawyers.

I swear, if you just arrived from another planet and turned on the television, you would be convinced that all Americans are deathly ill.  No sooner do you hear, “We’ll be right back, after this message,” and it begins.  You have commercials targeted at the several thousand individuals nationwide who unfortunately suffer from a particular cancer treatable by a drug that costs some $300,000 a year.  The message is blunt, “Don’t want to die?  Take this.” Then the people with psoriasis come at you touting the latest nostrum that will make the plaques disappear, but it may kill you.  I guess you have to take the good with the bad.

Women appear to be afflicted with myriad maladies relating to elimination. Some are constipated.  “Take this.”  Some are afflicted with continual diarrhea, which prevents them from enjoying any outing.  “Take this.”  According to the commercial sponsors, the remainder of the female population pee, either when they laugh, or at all other times.  “Take this and wear this.”

The most alarming indication of the health of the nation, however, is that the remaining Americans who don’t have heart disease, psoriasis, constipation, diarrhea, or incontinence, and cannot benefit from the products being advertised for those ailments, are so upset with this situation that they have become depressed.  Not to worry, we have plenty of drugs for depression, and even if you’re already taking one drug, no problem, you can add another.

Of course, because the drug companies share their control of the country with the trial lawyers, you must be treated to disclaimers about the side effects of these miracle drugs, which disclaimers take longer than the pitch for the drug itself.  “Taking this drug may cause constipation or diarrhea.”  That covers all the bases.  No problem.  See the drugs above.  Now these depression drugs are for people who are, for want of a better term, “depressed,” right?  Am I the only one who thinks that taking a drug for depression, a side effect of which is thoughts of suicide might be a bit counterproductive?

Thoughts of suicide seems to be a side effect of many of these concoctions. There’s even a drug for arthritis that may bring on suicidal tendencies.  Imagine a poor unfortunate afflicted with both depression and arthritis, taking a double dose of suicide encouraging drugs.  I can hear the first person endorsement now, “Being clinically depressed and arthritic was a particular challenge for me.  These drugs changed all that.  Without them, I never could have tied the knot in the noose I’m thinking of using to hang myself.”  Better living through chemistry.

Then, when the drug makers are through with their pitches, on come those scavengers of the legal profession, the mass tort lawyers.  After just having been exhorted to buy Xarelto, we are told, “If you took Xarelto, you may be entitled to a cash award.”  It is the endless dance of the rulers of our society. One sells immortality, and the other sells revenge when the afflicted realize that they are mortal after all.

So, once the commercials have convinced us that we are all sick and in need of immediate treatment, enter the government, to scare the living shit out of those of us who still are living after the drug companies and lawyers have done with us.  Democrats claim any change in Obamacare “will kill millions of people.”  Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), was the ultimate government lie.  It was touted as affordable health “insurance.”  You could keep your current plan (LIE), your current doctor (LIE), and costs would go down by $2,500 (BIG LIE).

Costs went up every year, some doubling.  Most deductibles tripled.  So, people who are forced to buy it (and actually pay for it) can afford neither to buy nor use it.  But 20 million more people are insured because of it right?  Wrong! Since the passage of the ACA, 22 million more Americans are enrolled in Medicaid.  Medicaid is not insurance, it is a welfare program.  Medicaid is a necessary welfare program, but as a means of providing medical care of the last resort to those without any other option, it is not and cannot be the basis of a sensible healthcare system for America.

Yet, the Democrat objection to the Republican plan to replace the ACA was based on the new law’s refusal to continue to expand the Medicaid welfare roles.  This is a cynical attempt by Democrats to force everyone into substandard Medicaid coverage, making a change to a single payer system seem an improvement.  Like in Canada, where you may wait 3 months to have your broken leg set, but you are insured.  No thank you.  And the Republicans are no better.  Their bill was drafted by insurance lobbyists.  They opposed Ted Cruz’s reasonable proposal to permit Americans to buy only the coverage they needed, because they prefer the current government “gun to your head buy everything” plan.  They make more money that way, you see.  The very idea that any government should have such power that you need its permission to buy only what you want and need should offend every American.  We deserve better, and we are in charge, not the politicians.  It’s time they realized that.

POSTSCRIPT – Since this was written, the prevalence of drug commercials on TV only has increased.  It seems every commercial is now either for some drug or for insurance.  Since 2017, Obamacare costs have continued to rise.  Plan costs and deductibles have more than doubled.

The Obamacare enhanced tax credits, which hid the true cost of the programs, were repealed in 2025.  Costs went up over 20% in 2026.  Democrats continue to tout Medicare for All, which really is Medicaid (welfare) for all.  They want to end all private health insurance and institute a single-payer plan, putting the government in charge of your healthcare, and your life.

When Obamacare was enacted, 85% of Americans had health coverage that they were satisfied with.  Instead of concentrating on the 15% of Americans who were in need, Democrats opted for socialism, and upended the entire system.  The current crop of Democrats is far more extreme than those who enacted Obamacare.  Don’t be fooled by claims that federal socialized medicine will improve your life.

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.”