How bad is the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety [and gun control] Act?

This article encapsulates all the reasons why the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act is a horribly bad piece of legislation (with the exception of  the Marshall, Guardian and/or Safety Officer piece to put armed school officials or an armed security guard at all schools – basically PCSO Sheriff Judd’s plan).  The rest is just scary and/or an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that adds more power and control to state and local governments – in fact much of it is down right Marxist in my opinion.

Any Republican in the Florida Legislature who voted Yes for this law along with Governor Scott who signed it should be ashamed of themselves.

I just read all 105 pages of the law again very slowly and it scares the hell out of me especially the part about the ex parte and Risk Protection Orders allowing the courts to seize all firearms of a person  from their home or elsewhere  accused (and must prove their innocence) of being a threat or risk to themselves or others without DUE PROCESS and in my view in clear violation of our 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights.

I highly recommend you read this law for yourself (here) especially pages  27 – 47 and 57 – 61 and send it out to others to read for themselves.  If this doesn’t scare you/them then you are much too trusting of  our system of Justice and its corruption by the left and establishment types in many areas than I am.  At the Federal level they are trying the same thing called “Red Flag” laws.

I really don’t understand why the NRA is only going after the lowering of the age piece and not the ex parte order piece which is clearly dangerous for all legal carry permit holders and gun owners regardless of age especially in the hands of liberal judges, liberal prosecutors and  LE officials in Democrat controlled areas (counties and cities).

We can’t deny that these ex parte order and Risk Protection Order pieces of this terrible law will facilitate the weaponizing of the law against 2nd Amendment rights! This is especially so where there are Liberal Judges and Prosecutors based in liberal districts, counties and cities.

Wake Up

This law is mostly about gun control rather than school safety!  It is about solidifying the leftist base that wants to take away all firearms.  It is simply a knee jerk reaction to leftist propaganda and politicizing dead children killed by a lunatic who should have been in jail or at least disarmed and this would never have happened.

The terrible Parkland High School shootings resulted from a failure of the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff and his Department to do their job in protecting schools including a Broward Coward Deputy on scene who refused to run to the sound of the gun and 3 other deputies who arrived while shooting still ongoing and hid behind barricade.   Co – responsible is the School Superintendent and Board who put in place Barack Obama & Eric Holder’s Promises program to not identify or arrest criminal minority teenagers.

Where is the condemnation and firing of Sheriff Israel, his on school site Deputies who hid behind barriers as the firing continued for 4-6 mins and the on Site Captain scene commander who wouldn’t allow Fire Chief & his EMTs to render aid to the wounded for over 20 mins and the Superintendent of Schools of Broward County & his School Board who put in place the ill-conceived Obama Promise Program to cover up teenage minority criminals including the shooter – Cruz?

We need to be on a crusade about these 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment violations of our rights in this very dangerous, slip shod, knee jerk reaction law which is based on emotional outbursts from the left seeking gun control.  The Parkland shootings are a clear result of a failure of law enforcement at the Federal and County levels and school board officials in Broward county and not every law abiding gun owner in Florida.

It seems to me that only a few folks seem concerned about this as all I hear from many conservative group and 2A advocacy circles are crickets.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act

Please feel free to send back your comments/feedback.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Florida Launches Gun Confiscation Program, 467 Forced To Surrender Guns

We need to harden our families, not our schools

6 Common Media Myths About Gun Control

VIDEO: What Is Intersectionality?

Intersectionality is the newest fad in political activism. What is it? Who’s involved? And furthermore, what does it even mean? No one is better prepared to answer these questions than Daily Wire editor-in-chief and podcast sensation Ben Shapiro, who breaks it all down in this invaluable video.

Click here to take a brief survey about this video.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

INTERSECTIONALITY: Leftist Politics Designed to Fail

Designated for Destruction

 

Afghan soldier murders American serviceman who was training him, wounds two others

One of the most commonly repeated elements of the Leftist/Islamic supremacist rap sheet against me, supposedly establishing that I am an “anti-Muslim extremist,” is that I said that there was no reliable way to distinguish between peaceful Muslims and jihadists, and no distinction between the two in Muslim communities. Yet if I were wrong in saying that, this American service member would be alive today, because the jihadi who murdered him or her would never have been accepted into the Afghan National Army.

“‘Insider Attack’ Kills U.S. Service Member in Afghanistan,” by Mujib Mashal and Thomas Gibbons-Neff, New York Times, July 7, 2018

KABUL, Afghanistan — An American service member was killed and two others were wounded in southern Afghanistan on Saturday in what officials described as an “apparent insider attack.”

The United States military, announcing the death in a statement, did not provide further details. The wounded service members were in stable condition, the military said. The name of the soldier who was killed was being withheld so the next of kin could be notified.

An American military officer familiar with the attack said it had occurred at a small base in Tarinkot, a town in Uruzgan Province, where roughly 150 soldiers who are stationed in Kandahar often rotate through to train Afghan soldiers. The outpost is one of several in the country where the Army’s Security Force Assistance Brigade is stationed. The unit — tasked with training and assisting the Afghan National Army — is one of the leading elements of the Trump administration’s new strategy in Afghanistan….

It also offered a reminder that insider attacks, also known as green-on-blue attacks, have been a recurring problem in Afghanistan, carried out by Afghan security forces loyal to the Taliban or harboring grievances against American troops. About 150 troops from the American-led coalition have been killed in such attacks during the nearly 17-year-old war, according to data from the United States military, with the number of the attacks peaking in 2012.

The assault on Saturday is the first insider attack of 2018 against American troops, roughly 14,000 of whom are stationed in Afghanistan. In 2017, there were three such attacks on American forces and one against Romanian troops. In June of that year, three United States soldiers were killed in Nangarhar Province when an Afghan commando opened fire at a small outpost used in the battle against Islamic State militants….

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Mexican parents teach their 3-year old daughter that its okay to kill Donald Trump

There has been growing concern that the media, Hollywood, social media, Democrats and anarchists groups are becoming more and more violent.

It has been going on since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States.

Mark Dice’s video channel and Breitbart’s “Rap Sheet” have been documenting the number of times violence has been threatened or used against Trump supporters, candidate Trump, the President and his family.

This is not new. Mark Dice posted on May 20th, 2016 a YouTube video of Mexican parents teaching their 3-year old daughter that Donald Trump must die “cuz he wants to take away our family.”

Mark Dice has a video channel dedicated to documenting the dozens and dozens of assaults against Trump supporters.

Breitbart is keeping a running total of documented attacks on Trump supporters in an article titled “Rap Sheet: ***190*** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harrassment against Trump supporters.” Last week the number of documented attacks was 133. The documented attacks are increasing and at some point law enforcement must step in and take action.

The Democratic Party has morphed into the Democratic Socialist Party. The rhetoric has become more graphic and more hateful. It is on the talk shows, late night comedy shows, in newspapers, in the news and now in films. The film “The First Purge” according to its official release is described as follows:

To push the crime rate below one percent for the rest of the year, the New Founding Fathers of America test a sociological theory that vents aggression for one night in one isolated community. But when the violence of oppressors meets the rage of the others, the contagion will explode from the trial-city borders and spread across the nation.

Here’s the official trailer:

It appears the New Democratic Socialist party is legalizing crimes against any and all of its political opponents. The film “The Purge” furthers this narrative on the big screen. The film pits whites against blacks. It sanctifies murder and mayhem in the name of big government social engineering.

The purge is happening. Lawlessness is rampant and promoted by all those listed above. Time to stop this madness now, or else.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Founder Of The #WalkAway Movement Explains Why the Democratic Party Has ‘No Future’

Open Borders Left dominates Episcopal Church meeting

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Matt Finn/FNC

Seven Social Security Myths

Charles Blahous Social Security policy and politics are treacherous enough even when everyone agrees to respect the facts. If we are to see Social Security through to financial safety, we can no longer afford to indulge these seven myths.

by Charles Blahous

Among public policy issues, Social Security is especially beset by myths and urban legends.  These myths inhibit the enactment of legislation necessary to close its substantial financing shortfall. Press, public and policy makers alike would do well to disabuse themselves of the following widely circulated canards.

Myth #1: Social Security is not an entitlement.

This is one of the more baffling myths in circulation of late. One encounters it on social media, on op-ed pages, even from members of Congress.  Social Security is not only an entitlement program, it is the largest and most prototypical federal entitlement program. Virtually any credible glossary of federal budget terminology will point to Social Security as the leading example of an entitlement (specifically, an entitlement is a program in which payments are obligated to beneficiaries according to eligibility criteria set in law, without requiring annual legislation to appropriate funds). Those who object to Social Security being referred to as an entitlement are in effect trying to change the definition to mean something other than what it always has.  Whether a program is an entitlement has nothing to do with whether beneficiaries made previous contributions to it. In fact, in Social Security’s case, it’s precisely the individual entitlement to benefits arising from those contributions that makes it an entitlement program.

Myth #2: Social Security wouldn’t be in financial trouble if politicians hadn’t stolen and spent its money.

There is actually a small kernel of truth underlying this myth; specifically, Social Security trust fund reserves are by law invested in US Treasury securities, which finance federal government spending. Furthermore, economists who have studied the issue generally conclude that government access to those revenues stimulated more federal spending than would have occurred otherwise. But this phenomenon has nothing do with Social Security’s shortfall. Social Security still owns all that money and earns interest on it. Whenever Social Security tax revenues fall short of its benefit obligations, as they have since 2010, Social Security taps both interest and principal of its trust funds to pay benefits. Social Security’s shortfall exists despite the government’s repaying those funds to Social Security, not because it won’t. The program’s financing problems arise instead from its benefits exceeding the revenue (including interest) that it generates.

Myth #3: Participants have paid for their benefits.

Again, there is a kernel of truth in this myth. Workers covered by Social Security contribute payroll taxes, which establish an entitlement to benefits for themselves and certain dependents. However, this does not mean they have paid for the full amount of their scheduled benefits. Many beneficiaries receive far more in benefits than their own contributions could ever fund, while others receive less.  But more importantly, Social Security has a shortfall precisely because in the aggregate, workers have not paid for their benefits: total scheduled benefits well exceed what workers’ tax contributions, plus interest, can finance. So, the existence of benefits has been earned, but the scheduled amounts have not. Benefit schedules would need to be substantially reduced from current law in order to match the benefit amounts workers have actually funded.

Myth #4: Social Security is solvent until the 2030s, so there is still plenty of time to fix it.

One of the most misguided aspects of much press reporting on Social Security finances is the routine citation of its projected insolvency date (2034 in the latest report) as a proxy for its financial condition. How soon Social Security’s trust funds run out, and how soon we must act, are two entirely different things. By the time its trust funds are depleted, annual income and costs will be so far apart that there is no realistic chance of legislation closing the shortfall. For example, even if all new retirees in 2034 were denied benefits, delaying corrective action until then would leave Social Security without enough revenue to continue sending the checks on time to those previously receiving them.  When we must act is a function of how long the problem is still soluble, not when the funds finally run out. The window of opportunity for correction is closing now, if it hasn’t closed already.

Myth #5: Because Social Security is self-financing, it doesn’t add to the federal budget deficit.

It is true that Social Security is technically “off budget” and has its own separate tax base and trust fund.  But because the trust funds are invested in the federal Treasury, the general government fund plays a substantial role in Social Security financing.  In the years before 2010 when Social Security ran a surplus, its operations reduced federal borrowing from the public. Since 2010, as Social Security’s costs have exceeded its tax revenue, the federal government has been running larger deficits to fund the payments it owes to Social Security so that the program can continue to pay full benefits. A personal finance analogy might help.  Suppose that during one month, you charge something to your credit card; then in subsequent months, you pay off the credit card debt, plus interest.  In a certain sense you simply borrowed money from your bank that first month, then in the following ones you paid it back. But during the months you are paying off that credit card debt, you tangibly experience a new and real financial strain, despite the fact that you were previously on the receiving end of credit. It’s the same with the federal budget. The fact that the federal budget benefited from Social Security surpluses in the past doesn’t make its ongoing deficit-worsening outlays, during the years it pays Social Security back, any less real.

Myth #6: Taxing rich people more by raising the cap on taxable wages will fix the problem.

There’s a statutory cap on each worker’s annual earnings subject to Social Security taxes—$128,400 this year and indexed to grow automatically in most years.  Above the cap, workers neither pay additional taxes nor accrue additional benefits, reflecting the program’s design as a floor of income protection rather than an all-encompassing pension benefit. Whenever Social Security’s shortfall is discussed, someone usually suggests raising this cap, to collect more taxes from the rich. That could certainly be done in the context of a solvency plan, but it doesn’t solve much of the problem. Raising the taxable maximum from today’s level all the way to about $350,000 in 2022 would only eliminate about 14% of the structural deficit, in part because a worker’s benefits are linked to his tax contributions and thus the tax increase would generate higher benefits for the well-off. That cost increase could of course be prevented by changing the benefit formula on the high-income end; nevertheless, the point remains that without benefit formula changes, a tax cap increase by itself doesn’t accomplish very much.

Myth #7: Social Security privatization is a live option.

During election seasons there are always some partisans claiming that Social Security is at risk of being “privatized.” That was never true, and the claim is particularly absurd now. Many years ago when Social Security was running surpluses, presidents such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush suggested that workers be given the option of saving them in personal accounts to shelter that money from being used to finance federal spending (see myth #2). None of those proposals involved privatization, but instead would have allowed for individual saving within a publicly administered system. That opportunity vanished in 2010 when Social Security began running cash deficits. Since then there have been no surplus Social Security contributions to save, and every program tax dollar collected now is immediately sent out the door to pay current benefits. Despite the fact that this has long been a dead issue, occasional “privatization” fear-mongering continues.

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying, “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” Social Security policy and politics are treacherous enough even when everyone agrees to respect the facts.  If we are to see Social Security through to financial safety, we can no longer afford to indulge these seven myths.

Reprinted from Economics 21.

The United Nations Report on American Poverty Is Just Plain Wrong

Daniel J. Mitchell The UN insists that the US is mired in poverty, but their report is full of deception and bad data.

by Daniel J. Mitchell

When writing about the statist agenda of international bureaucracies, I generally focus my attention on the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Today, let’s give some attention to the United Nations.

Based on this story from the Washington Post, the bureaucrats at the UN have concluded that America is a miserable and awful nation.

…a new United Nations report that examines entrenched poverty in the United States…calls the number of children living in poverty “shockingly high.” …the report, written by U.N. special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights Philip Alston, says the United States tops the developed world with the highest rates of youth poverty… The results of the report are not out of line with a number of others…in recent years by different organizations in which the United States has turned up at or near the top on issues such as poverty rates.

But I’ve learned from personal experience (see here and here) that the United Nations is guided by statist ideology, and I should be extremely skeptical of any of its findings.

For instance, when it intervenes in policy (global warming and gun control, for instance, as well as the Internet, the War on Drugsmonetary policy, and taxpayer-financed birth control), the UN inevitably urges more power and control for government.

So, let’s take a jaundiced look at some of the assertions in this new report, starting with that dramatic claim of record child poverty in America.

The United States…has the highest youth poverty rate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)… The consequences of neglecting poverty… The United States has one of the highest poverty…levels among the OECD countries… the shockingly high number of children living in poverty in the United States demands urgent attention. …About 20 per cent of children live in relative income poverty, compared to the OECD average of 13 per cent.

So is it true that poverty is very high in the USA and is it also true that America has the highest rate of child poverty among all OECD countries? Even higher than Mexico, Greece, and Turkey? And what is the source of this remarkable assertion?

If you look at footnote #51, you’ll see reference to an OECD publication that contains this supposedly damning chart.

But if you look at the fine print at the bottom, you’ll discover that the chart on child poverty doesn’t actually measure child poverty. Instead, the bureaucrats at the OECD have put together a measure of income distribution and decided that “relative poverty” exists for anyone who has less than 50 percent of the median level of disposable income.

In other words, the United States looks bad only because median income is very high compared to other nations.

Which is the same dishonest data manipulation that the OECD uses when exaggerating America’s overall poverty rate (other groups that have used this deliberately dishonest methodology include the Equal Welfare Association, Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics, and the Obama Administration).

The bottom line is that the key finding of the UN report is based on a bald-faced lie.

By the way, I’m not surprised to see that the UN report also cites the IMF to justify statist policies.

In a 2017 report, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) captured the situation…, stating that the United States economy “is delivering better living standards for only the few”, and that “household incomes are stagnating for a large share of the population, job opportunities are deteriorating, prospects for upward mobility are waning, and economic gains are increasingly accruing to those that are already wealthy” …A much-cited IMF paper concluded that redistribution could be good for growth, stating: “The combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution—including the growth effects of the resulting lower inequality—are on average pro-growth.”

For what it’s worth, the IMF’s research on growth and inequality is embarrassingly bad.

Here’s another big takeaway from the UN report.

The United States…has the highest…infant mortality rates among comparable OECD States. …The infant mortality rate, at 5.8 deaths per 1,000 live births, is almost 50 per cent higher than the OECD average of 3.9.

I’m not an expert on infant mortality. Indeed, I’ve never looked at infant mortality data. But given the UN’s reliance on dodgy and dishonest numbers in other areas, I’m skeptical whether these numbers are true.

And, according to Johan Norberg, the numbers about high levels of infant mortality in the United States are false.

The UN report contains many other ideologically motivated attacks on the United States.

For instance, America is a bad country because taxes supposedly are too low.

The United States has the highest rate of income inequality among Western countries. The $1.5 trillion in tax cuts in December 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and worsened inequality. …The tax cuts will fuel a global race to the bottom, thus further reducing the revenues needed by Governments to ensure basic social protection and meet their human rights obligations. …There is a real need for the realization to sink in among the majority of the American population that taxes are not only in their interest, but also perfectly reconcilable with a growth agenda.

While the above passage is remarkable for the level of economic illiteracy, I confess that I chortled with glee when I read the part about how the recent tax reform “will fuel a global race to the bottom.”

As I wrote last year and this year, the fact that other governments will face pressure to reduce tax rates is something to celebrate.

Here’s one final excerpt. The UN report also bashes the United States because we don’t view dependency as a human right.

Successive administrations, including the current one, have determinedly rejected the idea that economic and social rights are full-fledged human rights, despite their clear recognition not only in key treaties that the United States has ratified… But denial does not eliminate responsibility, nor does it negate obligations. International human rights law recognizes a right to education, a right to health care, a right to social protection for those in need and a right to an adequate standard of living.

Needless to say, a problem with this vision of “positive rights” is that it assumes there will always be a supply of chumps willing to work hard so the government can tax away their money to finance all the goodies. But Greece shows us that it’s just a matter of time before that game ends with disaster.


In other words, Thomas Sowell is right and Franklin Roosevelt was wrong.

Let’s close with some good news. As the Washington Post just reported, the UN’s dishonest anti-American screed apparently will prove costly to that bloated bureaucracy.

Alston arrived in Washington last fall on a mission from the U.N. Human Rights Council to document poverty in America. …he was told by a senior State Department official that his findings may influence the United States’ membership in the human rights body. …“I think I was being sent a message.” Two other people at the meeting, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed Alston’s account. …Nikki Haley announced this week that the United States would withdraw from the Human Rights Council.

Good for Ambassador Haley.

Her actions stand in stark contrast to some of her predecessors, who apparently believed in taxpayer-financed self-flagellation.

Alston said he was initially invited by the U.S. government under President Barack Obama to study poverty in America. The invitation was extended again by U.S. officials under then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in 2017, he said. “We look forward to welcoming Mr. Alston to the United States for a country visit this December,” Flacelia Celsula, part of the U.S. delegation at the United Nations, said in a meeting of the Human Rights Council on June 8, 2017.

It goes without saying that Mr. Alston should have the freedom to write leftist reports. He also should have the freedom to spread lies in those reports. But I don’t want American tax dollars to finance his ideological bilge.

Which brings us to the obvious takeaway. As seems to be the case with all international bureaucracies, the United Nations wastes money at a prodigious pace. With any luck, Alston’s nonsense will convince American policymakers that deep budget cuts for the UN are long overdue.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

VIDEO: A Watched Gun Hasn’t Fired for Nearly One Year — GunCam Miracle?

Will the gun on 2ndVote GunCam make it through an entire year without committing a crime? The countdown is on.

American left and its allies in the media have long insisted that it is guns, and not people, that commit acts of violence. Pieces at Psychology TodayThe NationThe Washington PostThe Huffington PostRolling Stoneand even the editorial board of the Journal of the American Medical Association have all supported the alleged accuracy of this notion.

Given this conclusion, it is nothing short of a miracle that 2ndVote’s GunCam video has recorded zero deaths and zero crimes committed by a gun which we have closely observed for nearly a year. Don’t take our word for it! Check out the live stream video below:

Perhaps we’re being unfair to those who believe inanimate objects can choose to kill human beings. That’s why we’re carefully scrutinizing GunCam. Will this pistol suddenly jump up and run away? Will it pivot and target the video camera by which it is being observed?

We doubt it. And like several companies which have recently separated from Dick’s Sporting Goods over its anti-Second Amendment corporate decisions, we’re very confident that no other guns will commit any crimes of any sort under their own volition. Like those companies, we know that millions of Americans safely use guns — many to defend themselves and their families.

Then again, Enterprise seems to disagreeSo do dozens of other companies. Who is right — 2ndVote and America’s Founders, or these companies’ leaders who are afraid of anti-gun zealots?

The answer is still in the Great Unknown. So we shall continue our careful scrutiny of GunCam to ascertain the answer!

Help us continue developing the content and research that conservatives are using to hold corporations for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

Beyond the T-Shirt — What Are Walmart’s Real Values?

Walmart was targeted by a social-media driven boycott this week for allowing third-party retailers to sell “Impeach 45” shirts on its website. The world’s largest retailer also sells pro-Trump shirts, but in response to the boycott it removed the “Impeach” shirts on Tuesday.

While Walmart acted quickly in response to the campaign, at 2ndVote we want to make sure our subscribers have comprehensive data on corporate support on all the issues. For example, did you know that Walmart regularly engages in political activity to support left-wing causes?

The link above provides 2ndVote’s data on Walmart’s corporate donations on all of our key issues — the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, life, education, marriage, immigration, and the environment — mostly in support of left-wing ideology. In this blog post, we wanted to remind second vote buyers how Walmart has gone above and beyond donations to explicitly violate American values with its company firearm policies.

Probably Walmart’s most famous change was its announcement earlier this year that it would not sell firearms or ammunition to customers under the age of 21. The policy change came as a result of a mass shooting. But it was only the latest in a series of anti-2ndAmendment measures implemented by Walmart.

The company’s statement earlier this year starkly laid things out:

In 2015, Walmart ended sales of modern sporting rifles, including the AR-15. We also do not sell handguns, except in Alaska where we feel we should continue to offer them to our customers. Additionally, we do not sell bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories. We have a process to monitor our eCommerce marketplace and ensure our policies are applied.

….We are also removing items from our website resembling assault-style rifles, including nonlethal airsoft guns and toys.

Walmart’s decision to lurch left on guns is disappointing but, as 2ndVote shoppers, you also have the means to hold Walmart accountable for these policy decisions. As we noted in a recent blog post about Dick’s Sporting Goods, excellent alternatives exist:

The Academy Sports & Outdoors focuses on providing its products to customers. 2ndVote’s research has uncovered nothing to indicate a support for the left’s agenda.

Bass Pro Shops has partnered with the National Rifle Association and hosts events, seminars, and classes at all of its retail locations so that participants improve their firearm skills. This example of corporate social responsibility has earned them the 2ndVote “5” ranking!

Cabela’s likewise has the rare 2ndVote “5” ranking, meaning it has no bad corporate policies and plenty of good ones! Specifically, it partners with the National Rifle Association and many other sportsmen and hunting organizations.

Walmart’s left-wing lurch on guns can only be stopped by you — conservatives who buy with their values. Buy from the good companies and let Walmart know they should stick to retail instead of politics.

RELATED ARTICLE: Estonian American author: Walmart making light of Soviet atrocities


Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


VIDEO: Founder Of The #WalkAway Movement Explains Why the Democratic Party Has ‘No Future’

In a column titled “Socialism is Not Built on Compassion. It’s Built on Dehumanizing Others.” Barry Brownstein writes:

In The True Believer, a seminal book on mass movements by social philosopher Eric Hoffer, Hoffer writes: “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually, the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.”

[ … ]

Hatred begins when we dehumanize others. We lump individuals into a single homogeneous group. This other group becomes the target of hate when we believe ‘I am suffering because of them.’ [Emphasis added]

There are those who use this tactic with minorities in America, among them the gay community.

In an article titled “Founder Of The #WalkAway From Dems Movement Explains Why Their Party Has ‘No Future’” DCStatesman.com reports:

Brandon Straka, the founder of the #WalkAway movement, cried the night Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump. Now, he’s urging Democrats to leave the party. Straka created the campaign that shares videos of people telling their stories on why they are now leaving the Democratic Party because Democrats have become too ‘divisive.’

[ … ]

“I think that if you’re a minority in America … there’s sort of this assumption that you are not wanted on the right,” he said.

He added that he believes the left takes minorities for granted and makes people feel that President Trump’s administration is looking to “hurt” them.

“If you’re a minority, you have a choice,” he said. [Emphasis added]

Brandon Straka had an epiphany, an experience of sudden and striking realization that his best interests do not lie in the Democratic Party.

Here is the YouTube video that has gone viral and started the #WalkAway from the Democratic Party movement.

Watch this interview between Brandon and Laura Ingraham.

Brandon Straka has now become a classical liberal. He has walked away from the Democratic party. Wikipedia defines a classical liberal as:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.

If these ideas fit you then #WalkAway.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats Turn to Socialism

RELATED VIDEO: Why I Left the Left.

VIDEO: Judicial Watch Sues for Documents on Mueller’s Abusive Raid on Trump’s Lawyers

In April, Special Counsel Mueller and the DOJ crossed yet another bridge too far, when Mueller recommended, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein approved, a raid on President Trump’s then-personal attorney’s home and office.

At the time of the raid, I tweeted: “The raid is just one more reason to shut the Mueller operation down – it’s constitutionally suspect, ethically compromised, & frankly has no reason for being – given the fact that there’s no evidence of @RealDonaldTrump-Russia collusion.”

Judicial Watch began an investigation that has resulted in another JW “Mueller oversight project” lawsuit.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department for all records related to the April 9 raid on the office, home and hotel room of Michael Cohen, then-personal attorney to President Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-01466)). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Justice Department lawlessly failed to respond to three separate FOIA requests.

On April 12, 2018, we sought from the Office of the Attorney General:

Any and all records of correspondence and communications between the Office of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller concerning, regarding, or relating to the April 9, 2018 raids on the office and hotel room of Michael Cohen.”

Also on April 12, 2018, we sent a second FOIA request for the following from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys:

  • The Search and Seizure Warrant executed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the office and hotel room of Michael Cohen on April 9, 2018.
  • The application for the above-referenced warrant and any affidavits submitted in support of the application
  • All records about the recusal of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman from the Michael Cohen investigation.

On May 2, 2018, we submitted a third FOIA request for the following from the Department of Justice:

  • All records of communications between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York about Michael Cohen and/or the executed search warrants of Cohen’s office, home, and hotel room.
  • All records of communications between Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York about Michael Cohen and/or the executed search warrants of Cohen’s office, home, and hotel room.

On April 9, 2018, the FBI raided the home, office and hotel room of President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Prosecutors obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from Special Counsel Mueller’s office conveyed through Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Lawyers for Michael Cohen reportedly completed a review of the over four million seized files from the raids and “found that 12,061 are privileged and shouldn’t be viewed by government lawyers.”

On its face, the raid on then-President Trump’s lawyer seemed abusive and out of line. And so it is not surprising that the Mueller Special Counsel and the Justice Department would ignore FOIA law and refuse to respond to our basic requests for information about this extraordinary raid. We’ll keep you updated.

The Majority of Immigrants ICE Arrests are Convicted Criminals 

The contrived hysteria over the treatment of children has metastasized among the open borders Left into demands, peppered with lawlessness and violence, to eliminate the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Here’s an inconvenient truth: ICE protects us from criminals, as our Corruption Chronicles blog points out.

As a growing number of Democrats and their allies call for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), it’s important to remember that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants arrested by the agency have criminal convictions. In 2017 immigrants with criminal convictions accounted for 74% of all arrests made by ICE, according to government data used by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center in a study published earlier this year. Sixteen percent of those arrested by ICE had pending criminal charges and only 11 % had no known criminal convictions or charges, the Pew analysis found.

Nearly 60,000 illegal aliens deported by ICE last year were convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and another 57,438 for possessing or selling dangerous drugs such as opioids. More than 52,000 ICE arrestees were convicted of immigration offenses, including false claim to American citizenship and tens of thousands had pending criminal charges for assault, driving under the influence and a variety of other crimes. Some had pending charges for more violent crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping and homicide. Los Angeles, an illegal alien sanctuary city, topped the list with nearly nine out of 10 ICE arrests consisting of immigrants with criminal convictions. Newark, New Jersey had the lowest number with 60% criminal arrests but every region had one thing in common: “In all ICE areas, considerable majorities of arrests were for those with prior convictions,” the Pew study says.

The figures make the calls to abolish ICE, the 20,000-employee Homeland Security agency, preposterous. The growing movement includes elected officials—some presidential contenders—at the federal, state and local level as well as those running for office. Among them are senators Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), Kamala Harris (California) and Kirsten Gillibrand (New York). Warren and Harris are reportedly making White House runs in 2020. Other federal lawmakers calling for the dismantling of ICE include Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan and Massachusetts Congressman Mike Capuano. In a piece published by a mainstream media outlet, a law professor running for New York Attorney General writes that ICE is a “tool of cruelty and lawlessness and dehumanization.” The agency was born in xenophobia and fear, the lawyer asserts, and it is doing exactly what it was designed to do: “Terrorize immigrant communities, bring a police state inside our borders and treat people as less than human.”

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media appears to support the abolish ICE movement and has demonstrated it with biased reporting as well as the promotion of radical leftist ideas such as those published by the New York Attorney General candidate. A mainstream national newspaper writes that the nation doesn’t need ICE and refers to it as an “agency that harms Latino and immigrant communities.” A northern California newspaper blames the Trump administration’s “hardline immigration policies” for transforming the idea of abolishing ICE from a pipe dream for liberal activists to a legitimate political issue. The article refers to abolish ICE as a movement that has seen a “remarkable rise from fringe issue to Democratic rallying cry.” A multitude of media outlets around the country have followed suit, shamelessly displaying their pom-poms for the insane abolish ICE movement.

The reality is that ICE needs to be strengthened because the agency is overwhelmed, officers can’t keep up with monstrous workloads and repeatedly lose track of hardcore criminals inside the United States. As a result hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with criminal records are getting released by local authorities in the U.S., according to a federal audit released last year by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General. A surge in illegal immigrants under the Obama administration pushed matters into crisis mode with deportation officers so overworked that they often lose track of dangerous illegal aliens with serious criminal histories, the probe found. This includes individuals who represent critical national security threats. One ICE agent cited in the report said this: “You might work 18 hours a day, but you still won’t get caught up.” Inspectors visited four key field offices and determined that the management deficiencies and unresolved obstacles make it difficult for the feds to deport aliens expeditiously. “ICE is almost certainly not deporting all the aliens who could be deported and will likely not be able to keep up with growing numbers of deportable aliens,” the DHS watchdog found.

The attack on ICE is another front to eliminate borders by the radical Left and its political allies. No government agency should be immune from closing, but if the goal of closing an agency is to destroy the rule of law and our sovereignty then we should proceed with extreme caution.

Trust Judicial Watch to both hold the government accountable and tell you the truth about those who want to upend our laws against illegal immigration.

A Public Health Crisis Driven by Politics

Deeming “gun violence” a “public health crisis” has become commonplace in the efforts to curtail the rights of law-abiding Americans. Comparisons are made to cigarettes and cars, both of which were the focus of public health campaigns. Dr. Daniel Blumenthal wrote in an op-ed that “A public health approach has been used in addressing other causes of death and injury and has not required that the causative instrument outlawed or confiscated.”

The difference between gun violence and fatalities related to motor vehicle accidents or smoking is intent. Traffic accidents are just that – accidents. Developing safer vehicles reduces the number of fatalities, but the safest vehicle possible could still be used to intentionally harm occupants or pedestrians if the driver so chooses. The link between smoking and potentially life-threatening diseases is known but related fatalities are not classified as intentional self-harm. Combining homicides and suicides may generate a more dramatic talking point but does no service to reducing either.

Research on both car accidents and smoking has a clear goal. As Dr. Blumenthal noted, public health approaches to reduce motor vehicle fatalities and smoking-related disease focused on the causative instrument. Motor vehicle fatalities can result from trauma, which seat belts and air bags address. Diseases related to smoking are caused by the chemicals in tobacco products; educational campaigns warn people of the dangers to which they expose themselves when they smoke.

Too often, however, public health research on firearms does not focus on the causative factors that lead to violence, but on policies that would only impact law abiding gun owners. Public health campaigners do not want to warn people of the dangers of being the victim of a felony in progress (25% of all murders for which the circumstances were known and reported to the FBI in 2016), of gang killings (10%), of alcohol- or drug-fueled brawls (3%), of being involved in an argument over money or property (2%) or other arguments (36%), or of being involved in a romantic triangle (1%). Instead, they want to deter people from owning firearms or convince lawmakers to enact ever more restrictions on gun ownership. Many of these researchers design studies to reinforce their own anti-gun opinions, but anti-gun politicians and organizations will happily sacrifice methodologically sound research in the pursuit of better talking points.

There are efforts underway to reduce homicides and violent crime by targeting the cause instead of an object. Efforts like these, that focus on addressing the impetus for crime, have been effective all over the country.  Criminals will find a way even in the face of restrictive laws, so perhaps the public health approach should focus on the causative instrument – the motivation behind assaults, homicides, and self-harm.

Too Young or Too Old… To Own a Gun?

A common theme among anti-gun extremists is what we often refer to as the “Goldilocks” approach to limiting access to firearms by law-abiding citizens.  Rather than admit that the ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans, those opposed to the Second Amendment create fictional arguments about why certain types of firearms, ammunition, or even accessories should be eliminated.

In the 70s, the goal was to ban handguns.  Since they could be carried concealed for personal protection, they were seen as being “too small.”  That argument fell out of fashion as more and more states passed Right-to-Carry laws that recognized the right to personal protection.

One subset of the anti-handgun hysteria included inexpensive handguns (so-called “Saturday Night Specials”), which were deemed “too cheap.”  When NRA and others pointed out this was an obvious attempt to disarm lower income citizens (who are often at higher risk to being victims of violent crime), the term “Saturday Night Special” faded from the gun-ban lexicon.

Another subset of the attack on handguns came with the introduction of Glocks, and other handguns that used polymers as part of their construction.  These were falsely claimed to be able to pass through metal detectors and x-ray machines undetected, and, thus, “too invisible” to be screened where firearm are prohibited (think airports).  Of course, this canard was quickly dispelled.

Ammunition has been attacked as “too lethal,” “too untraceable,” “too bad for the environment (lead),” “too inexpensive (so tax it),” and any number of other “toos.”

Rifles have been called “too powerful,” “too modifiable,” “too accurate,” “too similar to actual military arms,” and the list goes on.

Boiled down to its essence, after wading through myriad “too this” and “too that” arguments, the just-right “Goldilocks” of guns would likely be a break action .22 rifle, although finding acceptable lead-free ammunition might be a bit difficult.  But anti-gun extremists can still claim they don’t want to ban “all” guns.

The latest approach to “Goldilocks-style Gun Control,” though, seems to be focusing less on what you can own, and focusing more on who can own firearms.  And we don’t mean people with criminal records.

After the horrific tragedy that took place in Parkland, Florida, this year, age became the new battle cry for those seeking to limit gun ownership.  Rather than focusing on the obvious failures at various levels of government to identify the copious warning signs exhibited by the alleged perpetrator, extremists decided to focus on the fact that law-abiding citizens are able to exercise their rights protected under the Second Amendment when they reach the age of 18.  Although responsible young adults regularly leave home, join the military, get married, and begin voting at this age, the anti-gun community has decided this age is too young for one to exercise the right of gun ownership.

Eighteen-year-olds have not been prohibited from purchasing and possessing rifles and shotguns at the federal level, and in the vast majority of states, since the founding of our country.  Nonetheless, because of the violent acts of one individual, we have seen an onslaught of legislation throughout the country that seeks to raise the minimum age to purchase and/or possess rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21.  Because common sense has taken a back seat to raw emotionalism in today’s gun control debate, some of these efforts have seen success.

But being deemed “too young” to own firearms isn’t the only threat to face the pro-Second Amendment community.  There may be a new approach beginning to form.  You might soon be deemed “too old.”

An article by JoNel Aleccia and Melissa Bailey, published by Kaiser Health News (KHN) and PBS NewsHour, has begun making the rounds with a number of media outlets, such as CNN, and it discusses the issue of gun owners who may be suffering from dementia.  Sort of.

Dementia can be a devastating disorder.  It is a category of diseases, including Alzheimer’s, that affects the brain, and its impact on individuals varies widely.  Mild forms can lead to simple cognitive declines, such as slight memory loss, that are little different than one would experience during the normal aging process.  More severe and advanced cases of dementia, on the other hand, can lead to dramatic changes in those afflicted that would require professional health care, and perhaps even commitment to a dedicate healthcare facility.

Of course, discussing the problem of dementia is a conversation worthy of having.  Unfortunately, the KHN/PBS article is riddled with language that sounds like it came straight from one of the gun-ban groups being funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg.  We can only presume it is likely to be used to promote anti-gun policies that focus on prohibition, and ignore reason and constitutional considerations.

The tone of the article (a lengthy one) is set early, when it inaccurately describes our nation with the all-too-commonly heard inflammatory claim that, today, “America copes with an epidemic of gun violence….”  In fact, America’s murder rate has fallen to a near all-time low.  If anything, we have been doing remarkably well since the violent crime peak in the early 90s, with violent crime and murder rates decreasing by about half.

But repeating anti-gun rhetoric is just the start.

Aleccia and Bailey go on to refer to an analysis of Washington state survey data that claims approximately 54,000 residents who are 65 and older have “some cognitive decline” as well as a firearm in the home.  Is this really important to note?  No, because two key facts are ignored.

First, cognitive decline is common among the elderly, and can manifest itself as simply slight memory loss.  It does not mean dementia is present.  In fact, the epidemiologist who analyzed the survey data even “cautions that the answers are self-reported and that people who’ve actually been diagnosed with dementia likely are unable to respond to the survey.”  So now, rather than dementia being the concern, it’s simply old age.

Second, the story refers to these people (again, likely just elderly folks with no known mental disorder) having “access to weapons,” as if that is a concern.  However, they may not even have access.  The survey apparently asked if there was a firearm in the home.  The person surveyed could very well be living in a home that has firearms in it, but not have access to the firearm.  A son or daughter who takes in a parent, for example, could be the person who owns the firearm in the home, and may not allow others access to it.

The authors also seem to lament, “Only five states have laws allowing families to petition a court to temporarily seize weapons from people who exhibit dangerous behavior.”  These are the so-called “red flag” or “extreme risk protection order” laws that are being promoted nationwide.  They generally lack sufficient due process protections necessary for deprivation of a constitutional right and are often rife for abuse.

Furthermore, dementia is not a “temporary” disease.  It has no cure.  If an individual is exhibiting “dangerous behavior,” it is, in all likelihood, going to continue, and probably increase.  All states have a process to seek to have someone’s competency adjudicated or be involuntarily committed, which could result in a more permanent firearm prohibition. And, these laws generally protect due process by allowing individuals to put on their own defense and challenge the allegation before having their rights infringed by the state.

To make matters worse, Aleccia and Bailey also spoke with long-time anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute, as part of their parroting of the false argument that NRA has stopped “public health research into the effects of gun violence.”  Wintemute is the director of the anti-gun University of California Firearm Violence Research Center, so it is clear that there is research going on.

Ultimately, while the subject of treatment for dementia patients is a very serious issue that deserves more scientific inquiry, using such a terrible disease as a pretext to preemptively disarm elderly Americans is unacceptable.  As we have said many times before, NRA supports any reasonable steps to fix America’s broken mental health system. But if the debate is going to move towards one more Goldilocks argument suggesting that just getting “too old” is reason enough to confiscate firearms, as this article might suggest, then that is a debate we will not bear.

Pennsylvania District Fights to Keep Parents From Watching Pro-LGBT Videos Students Were Required to Watch

At East Penn School district, officials don’t just indoctrinate kids — they refuse to show parents how! That’s the outrageous predicament Emmaus families find themselves in after they found out about a weeklong blitz of pro-LGBT videos that was required watching in every homeroom. And here’s the irony: while students were forced to watch them, parents weren’t allowed!

Local moms and dads only found out about the screenings through their kids, not because the administration bothered to inform them. Mike Huff, a parent of one of the students, was furious. “I do not support a publicly-funded school pushing any political or social views on children,” he told administrators. These were “purposeful, planned, indoctrination videos” that go against his family’s values. Yet, when Huff and others flooded the school office, demanding to see what they were showing kids, the response was simple: “No.”

“This was student work; this wasn’t staff work,” Superintendent Michael Schilder insisted. “This was not curriculum… This was student work that needs to be protected from public scrutiny.” But, as most adults pointed out, the “student work” was actually the product of the radical Gay Lesbian Straight Education Alliance (GLSEN), which has been infiltrating schools under parents’ noses for years.

At a school board meeting, East Penn parents lined up to blast the decision to keep the information from parents. “Our community deserves much better than this from the administration…” said mom Michelle Blagbrough. When officials refused to turn over the materials to parents, a group of them contacted Liberty Counsel to sue, if necessary. In a letter to the district earlier this week, attorneys threatened legal action.

“I am writing to request that the East Penn School district immediately provide to all parents requesting them the specific links to the four pro-homosexuality YouTube videos shown by the district to 2,800 high school students at Emmaus High School, as part of the district’s ‘Unity Week’ and ‘Day of Silence’ promotional activities.” If they refuse, Liberty Counsel promises “further action to prevent irreparable harm to the rights of local parents.”

By state law, the district can’t withhold curriculum from parents — a point attorneys drove home in their letter. “The Pennsylvania Administrative Code requires that the district provide parents the opportunity to review all instructional material shown to their children, prior to it being shown… The district has violated this requirement.” Parents, they reiterated, “not agents of the state, including teachers, and certainly not GLSEN or its teacher or student affiliates with the GSA, have the right to direct the upbringing and associations of minor children.”

LGBT activists have relied on a campaign of secrecy in schools for years. But for a public school to openly join those activists in keeping material from the parents of students is an incredible display of arrogance. If you have kids in government schools, protecting them from these influences is a full-time job. Stay vigilant — or better, consider other options!

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

COMMENTARY BY

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The  featured image was taken on June 23, 2018 – New York City, New York, USA – School pupils participate in the Pride March on June 24, 2018 in New York. The first March was held in 1970. (Credit Image: © Anna Sergeeva via ZUMA Wire) [Photo via Newscom]

Watch the Dehumanization of Law Enforcement in West Oakland, CA

In a column titled “Socialism is Not Built on Compassion. It’s Built on Dehumanizing Others.” Barry Brownstein writes:

In The True Believer, a seminal book on mass movements by social philosopher Eric Hoffer, Hoffer writes: “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually, the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.”

[ … ]

Hatred begins when we dehumanize others. We lump individuals into a single homogeneous group. This other group becomes the target of hate when we believe ‘I am suffering because of them.’

Feigning compassion in order to dehumanize others was vividly demonstrated by protesters in a West Oakland, California neighborhood.

The Federalist in a July 5, 2018 article titled “WATCH: Neighbors Protest ICE As It Breaks Up Child Sex Trafficking Ring reports:

Protesters wrote ‘Oakland PD is a disgrace’ in chalk on the ground, as ICE agents busted up a child prostitution ring in their neighborhood.

Video of neighbors protesting as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents broke up a child sex trafficking ring in their neighborhood has resurfaced, as politicians and activists call for the agency to be abolished.

A local CBS news station reported on the incident, which took place in West Oakland, California, last year. ICE began conducting the raid in the morning, waking up neighbors who saw ICE and Department of Homeland Security vehicles on the street.

Democratic Socialists of America logo

In Nazi Germany the devil was a Jew. In Venezuela, China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea the devil is anyone who opposes the state. For the Democratic Socialists of America, which is now the future of the Democratic Party, the devil is any of the following:

  • Those who voted for President Donald J. Trump
  • Anyone who is in the Trump administration
  • Anyone who is a Christian
  • Anyone who criticizes Islam
  • Anyone who criticizes the gay lifestyle
  • Anyone who believes marriage is between one man and one woman
  • Anyone who is white
  • Anyone who is black and supports President Trump
  • Anyone who is Hispanic and supports President Trump
  • Law enforcement including most recently ICE
  • Anyone Democratic Socialists, the new Democrat Party, disagree with
  • Anyone who loves America

As Brownstein notes, “An essential feature of socialism is to dehumanize others. Like millions in Pol Pot’s Cambodia or Mao’s China, millions of North Koreans have been taught to hate others. Millions in the ‘hostile class’ have been starved, brutalized, and murdered.”

Brownstein concludes, “Socialism will never produce a different outcome. How is it possible to insist that the next socialist regime will be different?”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rap Sheet: ***133*** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters

California Presses Assault on Free Speech With ‘Fake News’ Panel

Marxists And Extreme Radicals Seek To Take Over The Democratic Party.

Socialism is Not Built on Compassion. It’s Built on Dehumanizing Others.

Barry Brownstein How is it possible to insist that the next socialist regime will be different?

by Barry Brownstein

Some claim capitalism dehumanizes individuals. Others claim Horatio Alger stories are a myth, believing individuals have little social or economic mobility under capitalism and cannot rise above the circumstances into which they are born.

If you believe capitalism does a worse job than socialism on social and economic mobility and that socialism treats people more humanely, please spend time in a collectivist country such as North Korea and report back.

In my essay, “People Are Less Selfish Under Capitalism,” I explore why individualism and free exchange make people more altruistic and trustworthy. The flip side of this issue reveals how and why collectivism dehumanizes individuals.

Collectivist Societies Are Held Together by Hate

In The True Believer, a seminal book on mass movements by social philosopher Eric Hoffer, Hoffer writes: “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually, the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.”

Hoffer recounts the story “of a Japanese mission that arrived in Berlin in 1932 to study the National Socialist movement.” British journalist Frederick Voigt “asked a member of the mission what he thought of the movement.”

Demonstrating the need for a tangible “devil,” the member replied, “It is magnificent. I wish we could have something like it in Japan, only we can’t, because we haven’t got any Jews.”

Without stirring primitive hatred pitting “us” against “them,” there can be no unwavering allegiance of the population when a mass movement fails to deliver on its promises.

When socialism’s inevitability fails, the ruling elites have to shift the attention of the population to a scapegoat. Someone or some group other than the political leadership needs to be blamed.

When human beings are not consumed by thoughts of differences and hate, they naturally connect with the humanity in others. As psychology professor Nour Kteily observes, “We have this incredible capacity for cooperation; it’s what makes us human in many ways. And yet we have this capacity for othering.”

Hatred begins when we dehumanize others. We lump individuals into a single homogeneous group. This other group becomes the target of hate when we believe ‘I am suffering because of them.’

Philosophy professor Michelle Maiese provides insight into how othering leads to deindividuation, which leads to dehumanization and opens a moral loophole to justify harming others:

Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated. It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one’s opponents.

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

The Nazis depicted Jews as rats. Hutu officials in Rwanda called Tutsis cockroaches. Stripped of their humanity, Jews and Tutsis became victims of genocide.

Like the Japanese, North Koreans have no Jews, but the North Koreans have made a “devil” out Americans—and much of their own population.

North Korean defector Hyeonseo Lee grew up thinking her country “was the greatest nation on earth.” In her book, The Girl With Seven Names, Lee explains how she was taught that “South Korean children were dressed in rags” and “scavenged for food on garbage heaps and suffered the sadistic cruelty of American soldiers, who used them for target practice, ran them over in jeeps, or made them polish boots.” Lee’s teacher showed “cartoon drawings of children begging barefoot in winter.”

Those in North Korea suffer unimaginable deprivations and do not understand how much better off the rest of the world is. The North Korean house of horrors is held together by brute force, unrelenting propaganda, and indoctrinated hate.

Like Hyeonseo Lee, Yeonmi Park is a North Korean defector. In her book, In Order to Live, Park tells of North Korean school children learning arithmetic by counting the number of dead “American bastards.”

Stirring up hatred against Americans, however, is not enough to keep the Kims in power in North Korea. Few North Koreans will ever encounter an American.

Sadly, the greatest hatred of the ruling elites in North Korea is reserved for their own people when their allegiance to the state is judged as less than absolute. According to the NK Hidden Gulag blog, a project supported by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, this class of citizens allegedly harbors “counter-revolutionary attitudes or associations, including being guilty of what North Korean gulag expert David Hawk describes as ‘wrong-doing, wrong-thinking, wrong-knowledge, wrong-association, or the wrong-class background.’”

A Feudal System

North Korean people live under seongbun, a rigid system of social classification from which there is no hope of escape. Once classified, the only possible social movement is down.

All 23 million North Koreans are classified into one of three categories: “loyal, wavering, or hostile.” Hyeonseo Lee describes the seongbun system:

Within the three broad categories there are fifty-one gradations of status, ranging from the ruling Kim family at the top, to political prisoners with no hope of release at the bottom.

The irony was that the new communist state had created a social hierarchy more elaborate and stratified than anything seen in the time of the feudal emperors. People in the hostile class, which made up about 40 per cent of the population, learned not to dream. They got assigned to farms and mines and manual labour.

An essential feature of seongbun is the doctrine of yeon-jwa-je for the collective punishment of political crimes. As the yeon-jwa-je edict, issued by Kim Il-sung in 1970, states, “The seed of factionalists or enemies of class, whoever they are, must be eliminated through three generations.”

Lee describes how the Bowibu, the secret police of North Korea, rely on neighbors “to inform on neighbours; children to spy on children; workers to watch co-workers; and the head of the neighbourhood people’s unit, the banjang, [to maintain] an organized system of surveillance on every family in her unit.”

Collective guilt, yeon-jwa-je, creates a population that lives in a state of fear and paranoia.

Lee adds that the “Bowibu weren’t interested in the real crimes that affected people, such as theft, which was rife, or corruption, but only in political disloyalty, the faintest hint of which, real or imagined, was enough to make an entire family–grandparents, parents and children–disappear. Their house would be roped off; they’d be taken away in a truck at night, and not seen again.”

Sitting on a newspaper with a Kim’s face” is a “crime” that can send three generations to North Korean concentration camps.

Worship of the Kim dynasty is demanded of the population. Lee describes one manifestation of this worship:

Our entire family life, eating, socializing and sleeping, took place beneath the portraits. I was growing up under their gaze. Looking after them was the first rule of every family. In fact they represented a second family, wiser and more benign even than our own parents. They depicted our Great Leader Kim Il-sung, who founded our country, and his beloved son Kim Jong-il, the Dear Leader, who would one day succeed him. Their distant, airbrushed faces took pride of place in our home, and in all homes. They hung like icons in every building I ever entered. From an early age I helped my mother clean them. We used a special cloth provided by the government, which could not be used for cleaning anything else.

Relentless North Korean propaganda has claimed that some gave their lives to save the “sacred” portraits:

Each year, stories of portrait-saving heroics would be featured in the media. My parents would hear a radio report commending a grandfather who’d waded through treacherous flood water holding the portraits above his head (he’d saved them, but sacrificed his own life in the attempt), or see a photograph in the Rodong Sinmun, the national daily, of a couple sitting precariously on the tiled roof of their hut after a catastrophic mudslide, clutching the sacred portraits. The newspaper exhorted all citizens to emulate the example of these real-life heroes.

Here is the ultimate dehumanization: all that truly matters in North Korea are the lives of the Kims. “Even those dying from starvation…they said ‘I’m worried about Kim Jong Il, the leader. His health. His safety.’”

There Is Nothing Unique about North Korea

In the vast system of North Korean concentration camps, North Korean guards treat their fellow North Koreans brutally. Indoctrinated in seongbun and yeon-jwa-je, guards see prisoners as less-than-human, counter-revolutionary “others.”

In his book Long Road Home: Testimony of a North Korean Camp Survivor, Yong Kim offers a searing testimony of the brutality in North Korean concentration camps. Yong Kim is one of the only known survivors of camp No. 14. Yong Kim details the plight of inmates forced to work over 12 hours a day doing dangerous and hard work on “three handfuls of corn kernels accompanied by a little rough salt and a bowl of watery soup—a portion deliberately designed to starve inmates to slow and excruciating death.”

As Yong Kim writes, “Prisoners were beyond the point of feeling hungry, so they felt constantly delirious. But what was really killing us was psychological and emotional torture. No family members were allowed to stay together.” (Recall that three generations of North Koreans are imprisoned for political crimes.)

If you believe the horrors of North Korea are an aberration, you are wrong. History shows socialist states dehumanize others, grouping them into hostile classes, as UCLA professor Kim Suk-Young explains in her introduction to Long Road Home:

We find practices similar to the North Korean seongbun, which marked undesired social groups and stigmatized them permanently in the aftermath of the socialist revolution. Richard K. Carton notes that “every Communist assumption of power—in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania—was accompanied by mass arrests aimed primarily at the elimination of the opposition. Some prisoners were interned and others were assigned to forced labor.” Likewise, in the People’s Republic of China, as Philip F. Williams and Yenna Wu’s study shows, a similar process of grouping undesirable people took place on a massive scale: “Justification of large-scale political arrests … would recur in the legal policies of and criminal law instituted by successive Chinese Communist regimes throughout the twentieth century. This general pattern was much the same for Leninist regimes throughout Eurasia, especially during the phase of consolidation.”

The ruling class needs the hostile class to be a scapegoat and also a source of labor, as Suk-Young points out:

What is intriguing about this effort at massive elimination of certain social classes, however, is not only the creation of the so-called antirevolutionary class but also the fact that most of the antirevolutionaries ended up being absorbed by the state as a source of free labor. As Williams and Yu argue, “Because of their bad class background and the government’s need for cheap labor, able-bodied rich farmers and landlords who were charged with no crime at all were also often conscripted for coercive service in the hard labor brigades.”

An essential feature of socialism is to dehumanize others. Like millions in Pol Pot’s Cambodia or Mao’s China, millions of North Koreans have been taught to hate others. Millions in the “hostile class” have been starved, brutalized, and murdered. Socialism will never produce a different outcome. How is it possible to insist that the next socialist regime will be different?

ABOUT BARRY BROWSTEIN

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. To receive Barry’s essays subscribe at Mindset Shifts.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Politics Distorts Our Perceptions

What’s Really Wrong With Inequality?