Here is the funny thing about Democrat politics as we watch the death of this influencial party.

Sooner or later,  assassination politics comes back to destroy them.  Now,  at a time when defeating Trump is most critical to the Socialist Progressives,  the party is markedly divided at its core. 

On one hand,  we have Commie Bernie ranting against corporations and Big Money, and, on the other hand  we have the marriage of Big Money to the Democrat Party and its need to fund its social welfare programs.  

After decades of poisoning it's base,  the Dems have finally arrived at the end of the road.  It is time to choose which way it will go and remain in power doing so.  And in that choice,  we are watching a Democrat Party about to fail. It needed to stay on course with its determined incrementalism.  Instead,  Barack came on the scene and blew up "incrementalism,"  maybe 20 years too soon (from their point of view).   

In terms of the coming vote,  the Dems have millions of Millennials who will not vote against socialism, and,  without that base,  the Dems cannot win a national election   . . . . .  at least,  that is my theory.

Understand that this demand for socialism is a generational issue,  a problem that will plague the party for a couple of decades  . . . .  plenty of time for the population to witness socialism up close and personal.   

Here is a great article on the failings of Socialism, found in the Amican Thinkers

Socialism's Unbroken Trail of Failure

By John Eidson

Evidence that socialism is doomed to fail wherever it is tried occurred long before America became a nation.  In 1607, inhabitants of Jamestown, Virginia were on the verge of starvation, largely because the settlement's communal living arrangement failed to produce enough food.  Among the steps that saved Jamestown from oblivion was doing away with communal sharing in favor of incentive-based farming that rewarded personal initiative.

Three and a half centuries later, the same lesson repeated itself in San Francisco and elsewhere, when the utopian "free food" communes of the hip generation went the way of the dinosaurs.  The hippies who provided the food got tired of feeding those whose only contribution was a hearty appetite.  Earlier this year, socialism's empty promise of a honeyed existence for all struck again, this time in Scandinavia, where Finland's socialist government collapsed over the unsustainable cost of passing out free stuff as if it grew on trees.
Having left an unbroken trail of failure in its wake, socialism is doomed to fail wherever it's tried, because it is in eternal mortal conflict with the basic human instinct that those who work hard, pursue advanced education, employ their ingenuity, or risk their capital have an inborn expectation to do significantly better than those who don't.  As 18^th century Scottish economist Adam Smith put it, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest."  Stated differently, every socialist who works for a living does so not out of altruistic instincts, but to feather his own financial nest.  That, too, will never change.

Socialism: An ideology based on lies

Socialists attempt to subvert free societies via stealth and deceit.  Here are four of the most outlandish lies they tell:
● "We're not socialists.  We're democratic socialists."
There is no difference in the two.  The word "democratic" is inserted as a Trojan horse to

There should be no billionaires. Such talk ONLY harms the rest of the country and here is why:

Bernie actually said this.  It's on video.  My question is this:  Why are the uber-rich not afraid of Bernie or Warren?

Bernie in a campaign statement: There should be no billionaires.  We are going to tax their extreme wealth and invest in working people.  Read the plan.

Editor:  And his plan ?   Bernie wants to tax  180,000 Americans,  his version of the "uber rich," as much as 8% above a certain wealth baseline.  I don't have that baseline in mind,  but it makes no difference to me,  because,  after the Bernie (or Warren) wealth  tax,  we still have billionaires and millionaires.  Nothing has changed.  We still have massive income inequality as defined by these two socialists. The uber rich just have a little less money to spend on their yachts and mansions, and,  the poor remain poor and dependent on Central Planning handouts as managed by the Socialist Left  within the Democrat Party  (and a few GOP pretenders). 

Understand that the billionaire class do not fear Bernie because they know that Bernie is not proposing their banishment.  If one has 5 billion and 1 billion is taken from them,  their spending habits do not change.  They have less to invest in their businesses, but their life-styles are not affected.   

To be clear,  Bernie/Warren propose to steal job creation and business investments from the rich (our nation's jobs creators).  They will deny this, of course,  but they cannot deny that the rich will keep on living "as the rich."  Their (the rich) adjustment to the wealth tax will be to spend less on their corporations and all that "corporate investment" entails  (job creation, wage increases,  inventories, provisions for future growth, share-holder payments, and the like).   
All we have to do to verify the above "theory" is to take a long look at Europe and its failing economies.  Case closed; end of story.

Maybe you (we) should watch this video as Warren explains - without any breakown of her financial theory - what a 2 cent wealth tax will buy

Warren: My ‘2 Cent Tax’ On The Rich Will Fund ‘Universal Childcare,’ ‘Universal Pre-K,’ Higher Teacher Salaries, Student Loan Forgiveness, And Free College…

 

 Maybe you (we) should watch this video as Warren explains  -  without any breakown of her financial theory  -  what a 2 cent wealth tax will buy.  And know this:  its 2 cents today for the top 1/10th of 1 percent,  and hundreds of additional dollars for everyone making more than offical poverty level income tomorrow.  It never ends with the stated theories and promises of those who want to transfer your/our individual wealth.  

In the video,  she argues that because you drive on roads,  work in buildings,  live in housing,  all of which are produced, in part,  by others,  you owe "others" this transfer of wealth.  But what about those "others" who supplied, in part,  all of those things we use, live in,  work in,  didn't they make money off those supplies?  Of course they did.  Which means this:  given enough time,  the Warrens of this world will come after your comparatively meager accumulation of wealth and BAM,  suddenly, we all work for Central Planning.  

Two cents today,  is an increased tax on every wage earner tomorrow.  Two cents today is the beginning of a progressive tax schedule that will,  in time, leave you with little more than what is needed to live in this world.  Two cents today,  will eventually rob you of any opportunity to experience "upward mobility" tomorrow.  Two cents today,  is nothing but a form of soicalist retribution on those who successfully work to advance their wealth and increase their provisions for those living in their world.  Two cents today is a big first step for rank socialism tomorrow  . . . .   period.  

Understand this, there is no such thing as "upward mobility" in a heavily taxed and comprehensive socialist society.    

 

Socialism just got its collective "proverbialsl" kicked out of office. Sign of the times???

57 share

<<<  The new face of the French "Revolution" is a blond with a brain !!

PARIS (AP) — French voters dealt a severe blow to the Socialist government in Sunday's municipal elections, but the party saved face by retaining the crown jewel, Paris, which got its first female mayor.

French far-right party leader Marine Le Pen. Source: AP

The anti-immigration far right, which claims that France's large Muslim population is "Islamicizing" the nation, made solid advances, fulfilling National Front promises to begin building a grassroots base.

Socialist leaders conceded defeat in the final round of the voting seen as a referendum on unpopular President Francois Hollande, who was expected to reshuffle the Cabinet in an effort to give the government a boost. Hollande has earned record-low poll ratings for his failure to cure France's flagging economy or cut into the jobless rate, which hovers around 10 percent.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced deep losses for his Socialist Party, saying it lost to the mainstream right some 50 cities of more than 30,000 it had held previously, and about 155 towns and cities of all sizes. Toulouse, France's fourth-largest city, moved to the right.

The far right may win up to 15 towns in the voting, Valls said before results were complete. Party leader Marine Le Pen said the performance amounted to "an incontestably great success" that will give her National Front more than 1,200 local councilors — surpassing her goal. . . . .  read the full story at Breitbart.com, here.

******

Update:  FRANCE’S far-right National Front party dealt a major blow to the ruling Socialists after several of its candidates took prime position in the first round of local elections.

The main centre-right opposition UMP party also hailed a “big victory” as initial estimates showed it came out trumps in the elections, amid severe disillusion with President Francois Hollande's government against a backdrop of near-zero growth and high unemployment.

According to a BVA poll, the UMP and allies took 48 per cent of the vote nationwide while the Socialist party and allies took 43 per cent, and the FN seven per cent — far higher than its 0.9 per cent result in the first round of 2008 municipal poll . . . . .  taken from The Australian.com, here.

___________________

Related lede's:

1. France local elections: Socialists lose heavily

   BBC News ‎- 49 minutes ago

   France's governing Socialists have suffered big losses in municipal ... The Socialists have been hit by growing discontent over the economy.

The French are not the only ones contemplating a change from Socialism:  

Socialist party | euronews

www.euronews.com › A - Z Site Index - Danish socialist 







Far-Right Party Stirs Municipal Elections in France - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com/.../far-right-party-stirs-municipa...‎

We are all Marxists now - Part II: The following describes Marxism's view on "job lock," Capitalism and the benefits of a communal society. This is where Obama/Pelosi/Durbin/Reid all got their idea for "job lock."

<<<   We're all Marxists, now.  

From the creator of socialism and communalism, we have this - Marxists.org:

For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, [in other words:  job lock] which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after . . . . . .  

Anyone still believe there to be a political equivalency between Occupy and the teaparty, grassroots movement?

Van Jones,  Obama's first "green czar" (2009),  was an admitted communist for ten years (see Politifact, here) and hoped to use Occupy,  as near a "communist front,"  in this country,  as one get,  as a base for a grand political third party,  complete with representatives in each of the 50 states,  a national convention and a national presidential candidate (2012).  Of course,  none of this happened,  and Occupy never grew out of the anarchist/adolescent stage of its so-called "development."  But, the fact that Jones was more than amenable to the goals and antics of Occupy,  is all the proof this editor needs,  to continue thinking of Jones as an undeclared communist,  in his present life.  

Occupy celebrates its 2nd anniversary,  this week.  At no time has Occupy had more than 5,000 dedicated members,  nation wide,   who did more than show up and vandalize businesses.  Van Jones' decision that "now" was the time for a national restructuring of the State via a political party that would grow out of Occupy,  demonstrates the idealistic immaturity of this man who joined Obama in working for fundamental change to this great nation.  The difference between Jones and Obama,  noteworthy, however.  While their announced goals are the same,  Van Jones is consistent and, even,  honest in his socialist pursuits.  Obama is not,  and has become a major disappointment to those who thought radical change was coming to America.  

In May of 2008,  in a speech in Puerto Rico,  Michelle Obama announced the radicalism of her husband when she spoke these words:   "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation." 

You cannot sound more radical than this without calling for a violent uprising. 

Today,  while Occupy "celebrates" its meager existence per the demonstration pictured in this post,  teaparty types have rolled into DC,  more than 1 million strong (hoping for 2 million) and established the reality that conservatives and the teaparty alliance are as strong as ever.  

It should be noted that while Obama has grown this country's ruling class,  he has failed miserably to fulfill the words of his radicalized wife.  Understand that this is not simply "Obama's failure."  Rather,  we are watching the failings of a world ideology that is failed in every nation in which it was tried. 

Whether or not you agree with that statement,  certainly,  it is clear that a state sponsored socialism that feeds off the suppression of US Constitutional rights,  does not work in this country.  There is something to be said for the fact that capitalism expressed and grounded in individual rights  is more than a core principle in the creation and function of this country;  it is systemic to its very nature as a nation,  and cannot be change with a dictatorial overthrow of the system,  as a whole.  And,  that will not happen before the next civil war.    

The case for the forced redistribution of wealth is made in this video. Still think Obama is not a socialist? He reasoning is the very foundation for post-modern socialism

Understand that,  at the center of socialism,  is the altruism  expressed by Hussein Obama in this video statement.  Obama believes that society owes itself the wealth accumulated by its more prosperous and creative members.  His reasoning is flawed in that it takes the generic truth,  “no man is a island,”  and uses it to increase welfare roles (wealth) to individuals who did not personally participate in the ways described in Obama’s remarks.  “Society helped”  rather than  “this, this and that individual(s) helped accumulate the wealth in question.”  The fact is this:  those specific individuals who aided in the accumulation of [specific] riches,  were all reimbursed (i.e. “paid”) for their efforts,  whether,  the teacher who taught the entrepreneur,  the crew who built the highways he used to transport his goods,  the employees who were hired AND PAID for their efforts and,  on and on.   

From the Washington Times 

President Barack Obama addressed supporters in Roanoke, Virginia on Saturday afternoon and took a shot at the business community. President Obama dismissed any credit business owners give themselves for their success:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

     The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

            

Obama at the chalk board at Columbia,  demonstrating the self-centered
motivations of the corporate/capitalist world.  "Relationships built on
self interest(s)"  is the subject being outlined.  Such adds to my claim that
Obama is a committed socialist and has been for years.