Marx would love Biden’s latest spending spree

By Don Frost

            In a speech before a joint session of Congress April 28, President Biden said, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

            Of course he didn’t use those exact words. The terror they strike into the hearts of every American is too well known. Still that was the precise sentiment he strove mightily to get across to the American people in the televised speech.

            If there was ever a doubt (and there wasn’t) that Biden was the hand puppet of the Socialist wing of his Democratic Party, he banished it in that speech. Still the party’s Socialists will grouse that he didn’t go far enough, thus reinforcing the fiction that he’s a moderate.

            Before we get into that, let’s get his focus group-tested applause lines out of the way first: “America is on the move again”; he’ll be “turning peril into prosperity”; “turning crisis into opportunity”; “turning setback into strength.”

            No one in a fawning press bothered to ask him how he intended to accomplish any of these ill-defined woes into such ill-defined goals. If Donald Trump had uttered them, that same press would have – and did – pillory him for a speech lacking specifics. When the media quoted Trump at all the reports were always liberally sprinkled with lines like, “Trump said, without evidence . . .” But the reporting on Biden’s words is treated like they were brought down from the mountaintop by Moses.

            Biden’s newest spending spree calls for $1.8 trillion to provide the general welfare. (Add that to other recent spending plans for a total of $8 trillion – and he’s only 100 days into his presidency.) Mind you this cash is not intended to promote the general welfare as mandated by our Constitution. It is unabashedly intended to provide that welfare. As the Associated Press report put it, Biden’s plan “would fundamentally transform roles the government plays in American life.” Karl Marx, the father of Socialism, would love it.

            In broad terms Biden said the government would pay for universal preschool; two years of community college; child care; paid family leave (whatever that is); and, get ready for it, a monthly check of at least $250 to parents. Undoubtedly when you get down to the nitty-gritty all this largesse would go to members of The Poor Tribe, certainly not The Rich Tribe or even the Middle Class Tribe. In this way Biden seeks to fulfill the Marx axiom, “From everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his need.”

            Whenever Democrats want to spend money, they call it an “investment.” According to the dictionary to invest in something is “to put money into business, real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. for the purpose of obtaining an income or profit.” So it’s an incredible stretch to say the country would profit by giving someone free preschool, free college, free day care, free family leave, and a monthly check for $250.

            Naturally Biden vows most solemnly that you won’t have to pay for this. Instead, he promises that all of this spending would be paid for by The Rich Tribe (those earning $400,000 a year and more) and corporations. Corporations, of course, would quietly pass that cost on to their customers in an age-old phenomenon called inflation. Even The Poor Tribe would be forced to pay that.

            Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell diplomatically hit the nail on the head when he said: “President Biden ran as a moderate, but I’m hard pressed to think of anything at all that he’s done so far that would indicate some degree of moderation.”

            Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.) was less diplomatic. He said Biden “could have done this speech in about 30 seconds. He could have walked up and said, ‘I’m President Biden. Thank you for watching. Here’s my message: ‘I want all of you to send every bit of your money and freedom to Washington.’ ”

            Now the president is in full campaign mode – at our expense – crisscrossing the country aboard Air Force One to rally support among the people. He knows his highly disciplined congressional Democrats will support his scheme 100%, and he knows most Republicans won’t. So he hopes to bamboozle the American people into supporting it to shame congressional Republicans into getting behind it as well.

            As of now he has a tissue-paper thin majority in the House with 218 Democrats and 212 Republicans. The Senate is split 51-50 with vice president Harris always ready to add the decisive tie-breaking vote. He also knows he has less than two years to get all of his massive spending locked into law. That’s when there will be a reckoning in the midterm elections, when the party in power traditionally loses seats in Congress.

            I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again now, and I’ll say it again more and more during Biden’s administration: Norman Thomas was a six-time presidential candidate on the Socialist Party ticket in the ’30s and ’40s. In a 1944 speech attributed to him he said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the guise of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

            Snopes can’t confirm that Thomas said it. But the rumor-busting website does trace the observation back to at least in the mid-1950s when someone was paying attention.

            People used to joke, “Don’t tell Obama what comes after ‘trillion.’ ” Biden seems determined to make Obama look like Scrooge.

Dems launch bid to pack SCOTUS

By Don Frost

            Shortly after the Civil War the Supreme Court had seven members. President Ulysses Grant had a piece of legislation he wanted passed, but SCOTUS nixed it on a 4-3 vote. So Grant nominated – and got – two sympathetic justices added to the court, returning it in 1869 to nine justices where it has been ever since. The legislation, a divisive partisan measure, hit the court on a second try. This time it passed constitutional scrutiny with its new majority.

            The Daily Argus of Illinois was outraged. This “attempt to pack the Supreme Court to secure a desired judicial decision brought shame and humiliation.”

            In 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt tried packing the court for precisely the same reason – to secure desired judicial decisions for his New Deal. Roosevelt, of course, claimed the “packing” was intended to achieve a more efficient court; a more thoughtful court. The Senate, including fellow Democrats, saw through FDR’s rhetoric and defeated the effort on a vote of 70-20.

            The Constitution does not specify the size of the court, but with nine members it has served the nation well for 152 years, longer than any other membership configuration.

            Now, to the horror of “liberals,” it is ideologically split with six conservative members and three “liberal” members. Predictably “liberals,” who thought it just dandy when the court was “liberal,” have launched a movement to change the rules, to pack the court with more “liberal” members. Congressional “liberals” claim their only purpose is to “restore equilibrium,” but that’s a lie. They simply realize that the only way they’ll get their Leftist agenda passed is to neutralize the court by putting more Left-leaning justices on it so they can secure transformative judicial decisions.

            President Biden’s problem is two-fold: (1) he has spoken out in the past against increasing the number of justices, and (2) changing the number of justices requires congressional action and he can’t simply order that legislation. He has to pretend he needs to see the results of careful study before he openly moves to pack the court.

            It’s kind of like the corrupt Old West sheriff who tells the prisoner, “Sure, we’ll give you a fair trial. Then we’ll hang you.” So it is with Biden: “Sure, we’ll study the matter. Then we’ll pack the court.” So he ordered the creation of a 36-member “bipartisan” commission to study the issue.

            It’s a charade. This commission’s final report, due in six months, will be an exercise in fill-in-the-blanks. It’s not charged with making recommendations, but it is utterly incomprehensible that it will conclude the court is just fine the way it is; that no changes are needed.

            Speaking out of both sides of his mouth has never been a problem for Biden. In a 1983 Senate speech – when Ronald Reagan was president and Republicans had a 5-4 court majority –  he spoke of Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court. “It was a bonehead idea,” he said. “It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it put in question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant body . . . in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”

            As recently as 2019 he said, “I’m not prepared to . . . try to pack the court because we’ll live to rue that day.”

            The perils of court packing are obvious and in 2019 Biden admitted it. Every time the court became conservative-dominated (like now) “liberals” claimed the “court needs to be realigned.” To that Biden said, “We had three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

            Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) knows it, too. “If successful,” he said, “this [court packing] would inevitably lead to changing the number of Supreme Court justices every time there is a shift in power.”

            Even “liberal” Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer sees court packing as folly. In a speech at the Harvard Law School earlier this month he said those who want to pack the court to bring about a desired alignment should “think long and hard before they embody those changes in law.”

            He further noted the court’s bedrock foundation is “a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics. Structural alteration motivated by . . . political influence can only . . . further erode that trust.”

            Sen. Ed. Markey (D., Mass.), a sponsor of a bill to add four justices to the court, has engaged in vicious, eye-rolling hyperbole in addition to the ludicrous “we just want to restore equilibrium” propaganda. Republicans, he said, “stole the majority.” And the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the court completed “their crime spree.” Republicans, he said, have “politicized the Supreme Court, undermined its legitimacy, and threatened the rights of millions of Americans.”

            What about that commission? Calling it bipartisan is deceptive. It has 36 members, but that can mean anything from 18 Democrats and 18 Republicans or 35 Democrats and 1 Republican. We do know it will be led by Bob Bauer, White House counsel under Barack Obama. Joining him is Cristina Rodriguez, from Obama’s office of Legal Counsel; Walter Dellinger, Supreme Court lawyer for the government during Bill Clinton’s administration; Lawrence Tribe, already on record as supporting packing the court; and Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

            While Markey rants, Biden is counting on this commission providing him with political cover so he can pass the buck to it. He and the Socialist wing of his party are desperate to embrace FDR’s “bonehead idea.” With the commission’s predictable report in hand he can claim that “after careful study” he has to go along with its Democrat-favoring counsel.

            Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff and former Chicago mayor, scolded Georgia’s Republican legislators for changing the state’s election laws in a way he claims, without evidence, that favors the election of Republicans. Would they have done this, Emanuel said, if the state had not just gone Democratic in the presidential election and elected two Democrats to the Senate? Right back at you, Rahm. Would you and your fellow Democrats now be seeking to pack the Supreme Court if it was split 6-3 in favor of “liberals”?

Border cosmetics; our gallant Army

By Don Frost

            HAS ANYONE ELSE noticed that border security personnel are confining illegal aliens, many of them children, IN CAGES!

            When Donald Trump was president children brought to this country illegally were kept in enclosures to ensure they didn’t wander off and get lost or hurt themselves. The nature of these enclosures – chain link fencing – was used to accuse him of heartlessly treating illegals like wild animals or dangerous criminals. They were criminals, having broken our laws, though they weren’t particularly dangerous.

            President Biden’s soft-sided “cages” were put up for the same reason: Keep the kids in one place so they’ll be safe. But Biden’s people were cagey (no pun) enough not to use chain link fencing. Instead they use plastic sheeting. Chain link or plastic sheeting; it’s all the same. The kids are confined and for the same reason: Their safety.

            When Biden confines them it’s a thoughtful act. When Trump does it it’s cruel. Go figure.

            Actually, Trump’s chain link fencing was more humane. It allowed air circulation in the stifling heat at our southern border. Biden’s plastic sheeting does not. But that doesn’t matter. What’s important is the visual: What will play best on TV news. Of course, the Left-loving media trots right along with the party line.

            What have we learned, class? A chain link enclosure is a Gestapo-like cage, a prison. Plastic sheeting is a “humane way to ensure the safety of children who simply found themselves in America without proper documentation.” Oops.

            IN APRIL, 2015, Army Maj. Lisa Jaster wrote that women could be a valuable asset in combat. This pronouncement came about when Barack Obama’s Defense Secretary, Ashton Carter, directed that all jobs in the U.S. military – including combat – be open to women.

            Jaster said all the politically correct things at the time: “We cannot let our standards fall.” “No one can be a physical liability.” “Some think that if allowances are not made, no women will graduate from some schools or be able to join certain units. . . . no one wants those allowances.” (Emphasis is mine.)

            “For example, if you want to be in an armor or field artillery unit, you must prove that you are capable of lifting and moving the heaviest round in the arsenal.”

            “Finally, a word to those women interested in joining combat arms: Carry your load. Meet or exceed the same standard as a man your size and be prepared for the possibility of failure.”

            On March 23, 2021, the Associated Press reported, in a story headlined, “Army pulls leg tuck move in new physical fitness test.” A more blunt and honest headline would read, “Army lowers physical fitness standards to accommodate women.”

            Formerly the Army required its soldiers to hang from a bar and pull their knees up to near their shoulders – this was the tuck. Why have they thrown this test out? Because, the AP reports, it has become clear that many women are unable to do it. So our Army is making allowances and lowering their standards for female soldiers, even those in combat units. The Army’s gallant struggle is to create a fitness test that is “gender neutral and doesn’t disadvantage women soldiers.”

            According to the AP, “Soldiers will be assigned a ranking based on how they did [in the new fitness test] compared to others of the same gender.” (Emphasis added.)

            So much for Jaster’s bold vow that women should “meet or exceed the same standard as a man.”

            According to MajGen. Lonnie Hibbard the new tiered system of evaluating a soldier’s physical fitness “. . . accounts for the recognized physiological differences between men and women, and it removes the direct competition between males and females within the service.”

            Competition used to be a technique through which people were motivated to excel. Why competition is suddenly undesirable remains a mystery.

            In other words women soldiers no longer will be required to be as physically fit as men soldiers were in the past and as they will be in the future. Can’t help but wonder how tasty Jaster finds the brave words she spoke six years ago.

            There is another downside to this pandering to women soldiers. Physical standards for men are being lowered, too, to avoid the appearance of favoritism, of inequality. It can now be claimed women meet the same physical standards as men. In time it will be forgotten that they did so only because those standards were lowered specifically so they could meet them. Our Army’s lower standards across the board must be good news to those many nations which long to destroy America.

            But what the hell. The Democrats scored points with feminist voters for the next election.

Biden’s in office, so let spending begin

By Don Frost

            Didn’t take long, did it? It never does. After all, President Biden is a Democrat and what do Democrats do when they perceive a problem? Throw money at it, of course.

            Biden really isn’t to blame. As a Democrat, spend, tax, and borrow (in no particular order) is in his DNA. That’s why it took a mere 71 days as president to launch his first massive spending scheme: $2.3 trillion. He wants to use the money to re-engineer the nation’s infrastructure. This means cutting the use of fossil fuels (sounds like he’s pandering to the idiotic Green New Deal championed by the Socialist wing of his party), beef up American manufacturing, replace every lead water pipe in the country, repair 10,000 bridges, build roads, aid public transit, create 500,000 electric-vehicle charging stations, clean water, new schools, and expanding rural internet access, among many other components, according to Ron Klain, Biden’s chief of staff.

            But that’s just the beginning. This plan will be followed by another soon-to-be announced $2 trillion package. According to the Associated Press, Biden will be “pushing a companion bill of roughly equal size [$2 trillion] for investment in childcare, family tax credits, and other domestic programs.”

            How childcare, family tax credits, and other domestic programs qualify as “investments” is politician-speak for “give away.” In the real world, the word “investment” implies money spent in the expectation of a fair return. There is no such hope for the federal subsidizing of childcare and granting of tax credits.

            This would be in addition to the childcare subsidies already in place as well as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP, formerly food stamps), housing subsidies, and energy and utilities subsidies.

            All of this spending was preceded by the $1.9 trillion stimulus package. But more about that later. But including that expense, Biden’s actual spending and projected spending totals $6.2 trillion. As usual, the time-warn Democratic playbook calls for promising only corporations and The Rich Tribe (those making more than $400,000 a year) will pay for everything. When did a federal spending program ever come in on or under budget? Never.

            When Obamacare was introduced the estimated cost was $1 trillion. In June, 2012, the estimate was boosted to $1.5 trillion. In December, 2012, it went up again, this time to $1.6 trillion. That’s when the government stopped giving out cost estimates. No one knows how much the final cost will be.

            So you’re middle class making less that $400,000 a year and you’re not a corporation. Don’t get too comfortable. You’re not getting off the hook that easily. First – carve this in granite and put it where you can see it every day – corporations do not pay taxes; they collect taxes. To a business – a giant multi-national corporation or the ma and pa store down the street – a tax is simply part of the cost of doing business. Ma and Pa and the corporation simply do what they’ve always done with any of their costs: Pass them on to their customers. That’s you.

            Think you can avoid paying Gigantic Oil Corporation’s increased tax bill by selling your car and taking the bus? Forget that because Gigantic Oil will merely raise prices at the pump where buses fill up and the company will raise your fare to pay their tax. Think you can avoid paying the bus company’s tax bill by riding a bike? Nice try, but you’re not free yet. Everything in your grocery store gets there by truck and trucks burn oil. So the trucking company will raise their prices to pay their taxes. That cost will find its way into every box of Cheerios, every Hershey bar, every loaf of Wonder bread, and every Twinkie you buy.

            Also, while grocery stores are raising their prices to meet rising delivery costs the corporations that make Cheerios, Hershey bars, Wonder bread, and Twinkies are boosting their prices, too, to cover their rising taxes.

            The family sedan is on its last legs so you need a new car. Guess what: Biden’s tax on the Acme Motor Co. has been worked into the cost of that car.

            All of this has a name: inflation.

            There’s still one more problem Biden won’t admit to: The Rich Tribe isn’t big enough and there aren’t enough corporations to pay for his grandiose schemes. The big money is where it has always been: In that vast middle class of wage earners. That’s you. And sooner or later the middle class will pay, directly or indirectly, for Biden’s spending spree.

            The insidious and cynical nature of the Democratic approach to spending and taxing is that it results in trickle down debt. It trickles down so slowly you can’t pin the debt on any one thing, not even when the government spends $6.2 trillion. So gas prices rise; grocery bills go up; a new car costs more than the new car you bought five years ago. So what? Prices are always going up. Is that the president’s fault? Yes. But how can you prove it? You can’t.

            You can’t even pin your income tax bill on the president. Last year maybe you got an income tax refund of, say, $534. Next year maybe your refund will be only $497. The IRS works in ways so mysterious a line-item accounting (if you could get one) would be totally incomprehensible. So you’ll figure the difference will be your own fault. It could be that you had more deductions last year or maybe you had more overtime this year, putting you in a higher tax bracket, or maybe a combination of things.

            Realistically, Biden’s pie-in-the-sky income projections from taxing The Rich Tribe and corporations wasn’t as much as he figured when he was trying to sell us on the magnificence of his plan. Only later will he admit privately, “Oops! Guess we’ll have to boost taxes on the middle class, too. But let’s not tell them. No one will notice.”

            Somebody very wise once said, “No nation has ever spent its way to prosperity.”

            Sir Winston Churchill saw it another, but related, way: “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

            Churchill also had something to say about Biden’s stimulus checks: “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place.”

            As Joe “Santa” Biden and his Democratic “elves” do their “dig me” victory dance over the latest stimulus checks being distributed to future voters all across America, Churchill’s words bear repeating.

            Those $1,400 checks (for most people) are not “free money” as they’re being touted. The simple and obvious question: Where did the federal government get that $1.9 trillion they’re bribing voters with? The answer is quite simple: (Q) Where does government get any money? (A) From taxpayers; from you, from me, from our children. Those checks quite literally are a loan, not a gift, and like all loans they will have to be repaid.

            There’s a name for those who believe that only The Rich Tribe and corporations will be stuck with the bill: They’re called Democrats. They along with every man, woman, and child in America will be saddled with the $6.2 trillion debt Biden plans to stick us with.

            Who will be the major beneficiary of the president’s largese? China. He’ll just borrow from that America-hating country.

Durbin reveals Dem’s hypocrisy

By Don Frost

            How do you spell hypocrite? Try D-U-R-B-I-N, as in Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2-ranking Democrat.

            Two Chicago Tribune readers inadvertently teamed up in the newspaper’s letters column March 20 to illustrate the senator’s hypocrisy. (And “liberal” Trib editors must be red-faced for their blunder in placing the letters side-by-side, embarrassing their favorite senator.) Reader Ken Hansen pointed out that when Donald Trump was president and the Democratic Party was in the minority in the Senate, Durbin argued eloquently in favor of keeping the filibuster, forcing Republican legislation to require 60 votes rather than a simple majority for passage.

            Quoting Durbin, Hansen wrote, “In 2018 Durbin said getting rid of the filibuster ‘would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers.’ Durbin also said the Senate has to ‘acknowledge our respect for the minority, and that is what the Senate tries to do in its composition and in its procedure.’ ”

            In the 2019-20 Congress Democrats had their marching orders (which were carried over from previous sessions): Don’t give Trump any kind of legislative win. In that session alone they used the filibuster 298 times.

            Over to reader Herb Vermaas who paraphrased Durbin when he wrote, “Illinois U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said it best the other day when he noted the onslaught of filibusters has made the Senate an ineffectual, dysfunctional institution. Amen to that. Get rid of the filibuster so we can make the Senate functional again.”

            It’s a lead pipe cinch that Durbin was not the only Democrat to defend the wisdom of the filibuster as a keystone in our democratic system during Trump’s presidency. Nor is Durbin the only Democrat to argue now that the filibuster is a clear and present threat to our democratic system.

            The reason for this flip-flop is so obviously a power grab it’s embarrassing to all who try to defend it. The majority party (for the moment Democratic) always wants to kill the filibuster. The minority party (for the moment Republican) always wants to keep the filibuster.

            The filibuster is now as it has always been: The only way to put a check on the majority party; the only way to prevent what is accurately called the “dictatorship of the majority.” For the moment Democrats control the presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Remove the filibuster and every Republican in the House and Senate might as well go home and work for a return to sanity via the 2022 midterms.

            If Durbin and the rest of the Senate Democrats succeed in eliminating the filibuster, with their 51-50 majority, the Republicans haven’t a prayer of stopping any legislation they put forward or even influencing that legislation. The Democrats will run rough-shod over any objections and they’ll ram into law the party’s entire Socialist-leaning agenda. House and Senate Democrats are a disciplined lot. It is a rare House and Senate vote where Democrats don’t back 100% whatever the party has decided.

            Of course there’s the possibility that the GOP will enjoy a resurgence and the Democrats will find themselves once again in the minority. At that time count on Durbin and the rest of the party flip-flopping again and resuming their support for the sanctity of the filibuster.

            If the Democrats succeed in eliminating the filibuster, Republicans comfort themselves by imagining a scenario in which they regain a majority in the Senate in the 2022 midterms and are free to pass any legislation they like. But with a Democrat in the White House it would be a hollow victory. The GOP would not enjoy the “dictatorship of the majority.” Whatever conservative laws they might pass would be vetoed by a Democratic president.

            With that mathematical certainty in mind, it is entirely possible that the present crop of Democrats in the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives doesn’t give a rip if they kill the filibuster now and they’re hobbled by that later, when the Republicans regain a Senate majority. They can pass a lot of far-Left laws over the next two years if they don’t have to consider contrary opinions and Republican filibusters. Unlike executive orders, laws are very difficult to rescind.

            More frighteningly still, they would establish bureaucracies administering their beloved far-Left programs. As Ronald Reagan observed, “The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.”

            One need look no further for an example of this than Social Security, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP, formerly food stamps), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), housing subsidies, energy and utilities subsidies, childcare assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.

A key Marx axiom may be bearing fruit

By Don Frost

            “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This axiom has been around for a long time. Karl Marx, accurately characterized as the Father of Socialism, did not originate the phrase, but he certainly popularized it.

            It looks like Marx’s philosophy is beginning to bear fruit in America. More about that later, but first a little background:

            The maxim has wide appeal among those who have never struggled under the yolk of Socialism. It sounds so doggone altruistic; so eminently fair. Sacrificing self for the benefit of others is an article of faith in current American culture. This most basic tenet of Socialism goes by many names: Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism, Castroism, etc. Whatever you call the particular Socialism cult, the Marx axiom basically means that those who have the ability to provide for themselves, must give to those who cannot provide for themselves.

            Taking his cue from Marx, Barack Obama took a few baby steps toward creating this myth of a classless society. Throughout his eight-year tenure as president he frequently lamented what he called “the income gap” in America. Sometimes he used the phrase “income inequality.”

            Like Marx, Obama did not believe it was right that some people made more money than others – “the income gap.” So, while he was dividing us into tribes, emphasizing our differences rather than what unites us (Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc.), he singled out The Rich Tribe and The Poor Tribe. He even codified it: If you make more than $250,000 a year, you’re a member of The Rich Tribe.

            While carefully avoiding this precise wording, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ” has been the clarion call of the Democratic Party for generations: “Tax the rich!” “The rich must pay their fair share!” And other bumper sticker philosophies to the same effect.

            President Biden has jumped on the Obama bandwagon that was temporarily sidelined during Donald Trump’s presidency. The Associated Press reports that Biden’s recently passed stimulus bill “. . . is supposed to start fixing income inequality . . .”

            That’s pure Socialism. According to the Preamble to our Constitution, our government is supposed to “. . . promote the general Welfare . . .” Note it reads promote the general welfare. It does not read provide the general welfare. If Biden and the Socialist wing of his party in Congress try to “fix income inequality,” they’re stepping way over the constraints placed on government by the Constitution; they’re trying to provide the general welfare.

            As Winston Churchill observed, “You don’t make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.”

            Still, the Marx, Obama, and Biden philosophy, pitting The Rich Tribe against The Poor Tribe, just might be beginning to bear fruit.

            In mid-February and early March two high-rises on Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive – the city’s Gold Coast – were shot up by someone firing a pistol from the ground, aiming up and hitting dwellings on the 30th and three other floors. Police found shell casings on the ground; bullet holes were found in windows and the buildings’ façade.

            Gold Coast condominiums carry price tags in the millions; as rental properties the costs are five or six figures a month. Obviously these residences are home to members of The Rich Tribe.

            Police have no suspects or motives. But considering that The Rich Tribe has been routinely demonized by two presidents, it’s not a great stretch to suspect the shooter, or shooters, was a member of The Poor Tribe simply fed up with The Rich Tribe having more than they. And, in the Right Think/Right Speak (politically correct) society that America has become, if the perpetrator of these crimes is ever caught and he or she admits it was motivated by resentment of The Rich Tribe, it will be judged understandable, which is “liberal” code for acceptable.

            After all, two presidents have made clear that it’s just plain wrong, if not evil, for some people to have more money than others.

Immigrants, thugs, wages, & Dr. Seuss

By Don Frost

            WHEN DONALD Trumpwas president he instituted a policy of separating political asylum-seeking parents from their children at our southern border. The hope was that this policy would discourage people from seeking asylum on bogus claims of persecution in their home countries. Records indicate the parents of 600 children – separated at the border – still have not been found. The plight of these hapless children is being used by the “liberal” press and the Democratic Party to pummel the “heartless” Trump administration and Republicans in general.

            But “liberals,” Democrats, news reporters, and others on the Left never ask the obvious question: Where are the parents? The kids are helpless pawns in this game of power politics. They’re stuck in holding centers, powerless to go in search of their parents. Their parents are not similarly helpless. They know where their kids are. Why haven’t they come forward and demanded to be reunited with them? What loving parents would leave their children to languish in a foreign holding center?

            When asylum-seekers make it across the border into America they are given a court date when their case will be heard. They are then turned loose, free to go anywhere they like in America. Many ignore the date they were ordered to appear in court and disappear into the vastness of America. Have the parents – perhaps safely ensconced in a “sanctuary city” – simply abandoned their kids?

            President Biden, reversing Trump’s attempt to enforce border security, recently started letting 25 asylum seekers a day to enter America. They are given their court date, then they’re turned loose, presumably with their kids. Perhaps that entire family will wind up in a “sanctuary city,” never to be heard from again. This is a common dodge that illegals have been exploiting for years.

            It seems impossible to believe parents would so cruelly turn their backs on their own children. But the question that only those parents can answer remains: Why haven’t you appeared in court on the appointed date? If you haven’t abandoned your kids, why are you not clamoring – in full view of TV cameras – to be reunited with them? Why haven’t you stood up at holding centers and shouted for all the world to hear, “Here I am! There! That’s my son! That’s my daughter! Give them back to me!”

            Most likely those claiming to be in desperate need of asylum are really in no need of it at all. They just don’t like living in the country they came from; they’d rather live in America. Many, if not most, don’t especially want to be Americans; they just want to live here. Perhaps they fear that if they turned up in court to be reunited with their children the court would realize their claim of needing political asylum is phony and they and their kids will be sent home. So, perhaps, they’re just waiting for vote-hungry Democrats to take the one or two baby steps required to make it official: America’s “border” is just a line on a map, nothing more.

            I’VE BEEN PORING over our Constitution in search of the clause that requires the federal government to set wages that private businesses must pay their workers. Couldn’t find any such provision.

            Another pandemic relief bill has just been signed by President Biden. In a legal but ethically questionable move Democratic senators tacked irrelevant measures to the bill. Pretty much unnoticed was a clause that had nothing to do with pandemic relief. An Associated Press story out of Washington explains: “Top Democrats have abandoned a potential amendment threatening tax increases on big companies that don’t boost workers’ pay to certain levels.”

            Let that sink in. Our government – or at least Socialistically inclined Democrats – wanted to dictate what private businesses should pay their workers. Under our Constitution they could not actually dictate to, say, General Motors, “You must pay all your assembly line workers $32.50 an hour.” But under the proposed amendment they could have told General Motors, “You better pay all your assembly line workers $32.50 an hour or we’ll boost your taxes.”

            This is coercion, plain and simple. Such governmental meddling in the private sector used to be called “creeping Socialism.” It’s time to bring the term back into vogue. Under the Left-leaning Biden administration we’re going to see a lot more of it.

            THE THOUGHT Police are at it again. According to all dictionaries currently in print, “thug” means, “. . . a rough, brutal hoodlum, gangster, robber, etc. . . .” No longer. Now it’s a euphemism for “nigger.”

            So says Thought Policeman John McWhorther, a black linguistics and music history teacher at Columbia University and contributing editor to The Atlantic. He wrote “thug” actually means, “Black person behaving badly.” Also, “thug” is “a nominally polite way of using the N-word.” Never mind what the dictionary says, never mind what you think it means; never mind what your intent was in using the word. It’s racist, says McWhorther, author of an essay titled “Is it racist to expect black kids to do math for real?”

            We can only hope his ruling on “thug” and puzzling take on arithmetic will never gain acceptance, but it’s certain to be embraced by the ultra-woke of the Left. It’s scary to realize that otherwise intelligent people like McWhorther can publicly state such nonsense not only without embarrassment, but with pride.

            BOOK BURNING, 21st Century style: This time it’s the works of Dr. Seuss that are being thrown into the flames.

            Dr. Seuss Enterprises, overseer of the author’s works, will stop publication of  six of his books because they allegedly contain “racist and insensitive” images. Common sense had nothing to do with the company’s decision. Instead company executives consulted  with “teachers, academics, and specialists in the field. . . . We then worked with a panel of experts, including educators, to review our catalog of titles.”

            That all this analyzing by so-called experts should result in the “burning” of books should surprise no one. This is, after all, the 21st Century and it seems “liberals” and others on the Left spend every waking hour looking for evidence of racism and insensitivity (R&I). It’s like there’s a contest to be the first to discover some heretofore unrecognized form of R&I. Its discoverers then sound the alarm, demonstrating their incredible sensitivity and proof that they most assuredly are not racists.

            One offending illustration in “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” shows a Chinese man wearing a conical hat, holding chopsticks, and eating from a bowl. For reasons that defy understanding these supposedly learned academics ruled it racist and/or insensitive. Yet conical hats, chopsticks, and eating from bowls is a pretty accurate description of how people in the Orient dressed and ate. Matter of fact, chopsticks and food in bowls are pretty much standard in Chinese restaurants all across America.

            There is no significant difference between Adolf Hitler’s book burning and the way the Left “burns” books today. Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) didn’t like certain authors (mostly Jews) and the teachings found in other books. So they were banned and street rallies were organized where everyone was encouraged to add their copies of the evil books to the bonfire.

            For the Nazis it wasn’t a case of “burn these books because Herr Hitler doesn’t like them.” It was “burn these books because they’re harmful for the country; for German society; for the German people.” The German people accepted that burning the books was the right thing to do, so they happily tossed them into the fire.

            American “liberals” and Nazis have much in common. Professional R&I seekers don’t like certain books, too. For woke Americans it’s not a case of “burn these books because we don’t like them.” It’s “burn these books because they’re harmful for the country; for American society; for the American people.” The American people accept that “burning” the books is the right thing to do, so they happily toss them into the “fire.”

Emigration, lies, and filibusters

By Don Frost

            HAVE YOU EVER wondered why Mexico has such a cavalier attitude toward its citizens crossing illegally into the United States?

            The reason is really quite simple. It’s about money. Mexicans living in the U.S., legally and illegally, routinely send money back to their families in Mexico. So it behooves the Mexican government to encourage emigration – again, legal or illegal – so U.S. dollars will continue to flow into the Mexican economy.

            The Associated Press reports that Mexico’s central bank says money sent home by Mexicans living in the U.S. rose 11.4%, a new high, in 2020. That represents a total of $40.6 billion, the equivalent of the combined budgets of the Mexican government’s education, health, welfare, and culture departments.

            This money, called remittances, earns Mexico more income than oil exports or tourism.

            ADOLF HITLER’S propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is notorious for saying (accurately, it turns out), “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

            Case in point: The Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol by Right-wing kooks is being described repeatedly by the inflammatory term an insurrection.

            “Webster’s New World Dictionary” defines insurrection as, “A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt.” If we’re going to accept what happened Jan. 6 as an insurrection, we must accept the summer riots as an insurrection as well, not mere protests. Those mobs, too, were “rising up against established authority,” as witness the federal and municipal buildings damaged and police cars set on fire in cities across America.

            But the dictionary definition doesn’t go far enough. In common usage “insurrection” carries a very specific connotation; a shade of meaning that what happened Jan. 6 is what happens in banana republics when a military junta overthrows, or attempts to overthrow, the established government.

            Jan. 6 most certainly was not an attempt to overthrow the government despite the grandiose statements of some of the participants and the repeated barking from the Left. In fact, neither the Jan. 6 mob nor the multiple summer mobs sought to overthrow the government. All those mobs were made up of people simply venting. They were angry and it made them feel better to scream and destroy. And in the case of the summer riots, for many it was a case of “to hell with principles, let’s loot some stores.”

            A proper insurrection requires two things. The first thing insurgents do is seize control of radio and television stations and use them to announce that the previous government no longer exists and that they are the new government. Those clowns rampaging through the Capitol never even tried to take over the media. The second consideration is weapons: Proper insurgents come fully armed. Some of the ding-a-lings in the Jan. 6 mob were armed, but to a pitiful degree. One man who was arrested had a veritable armory in his car, but it was parked two blocks away. Even the most addled revolutionary knows if you’re going to have an insurrection, you bring your weapons to the site of the insurrection.         

            The Left-leaning media eagerly points out that some of the Jan. 6 rioters were decked out in “military gear,” suggesting they were serious about taking over the government. That doesn’t make it an insurrection either. But the Left will insist until there are ice cream parlors in hell that it was an attempt to overthrow the government. Adhering to Herr Goebbels’ advice, “liberals” will repeat the lie again, and again, and again, and . . .

            Despite the rioters’ boast about lynching Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, it was bravado, nothing more. It was ugly talk, to be sure, but still just juvenile boasting. The rioters were akin to dogs that chase cars: What would they ever do if they caught one? No, to call this an insurrection is a lie and repeating it endlessly will not make it truth.

            THE FILIBUSTER is a handy tool that has been used by the minority party in Congress for decades. They use it to stifle the agenda of the majority party. When the Democrats were the minority party they thought the filibuster was a fine rule. Now that they’re the majority party they want to change the rule so – surprise – minority Republicans can’t use the filibuster to put a check on their agenda.

            Adam Jentleson of the New York Times complains that the filibuster is used today “as a weapon of mass obstruction” on almost every bill that comes before the Senate. He points out that in the 1969-70 Congress the filibuster was used a total of 6 times. In the 2019-20 Congress (Trump’s last year in office) Democrats used it 298 times.

How to hate: Left gives free lessons

By Don Frost

            From “Webster’s New World Dictionary,” “liberal” defined, 5th definition: “. . . tolerant of views differing from one’s own; broad-minded; specif., not orthodox . . .”

            Rush Limbaugh, the long-time conservative commentator, has died, sparking an outpouring of pure hatred from “liberals” who could not tolerate his views, which differed from their own.

            A sampling gleaned from Twitter posts: “Rest in piss,” “Good riddance,” and “Rot in hell.”

            More: “. . . It’s important to remember that he also brought a lot of people a lot of joy by dying.” TV writer Mike Druker.

            “If I had to say something positive, I guess I’m glad Rush Limbaugh lived long enough to get cancer and die.” “Comedian” Paul F. Tompkins.

            “Feeling very sorry for the people of hell who now have to deal with Rush Limbaugh for the rest of eternity.”: musician Finneas.

            “God has canceled Rush Limbaugh.”: Erin Ryan.

            On one woman’s Facebook post: “I wish I believed in hell.” And responses from her friends:

            “If it existed, most of us would be roasting. Limbaugh would just be in a section that’s a little roastier.”

            “My first comment was I hope the devil is there to meet his wretched soul. Good riddance.”

            “My guess is that the concept of hell was created by those who found it inconceivable that such evil men could go unpunished.”

            “He made hundreds of millions of dollars driving America apart.”

            “My first unkind thoughts when I heard the news: ‘Rot in hell.’ No more evil person existed.”

            “If Rush Limbaugh isn’t in hell, none of us has anything to worry about.”

            “Trump is out. Dobbs is gone. Limbaugh is dead. Keep it up, 2021.”

            All of this venom being regurgitated from the Left is from people who would rather be caught in an act of bestiality than be caught listening to Limbaugh’s radio broadcasts. These are people who proudly boast they have never and would never have listened to his show. Yet they claim to know all about him. If they had an ounce of honesty they’d admit their pitiful knowledge of his beliefs and his views on any subject is restricted to what his detractors – fellow “liberals” – told them.

            When Limbaugh stumbled, misspoke, or said something – anything – that could be spun into an expression of foolishness, ignorance, or hate, the Left-leaning media blasted it all over the airwaves and in print. When he spoke undeniable truth, that segment of the media went dark.

            In defending the indefensible, “liberals” and others on the Left will justify their expressions of hatred by claiming that Limbaugh was a disseminator of hate himself. He was not. He disseminated views that differed from their own and they chose to view that as hate. It spared them the evident agony of having to actually think about what he said. It enabled them to dismiss his views without troubling themselves further. “Liberals’ ” attitude toward Rush Limbaugh has been consistent for nearly 30 years: “If Rush said it, it’s a hateful lie.”

            He never said he hated black people. He did say that when black people rioted, destroyed property, and looted stores it was not understandable, aka acceptable; that they were not “protesters,” they were rioters. “Liberals” chose to interpret that as hate.

            He never said he hated Muslims. He did say he supported Trump’s ban on travel by people from seven terrorist-supporting countries. “Liberals” chose to interpret that as hate.

            He never said he hated Hispanics. He did say he supported long overdue efforts to stop illegal immigration. “Liberals” chose to interpret that as hate.

            Limbaugh’s basic philosophy, first enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, or John Locke (there’s no agreement on who said it first), was this: “The government that governs least governs best.” This is anathema to all faithful “liberals” who dissolve into paroxysm of joy with the announcement of any new government program, bureaucracy, or regulation.

            Limbaugh opposed the almost maniacal quest for “diversity” because it celebrates our differences rather than the similarities that should unite us. He saw tribalism as the inevitable result of that diversity. No proper “liberal” could endorse any of Limbaugh’s beliefs, so they couldn’t despise him for that – it wouldn’t be liberal. So they had to cultivate a myth to embrace with all their heart and soul: “No more evil person existed than Rush Limbaugh.” Then they could proudly trumpet their hate. “I don’t hate him for his views that differ from my own. I hate him because he was evil.”

            I ROUTINELY QUOTE the word “liberal” in my postings. Here I have done it an unusually large number of times. Periodically I am asked why I do this when referring to someone’s social/political belief system. Repeating the lead paragraph above: A liberal is, “. . . tolerant of views differing from one’s own; broad-minded . . .” But “liberals” are unapologetically intolerant of  views that differ from their own and they are, therefore, narrow-minded. Because of this some college campuses have “safe spaces” where “liberals” can go to escape “views differing from their own . . .” “Liberal” college students literally riot when they learn a speaker whose views differ from their own is coming to the campus..

            There are no “safe spaces” on campuses where conservatives can go to escape “liberal” views. So conservative students welcome “liberal” speakers with a shrug. It is a supreme example of irony that in this microcosm of American society, conservative students are liberal whereas their counterparts are, well, “liberal.” It’s kind of like this: I saw you going into the Hot Springs Motel with your wife. Or, I saw you going into the Hot Springs Motel with your “wife.”

Trump’s trial was a major travesty

By Don Frost

            Donald Trump was tried , and acquitted , on the charge of inciting a mob to riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Before the riot he addressed a gathering of thousands of his supporters at the White House. The “liberal” media repeated endlessly one phrase he spoke at that gathering. By sheer repetition they implied it constituted proof that Trump ordered his supporters to march on the Capitol and tear it apart.

            The deadly phrase Trump uttered: “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

            His words had a familiar ring and I puzzled over them for days until recognition dawned. “Fight for your rights” has been the rallying cry for countless “liberal” causes for decades: “Fight for your [civil rights, your LGBTQ rights, your criminal rights, your victim’s rights, your reproduction rights, etc.]”

            That aside for the moment, Trump said something else that was conveniently ignored by “liberals” and others on the Left. As confirmed by Snopes, the rumor-busting website, the key part of his address to his supporters Jan. 6 was this:

            “After this we’re going to . . . walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. . . . I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the  Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

            Some of those rioters repeatedly quoted by the “liberal” media claimed the mayhem they were engaged in was done on Trump’s orders. They had their heads in their arm pits when Trump urged a peaceful protest or they were plants.

            If Watergate taught us anything, it’s that when the presidency of the United States is at stake, anything is possible. That in mind, planting stooges at the Trump rally to urge violence and scream for the TV cameras, “Trump told me to do it,” is not impossibly outrageous. After all, who benefited from the storming of the Capitol? Trump? Obviously not. The Republican Party? No, that party is being demonized as at least partly responsible for the riot. The Conservative movement? No, the press is doing its usual masterful job of linking Right-wing crazies to thoughtful conservatives.

            So who has benefited from the Capitol riot? Democrats.

            Don’t hold your breath waiting for “liberals” to admit Trump ever called for a peaceful protest. They’ll stick with the “fight” phrase; the one that was much in use during this past summer’s race riots when mobs literally destroyed vast swaths of cities’ business districts in the name of “fighting” for their rights. Of course, in “liberal” world no one was accused of inciting a “liberal” mob to violence. In fact, even as they hurled Molotov cocktails at police cars they were literally praised as simple “protesters,” courageously doing battle against an unjust world. Criticism from the Left? Nothing harsher than a perfunctory “Tch, tch.”

            Some anonymous person went to a lot of trouble to cobble together a video showing videos of various Democratic politicians, and “liberal” television and Hollywood luminaries, calling for anti-Trump violence. They do this in terms far more specific and undeniable than Trump’s simple and wide-open-to-interpretation, “Fight like hell.”

            Some of the incendiary words were spoken by unidentified people and no specific context is given. However, some of the rabble rousers are identifiable and their words are undeniable:        

            Nancy Pelosi: “I don’t see why there are no uprisings all across the country.”

            An unidentified woman: “There needs to be unrest in the streets as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”

            A male politician or television commentator, in the wake of one of the summer race riots: “Show me where it says that protests should be polite and peaceful.”

            A female MSNBC reporter on Kelly Sadler, a White House communications staffer under Trump: “How do you resist the temptation to run up and just wring her neck?”

            Robert de Niro on Trump: “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

            President Biden at the University of Miami (confirmed – reluctantly – by CNN): “If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.”

            A male Academy Award winner in a speech accepting the award, punching the air with his Oscar and screaming, “Punch Trump’s people in the face!”

            An unidentified movie actor: “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?”

            A TMZ commentator: “Where is John Wilkes Booth when we need him?”

            An MSNBC commentator: “You’re still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump.”

            Comedian Kathy Griffin, holding by the hair a fake severed head of the president dripping “blood.”

            Unidentified woman: “I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

            A Missouri State representative said she hopes Trump will be assassinated. The Secret Service was investigating.

            A House Congresswoman: “I will go out and take Trump out tonight!”

            U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters addressing followers on a Washington street: “If you see anybody from that Cabinet, in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you go up to them and tell them that they are not welcome!”

            Talk of impeaching Trump began before he even took office. Immediately after his inauguration the Washington Post and The Independent reported efforts, by Democrats, were being taken to impeach Trump. The Post also noted in 2017 the formation, by Democrats, of ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org. In March of that year democratic Rep. Maxine Waters tweeted, “Get ready for impeachment.” Two Democratic House members, Al Green and Brad Sherman, began formal impeachment efforts in 2017, Trump’s first year in office. When they gained control of the House in 2019 Democrats launched multiple investigations into Trump’s actions and finances with the aim of finding an excuse to impeach him. After Trump fired FBI director James Comey early in his administration, Democratic congressmen discussed an “impeachment clock” for Trump.

            All of these people were Trump’s judges. Fair trial? What an absurd notion. Their guilty vote was in the bag since 2016. If this had been an ordinary trial in a civil court, no Democratic juror would have been impaneled. They would have been disqualified for having demonstrated prejudice against the accused, and Trump would have been acquitted by a vote of 43 to 7, including the seven Republicans who voted “guilty.”

            Love Trump or hate him, this trial was a disgrace. In time it will be remembered as the most shameful chapter in the history of the Democratic Party, an embarrassment to the country, and an exercise in pure political revenge.

            Donald John Trump was a bad president, a very bad president. In addition, on a personal level and as a leader, he was and is an unmitigated jerk. He didn’t achieve two of his major campaign promises that got him elected: The wall on our southern border has not been built and Obamacare still hangs around our collective necks like the proverbial albatross.

            But the worst result of his reign was that it allowed the Left to set the conservative movement back years if not decades. With the help of an eagerly cooperative press, the chasm separating the crazies from Republicans and conservatives has been bridged. Now when people hear “conservative” or “GOP,” they think of Trump and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

            Trump ran as a Republican, but was not a conservative. He was just anti-“liberal.” But give credit where credit is due: He did get us three conservative Supreme Court justices.