TheMiddleofSomewhere A grab bag of interests

Why is the title “Democratic Socialists” so puzzling? Presumably the word democratic is meant to reassure voters that these socialists are different from others in that they support the use of elections to determine who leads the country. Since socialism is antithetical to human nature, a socialist of any sort is unlikely to be picked to lead the USA.
If though, by some chance, a “Democratic Socialist” were to win the presidency and start raising taxes, confiscating personal property, restricting speech and assembly, nationalizing essential businesses, etc., he or she would then be faced with the challenge of getting reelected. Uh oh.
Other socialists, when faced with this challenge, have found their support for free open elections slipping. If Democratic Socialists wanted to stay in power they would probably show the same reverence for free elections as Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro did in Venezuela, or the same respect for free elections as Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping have in their socialist countries. 
Even a democratic socialist could probably engineer a phony election. Let’s not get sucked into believing that there’s anything democratic about socialism.

Dwight Boud

In the 1960’s two radical college professors, under the influence of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” promulgated a plan that came to be known as the Cloward-Piven strategy. The basic idea was that, to bring down the enemy, i.e. the government, radicals should “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Doing that would overburden the bureaucracy and lead to the collapse of the government.
What we see at our southern border is a large-scale application of the Cloward-Piven strategy. “Pueblo sin Fronteras” and whoever else is organizing the “caravans” that move northward through Central America and Mexico are striving to overburden our system. If the migrations were spontaneous movements of people to escape persecution in their home countries, they would be strung out over time and distance. They would arrive individually or in small manageable groups. But knowing that people have a legal right to claim asylum and to have a hearing, community organizers create caravans of thousands of people who arrive all together.
What is needed at the border ports of entry is enhanced infrastructure and procedures to meet this increased demand. In addition everything possible should be done to stem the flow of caravans enroute. Things should be done to make life difficult for “Pueblo Sin Fronteras” and other organizers. Mexico has taken some steps to make it easier for migrants to stay in Mexico and should be encouraged to do more. Someone has even advised making Mexico itself the wall.
We are under attack, and the weapons being used are thousands of exploited people aimed at our borders.

Dwight Boud

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about”, Hillary Clinton on CNN

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming” America. – Barack Obama

In the 1950’s, when I was a teenager, the big threat to the country and to the rest of the western world was the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We had learned how Communists had infiltrated trade unions, Hollywood, college faculties, government agencies, and who knew what all else. We learned about Eugene V Debs. We learned about Gus Hall. We learned how socialism was viewed as a necessary step on the way to communism. We learned about red spies, fellow travelers, and “useful idiots.” Those of us who took this threat seriously were charged with looking for communists under every bed. We learned about Rudolph Abel, hollow coins, microfiche, dead drops, the Rosenbergs, and Alger Hiss, etc.

In those days, if one were accused of being a communist or communist sympathizer, he/she typically would deny it. In defense of themselves, academics would make sophistic distinctions between being a communist and being a presumably more benign “Marxist.” It was, however, all part of a clandestine campaign to weaken and undermine the USA.

Recently leftwing activists, so-called “progressives,” have become more willing to identify with that effort. Some Democrat candidates run openly as Socialists. When Barack Obama announced that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming” America,” the cat was out of the bag. The fox was in the henhouse, and those people whom we had long suspected of being part of the campaign to bring down America were, at long last, out in the open.

When Hillary Clinton, in her youth a Saul Alinsky adherent, says “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” it resonates just as well as a reason to oppose liberalism, and not necessarily in civil terms. Today’s leftists personify the Socialists who have for decades espoused policies to destroy what we stand for and what we care about. Our divided country is not simply fighting over the lack of civility in political discourse, it’s engaged in a civil war (no pun intended) over “what we stand for and what we care about.” Neither side is poised to surrender.

© Dwight Boud, 2018

Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) took the same oath that everyone takes who embarks on service to the country to support and defend the Constitution. In her recent outburst against any and all members of the President’s cabinet, she departed from the spirit of that oath.

Waters, whether knowingly or in ignorance, was following advice from revolutionary community organizer Saul Alinsky to never let a crisis go to waste. The crisis in this case was the taking into protective custody of innocent children from parents who subjected them to harm by illegally bringing them across our southern border. She decided that that program presented an opportunity for her to rail against anyone who works for the federal administration. She urged her leftist followers to confront cabinet members wherever they found them, in restaurants, theaters, gas stations, etc., to create a crowd and to tell those members that they are not welcome anywhere. This is to urge the creation of a volatile situation that could easily result in physical harm to participants.

The preamble to the Constitution is where the intent of that document is set forth, and prominent among its intentions is to insure domestic tranquility. Obviously Mrs. Waters’ intent was to do anything but that.

Of course, she is not alone. There is plenty of shouting and condemnation on all sides of the political spectrum none of which creates domestic tranquility. We, however, are not all members of the House of Representatives. From those leaders we should expect adherence to a high standard of civil discourse. In this instance, a House Resolution of Censure against Mrs. Waters is the least we should expect.

Dwight Boud