A Maid’s Tale: Capitalism 101

Years ago I heard this story and it has stuck with me ever since. I can’t verify the validity of the following but it was relayed to me by a credible source with intimate knowledge of the situation. It is a testament to the power of Capitalism and the willingness to work toward your goals. It is inspiring and poignant and should encourage everyone to build on what they know and can do rather than to focus on what they don’t have right now.
A wealthy couple bought an expensive home to start their family but they both worked and needed help with cleaning and laundry. They placed an ad in the local newspaper for a housekeeper to come in once a week and clean and do the laundry. A young woman answered the ad and the couple liked her and decided to give her the job. She turned out to be reliable and worked so well she was asked to come twice a week after the first child had been born. As time went on, the family grew and the young housekeeper kept working for the family. She was loyally there twice a week and whenever the family needed her.
After fifteen years, the family decided to move to a new home so they put their home on the market. The list price was $375,000.00 and within a few days they received a cash offer. They did not get the name of the person making the offer, just the realtor representing the buyer. They accepted the offer and were set to close a month later.
The young housekeeper continued to work for the family during the moving process. She helped them pack and clean as they prepared to relocate to the new home. The young housekeeper even helped to prepare the new home for the move. She also agreed to continue as their housekeeper in their new house.
The day of the closing came and the couple sat at the desk waiting on the arrival of the buyer. They were extremely surprised to see their young housekeeper walk in with her realtor to finalize the purchase of the house. They wondered how she could afford to buy the house for cash until she told them what she had been doing the last fifteen years.
You see, this couple was only one house she was cleaning. After she was hired by the couple, she went around the neighborhood to ask if anyone else wanted her services. She used the offer the couple gave her to set the price which was accepted by several residents. After a few years, she was able to incorporate into her own maid service. During the following years she added new clients and new employees to service those accounts. She also continued to live in her small, low cost apartment as she built her business. She used the negotiated price with the couple to set her prices. Because she had a competitive price and a reputation for great work, her business exploded as she never imagined.
The housekeeper worked with accountants and lawyers to set up her company, so she would be compliant with tax laws and regulations. As her business grew, so did her income from the profits, most of which she reinvested in the company to expand. Before long, she was one of the largest cleaning services in the region with both commercial and residential clients. She was still living in her small apartment when she overheard the couple talking about building a house and she decided she wanted the home she had so lovingly cleaned for more than twelve years. She began to put all her extra income into a savings account to purchase the house. She had already saved a great amount but had been spending money on other improvements such as better car and clothes, but she knew she wanted this house.
Although she had the credit score and income to get a mortgage, she wanted to be able to make a cash offer, knowing it would be more secure to get the offer accepted. Once the house was on the market, she contacted a realtor and made the offer for the entire asking price. She was excited when the offer was accepted and had a very hard time containing the excitement from the family as she helped them pack and move. When she finally came into the closing, she told them she fell in love with the house the first day she cleaned for them and dreamed of making it her own someday. She even thought about building a house like it until she found out they were going to sell it.
Now, before the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) chime in about how the housekeeper was able to build a business and buy the home because she is white or already rich, the housekeeper came to the United States from Central America during the revolution there after her family was slaughtered and she escaped with help from friends. She spent a few days on a journey to her country’s Capitol to find the US embassy. Once there, she filed for asylum and was surprised to be granted asylum when, at seventeen, she wasn’t of age and had no guardian. She had to stay at the embassy for four months until her eighteenth birthday before she could leave for the US.
Once in the US, she had only about $1,000.00 to get an apartment so she took the lowest rent apartment she could find at about $200.00 a month. She soon found employment with a meat packing plant and worked there for about a year. During that year, she discovered two things. She hated the meat packing industry due to cold temperatures and the bad smell. She also discovered that she was able to learn English better. Although she knew some English, she was taking free classes to get better and was excelling. A friend suggested that she try hotel housekeeping and she applied and accepted the position. She soon learned she was not only good at it, she loved it and enjoyed her job. When she was twenty-one, she saw the ad for a housekeeper and decided it was time to take her passion to the next level.
She grew from one person working as many homes as she could to incorporating a company and hiring new people that she trained and soon had a thriving business. Within the fifteen years, she grew the business to the point she could have stopped cleaning and just focus on the business operations. She instead chose to continue working with some of her first customers which included the couple whose house she would buy. She went from a net worth of around a few hundred dollars to almost a million in fifteen years with a company that was worth a few million and growing. When asked if she ever thought of returning to her home country, she simply stated that while she had love for her people, she is an American and she would have never had the opportunity to become a business owner there. The lesson here is that you can become successful if you work at something you know people need and supply that need with quality and trust.
I am reminded of a saying, if you are unwilling to do a job that is beneath you, you are unqualified to do a job that is above you.


Socialism vs Capitalism: Labor Ownership

Modern Socialists in the US have been pushing a form of Democratic Socialism that they claim is not the totalitarian form of Communism that we have seen in the past with the USSR, North Korea, and the like. They claim they don’t want a big centralized government but their website states that to bring about the changes they want it would be necessary for the government to force companies to adopt the “democratic” changes. Such changes include the social or collective ownership of the means of production. Instead of individual companies owned by people or shareholders, these “cooperatives” would be owned and operated by the workers. The cooperative would not be focused on profit, according to the Socialists but would provide products and services for the public good. All this sounds well and good but what does it really do for the workers? This brings even bigger questions that must be answered. Who owns the labor if everything is considered a collective? How is the value of individual labor accessed and prioritized? How is labor to be distributed for the low-skill and unskilled worker? We will look at the question of ownership in this piece and answer a few questions about how labor is treated in a Capitalist economy.

Capitalism is an economic system that relies on the concept of supply and demand, among other principles. The foundation of Capitalism is the ability to buy or sell goods and services in a free and open marketplace. Capitalism builds of the barter model in the essence that if you need a product that you don’t produce yourself but someone else has, you can trade something that person needs for what you need. The difference is that Capitalism uses money (capital) in place of needed items. This can be traced back to early trading when gold and silver were used. Early Americans used furs and silk as well as produce and fresh eggs in the barter system when gold or silver was in short supply. Once the United States became a nation, a national currency was put into place and for at least the first hundred years the US was a semi-anarchic-capitalist society with very little regulation in the market.

During the 1760s England was beginning the era of the Industrial Age. This was a time of invention and discovery that spread across the globe. The US was not immune to the changes that would come to define the 19th and 20th centuries. With advancements in manufacturing came changes in society and labor. Once relegated to the farm, rural citizens began to migrate to cities as new equipment made farming easier with fewer people. The mostly illiterate, under skilled new arrivals were prime pickings for factory owners and managers to hire them at astounding low wages. The horrific working conditions coupled with long hours made life in the factory dangerous and grueling. Child labor was rampant in the cities and poverty was high among factory workers. There was no sick leave, vacation time, or real chance of advancement. To say the least, it was a fairly hopeless situation that many could not escape. This is the environment that Karl Marx observed when he co-authored The Communist Manifesto in 1848.

The concept of common ownership of the means of production was not new. It had been tried in the Jamestown Colony and was less than successful. Communism was a bit bolder as it originally had no set government. The collective society would own all property and land; therefore all means of production would be societal and not individual. The concept, while on paper looks very good; in practice it has given rise to tyrannical dictators, mass starvation, and political assassinations. This started in 1917 in Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution that saw Vladimir Lenin take power of what would become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) also known as the Soviet Union. In the wake of the revolution, millions of people died. Many starved to death, some intentionally; others were murdered for not complying with the demands of the Communist Party. The Soviet Union lasted until 1991after merely 74 years. During the reign of the Communist Party, much of the manufacturing was delegated to military. This is the truth of the industrial/ military complex. Most children were tested and determined by their attributes to what their career path would be, not based on their desires and ambitions. Your labor was owned by the government and so the government would decide how your labor was best utilized.

Capitalism is, at its core, about getting the most from your resources. While the US did go through a time in the Industrial Age of labor disputes that led to unions and organized labor, there was a point in which the laborer was empowered and would be able to become valuable more than before. Skilled labor is a subject that we shall examine because it requires education, training, or other acquired knowledge. In a truly capitalistic society, the skilled laborer owns their labor. The employer wants to “rent”, for lack of a better word, the labor to do a particular task that will allow the company to earn money. This means that the laborer has a standing to negotiate how much that labor is worth. If one employer will not pay the amount the laborer wants, they will simply look for an employer who will, or at least come to a compromise that is mutually beneficial. The job market and unemployment rate play a role in what labor is worth to employers

As with most aspects of Capitalism, supply and demand influence prices of goods and services. When supply is high and demand is low, prices tend to drop. The opposite is true when the demand is high and supply low.  With very few exceptions this is the basic rules in Capitalism. The job market is not immune to these factors, either. When unemployment is low and there are fewer job seekers for the open jobs, wages will tend to rise. In such an environment, if you are working for one company you may seek a position at another that is offering higher pay for the same job. You may find that your employer will match the offer from another company to keep you instead of trying to replace you in a bare labor market. That is the power of owning your labor. I’m not sure what mechanism the Democratic Socialists have in mind to make workers prosperous, but Capitalism has seen more workers become business owners than any system in the world. This is because you own your labor whether you work for someone else or yourself.

Income Fairness and Socialism: A Tale of Two People

We hear from those on the Left and supporters of Democratic Socialism about “income inequality” and we should not have such pay gaps between workers and bosses. This is whether the “boss” is a small business owner or the CEO of a Fortune 500 Company. Honestly, would equal incomes really make life better for everyone? If everybody made a “living wage” would we all retire happy and live a life of comfort? I think the following example may shed a little light on how personal choices and responsibility go a long way in determining success. This is the tale of two people.
For the sake of this illustration, we will have two people. Gender, race, and ethnicity are not going to be used but the age of both is 18. There is person A and person B and they both have High School Diplomas and begin their careers in a factory. Both are hired in at the same pay of $35,000 annually. Person A and B both worked very hard and learned new skills and got promotions and raises for 40 years and now earn $85,000 annually. At this point both Person A and B are 58 years old but that is where the similarities end.
Person A spent the years saving and investing any spare money in the budget. Person A bought a house that was well below what they could buy and did not go into debt for any large amounts other than the house. There were no credit cards, big car loans, or frivolous spending. After 40 years of living well below their means, Person A is now set to retire early with a net worth over $1 million. In fact, Person A may never have to withdraw the principle from the investments made during the 40 years.
Person B spent the years spending money as it was earned. There were no savings and only a mild contribution to the company 401K, about 4%. Person B also bought a house that was at the upper end their buying power and had high credit card and loan debt. Now, at 58, Person B is not ready to retire even though the house and most of the debt is paid off. The 401K has less than $200,000 and there are no savings or other investments. Person B will have to continue to work until the mandatory retirement age in the current position of 62. If Person B wants to advance to upper management, where there is no retirement age, that would mean obtaining a degree.
Now this scenario is not perfect nor does it consider some other factors but assuming both people lived healthful lives and did not encounter any big misfortune, the incomes were comparable. Neither person made more than the other nor did one obtain a degree or advantage. How did Person A reach a point to retire as a millionaire at the age of 58 but Person B barely has $200,000 in retirement? How would Socialism deal with this “income inequality”? Can it be determined that Person A is somehow responsible for Person B’s situation? Does Person A have an obligation to subsidize Person B’s retirement? Most Democratic Socialists would argue the Person A has a moral responsibility to “share the wealth” with Person B because Person A is now a millionaire. This argument does not consider that Person A spent 40 years building savings and investments on their own and not relying on the 401K alone. It also does not acknowledge the fact that both people earned the same amount of money year after year during that same timeframe. Is it fair to tell Person A that they have to give up part of what they sacrificed in life, a less expensive home perhaps, because Person B has so much less?
Think about these questions when some one mentions Democratic Socialism or uses the phrase “share the wealth”. In the US, income inequality is about where you are, not where you are going. It doesn’t matter if you earn $35,000 or $135,000, if you don’t live below your means and don’t save and make smart investments, you will be Person B. On the other hand, if you save, invest, and keep debt low or no debt at all you will be Person A. Someone who is a CEO and being a Person B will no doubt be less well off than the worker in the company who is being a person A.

Here is a personal confession. I really wished I had been told this when I was younger because I lived like Person B most of my life. Now I am trying to become Person A but it is harder to do as you get older and I will not have 40 years to gain retirement but I will try. If you want to know better money management and learn skills to live and grow your retirement and even your income, I urge you to visit Dave Ramsey.  He has helped many people become debt-free and save and invest for the future at various income levels. I am not a paid endorser of Dave or his site but I do know his system works.

The Feds Should RICO CNN

Someone created a GIF, which is an animated graphic that has been edited from the original content, that depicted President Donald Trump basically body slamming a person with the CNN logo as his head. This caused a virtual firestorm in the media with CNN leading the charge claiming that the GIF could incite violence against journalists. This was rich as the media has been defending portrayals of violence against President Trump from the NYC play depicting the paly Julius Caesar with the main character looking like Trump. Most people know what happened to Caesar at the end. Then there was Kathy Griffin holding the bloody, severed head of Trump in the fashion of ISIS. To CNN’s credit, they did fire her from the New Year’s Eve broadcast. Then there was the rant that Madonna gave at a rally where she stated she wanted to blow up the White House. CNN has had a history of their anchors and pundits defending violent threats from liberals while condemning even a nuanced comments as threats. But all during the Obama Administration, CNN defended the president from all criticism by labeling those critics as racist and even tried to call the TEA Party violent and anti-government which was later debunked. Leading up to the GIF and the famous tweet by President Trump, CNN had to retract several stories leading to some journalist resigning. This has prompted many to label CNN as “fake news” but that is not the end of the story.


CNN has been focused on reports, mostly anonymous sources, of the Trump campaign collusion with Russia to “steal” the election from Hillary Clinton but with a thorough FBI investigation, there has been no proof it ever happened. Still, CNN has not let it go. But enter “HanA**holeSolo” a Reddit user and creator of the GIF and suddenly the investigative arm of CNN, K-file, kicks into high gear.  Andrew Kaczynski published a statement on CNN’s website to announce that they tracked the “private citizen” down and that he apologized and deleted the “offensive content” and promised not to do it again. Andrew followed up by saying that they would not reveal his identity if nothing changes. Here is the full quote from CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski. The part that is the icing on the cake is this small part, “CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that changes.” (emphasis added)

It shows here that CNN is now revealing the name of the person because he is 1. A private citizen, 2. He has issued a statement of apology, 3. He will not repeat the “ugly behavior” again, 4 his statement could serve as an example, or warning, to others but here is the RICO inducing statement. CNN says they could publish his identity if any of that changes. How scary for those who dare to criticize the media! Now let’s move to the RICO act and see if there has been a violation.


The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, also known as RICO, was enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime but has been used in cases of intimidation and coercion for cases related to drug trafficking and witness tampering. I believe that CNN violated this act when they tracked down the Reddit user and allegedly coerced him into not posting “ugly behavior” on social media. Once again, we must ask about free speech and what it means. We know Congress cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or the press. What about the press limiting the speech of citizens? CNN used the excuse that the user posted offensive, anti-Semitic pictures on his page. They used this to try to shut down detractors by saying they supported everything he said but the problem is that free speech means you can say what you want if you are not directly threatening someone whether it is offensive or not to someone else. I don’t agree with what he said in the posts but I defend his right to say it. I don’t, however, support CNN being able to violate the law and hide behind “freedom of the press” when that freedom does not give them the right to destroy someone’s life for “offensive” GIFs. This shows that CNN is a corrupt organization that uses intimidation and coercion to force private citizens to delete “offensive” content while saying they champion free speech, this makes them a fraud as well as blackmailers.

Religious Bullies

The anti-theists bullies are at it again picking on small communities that have very little resources to fight them. These groups which include the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Free Thought Society seek to eradicate all references to religion in public forums and government venues including schools, town halls, and city council meetings. They claim to represent the “separation of church and state” as a Constitutional precept but these words are nowhere to be found in the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, those words were pinned by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that there would be no US Church like the Church of England and that they would not be required by the government to teach a certain doctrine so the government would not dictate religious teachings. He also assured them that there would be no speech codes or punishment for speaking out against government policy. This was essential for the freedom of speech. The main thing these organizations misinterpreted is the first statement of the First Amendment.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  (emphasis added)

The first thing we should notice about this amendment is that it is restricted by the language in it to the Congress. It was fully understood that Congress referred to the US House of Representatives and Senate. There is no mention of the states in this amendment which indicates what the states had wanted with the Bill of Rights and that was limited Federal government. The entire Constitution was not about granting rights to the people but rather protecting God-given rights from erosion from the government. Looking at the Constitution in this way is essential to understanding the mindset of the people in 1789. You must remember that they had just won independence from England and there were fears that the new government would become just as bad. They wanted assurance that the natural rights of the people would be protected by the new government. They wanted very limited central federal government that had primarily a few responsibilities that were enumerated in the Constitution. They did not want the oppressive rule of the former to become the current. This was true for religious, speech, and press freedoms where, not only could the press, but the churches could speak out about political issues. The latter of which would be challenged by the IRS.This was also true for the states as they wanted more local input and interaction.


The thing that I believe that most Constitutional scholars have wrong if the interpretation of the “establishment clause”. I am not a graduate of a prestigious college specializing in Constitutional law, therefore my analysis is strictly novice in most circles but I believe that this was the same mindset that most people had at the time the amendment was ratified. First you must look at the wording used in the amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and we must understand what that means. An establishment in this case is the same as the words we would use today in saying an eating establishment. In other words, we could say that Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment meaning that there should be no law respecting a church. This blows up the conventional understanding of the phrase. This does not mean that churches can’t be involved in government in the fact that they have no say but that government can’t be involved in church activities. This was understood by those in government because before the capitol was built they met in churches in the area. The influence of Christianity and the belief in God were very strong in the newly formed United States so much so that the Ten Commandments are behind the justices of the Supreme Court. This was clear evidence that the leaders wanted Christian principals to lead the new government and that the wall was to keep the government out of church affairs. Atheists today say that the separation of church and state, which is not in the Constitution, means there is no place in government for religious expression including schools and government buildings and that churches should not be politically active at all. If this were true, one would have to renounce their faith to hold public office or work for a government agency and those with religious faith would be barred from speaking out for or against a political issue, that would be unconstitutional.


Since the beginning of the US and before the nation had even gained independence, there was a prayer said at the beginning of each congressional session. Prayer was of great importance in the daily lives of the clear majority in the US at the time and the first public school was created by the Puritans in 1635in Massachusetts and taught among reading, writing, and math the values the community held dear, including prayer. Daily prayer was common in public schools as were the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and in some cases reciting the 23 Psalm. While it was not required that you had to believe in God to attend school, it reflected the majority of the community. Madalyn Murray O’Hair has been credited with ending the practice of prayer in school in 1962 it was the cases, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)Wikipedia that ushered in the prohibition of prayer in school. Although I understand that not everyone believes in God and that they do not pray but there was no real harm in the issue but that is a conversation for another time. After the eradication of prayer in school, it was not long before anti-theists started to attack all religious expression in all public venues. This would include schools, government buildings, and government owned land and these attacks would be so vicious and well-funded that schools and government agencies would start to infringe on people’s right to free speech.


The Freedom from Religion Foundation was formed in 1976 with the mission to “educate” non-theists on their rights and rectify violations. Unfortunately, they believe any exposure to religion is a violation even when it comes from other citizens in a setting on government property. They seem to target low income communities where they would know that there were not many resources to fight their accusations. They targeted graduations where there was a prayer and then started targeting speeches of valedictorians that included references to God, Christ, and the Bible. This has prompted schools to review speeches from private citizens for censorship of anything remotely religious. This is in direct violation of the free speech clause as the valedictorian in a private citizen and their speech is a personal reflection on their lives and is not a “state-sanctioned” endorsement of religion. Among other things this organization has targeted was a large cross in California erected by veterans as a war memorial but because it was on “public” land the FFRF filed lawsuits to have it removed. These foundations have attacked communities during the Christmas season for displays of nativity scenes and other holiday decorations that reflect the traditionally religious nature of the holiday. Most of the time, there is not a complaint from a single resident of the community and the foundation is in Wisconsin but will sue in any state. Most recently, there have been a couple of instances where these organizations have crossed the line in their pursuit of eradicating religion from public view.


In Opp, Alabama, they have a tradition of holding a baccalaureate service for graduating seniors on the Sunday before graduation. This service is religious in nature and was held in the auditorium which, according to the FFRF is a big no-no. Commentator Todd Starnes has reported on this situation. Most baccalaureate services are held in churches in the community but some are held at the school if there is not a large enough venue elsewhere. One thing that the FFRF does not acknowledge is the fact attendance to these services are voluntary and those who do not wish to attend are not punished if they abstain. Most baccalaureate services are hosted by a church and are not sponsored by the school although school officials may participate in them. Alabama has a court ruling made in 1991 stating that a school district must “ensure that no other school officials promote, lead, or participate in the service.”  This is akin to saying if you hold an official title, you can’t participate in religious services. This is not what the Constitution means with the “establishment” clause. Secondly, Todd Starnes reported on a high school graduate that was told she could not mention God, Jesus, or pray in her graduation speech because it was against the law. Remember this not a public official, this is a private citizen who is giving a speech to her classmates about her life and memories. She does not represent the school, as some would have you believe, but she represents herself and her speech should reflect her beliefs. She has the First Amendment right to say what she believes even at a government event because she is a citizen of the US. To say that just because you are at a school sponsored or government event that you forfeit your free speech is just what the founders wanted to prevent. Many atheists point to the fact that most schools receive funding from the federal government and that negates religious liberty but if that were applied to all funding then those who receive food stamps would be barred from attending religious services as well.


While atheists claim that schools are for education and not proselytizing, schools have started going further in limiting students from reading their Bibles on school property and barring students from meeting to pray together before class. Many schools will not allow religious groups access to the school after hours while allowing other groups, including politically controversial groups access. Teachers have even told students that they are not allowed to share their faith at school due to the “separation of church and state” with one student being suspended. This is a gross miscarriage of the concept of the establishment clause in that it completely ignores the expression clause where individuals can share their faith. It also violates the student’s free speech protection as there are no qualifiers as to when you can have free speech so it is considered always in effect. Freedom of speech should not and must not be limited by your surroundings. You should be able to share your views on religion, politics, or any other topic you like and should not be restricted because you are in a government building or public property. The First Amendment keeps Congress from forcing churches to teach “approved” doctrine but does not keep religion out of public life as it also allows the free exercise of religion even in public venues. Contrary to what atheists’ claim, the US was founded on Christian values of private property, freedom, and individual liberty and God was acknowledged by the founders in almost every document written during that time.


The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s name says it all. They do not want freedom of religion, instead they would like to see religious views relegated to church and nowhere else. They believe that any religious artifact, no matter how significant it is to the history of the country on public property is somehow an endorsement of religion and therefore forces it on the people. One absurd thing they have attacked is a welcome sign that was erected by local churches welcoming people into the town. The atheist organization claims that it sends a message that you are not a favorite citizen if you are not Christian. This is the most ridiculous claim I ever heard. Many of the towns where I live have welcome signs that have been put there by the local Mason’s lodge, does that mean I am not a “favorite citizen” because I am not a Mason? What about welcome signs from local businesses? Am I not favored if I don’t shop at their establishments? Where would this end? Churches welcoming you to their town is not an endorsement of one religion over another or none. If you look at the picture in the article, you will notice that the Kiwanis have their emblem on the sign. Does that mean only members of the Kiwanis are “favorite citizens”? For people who don’t believe in God, the FFRF sure are offended by Him quite easily. Is what the FFRF doing Constitutional? Although they claim atheism is the absence of religious belief, I see atheism as a religious belief because not believing in God is as much a religion as believing especially when you go through great lengths to promote non-belief over belief in the way FFRF does. They claim they want the all government agencies to be neutral on religion but instead push hostility toward it. By pushing non-belief so hard they have proven they are the biggest proselytizers of all time, trying to force their worldview on everyone else. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate atheists and everyone is entitled to their beliefs but to go after high school students’ free speech is not cool.

Who are the Real Nazis of Today?

The election of Donald Trump revived an old but well-known term used against those who are seen as racist or anti-Semitic, that term is Nazi. Yes, the German National Socialist Party headed up by none other than Adolf Hitler. Trump supporters have been labeled racist, homophobic, xenophobic, nationalist, and Nazis. All of this without a shred of proof or any real evidence of such leanings in the majority of his supporters. In fact, most of Trump’s supporters are regular, hard-working men and women from all races and backgrounds. I will admit that Trump was not my first choice in the primaries but I did vote for him in the general election.  I did not vote because I hate black or brown people or because I want to hold back those same people. I voted because I want a different direction in this country for everyone. I want to limit illegal immigration. I want lower taxes and more opportunity for everyone who is willing to work. I want the US to be strong in the world and be the shining city on the hill as Reagan had said so many times. It is the Conservative philosophy that people should be able to pull themselves up and not be reliant on the government for perpetuity.


I would like to address one of the most heinous accusations that have been hurled at Trump supporters. The term Nazi has been used against Trump and his supporters by those who claim that “whitelash” or white supremacy is to blame for his election. This is also done to imply that Trump, his supporters, and his cabinet intend to eliminate people of color. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Left in this country and around the world have espoused the philosophy of the Nazi party. Instead of being directed at Jews or people of color it is directed at white people, in particular, white males.

The Nazis in Germany did not start by rounding up the Jews, they started by first indoctrinating the citizens with anti-Jew propaganda. They used the education system to demoralize and dehumanize Jews and blamed much of the problems in Germany on the Jews. As the propaganda war continued, the public began to have disdain for Jewish people and Jewish businesses were boycotted, vandalized, and even burned down. They were considered second-class citizens and were blamed for all the woes of the German people. Does this sound familiar?


After the American Civil War, black people, especially in the South, were viewed in much the same way by many white people. While not all white people felt this way, enough white people harbored resentment against black people and the federal government to form organizations that terrorized the black community in the post-war South because Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. The most famous of these was the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) founded in 1866 and led by Nathan Bedford Forrest, a confederate general and Democrat. In the years following the KKK’s formation, it spread through the South and was a resistance to the reconstruction efforts of Republicans who were trying to bring about equality for black people and the newly freed slaves. The organization targeted Republican leaders, black leaders, the Jewish community, and average citizens who supported equality. It has been said that the KKK was the military arm of the Democratic Party during this time. With intimidation and violence, the KKK could get Democrats elected to local and state office where laws meant to hold down the black race and create a lower class of citizen were enacted. It was during this time that Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and poll questions that were virtually impossible to answer were put into place to segregate black and white and prevent black people from voting. This helped the Democrats increase their power in the southern states and these policies stayed in place for nearly a century.


In the 1950s and 1960s, people from all races came together to try to end the policies of segregation and restore voting rights to the black community. Several members of the black community tried to challenge laws but either were killed or lost their cases in the racist courts of the South. One of the catalysts for the Civil Rights Movement that brought the plight to attention was the arrest of Rosa Parks. She refused to give up her seat in the colored section to a white woman and move to the back of the bus which, in Alabama, was the law. Although her case was bogged down, she became an icon and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr organized marches with her. While Dr. King chose to meet the violence of the opposition with peace and not fight back with violence, there were those in the black community who preferred retaliation against all white people and not just those who either through organizations or in power were responsible for the inequality of the time. Although Dr. King’s message won out in the arena of ideas and segregation and poll taxes were ended without a full-scale civil war, some of the groups that believed in retribution such as the Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Army continued to seek violent means to exact revenge. Many of these people found a home with the Communist movement that was beginning to spread on college campuses across the nation.


The 1960s were a time of cultural, social, political, and legal upheaval that ushered in a rebellion of sorts against the prevailing culture in the US of the 1940s and 1950s. Students in universities were challenging the moral and societal norms that they grew up believing. The epicenter of this movement is considered the University of California Berkeley where students and faculty advocated for free speech to protest the Vietnam War and other government policies that they felt were unfair and unjust. While some student protesters were against war in general and felt it was their right to speak out against it, a majority of the students genuinely believed that the US was bad and that there was a fundamental flaw in it. Because of the glamorous way the professors portrayed Communism, many of the students believed this was a better system than our current political and economic system. The professors also taught that the US was imperialistic and imposes its values on other cultures which it finds inferior. These teachings have continued and evolved over the next few decades.


Throughout the 2000s there were protests against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but it was still fairly peaceful and relatively lacking in racial overtones. Something changed in 2008. The voters of the US elected the first African-American president. I don’t usually use the term African-American but in this case, it is fitting as his father was from Kenya and his mother was American. Almost immediately there was a shift in attitude toward anyone who opposed the new president or any of his policies, even on ideological grounds. Instantly you were considered racist if you criticized anything the president proposed. At the same time, on college campuses a new term was being used, “white privilege” inferring that those with white skin or Caucasian were somehow more “privileged” than others when it came to everything from encounters with the police to college admissions. Some campuses began to designate “safe spaces” for students of color where white students were not allowed. They also claimed that any white student wearing a particular style whether it was clothes or hair that was associated with another culture was “cultural appropriation” and some students were even physically attacked. Soon campuses started to have dorms only for people of color where no white person could go. These same universities set up workshops to tell white students just how “bad” they really are and how to be more culturally accepting. Does this sound familiar?


In Germany, the Nazi Party used similar propaganda to paint the Jewish population in an unfavorable light. In fact, encouraging Germans to boycott Jewish stores and shops and soon they pushed to destroy those shops. Soon, being a Jew in Germany was akin to being the devil and you had fewer rights and less freedom until it finally led to the “final solution” which later was known as the Holocaust. During the 2016 election, there were a lot of protests against Donald Trump and some turned violent. Trump supporters were pelted with eggs and other projectiles and accosted for wearing the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hats. Some hats were even snatched off the heads of people as they walked down the street. Riotous protesters gathered outside Trump Tower in New York and showed up at rallies across the US yelling obscenities and flipping the bird at supporters trying to get into the venues. This was all occurring before election day and some speculated that the protesters were paid and that it was meant to intimidate Trump supporters and subdue turnout on election day. That tactic did not work as Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.


Following the election, there were riots in several cities where property damage was great and many were arrested. The media tried to blame Right-wing extremists but it soon became apparent who was behind it.  During the time this was going on, there were calls to take the riots into the “white” neighborhoods and trash their homes and businesses, reminiscent of the brown shirts who called for attacks on Jewish neighborhoods and businesses. The Democrats who chastised those who opposed President Obama now were calling for resistance to President Trump. The comedians who called other comedians who joked about Obama out were now spewing vitriol for Trump. The calls from the Left to accept the election of Obama and move on were now calls to not accept the election and disrupt as much of the agenda as possible. The hypocrisy was so stark that many people began to see what the Left in the nation had become, hate-filled totalitarian extremists. Anarchists began marching wearing black masks and hoods which were in the same spirit of the KKK’s white hoods. Calls for Trump to be assassinated flooded Twitter and Facebook with little to no action against the perpetrators. This led to an explosion on university campuses of Nazi sounding rhetoric.


In the months that followed the election, there were professors on many campuses that were calling for the genocide of the white race and made certain areas off limits to white students. The “Social Justice Warrior” movement that had been rising during the last few decades finally had some power and pushed to have all white people pay reparations for slavery even though only 1.2% of the population had ever owned slaves. They refused to allow white people to attend any of their rallies and when they did see white people they would make them go to the back of the crowd. Even at UC Berkeley where the “free speech” movement started in the ’60s there is a push to deny any Conservative speakers the right to hold speeches and have been threatened with violence if they come on campus. Some students were interviewed and believed that free speech did not extend to those speakers and that violence against them was justified. It has become painfully apparent that having an opposing view on most college campuses is shouted down and the person becomes an outcast. It is also becoming dangerous to have a Conservative view and philosophy as people are attacked viciously if they express those opinions. Professors have even barred Conservative viewpoints in their class.


So, I ask. Who are the Nazis of today? Is it the Conservative Right that calls for enforcement of the law and traditional moral values that want America to be prosperous and strong? Is it the radical Left that is calling for an end to white power and want to punish the white race? It sounds to me like the Fascists and Nazis are in the camp of the Left. They demean white people based on past grievances and blame the white race for their shortcomings while taking no responsibility for themselves and their lives. They call for equality while simultaneously pushing down one race over another. They claim victim-hood based solely on race and argue for special treatment and consideration in all aspects of life. This is not equality. This is the epitome of the Nazi philosophy just applied to a different group of people. This is not what the US is about. The US has had its share of problems and has done some bad things but it has always striven for freedom and justice for all. Social justice is not justice at all but revenge on society for past wrongs that may not even have been perpetrated against the current generation. What we need to do is throw out the violence and start communicating in a civil manner and try to understand where the other is coming from. We also must get over the blame game as, chances are, young people alive in the US today have never experienced real oppression or slavery. In short, we need to stop hating America for its bad behavior and start loving the good it has done in the world.


Here is a philosophical point that everyone should ponder and think about when they feel someone else has power over them. No one can have influence and power over you unless you give them permission. No person can control your actions without your consent and no group can exercise domination over another without one group being submissive. If you feel that one group is superior or more privileged it is because you feel inferior and less privileged even if there is no difference. In other words, you give up your privilege by admitting that you have none. Until you realize that you are responsible for your education (you can go to school but learning is up to you), your success (you must take your education and apply it to the world), your happiness (you cannot rely on others to make you happy or punish others enough to make you happy), and your future (the past is the past so let it go and move on be the better person than those who will hold you back).  Following the crowd may seem cool and the thing to do but remember by following the crowd you will not see the road ahead until the person in front of you falls off the cliff. Be you own person and don’t let your race, your ethnicity, or your economic situation define you. In the US, it is possible to rise above your circumstances, that is why people from all over the world immigrate here and become citizens. You are our own worst enemy!