Marx missed it, or Why Chuck Schumer thinks I'm evil

Entrenched politician U. S. Senator Chuck Schumer is at it again. Emboldened by his fellow New Yorkers, socialist Mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who make pronouncements that non-Democrats should leave "their" state, he is now rolling out his latest lie-to-people-about-this list for the party faithful.

But why do theses three demagogues (and numerous other Democrat cohorts) consider that it is necessary at this time to be making their extreme pronouncements against conservatism and the TEA Party? It is because the agenda items their messiah is pursuing, most notably ObamaCare, are in deep trouble, and they are hoping it can be sustained by a new Democrat offensive of lying propaganda. The polls aren't looking good right now for President Obama. In a Fox News poll from January 14, Obama's approval is at a near record low 42%, while his disapproval is near a record high of 53%. So they figure it is time to start feeding the obedient liberal media a new round of lies to try and build support for their cause. Schumer refers to the TEA Party "elite," as he continues with his upside down version of reality. The success of the TEA Party movement is precisely because it was not created and run by an "elite." It is a grassroots movement that, starting in the 2010 national elections, led to voters choosing and electing numerous candidates to office who believed in the principles of limited government, a balanced budget, and an end to political cronyism.

---

Today's Democrats join with Schumer in their talking points, accusing conservatives as "extremists," to try and hide their own extreme Marxist views. Having purged their ranks of traditional liberals, the Democrat Party continues moving further to the left, as the Marxist-infested Obama administration weaves its web of government control over our lives. Talking of the need for resolving "income inequality," they continue trying to transform this country into a fundamentally-flawed socialist system, where the "ruling rich" need to be replaced with ruling government bureaucrats. It is fundamentally flawed because Marx missed it when he built is political philosophy on the concept of "class struggle," where society advanced from one type of class structure to another. His obsession with class structure caused him to view capitalism with the rigid class structure of previous economic systems. Seeing capitalism as a static phenomenon, he built his assumptions on people being locked into their station in life, with violent revolution being the only way the "working class" could break away from the current societal structure. But as nations developed a capitalist system, the feudal monarchical system was abolished, with and without revolutions. As free, independent people, they began to start and build businesses independent of what an established class of rulers dictated to them, no longer having to be born into privilege in order to make a name for themselves. Instead, it depended on personal initiative and wise decision-making. While wealth would help establish privilege for many, it no longer required the previous societal methods of forced servitude. People could come and go from any job or position as they so desired, a laborer could eventually run his own company, and becoming shareholders in businesses, through company stock options and personal investing, many in the "working class" have become capitalists themselves! Developed capitalist countries have never been taken over by a revolution of the "working class," contrary to what Marx predicted. And every country that has tried a Marxist-style government takeover of the economy finds that it slows down economic development until they allow some free enterprise capitalism to return. More government is not the answer, Mr. Schumer. While it may be good for perpetuating your career, it is not good for the national economy or for our already over-regulated lives.