What Separation Of Church And State?

For the first time in U.S. history, the leader of a major religion was invited to speak before a joint session of Congress. (No. Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t count.) Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals–along with the national news media–are all praising the pontiff’s congressional appearance.

But wait just a doggone minute! How is the pope’s speech before Congress NOT a violation of the separation of church and state? Everything he talked about was both political and religious based. His left-wing theology permeated what can only be regarded as a blatantly political sermon. Where are all of the folks who demand that Christian pastors not get involved in politics? Furthermore, why is no one threatening the Catholic Church with the loss of its 501c3 tax exempt nonprofit organization status? The Internal Revenue Code is pretty plain about pastors of 501c3 churches (of which the Catholic Church is the largest) being forbidden from engaging in political activity during their official duties. And when Pope Francis spoke before Congress, did he appear in the attire of a private person? No! He spoke in full papal regalia–meaning, he appeared before Congress in the official capacity as a religious head.

“The Vatican is a state,” you say. In that case, the hypocrisy of Pope Francis to lecture the United States about tearing down our borders and allowing illegal aliens to pour in at will is as obvious and odious as it can possibly be. Before he lectures us about how we should accept any and all illegals into our country, he should set the example and tear down the forty-foot wall surrounding the Vatican City State.

Then there is his pet socialist (yes, Pope Francis is a longtime socialist and Marxist) talking point regarding how rotten America is because of our material success. BARF! Why is no one willing to point out to the pontiff that the Roman Catholic Church is the richest corporation in the entire world? As if he needs any reminder. No corporation is even a close second. Without a doubt, the Catholic Church is the biggest hoarder of wealth on the planet.

But not only is Pope Francis a Marxist/socialist, he is also a globalist. His remarks regarding globalism could have been written by Henry Kissinger. Who knows? Maybe they were.

The history of this pope is one of a lifetime of involvement in Marxist, globalist activities. I strongly recommend that readers take a look at this report:

“Washington’s Pope”? Who is Pope Francis?

When I watch–and listen to–Pope Francis, it reminds of Piers Morgan.

With all due respect to my British friends, when I watch–and listen to–Piers Morgan, I want to fight the War for Independence all over again. And with all due respect to my Catholic friends, when I watch–and listen to–Pope Francis, I want to fight the Reformation wars all over again.

Thankfully, not all Roman Catholics are enamored with this pope. No more than I am enamored with many of our evangelical “popes” such as Joel Osteen and John Hagee.

It constantly amazes me how so many people are so willing to live their entire lives, and predicate the principles of their lives, with ideological, sociological, and theological biases–biases that have nothing to do with truth and everything to do with the advancement of private parochial agendas. And liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and secularists are equally culpable.

When President Bill Clinton lied to the American people, liberals and Democrats looked the other way and defended him in every way possible. And when President G.W. Bush lied to the American people, conservatives and Republicans looked the other way and defended him in every way possible.

Too many Catholics defend the pope regardless of his Marxist, socialist ideals. Too many evangelicals defend their denominational leaders regardless of their Marxist, socialist ideals. Even though they claim to reject globalism, too many secular libertarians refuse to deal with the way Bernie Sanders sidesteps the perpetual exploration into global hegemony by Democrat leaders in Washington, D.C. And even though they claim to detest and oppose terrorism, too many religious conservatives refuse to deal with the way that Benjamin Netanyahu and the State of Israel are up to their eyeballs in the sponsorship of all kinds of terrorism–including giving assistance to ISIS and terrorizing the Palestinian people.

Too many people are in a “protected” class, while those sharing alternative ideologies are marked for isolation, persecution, incarceration, or annihilation.

Public schools around the country are making prayer rooms available for Muslim students to pray in during school hours. Colleges and university campuses across the country provide prayer rooms, foot baths in bathrooms, and holy days for Muslim students. And no federal judge suggests that such conduct violates the SCOTUS rulings banning prayer in public schools. No school principal or college president or dean is put in jail. No mayor or city councilman of a “sanctuary” city that openly defies federal immigration laws is thrown in jail. But a Christian clerk in a Kentucky county is sent to jail by a federal judge for refusing to sign her name on a same-sex “marriage” license.

Liberals ignore the injustices and crimes against humanity by Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, while conservatives ignore the injustices and crimes against humanity by Talmudic Jews in Israel. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ignore black-on-black crime, while Franklin Graham ignores police abuse. Conservatives ignore Ben Carson’s biggest big-government scheme of all the presidential candidates so far: government-mandated vaccinations, while liberals ignore the crimes of the biggest criminal in the field: Hillary Clinton.

But, inviting the pope to speak before a joint session of Congress has to take the all-time prize for hypocrisy and for the most glaring double standard of the entire media and political worlds.

Our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights) were written to protect us all from despots from both the left and the right, from both secular and religious zealots. As human beings created in the likeness of our Creator, we all have the same intrinsic, Natural rights. The purpose of government is to protect those Natural rights.

Now, all rules are off. There are no safeguards and no protections. Nothing is secure, and nothing is sacred. The rule of law has been replaced with the rule of whatever one can get by with. Nothing is wrong, only politically incorrect. The Rights of Man have been replaced with the rule of government.

This isn’t America anymore.

For the first time in U.S. history, congressional leaders from both parties invited the head of a major religious institution (Pope Francis) to use the U.S. Capitol building to promote a blatantly leftist, globalist agenda IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. This one cannot be blamed on Barack Obama. He has no control of Capitol Hill. This was the collaboration of John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid.

So, pardon me while I laugh the next time someone accuses the pastor of a small church on Main Street, USA of violating the separation of church and state when he delivers a message supporting the right to life of unborn babies or traditional marriage or the lawful right of self-defense.

Pastors who relate Biblical principles to our country’s political affairs have NEVER violated the “separation of church and state.” Had Colonial preachers adhered to the modern interpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s personal letter to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptists (from whence the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” has been taken–but which appears in NO official U.S. document), we would still be a Crown colony of England.

But after this week, we can all say, “Separation of church and state? What separation of church and state?”


P.S. I am once again featuring my four-sermon video series on “The Church And Israel.” This is one of the most-requested DVDs we have ever offered. Questions addressed on this video include:

*Does Genesis 12 (“I will bless them that bless thee…”) refer to the modern State of Israel?

*Is the modern State of Israel synonymous with Biblical Israel?

*Are modern Jews “God’s chosen people”?

*Should U.S. foreign policy favor the modern State of Israel on scriptural grounds?

To order this DVD containing my four messages on “The Church And Israel” for yourself or someone else, go to:

The Church And Israel

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

The Military Gravy Train: Full Speed Ahead

There’s something very odd about the United States military that makes many of the most budget-hawkish fiscal conservatives turn into starry-eyed, big government welfare pushers. The hypocrisy is breathtaking; at the same time as many conservatives are talking about “America’s descent into socialism” they are pushing their own brand of military socialism to ever more absurd lengths.

At a whopping $581 billion per year, the United States already spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military. However, even that number doesn’t represent the entire picture. As Robert Higgs has shown, when everything is included (from the Department of Veterans Affairs to the nuclear weapons expenditures in the State Department to the net interest on past debt-financed defense outlays, etc.) that sum is actually over one trillion dollars. Despite this, every Republican presidential candidate is pushing to increase the military budget. Even Rand Paul proposes adding $76.5 billion to the defense budget — which by itself is more than the military budgets of all but two other countries in the world (China and Saudi Arabia).

Fiscal conservatives love to pass around examples of government waste, such as the $615,000 grant that was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, t-shirts, and concert tickets for The Grateful Dead, or the $175,587 spent “to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior.” Yet, many of the best examples of such mind-numbingly insane expenditures come from the woefully bloated military of the United States.

For example, in 2007, the Pentagon spent $998,798 to ship two 19-cent washers; and the Department of Defense spends over $10 million dollars each year to maintain hundreds of golf courses it owns, presumably an effort to keep America safe. But the worst boondoggle may be the F-22 fighter. Or perhaps it’s the F-35? It’s hard to decide.

According to The Washington Post, the F-22 “… has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000 …” Oh, and it can’t fly in the rain either. On the other hand, the F-35 has brought with it a modest price tag of only $400 billion dollars, 70 percent over its initial cost estimate. And it can’t even defeat the fighter jet it is supposed to replace in a dogfight. These massive taxpayer rip-offs join many other projects costing hundreds of billions of dollars, for weapons the military often doesn’t even want.

Indeed, the “military-industrial complex” as Dwight Eisenhower called it, is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, examples of corporate welfare and corporate/government malfeasance around. Lockheed Martin and other military contractors use a variety of unsavory means to ensure ever bigger contracts for ever more unnecessary military contraptions to be paid for at the taxpayer’s expense.

One method is spreading the work around. Basically, these companies will contract and subcontract the work for any given project to as many congressional districts as possible to ensure wide support among congressmen who don’t want to see their district lose jobs. (It should be noted that Eisenhower originally wanted to call it the military-industrial-congressional complex.) For example, the F-35 mentioned above had 1,300 suppliers in forty-five states.

Another tactic is using the “cost plus” approach, which basically has the government pay the contractor’s cost, plus a certain agreed upon profit. Unfortunately, as is probably apparent, this provides the extremely perverse incentive for the company to let the project become as expensive as possible in order to make as big a profit as possible. And with examples such as the F-35, it’s hard to believe these companies haven’t taken advantage of this incentive.

Just as welfare degrades people’s work ethic and resourcefulness, when looking at the sheer waste of these military contracts, it appears corporate welfare degrades a company’s dynamism. As Tom Woods notes in his book Rollback, the amount the United States has spent on its military is absolutely staggering:

… during the period from 1947 through 1987 [the Pentagon] used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the value of the nation’s plants, equipment, and infrastructure (capital stock), at just over $7.29 trillion. In other words, the amount spent over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced the existing stock.

And what has all of this gotten us? Tom Woods again:

… after all this spending, the end result has actually been a smaller military with older equipment. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than $2 trillion has been added to the 1999 baseline Pentagon budget. Roughly half went to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the other trillion went to non-war military spending. What did Americans get for that trillion bucks? A smaller Navy and Air Force, and a trivial increase in the size of the army.

Add to this that the Pentagon is the only federal department exempt from audit (well, aside from the Federal Reserve if you consider that a department). And this makes perfect sense as its books are in complete disarray. Back in 2001, Donald Rumsfeld admitted that “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.” And as Reuters reports, the Pentagon “doctored ledgers [to] conceal epic waste” such as when “the Army lost track of $5.8 billion of supplies between 2003 and 2011 as it shuffled equipment between reserve and regular units.”

Is this the kind of “small government” these fiscal conservatives are looking for?

Perhaps it is. As conservative Mark Steyn noted in his book After America, specifically with regard to the bloated welfare systems in Europe and the United States, as well as the demographic decline of the West,

Faced with a choice between unsustainable entitlements and maintaining armed forces of global reach, the United States, as Europe did, will abandon military capability and toss the savings into the great sucking maw of social spending. That, in turn, will make for not only a more dangerous world but a more vulnerable America that, to modify President Bush, will wind up having to fight them over here because we no longer have the capacity to fight them over there.

Perhaps Steyn should have rephrased it as the “great sucking maw of military spending would be transferred to the great sucking maw of social spending.” And what exactly the Iraq War, for example, did to make the world less dangerous or America less vulnerable is — for good reason — left unstated.

And of course, the biggest question is left altogether undiscussed; why does the United States need either a bloated welfare state or a bloated warfare state?

And this boils down to the heart of it; the two parties have little more than two slightly different versions of big government they want to foist on the American people and use to line the pockets of their favored interests. Only slightly of course, because it’s not like the Republicans reduce welfare spending or the Democrats reduce military spending.

In the end, it’s not very complicated; a small government with a massive military is an oxymoron. It’s about time that fiscal conservatives figured this out.

This commentary originally appeared at Mises.org and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Holy Socialist Central Planning

In his recent speech to the U.S. Congress, Pope Francis declared that “the common good is the chief aim of all politics” and that “freedom requires love of the common good.” Legislation is “always based on care for the public,” the pontiff pontificated. Only a naïve child could believe such a thing.

The pope said these things in the context of imploring the Congress to adopt some kind of Soviet-style central planning of the economy in the name of “fighting global warming,” while simultaneously exploding American welfare state spending by extending welfare benefits to all welfare parasites from every Third World nation on the planet. Thus, if “Catholic social teaching” stands for anything these days, it stands for international socialism and egalitarianism gone wild.

In the context of politics, there is no such thing as “the common good”; for such a concept implies unanimity, and politics is never unanimous, especially in a country of over 300 million people.  Moreover, if everyone agrees on a course of action, then there is no need for government to coerce us into doing it. There is no need for government at all in such instances.

As Ludwig von Mises pointed out in his book, Liberalism, the only sense in which “the common good” or “the public interest” makes any sense is in the case where property rights are well protected. Secure property rights, wrote Mises, is the shortest road to peace and prosperity. All legislation, however, is an attack on property rights because it invariably involves the placement of widely-dispersed burden on the majority for the benefit of a well-organized minority or special interest. All legislation is the result of rent- or plunder-seeking by special-interest groups, or by the state itself in order to expand its powers and budgets. As such, all politics is the mortal enemy of anything that can be construed as “the common good,” exactly the opposite of the pope’s declarations.

Politics is the ultimate “robbing Peter to pay Paul” scam. Peter, the hapless taxpayer, is effectively blindfolded so that he can be robbed for the benefit of Paul, the greedy special interest who kicks back some of the loot to his political patrons in the form of votes and “campaign contributions.” Peter is “blindfolded” by the tricks of deficit spending and money printing, which hide the true costs of government, as well as the concentrated benefits/dispersed costs gambit whereby a small tax is imposed on the many to finance large benefits for the few and well connected.

Politics is thus never based on “care for the public,” as the pope said. It is based on the self-interest of politicians. Their “chief aim” is not “the common good,” but keeping their jobs and expanding their pay, perks, and powers, the public be damned.

The rhetoric of “the common good” began with the French philosopher Rousseau, the intellectual godfather of communism and hater of private property. The common good, said Rousseau, is something that is known to an elite in society. This special knowledge supposedly gives them the right to impose their will on all others. The communists certainly took this idea to an extreme, slaughtering tens of millions of dissenters; but all statists, including Pope Francis, rely on the same rhetoric. They rely on repetition, obfuscation, and rhetorical game playing instead of terror and mass murder to get the public to acquiesce in their plans for international socialism with themselves, the world elite, in charge.

When socialism collapsed once and for all in the Soviet empire and elsewhere in the late 1980s/early 1990s, socialist intellectuals did not just throw in the towel. Many of them took the advice of the socialist/environmentalist guru Barry Commoner, who wrote in The New Yorker magazine that socialists should no longer advocate central planning in the name of helping “the people.” People Schmeople. It should be sold, said Commoner, in the name of “saving the planet” from capitalism. Thus, the “watermelons” were born – green on the outside, red on the inside. The pope is a recent convert to watermelon socialism with his embrace of the “global warming” hysterics’ agenda. Religious figures like himself were always looked upon by Machiavellians like Commoner as useful idiots, to borrow the phrase from Stalin. They send the message that socialist central planning is somehow God’s will – as though humans can know what is in God’s mind.

If American welfare spending explodes by extending benefits to millions of new Third World peasant immigrants, the Catholic Church stands to make a killing. Catholic Charities receives more than half of all of its revenue from government grants. As a recipient of these grants, it is forbidden from teaching Catholicism to the beneficiaries of its “charity.” It is a welfare state conduit, which goes a long way toward explaining the pope’s wild enthusiasm for Third World immigrants. It is the same agenda, in fact, of Ted Kennedy, the author of the 1965 federal immigration law that greatly reduced immigration quotas from Northern Europe while opening up the flood gates of Third World immigrants who Kennedy knew would be reliable Democratic voters/welfare parasites (See Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation).

If the Congress were to adopt the pope’s agenda of socialist central planning in the name of “saving the planet,” coupled with the internationalization of the American welfare state, it would be charting a course to become a Third World country.  At that point, the socialist intellectuals –and perhaps even a future pope – would inevitably blame it all on “capitalism.”

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; ;Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe, How Capitalism Saved America, Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.

This article was originally posted on LewRockwell.com and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Envy, Economic Destruction, And Moral Decay: Pope Francis And Bernie Sanders

Both Pope Francis and Bernie Sanders seem to be down on capitalism, and they support the imposition of more economic regulations, and higher taxes on “the rich,” in the name of reversing “income inequality.” Which means taking more wealth and income away from the producers, the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the providers of jobs. Which ultimately causes slowed productivity, factory shut-downs and higher unemployment. And then these socialists and fascists call for more interventions, more bureaucratic intrusiveness into private industry, and ultimately, government seizures of whole industries (like health care).

Yes, they are both fascists as well as socialists. But “fascist” sounds bad, unlike “socialist.” That has “social” in it. “We love people!” So Bernie calls himself a “socialist.” And while I don’t think Pope Francis calls himself a “socialist,” I’m sure he probably doesn’t object to that description.

As opposed to “fascist,” which sounds like “Hitler” and all that. But both words have economic meanings, and that’s important.

In my simplistic view of things, I see socialism as “public ownership of the means of production” which really means government ownership, which means bureaucrats usurping ownership away from the people. It is theft, in actuality. And fascism supposedly allows for private ownership, but the controls over the industries, property, contracts and labor are seized by those covetous and power-grabbing government bureaucrats. Both socialism and fascism are enslavement of the people.

As I have stated in the past, the minimum wage is an example of economic fascism. Bureaucrats order employers to pay workers not less than a certain amount. The choice is: pay the worker less than demanded by ignoramus bureaucrats and go to jail, or cut those jobs if the employer can’t afford it. Most employers choose the latter rather than going to jail. So that’s a fascist control usurped by bureaucrats over the wage part of the private contract between employer and employee.

Interesting how “liberals” are concerned when private businesses engage in “price gouging,” even though the free market’s raising prices at certain times actually benefits those most in need (as opposed to anti-price-gouging laws which backfire and cause shortages). But when the “liberals” artificially raise the price of labor (minimum wage), they really are “price-gouging” by legal force, and thus causing people to lose their jobs! (Some “liberals”!)

Now, Pope Francis and Bernie Sanders’s complaints are supposedly of the greed of “capitalism” and the “1%“. They want to crack down on Wall Street. In my view, Wall Street is just a de facto branch of the federal government, and is rigged to enrich the insiders at the expense of small investors. Wall Street is also a beneficiary of socialism. Example: The Wall Street Bailout at involuntary taxpayer expense. So Wall Street is not an example of actual free market capitalism.

Actually, there has been very little capitalism–that is, free market capitalism–in America, certainly not in Europe or any of the other areas of the world. There is crony capitalism, in which the established firms get in bed with the bureaucracy’s major power wielders, who write special legislation to pay off the insider established firms’ bigwigs, who have all the legal forces at their fingertips to get around whatever legislation is written that the smaller firms can’t afford to do. This is a main component of fascism, by the way.

Besides the minimum wage, one textbook example of crony capitalism and fascism (that some people have been mistakenly referring to as “socialism”) has been the ObamaCare law, or the Affordable Care Act. This law was largely written by the lobbyists of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. They have benefited a great deal from this new health insurance racket.

In contrast, real capitalism is this: Free markets, i.e. freedom, in which everyone is free to do with one’s own person, labor, property, capital and wealth whatever one wants, as long as you don’t steal or use fraud, coercion or aggression against others. And that’s it. No governmental intrusions or guilty-until-proven-innocent controls, mandates, licensing, or reporting anything to the government. For those are all trespasses, in my view; and thus, they are criminal intrusions, which is what socialism and fascism are all about.

In contrast, free market capitalism is the way of life which, during the 19th Century, led to the greatest expansion in human prosperity and raised the standard of living of most of the people in society. It raised the standard of living of those at the bottom, as well as the middle.

And then in the 20th Century, the socialists and fascists came in and wrecked all that. Besides the Europeans and their socialist and fascist centrally planned economic policies and wars, in America there were Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, the two major players whose socialism and fascism gave us the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, and FDR’s many, many fascist bureaus and programs, ordering people to do this and do that, or else.

The socialist redistribution-of-wealth schemes and takeovers of whole industries and/or fascist controls that Pope Francis and Bernie Sanders want to impose on America are an expansion of those which began over the last century. The policies they support are not those of promoting freedom, of liberating the people from the shackles of the State, but just the opposite.

Socialism and fascism are government enslavement of the people. Of course, they would never admit to that, just as the “tax” theft advocates don’t want to call their policies “stealing.” As I wrote in this earlier post, there are some people who mistakenly view the relationship between a capitalist employer and employee as like an “enslavement.” I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “wage slavery.” But in free market capitalism, everything is voluntary. The worker is not being forced to work at that place of employment. In a free society, all relationships and contracts are voluntary. In socialism and fascism, they are not voluntary — they are coerced, forced, compelled, ordered, mandatory, or prohibited by government bureaucrats who just like to order people around. And that’s one of the biggest differences between free markets and the socialist/fascist utopia envisioned by Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis.

Besides the personal enslavements, the results of economic policies that Bernie Sanders wants to impose on America, and Pope Francis wants to see globally, would be like the terrible conditions in Venezuela. Government’s socialist takeovers of industries and fascist price controls cause shortages and empty store shelves and long lines.

In America, just look at all the free market-directed grocery stores and food distributors we have, with minimal or non-existent bureaucratic intrusions. Prices are set by wholesalers and retailers, not government bureaucrats. No long lines and empty store shelves. That’s capitalism, freedom, and prosperity.

The motivations of Pope Francis and Bernie Sanders, and most of the people on the left, should be viewed as dubious when they continually support policies of government theft of private wealth and government regulations which have mainly succeeded in causing higher unemployment, inflation and economic distress. The Left’s most recent anti-capitalist hero, French economist Thomas Piketty, wrote in his book, Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century, that a progressive, global tax on capital and individual wealth “would not bring the government much in the way of revenue, because it would quickly fulfill its objective: to drastically reduce remuneration…” As quoted in this Mises Institute article, Piketty writes his main point, which in my view mirrors most on the left: “The primary purpose of the capital tax is not to finance the social state but to regulate capitalism.” I.e., it is not as important to help the poor as it is to make the rich less rich. Which ultimately takes more opportunities away from the middle class and the poor, and makes the poor poorer as well — that’s how things work with these government interventions. We know that from actual historical and empirical evidence.

So really, Pope Francis and Bernie Sanders reflect the Left’s general sentiment of envy toward the successful, the entrepreneurs, and producers and creators of wealth. They promote the policies of wealth destruction and economic and moral decay. After all, promoting the stealing from others’ honestly acquired wealth and property is just that: stealing. And that’s immoral. They can rationalize the institutionalized theft all they want, but that’s what it is. This is also what motivates their obsession with higher taxes on producers to cure “global warming/climate change,” as well. In my view, they are not as concerned with cleaning the environment and preventing “melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels” as they are obsessed with taking more wealth away from the producers of society (and thus taking jobs away from the workers!).

This article originally appeared at Scott’s blog

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Socialist Journalism Is Mainstream

Univision’s Jorge Ramos, whose daughter works for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign, doesn’t care about fair and balanced journalism. He is only concerned about representing his people. This is what journalism has become—news coverage that casts ethnic groups and special interests as victims of the white racist capitalist power structure.

Thanks to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the socialist running for president, we are learning that one of the latest examples of victim groups are students, who freely decide to go to college and in many cases take on student debt to pay for it.

Of this victim group, black and Hispanic college students are suffering tremendously, according to a story appearing last Wednesday in The Washington Post. It claimed that blacks and Hispanics are “at a higher risk of financial instability based on their college majors…” The paper trumpeted the news in a headline, “Racial disparity in degree selection.” The news was this: “African American and Hispanic students disproportionately earn more bachelor’s degrees in low-paying majors, putting them at higher risk for financial instability after graduation, according to a new study from Young Invincibles, an advocacy group.”

This “advocacy group” has decided that representatives of certain minority groups are somehow entitled to be awarded certain jobs with certain pay grades. In the Post story touting this so-called study, blacks and Hispanics are considered victims of racism, creating wealth ‘inequality,” because of the college degrees and majors they have freely decided to pursue.

But wait: didn’t these blacks and Hispanics freely choose those majors and fields of study? Wasn’t freedom of choice involved?

In the eyes of the liberal media, such freedom does not exist. People are being forced into their choices in life by the forces of capitalism and white supremacy.

Here’s what the paper said: “There is no singular reason for the racial disparities within majors, but centuries of racial discrimination, uneven budgetary support for K-12 education and poor academic advising and student support contribute to the problem, said Tom Allison, deputy director of policy and research at Young Invincibles, and one of the authors of the study.”

In other words, the heavy hand of racism and the capitalist system somehow forced these students to choose these majors, in order to put them at a disadvantage.

Still, the story by Danielle Douglas-Gabriel left me in the dark about how these factors may determine the selection of majors. The explanation was offered in the next paragraph: “At the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, chemistry professor William LaCourse has seen his share of students of color with a lot of potential lose interest in science fields when they struggle in a course.”

Those science fields paid better than the majors and careers they ended up pursuing. The students gave up their “potential,” a subjective measurement, to go for the easier courses of study.

The phrase “when they struggle in a course” could mean they were goofing off, not smart enough, or just not interested. In any case, it seems hard to argue that this is because of some racist plot or budget axe. But that is indeed what the Post was implying.

The purpose is to depict minority groups as somehow victims of their own choices.

Could it be that blacks and Hispanics are giving up on the harder fields of study because they either require more work or because they have decided to pick a different major for some other reason? This fact of life has been transformed from a “study” into a Washington Post story attempting to blame everything and everyone else for this “problem” except the students themselves.

The whole point of the story is that the students can’t be blamed for their own decisions. They are victims of the system, by virtue of the fact that they are black or Hispanic. That’s why “centuries of racial discrimination, uneven budgetary support for K-12 education and poor academic advising and student support” have to be blamed.

This is socialist “journalism,” if you can call it journalism, based on the idea that people are members of groups victimized by the capitalist system, trapped into lower incomes and denied their right to make more money. This evil system forced them to “struggle” for higher grades.

It is this kind of “journalism” that also depicts students taking out college loans and going into debt as somehow being victims of capitalism. They are given an opportunity to go to college but they have to pay for it. What an injustice! The Young Invincibles says student debt has “exploded,” as if it has been inflicted on these young people through no choice of their own.

Since these students have been brainwashed into believing that taking on debt is not their fault, it is no wonder they are suckers for the Bernie Sanders brand of socialism which says that their burden must be lifted and a college education should be made available for “free.”

It is a sad commentary on what colleges are teaching that such a scheme is attracting thousands of students to the Sanders campaign.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.