why is the left now attacking Catholics too?

Haters Won’t Stop With the Jews

Posted: 23 Jan 2019 04:41 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)

Ilhan Omar’s outrageous lies about the Covington Catholic boys, since deleted, illustrate an important lesson. Omar is a notorious anti-Semite; she goes so far as to advocate for the BDS movement. So, is it surprising that her venom has now been directed against Catholics?

Not at all. The people who hate Jews are, for the most part, the same people who hate Christians. In the last few months, we have seen the Left ramp up its attacks on Catholics: Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee assaulted Amy Barrett’s religious faith; some of those same senators demanded, incredibly, that Brian Buescher resign from the Knights of Columbus; and now, the Left has, in unison, baselessly slandered the Covington Catholic boys who attended the March for Life in Washington.

Some have theorized that the Democrats’ escalating attacks on Catholicism are preparing the ground against the day when Ruth Ginsburg dies or is unable to continue on the Supreme Court. President Trump is almost certain to nominate Amy Barrett to replace her, and Democrats will make Barrett’s religious faith the basis for their inevitable smears. Their theme will be, explicitly or implicitly, that no practicing Catholic should be allowed to serve on the Court.

I don’t disagree that the Democrats have Barrett in mind when they attack Catholics, but the phenomenon goes much deeper. The modern Left is a secular movement that is deeply hostile to religion. Many Leftists hate Judaism, but they hate Christianity even more. (Go into the bakery business if you have any doubt about that!) There is good reason why we refer to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christianity comes from Judaism; three-quarters of the Christian Bible is Jewish scripture. The twin pillars of Western civilization, it has long been said, are Athens and Jerusalem. Christianity is a principal feature of Western civilization, which Leftists detest and want to destroy. So, if they are hostile to Judaism, they are even more bitterly hostile to Christianity.

So far, the Left’s animus has been directed mostly against Catholics. That may be because the leaders of some Protestant denominations have taken a favorable view of abortion. But don’t be fooled: there is no distinction between Catholic and Protestant that Leftists care about. They may be coming for Catholics today, but they will come for Protestants next.

Which brings us back to Ilhan Omar. Wittingly or not, she opens a window onto the real feelings of American Leftists. Which may seem paradoxical, since she herself is a Muslim. Do Leftists have a higher opinion of Islam than of Christianity or Judaism? Of course not. But for now, Muslims like Omar are useful idiots of the Left. There aren’t enough of them to be a threat, and they can be used as shock troops, attacking Jews and Christians. And, in any event, politicians like Omar are Leftists first and Muslims a distant second. They ignore Islamic teaching whenever it conflicts with Leftist dogma.

Stereotypically, Leftist Muslims are anti-Semitic. No surprise there. But for a few hours, Ilhan Omar let the mask slip. She is a Muslim second and a Leftist first–which means that her defamation of Catholics should surprise no one. The Left is out to destroy Christianity, every bit as much as Judaism. More, actually.

Socialism does not equal social justice. it equals poverty and despair.

Polls out indicate many democrats are favorable to socialism. They do not know what it is. They think it has to do with "social juice" (which often turns out to be social injustice. Socialism is when the government controls the production and distribution of income. Bureaucrats assume they know better how you should make money and spend it then they do. Mayor of New York de blasio said recently "the money is in the wrong hands. " He meant the people who earn it should be allowed to hold on to it. It fails every time. Alexandria ocasio-Cortez was recently asked if she modeled her socialism on China, Venezuela and the USSR. She laughed it off and said no the UK, and scandinavian countries.

1. China and Russia have moved way from government control over the economy and their economies have improved. Venezuela went the other way and their people are starving. Scandinavian countries realize they cannot support their welfare state and are opening up their economy. UK, which socialized medicine, make people wait many months for simple operations and ration care.
2. Capitalism is the only system that has lifted billions out of poverty. Marx totally go human nature wrong. People working for their own benefit and figuring out how to spend their own money always does way more to help others than removed bureaucrats deciding for us.
3. It is IMMORAL to take someone else's money because you think you now better how to spend it.
We have decided together government can take some of hat we earn as taxes, but socialsm wants t take it all and redistribute it.
4. Socialism leads to tyranny. see article below

Socialism assumes they are a pie that cannot grow and the question is how t divide up the pieces.
Capitalism has proven the pie can grow and grow and everyone gets bigger pieces than they'd otherwise have.

On Venezuela, ‘Democratic Socialists’ Are More Socialist than Democratic

The mask falls.

• JANUARY 25, 2019
 
• BY NOAH ROTHMAN

+

AA

-

We are told, often bitterly and with a palpable hint of exasperation, that today’s “Democratic Socialists” are gentler than their name might lead you to believe. They are, they insist, cast more in the mold of Europe’s social democrats than the apparatchiks in tunic suits who haunt conservative’s imaginations. Perhaps the leftmost reaches of the Democratic Party wouldn’t have to keep drawing this distinction if it was evident in anything other than rhetoric. When forced to choose between “democratic” and “socialist,” they opt decisively for the latter.

After years of privation, hardship, and popular—often violent—struggle against an illegitimate regime, the situation in Venezuela is coming to a head. A successor has emerged, making the powerful and corrupted military the ultimate arbiter of events, which are still very much in the balance. In a coordinated effort with most of the Western hemisphere, the United States endorsed the legitimately elected National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó’s interim claim to the presidency over the dubious one clung to by socialist despot Nicolas Maduro. To hear the “Democratic Socialists” tell it, the United States has orchestrated a “coup.”

“The United States has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American countries,” said the Democratic Socialist’s patriarch, Bernie Sanders, in a statement, “we must not go down that road again.”

Contradicting Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who commended President Donald Trump’s decision to back Juan Guaidó, Rep. Ro Khanna insisted that “the US should not anoint the leader of the opposition in Venezuela during an internal, polarized conflict.” Moreover, it should “end sanctions” against the Venezuelan regime. While we cannot assume that re-tweets constitute an endorsement, it’s unlikely that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was simply bookmarking her colleague’s pronouncement.

Though not an avowed Democratic Socialist herself, Rep. Ilhan Omar’s campaign staffers sure seemed to think she is a member of the club. It’s easy to see why. “A U.S.-backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to the dire issues they face,” readsOmar’s tweet from Thursday night. “Trump’s efforts to install a far-right opposition will only incite violence and further destabilize the region.” Guaidó’s “far-right” affinities must be news to him and the social-democratic party he leads.

A statement from the elected leadership of the Democratic Socialists of America reads like an effort to mimic the hysterical tone familiar to students of Soviet diplomacy. If the nostalgia wasn’t already thick enough, the DSA alleges that U.S. sanctions on Caracas are intended to “make the economy scream”—a phrase attributed not to Trump but Richard Nixon in his effort to squeeze the Allende government in Chile. This “U.S. driven coup is totally unacceptable,” the statement continues, “and just the latest in a long history of U.S.-backed coups in the region showing blatant contempt not just for democracy but national sovereignty.”

The only people showing “contempt” for democracy are these self-described democrats. They hope to rest their case for Maduro on the notion that he is Venezuela’s legal president and Guaidó is not, but that is a flimsy claim.

Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, spent over a decade throttling the country’s democratic institutions when they threatened their power. In 2015, when the opposition won two-thirds of the seats in the National Assembly, Maduro simply created a new legislature and packed it with loyalists. When the Assembly balked, Maduro had Venezuela’s rubber-stamp Supreme Court strip the Assembly of its powers—a move that led most of the region to break off relations with the rogue regime.

In 2017, 8 million Venezuelans turned out in an unofficial referendum to overwhelmingly reject changes to the constitution to codify Maduro’s power grab, but they were approved anyway in a fraudulent plebiscite disputed by opposition figures and observers alike. When they weren’t barred from the polls, Venezuela’s opposition boycotted a May 2018 presidential election that was rushed and declared neither “fair” nor “equitable” by foreign observers. By contrast, Guaidó’s provisional claim to the presidency is supported by three articles of the Venezuelan constitution, and the legitimacy of his election is uncontested.

The idea that U.S. sanctions on regime officials exacerbate a humanitarian crisis is dubious. Poverty and starvation in Venezuela are rampant. Basic goods are rationed, where they can be found at all. Venezuelans suffer from preventable diseases. Access to regular power and clean water is a luxury—one enjoyed only by the well-connected. Crime is a way of life for those unfortunate enough not to have fled this open-air prison. Narcotics trafficking is so rampant that even Maduro’s vice president is a well-known drug kingpin. The idea that international sanctions on these criminals are somehow responsible for Venezuela’s dystopian condition is both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

We are left to conclude that the Democratic Socialists who have joined hand with rogue states like Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, and Bolivia have made a simple calculation: They like Maduro. And why shouldn’t they? He is the successor to a regime that exemplified socialism. The Chavistas nationalized vast swaths of the Venezuelan economy, expropriated and redistributed wealth and land, and seized foreign-owned property and assets.

The spectacular poverty endured by this once wealthy state must be the result of sanctions on regime officials, the kleptocratic bureaucracy, or collapsing oil prices (though no other petrostate has suffered so acutely). The violence routinely meted out by this besieged regime must be fabricated. It simply cannot be that a system that fails the same way every time has failed again in precisely the same fashion yet once more. Too much pride is at stake.

You’re going to hear a lot about how these self-described socialists aren’t really defending self-described socialism in Venezuela. To do so would discredit the enterprise. So, they will scramble for more familiar terrain. America’s imperialist policies are to blame for Venezuela’s plight. So, too, are the corrupt mandarins who squeezed the lifeblood out of the Bolivarian experiment. Anything to confuse and deflect. But it is the world’s socialists, not its democrats, who are standing athwart the desire of Venezuelans to live free. And they will be to blame if those hopes are crushed.

Pelosi appoints Muslim Israel hater to Foreign Relations Committee

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2019/january/muslim-congresswoman-who-said-israel-hypnotized-the-world-now-sits-on-powerful-foreign-affairs-panel?cpid=:ID:-31615-:DT:-2019-01-18-12:16:01-:US:-AB1-:CN:-CP1-:PO:-NC1-:ME:-SU1-:SO:-FB1-:SP:-NW1-:PF:-TX1-

Women's March cheers anti Semite who calls for boycott of Israel

Big cheer for Antisemite Sarsour when she announces support of BDS. Jew Hatred is alive and well.
How much anti-Semitism must pile up in the Democratic Party before something can be done about it? And will the mainstream media hold them accountable?

Another Anti-Semitic Dem Congressman

https://www.newsmax.com/Politics/hank-johnson-jewish-settlers-termites/2016/07/25/id/740384/?fbclid=IwAR0Xs3lsVuJAZCX8USpjytdmR43Twt24Z6qKtB8etkMiMHkY_exKJBgckjo

It's time to open your eyes to the inhumanity that is the PA and Hamas."

 So-called liberals think that it's ok to be anti-Semitic under the guise of supporting Palestinians.  I am disheartened at how the PA and Hamas treat their own people. I am disgusted how the PA and Hamas treat women, kill homosexuals, and practice apartheid again anyone other than their own kind. I am disgusted at how the PA and Hamas do not recognize the right of the earliest recorded and still existing (aka indigenous) people in Israel (yes, the Jews). Want to call yourself a liberal? It's time to open your eyes to the inhumanity that is the PA and Hamas."

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/womens-march-leader-refuses-to-acknowledge-israels-right-to-exist/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Crowe&fbclid=IwAR1SCrU2RMbY_Tt9IqLsiS-blJ9jLs1i8iSmgvr6t5I0hF3clAUucv6Qca0

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: One problem. Sweden switched from socialism to capitalism after socialism FAILED there.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: One problem. Sweden switched from socialism to capitalism after socialism FAILED there.

Even Alexandria ocasio Cortez admits socialism FAILED in Venezuela. Rather, she claims, she wants to replicate Sweden. One problem. Sweden switched from socialism to capitalism after socialism FAILED there.

How Sweden Overcame Socialism

It’s a model for the U.S., but the lesson isn’t what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks it is.

By Jesús Fernández-Villaverde and Lee E. Ohanian

Jan. 9, 2019 7:06 p.m. ET

Wall Street Journal

Nearly half of millennials say they prefer socialism to capitalism, but what do they mean? “My policies most closely resemble what we see in the U.K., in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told “60 Minutes.” Yet Sweden’s experiment with socialist policies was disastrous, and its economic success in recent decades is a result of market-based reforms.

Until the mid-20th century, Sweden pursued highly competitive market-based policies. By 1970 Sweden achieved the world’s fourth-highest per capita income. Then increasingly radical Social Democratic governments raised taxes, spending and regulation much more than any other Western European country. Economic performance sputtered. By the early 1990s, Sweden’s per capita income ranking had dropped to 14th. Economic growth from 1970 to the early 1990s was roughly 1 percentage point lower than in Europe and 2 points lower than in the U.S.

Before its socialist experiment, Sweden had a smaller government sector than the U.S. By the early 1990s, government spending and transfer payments ballooned to 70% of gross domestic product, and debt had increased to 80% of GDP. Between 1966 and 1974, Sweden lost some 400,000 private jobs—proportionate to 16.7 million in today’s U.S.

In 1991 a market-oriented government came to power and undertook far-reaching reforms. Policy makers have privatized parts of the health-care system, introduced for-profit schools along with school vouchers, and reduced welfare benefits. Since 1997, government ministries that propose new spending plans have been required to find offsetting cuts in their budgets. As a result, public debt has declined from 80% of GDP in the early 1990s to 41%.

To increase incentives to work, Sweden reduced unemployment benefits and introduced an earned-income tax credit in 2007. The electricity and transportation industries were deregulated in the 1990s, and even the Swedish postal system was opened up to competition in 1993. The corporate tax rate was cut from its 2009 level of 28% to 22% today, and is scheduled to decline to 20.4% in 2021.

This policy mix has earned Sweden a Heritage Foundation ranking as the 15th freest economy in the world. The U.S. is 18th. And it’s paid off. Since 1995, Swedish economic growth has exceeded that of its European Union peers by about 1 point a year. Sweden is now richer than all of the major EU countries and is within 15% of U.S. per capita GDP. While Sweden still has a larger government than the U.S., its tax code is flatter. The progressivity of the U.S. tax code distorts incentives. These distortions would become even larger under the tax-increase proposals of democratic socialists like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

There is an example for the U.S. here, but the lesson isn’t what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez thinks. Command-and-control economic policies undermined Sweden’s prosperity, and they would do the same to America’s.

Mr. Fernández-Villaverde is a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor of economics at UCLA."

She said recently "I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right,” Ocasio-Cortez told Cooper after he asked about her careless and incorrect analysis of the defense budget. In one sentence, Ocasio-Cortez portrayed herself as a woman who is ready to subordinate facts to her moral convictions, confirming achingly anti-female stereotypes. She may as well have driven erratically down the highway or failed to catch a gently thrown ball. Of course, she later admitted that being factually correct is “absolutely important.” She just doesn’t seem to care much about facts and numbers when she’s tweeting.

Or, for that matter, when she’s speaking. In discussing with Cooper her proposal for a “Green New Deal,” which would use the full force of the government in an attempt to convert the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, she could not offer an actual answer for how such an enormous transformation would be possible. “It’s going to require a lot of rapid change that we don’t even conceive as possible right now,” was all she could say.