Klaus Schwab and a growing list of powerful global economic and political elites, including BlackRock CEO Larry Fink[1] and President Joe Biden,[2] have recently committed to a global “reset” of the prevailing school of economic thought. They seek to supplant the entrenched “shareholder doctrine” of capitalism, which—as Milton Friedman famously espoused over 50 years ago—holds that the only purpose of a corporate executive is to maximize profits on behalf of company shareholders.[3]

To replace shareholder capitalism, Schwab, Fink, Biden, and a legion of their peers have promulgated a nouveau “stakeholder doctrine,” commonly referred to as “stakeholder capitalism.” This approach, which aims to harness the growing clamor for more socially conscious corporate decision-making, authorizes, incentivizes, and even coerces corporate executives and directors to work on behalf of social objectives deemed by elites to be desirable for all corporate stakeholders—including communities, workers, executives, and suppliers.[4]
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores—a social credit framework for sustainability reporting—are being used as the primary mechanism to achieve the shift to a stakeholder model. They measure both financial and non-financial impacts of investments and companies and serve to formally institutionalize corporate social responsibility in global economic infrastructure.[5]

Environment, social, and governance scores are theoretically supposed to incentivize “responsible investing” by “screening out” companies that do not possess high ESG scores while favorably rating those companies and funds that make positive contributions to ESG’s three overarching categories. A company’s ESG score has become a primary component of its risk profile.[6]

Virtually every person on the planet now recognizes that they are simply going to have to live with the coronavirus from now on, in the same way that we have learned to live with the seasonal flu. Even countries that clung to China’s mass containment model well into 2021, such as Australia, New Zealand and Germany, are now abandoning it.

Yet the Chinese Communist Party continues to pursue the impossible dream of COVID Zero.

Now, you might say that no political organization likes to admit it was wrong. In fact, when asked recently why China refused to recognize that COVID was now endemic, a top official of the National Health Commission simply said, “If we stop all containment measures now, it means all the previous efforts are for nothing.”

But at an even deeper level, I see the Chinese Communist Party’s insistence on lockdowns as an expression of its drive for total control.

I am reminded of the CCP official who, in 1980, at the very beginning of the one-child policy, confidently proclaimed: “We are a socialist country. We can control reproduction in the same way we control production: under a state plan.”

Now Xi Jinping’s attitude seems to be: “We are a socialist country. We can control the replication of a virus in the same way we control production: under a state plan.”

Jennifer Jacobs
@JenniferJJacobs
Scoop: Biden admin is weighing a plan to release roughly A MILLION BARRELS OF OIL A DAY from U.S. reserves, for several months, to combat rising gasoline prices and supply shortages following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, sources tell @AlbertoNardelli @SalehaMohsin and me.
8:15 PM · Mar 30, 2022

For context, the US uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Releasing one million barrels a day would translate to a savings of about 18 cents a gallon off the national average if it translated directly to the price of gas. It won’t, though. Much of the oil held by the government is no longer useable domestically because of environmental regulations. Instead, any oil released would be dumped into countries like China and India. That could possibly make a small dent in the global price of oil, but when you consider that the world produces 76 million barrels of oil a day, that one million barrels suddenly becomes even more irrelevant.

In other words, Biden’s ploy is completely useless. It’s also dangerous in that the strategic reserves exist to supply years of oil to the United States in the event of some kind of isolating event. They also exist for military use if oil can’t be otherwise garnered while fighting a war. Again, we are talking preparation for apocalyptic-type events, not gas prices being too high because of the left’s self-defeating green agenda.

Further, the Defense Production Act is not at all designed to operate as a communism cheat code for presidents who are too stubborn to change their damaging energy policies. If it’s not profitable now for American companies to go gangbusters producing “green energy,” it won’t be just because Biden makes them. Such a move would also spur more inflation as the supply of the products those companies originally produced will be reduced in order to make things Americans don’t currently want to buy. //

So let’s drain our strategic oil reserves and go full USSR on American companies. What could possibly go wrong?

What I do give a damn about is the utter hypocrisy of Sanders and other wealthy leftists, and their propensity to ignore or justify their own extravagances every time they vilify “the rich” and spew their silly “fair share” nonsense — as if the left and the left alone is the arbiter of what is fair or enough. The reality is, of course, there will never be enough of the money we earn that they want to take from us.

The left-wing brain is hardwired to believe all of life is a zero-sum game, meaning the more someone else gets, or keeps, as it were, the less there is left for others to take. The following Bernie tweet from Saturday, in which he whines himself silly about “the billionaire class” and their superyachts, is a perfect example.

Super-large yachts have become the status symbol of the billionaire class. And Russian oligarchs are not the only people who own them.

While half of our people work paycheck to paycheck, members of the American oligarchy spend hundreds of millions to build their very own yachts. //

Stephen L. Miller @redsteeze
Replying to @SenSanders
You own three houses //

Joel Engel @joelengel
Replying to @SenSanders
And the working-class people who build those yachts are well paid for the job. But because you've never actually earned a paycheck outside government, or met a payroll, you have a microscopically limited understanding of how the economy actually works.

Also, you own 3 homes.
11:28 AM · Mar 5, 2022

While many have accused the Biden administration of creeping toward socialism, Joe Biden’s nomination of Saule Omarova to comptroller of the currency demonstrates a sprint. The administration announced it would withdraw her nomination Tuesday, but that it was made at all indicates the administration’s priorities. Omarova expressed a desire to seize for the federal government sweeping powers over banking, including the politicized denial of services.

“Saule would have brought invaluable insight and perspective to our important work on behalf of the American people,” Biden said Tuesday in a statement about withdrawing her nomination. “But unfortunately, from the very beginning of her nomination, Saule was subjected to inappropriate personal attacks that were far beyond the pale.” That’s just plain false, and it’s frightening Biden would nominate and praise a woman with her record. //

Omarova, currently a law professor at Cornell University, is a native of Kazakhstan while it fell under the control of the Soviet Union. There, she was a member of the Communist Party.

“Omarova has promoted radical – ‘radical’ is her description — nationalizing the banking system, imposing government price controls, espousing the idea that money is a public, not a private good, curtailing economic innovation, dramatically limiting economic freedom and choice, having the government seize seats on corporate boards,” noted Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania in her hearing. //

Omarova earned her B.A. at Moscow State University, graduating in 1989 on the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship prior to immigrating to the United States in 1991. Once in the United States, Omarova earned both her M.A. and Pd.D. at the University of Wisconsin, and her J.D. from the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.

While at Moscow State, Omarova wrote her thesis entitled, “Karl Marx’s Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in ‘The Capital.’” When questioned about her thesis, she claimed to have forgotten about it, and testified she is unable to locate the document, even though it remained on her resume through 2017.

For $58, you too can get a sweatshirt and make a campaign contribution to someone who is being pretty quiet on the state and local tax (SALT) deductions for the rich that the Democrats want to bring back. For the low, low price of $27, you can have a tote bag to shop at Whole Foods just like AOC without using harmful plastic bags and you can support a politician who isn’t saying much about a House bill that actually may not tax the highest income earners like she’s promising.

If the campaign had seen the blowup over the “Tax The Rich” rich and decided to capitalize on this, that would be one thing. But this was apparently premeditated. The items currently on sale with the slogan on them were built into the site before the Met Gala even happened.

The socialist queen of the House turns out to be a really good capitalist, doesn’t she? //

FrankJNatoli • 3 minutes ago

Not being "rich", I have always been employed by someone "rich", never by someone "poor".
For many reasons, one of them selfish, I therefore like the "rich".
I don't want the "rich" taxed, thus having their income seized by the government.
I want the "rich" to have the opportunity to transfer their wealth to Frank.
Apparently none of AOC's constituents see it that way.

Socialism is all about control. To achieve control, the left uses a variety of techniques. For best effect, they sometimes combine techniques. Combining fear with envy can be very powerful. There’s even a parable of sorts about this effect. The bucket of crabs analogy goes something like this: If you have a bucket of crabs, they are all fat and happy at the bottom of the bucket—until one of them tries to escape. When one of them attempts to better his situation, the others pull him back down into captivity.

The International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) is deftly using that combination of fear, calling it “safety,” along with the “bucket of crabs,” technique. Here’s how. The United States has produced a gymnastics phenomenon in the person of Simone Biles. This young lady, through dint of dedication, hard work and the quintessentially American attitude of being willing to “roll the hard six,” is performing routines that appear to defy the law of gravity. She is in such a class by herself, that the other crabs in the bucket have contracted with FIG, the gymnastics governing authority, to pull her back down with them. //

Scoring in high-level gymnastics is markedly different than in most other sports. Rather than athletes earning points throughout a performance, the decision-makers at the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) pre-assign scores to routines based on the difficulty of the skills involved. Then, judges evaluate execution in real-time, docking points from the potential total every time a gymnast makes a mistake during their program. //

Biles suggested that the FIG has serially undervalued her skills because "they don't want the field to be too far apart," she told The Times. If the FIG keeps her provisional scores low, Biles' thinking goes, th[a]n other gymnasts may have a fighting chance.

This was my actual experience attempting to opt out of the monthly welfare payments that have the potential to wreak havoc with our family’s year-end tax bill. //

We hold these truths to be contradictorily evident: Requiring proof of identification for the sake of voting privilege is an overwhelming burden. Requiring proof of identification to log onto the IRS website for the sake of opting out from the expanded child tax credit is a mere necessity.

By “proof of identification,” the IRS has some hefty standards in mind. What follows is, I do solemnly aver, not made up. This was my actual experience attempting to opt out of the monthly welfare payments that have the potential to wreak havoc with our family’s year-end tax bill.

How could our society be so callous to children as to make them the link to welfare payments? Do people know what it feels like to grow up in a relationally chaotic home? //

Democrats are announcing defeat in their half-century “War on Poverty.” They’re just too good at propaganda to put it that way. Instead, they’re taking to mouthpiece outlets like The Atlantic to gush over the latest expansion of the United States’ social welfare state: monthly checks to parents taken through federal deficits straight from their kids’ futures. //

The Atlantic article exists to amplify naive excitement about this program, but it is in reality an announcement of despair. Democrats are admitting their socialist welfare state doesn’t work and they have no effective ideas for addressing the fact that Americans have spent more than $28 trillion on welfare since 1965, yet at least the same proportion of Americans is considered poor today as when the “war” started.

“[T]he War on Poverty has cost the taxpayers nearly three and a half times the combined cost of all military wars in U.S. history,” notes a different Heritage analysis. Not only can Washington not win real wars anymore, Washington can’t win pretend wars, either. So the party of unlimited entitlement is just openly admitting their new plan is… throwing taxpayer money out the window.

Economist Veronique de Rugy notes that the last time the United States promoted mass welfare detached from work, it made children the worst off: Before 1996, “we also had welfare payments with no work requirement. The result was that nearly 9 in 10 families on welfare were workless, unwed births rose significantly, and most of these families were stuck in long-term poverty, creating a trend in intergenerational child poverty. That cycle was broken with the 1996 reforms requiring welfare recipients to work or prepare for work. The great news is that this led to a historic reduction of child poverty.”

She further writes that if Biden’s “guaranteed income for kids” is extended, “we’re at risk of repeating the mistakes of the past by increasing the number of single-parent families in which no one is employed and reversing the gains the nation has made since the welfare reforms of the 1990s—all at great cost to taxpayers.”

It is imperative to understand that programs like this are perhaps the single greatest cause of misery to American children, because they unequivocally increase family chaos. Social welfare programs effectively subsidize family separation. Democrats have been silent about their policies working to separate American children from their parents for more than a century.

Paying people to pop out children with no attention to the circumstances such children will be born into will cause living nightmares for the weakest among us.

Far-leftists have despised America for decades. Members of Congress who call themselves progressives decry the ills of American society like police brutality, poverty, and all kinds of injustice. Activists march and protest in the streets and on college campuses for equity. However, despite governing most of the areas in which the afflicted masses reside, they have done little to nothing to affect significant change.

In light of this reality, it is appropriate to ask: What exactly do these people want? What has to happen before the adherents of wokeism finally develop at least a modicum of respect and – dare I say it – love for the United States?

Leftists who rail against America are conspicuously quiet when it comes to laying out specific objectives. Take racism, for example; since racial bias can never truly be wholly extinguished, how much will it need to be decreased before these people acknowledge that the country is worthy of respect? Furthermore, if they care so much about racial disparities due to racism, why have they not pursued real solutions? Finally, why have they not encouraged productive conversations on these matters instead of just lazily accusing everyone with whom they disagree of being slobbering bigots? //

The hard left will never love America – at least not in its current incarnation. The America these people would love is one in which the government has the most control and influence over our lives. Affection for the U.S. can only come after their pipe dreams of a western utopia are realized.

To put it another way, those on the hard left will not be satisfied until they have destroyed America and then, from the rubble, rebuild it in their own image. Marxism must rule the day if America is to be worthy of respect. //

It is important to remember this when watching how the hard left moves. Their objective is not to improve America, it is to remake America. They will not stop until they finish what President Barack Obama started when he declared they would “fundamentally transform America.”

Laura Pidcock
@LauraPidcock
The sea is on fire but some people still think capitalism can be managed. //

Except there’s a small problem with that argument, kids. You just got burned with your own narrative.

The company behind this is Pemex, a Mexican-state controlled company that formed by nationalizing private companies in 1938. Literally the opposite of “capitalism.” It’s the state seizing the means of production. Pemex also has a long history of “major industrial accidents at its facilities,” according to Reuters.

Not to mention it also has a bad record of pollution, being named one of the top polluters in the world. When the government seizes control, they run things the way government often runs anything — badly. When there’s no incentive to do things better (you know, that whole capitalism thing), you tend to get shoddy work. So, these folks who wanted to gore capitalism just pointed out a great example of why socialism is bad.

the Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler really went over the slide in his “fact check” of her statement.

Kessler claims that the Nazis weren’t socialist and gave her four Pinocchios for saying they were. He even called her “ahistorical.”

Now, it seems farcical that anyone would argue that, given it’s in the very name of their party – the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) or NSDAP -but it’s a common argument on the left. Perhaps it’s understandable that they don’t want to get tagged with that as part of leftist history. //

As the U.S. Holocaust Museum explains, describing the 25 points of the Nazi program:

The 25 points combined extreme nationalism, racial antisemitism, and socialist concepts with German outrage over the Versailles peace settlement following their defeat in World War I.

Now, what’s interesting is Kessler cites the first eight points, which tend to emphasize nationalism and racism. But he doesn’t include the remaining points of the program. Why would that be? He had to see all 25 if he saw the first 8 points. //

Here’s Hitler in 1931:

“To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point number 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism… The basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… The good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.”

'Dirty Jobs' and 'Six Degrees' host Mike Rowe is correct about the negative economic and social effects of the minimum wage.

Over the weekend, while promoting his new Discovery Channel show “Six Degrees,” Mike Rowe shared some thoughts on the push to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Appearing on Fox Business, the former “Dirty Jobs” star said he wants “everybody who works hard and plays fair to prosper.”

As the host, executive producer, and creator of “Six Degrees,” which focuses on the interconnectedness of the world throughout history, Rowe added:

I want everybody to be able to support themselves. But if you just pull the money out of midair you’re going to create other problems, like there is a ladder of success that people climb and some of those jobs that are out there for seven, eight, nine dollars an hour, in my view, they’re simply not intended to be careers. They’re not intended to be full-time jobs. They’re rungs on a ladder. //

Rowe’s 2013 “S.W.E.A.T. Pledge” (Skill & Work Ethic Aren’t Taboo) //

Reading now over Rowe’s S.W.E.A.T. pledge, I see I followed it. It wasn’t a pledge “to gratuitous abuse and disenfranchisement.” What Johnson, who mocked the pledge as “bourgeois propaganda” marketing “very basic human needs” misses, is that hard, honest work genuinely satisfies basic human needs. Indeed, that five-cent raise I earned at 14 still brings me more pride than most of my later white-collar job achievements.

My story is not an isolated one, but I also recognize it is not universal, which is why policy and policy debates should not focus on the anecdotal but the reality of economics and unintended consequences. Rowe raised those points, and he is correct.

Minimum-wage jobs are rungs, and if the government offers an “artificially high wage for unskilled jobs,” it takes away the incentives for “more people to learn a skill that’s actually in demand” and are careers that do support families. That reality is no less true just because Rowe once sang opera.

One of the most highly regarded books of the 20th century was Ernest Becker’s “The Denial of Death.” Winner of the 1974 Pulitzer Prize, the book is regarded as a classic for its analysis of how human beings deny their mortality.

But there is something people deny more than mortality: evil. Someone should write a book on the denial of evil; that would be much more important because while we cannot prevent death, we can prevent evil.

The most glaring example of the denial of evil is communism, an ideology that, within a period of only 60 years, created modern totalitarianism and deprived of human rights, tortured, starved, and killed more people than any other ideology in history. //

Why is it important that everyone know what communism did?

Here are three reasons:

First, we have a moral obligation to the victims not to forget them. Just as Americans have a moral obligation to remember the victims of American slavery, we have the same obligation to the billion victims of communism, especially the 100 million who were murdered.

Second, the best way to prevent an evil from reoccurring is to confront it in all its horror.

The fact that many people today, especially young people, believe communism is a viable—even morally superior—option for modern societies proves they know nothing about communism’s moral record. Therefore, they do not properly fear communism—which means this evil could happen again.

And why could it happen again?

That brings us to reason No. 3. The leaders of communist regimes and the vast number of people who helped those leaders torture, enslave, and murder—plus the many more people who reported on their neighbors for saying something objectionable to the communists—were nearly all normal people. Of course, some were psychopaths, but most were not. Which proves that any society—including free ones—can devolve into communism or some analogous evil. //

If you don’t hate communism, you don’t care about, much less love, people.

In 2017, Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and a former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, called Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa the “most influential man of the 20th century and, arguably, the beginning of the 21st.”

He was the man who pulled back the curtain to reveal the disinformation that was being churned out from the Soviet bloc. Unfortunately, most people remained unfamiliar with Pacepa and his work.

In the early morning hours of Feb. 14, 2021, COVID-19 accomplished what a $2 million bounty and two separate teams of Romanian-sponsored assassins could not. Ion Mihai Pacepa, “Mike” to those who knew him, was called home to his eternal reward. //

Eventually the CIA convinced Carter of Pacepa’s bona fides, and Western intelligence agencies tapped the invaluable information he provided. Most important was his explanation of the way Soviet agents planted disinformation to deceive and undermine faith in Western governments, leaders, history, and institutions—especially the churches. When Pacepa later attained U.S. citizenship, the CIA gave him a letter thanking him for his “important and unique contribution to the United States.”

In Romania, Ceaușescu created a special Securitate unit charged with the sole task of assassinating Pacepa. The dictator also put two separate $1 million bounties on his head and dispatched the infamous assassin “Carlos the Jackal” to carry out the job, as well as a second team of assassins. They came close. Twice Pacepa’s secret identity was compromised and he had to undergo plastic surgery and rebuild his life with his American wife, a CIA agent whom he met while being debriefed.

“It’s not right for individuals to accumulate a massive amount of wealth that’s equivalent to millions and millions of other people combined. There’s nothing fair about that.

“We saw that at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries with the Rockefellers and Carnegies and Mellons and Fords of the world. That kind of accumulation of wealth is dangerous for a society. It shouldn’t be this way.”

Coupla questions.

• What is unfair about family wealth remaining within the family that created it?

• What is fair about taking that wealth from that family and arbitrarily redistributing it to random strangers?

• Why is retained family wealth dangerous for a society?

• Why shouldn’t it be this way, and who should determine that it won’t?

Renowned economists Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams said it best.

Thomas Sowell.

“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

And Dr. Williams:

“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you — and why?”

The AEI host asked Mackey about a section in his book where he wrote about “cultural intelligence,” specifically three kinds of cultural intelligence: the traditional, the modern, and the progressive.

Mackey slammed the progressive worldview, which he said was distrusting of science “except when it serves their ideology.”

“Progressives, because they they dominate academia, Hollywood, and the media punch way above their weight class in terms of their actual numbers, but that’s the cultural war,” Mackey added.

While saying that some of the things that progressives value are important, Mackey added, “but we can’t throw out capitalism and replace it with socialism.”

“That will be a disaster,” Mackey continued. “Socialism has been tried 42 times in the last 100 years, and 42 failures, it doesn’t work, it’s the wrong way. We have to keep capitalism, I would argue, we need conscious capitalism.”

The newly elected Utah representative — and former NFL player //

Burgess’s message: Freedom Force will protect businesses and those who toil at them.

As the erstwhile Oakland Raider sees it, owning a business is a cornerstone of liberty in the United States:

“Business ownership is the foundation of our freedom. It’s where our middle class comes from.” //

“So…if you wonder why they’re shutting down things right now – because no matter who you are, Democrat, independent, or Republicans, the Left hates business owners because it empowers the middle class.” //

It’s certainly not a stretch to say there’s overt opposition to business ownership. Despite dreamy assertions among the woke, socialism is not a system where you as a low-wage worker suddenly become one of many CEOs. It is, rather, a system in which business ownership is banned — all products and means of production are instead forcibly taken by the biggest business of all: Government.

In other words, if you own a business and say you’re a socialist, either:

A. You want the government to take away what you’ve built

OR

B. You don’t know the definition of socialism

Private property rights and personal responsibility saved the Plymouth colony from the edge of extinction and laid the economic foundation for a free and prosperous nation. //

It is widely known that the early Pilgrims came to the New World to escape religious persecution. What is lesser known is that their spiritual adventure was also a commercial enterprise. Today’s self-identified democratic socialists like to claim real socialism has never been tried in America, but they need to brush up on their history. The Pilgrims did try it — and it failed. //

When one group of Puritans from the Separatist Church, led by Rev. John Robinson, decided to migrate to the New World, where they could establish a new place to adhere to God’s teachings, they sent two representatives, Robert Cushman and John Carver, to London to secure a land patent in the existing Virginia colony. A London merchant, Thomas Weston, probably one of the earliest venture capitalists, led a group of investors and offered the Puritans a deal they couldn’t refuse.

The deal stipulated that everything the colonists produced would belong to a “commonwealth,” and at the end of seven years, everything would be equally divided between investors and colonists. To make sure the investors would get their money back, this deal forbade colonists from having any personal time to work on any private business during the seven-year contract term. //

Many settlers resented that whatever they produced went into a common pot and was divided among them equally. In addition, knowing that at the end of the seven-year term they were required to surrender half the wealth they’d accumulated to investors in England offered no incentive to work hard.

Since not everyone was pulling the same weight, the colony was constantly running out of food, a typical problem in all the socialist countries, from China to Venezuela. As French philosopher Jean Bodin wisely pointed out, that communal property was “the mother of contention and discord” because “for nothing could properly be regarded as public if there were nothing at all to distinguish it from what was private. Nothing can be thought of as shared in common, except by contrast with what is privately owned.” //

By 1626, the Plymouth settlers couldn’t return sufficient profits that the investors in England had demanded, and they were forced to restructure the debt they borrowed from investors. Conceding the problem, Bradford wisely recognized that a change had to take place, and he gathered the settlers to a brainstorming session. //

After turning the communal property into private property, letting everyone be responsible for themselves and their own families’ wellbeing, Bradford noted drastic changes in all the colonists’ behaviors: //

These hardworking and motivated colonists turned Plymouth colony into one of the most successful colonies in North America.

Today’s self-identified democratic socialists might need to pick up a copy of Bradford’s book if they think real socialism has never been tried in America. One of the most important legacies of early settlers is that they experimented with socialism in the 1620s, and it didn’t work. Private property rights and personal responsibility, two pillars of a free market economy, saved the Plymouth colony from extinction and laid the economic foundation for he free and prosperous nation that we all enjoy today.

Rather than repeating always failed socialist experiments, Americans ought to remember the powerful lessons early settlers learned in the 1620s: Socialism is incompatible with free people. It always leads to failure and misery. The United States of America must never become a socialist country.

For those who think socialism is compassionate and caring, in truth, socialists only care about the collective, not the individual.