A fair number of posts have been made here with the suggestion that gun control would lower our murder rate in the United States compared with the rest of the world. No doubt, it would. However, virtually all such posts merely count the number of murders in the US annually, and we rank highly in the world with those hard numbers. Not taken into consideration in these posts, however, is that the US is the third most populous country in the world.

That comparison ought to be per capita, not merely hard numbers. When approached by per capita, boys and girls, the US does not even rank in the top 50 nations of the world in murder rate. We rank between 50th and 60th, and that is in the top quarter, approximately, of the nations of the world. It does not justify gun control to the extent that some in our country would impose.

Not to mention that not all murders are committed by a gun [about 75% are, but that leaves 25% unaffected by gun control of any kind], and we certainly are absurd to think the gun itself is responsible. No gun, by itself, has ever shot, let alone killed anyone by deliberate intent.

A thumb, used improperly, can kill. Should we ban the opposable thumb, so useful in a myriad of other activities we would lose by loss of thumbs? Or spoons, elbows, butter knives...

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/bn/resolved-the-justices-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-ought-to-be-term-limited#round-1

This debate apparently ended with no votes. This may be one reason why: since 1900 [that's 126 years], 85% of Supreme Court Justices have retired, or otherwise left the Court prior to death. That's called personally-imposed term limitation, and, at that rate of personal dismissal, there's no need to amend the Constitution to impose term limits.

Not to mention that Article III already does not say the Justices serve a lifetime appointment as the debate challenge alleges. Observe: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...' https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

;

We have become so critical of one another over the variety of physical characteristics we individually express that we begin to think all we are is just skin-deep, and that nothing of consequence occurs deeper.

That this is an incorrect attitude is what mostly has us at each other's teeth.

Can we give it a rest?

Skin deep matters about as much as that clouds change shape, and that nowhere on

Earth does the climate maintain within ±1.5ºC, let alone that none of us express as either black or white as my Crayola crayon set exhibits them.

Not to mention that none of us determined these differences by ourselves in any natural process when born. We are what we are by generations preceding us. Can't we just accept that and move on?

So, Mamdami decided to extend his communism to Staten Island. It is, after all, one of the five boroughs of NYC, but a politically conservative place. He lasted a minute before being booed from the stage. He'll likely avoid the 60% R-voter Southland of NYC for the remainder of his term. Bye-bye, ma'mi.

Your commiunist bride. She may carry bright, yellow flowers to flash you,

but the marriage bed night will be your last. This routine does not last beyond a single typical human lifetime - less than 100 years. Never more. Never will be. So why even tempt the first day?

My current free-market economy has endured continuously for the last 400 years, and counting. Now that's a bride worth cultivating.

El Sayed [MI] wins by an entire 1%. Wow! A landslide! MI does not register voters by party affiliation, but, generally, in MI, voter registration is 53.2% by voting for a Democrat candidate, and is 30.2% voting for a Republican. That's a 23% spread. Typically, the "Democrat," El Sayed, should have won by a lot more than a single digit of 1.

What's different? El Sayed is not a Democrat. He aligns with the Democrat 'Socialists of

America, but that's not even a political party. He does not talk like even a recent Democrat. And with a post-victory[?] comment like advocating collective union bargaining for all [i.e., every worker a union worker] he talks like a communist.

Oh, but that's a bad word, isn't it? The non-party says it's 'socialist,' and is an advocate for karlmarxism. But, his Manifesto was Communist, not Socialist, so, let's call it what it is, huh? What, too harsh for you?

And how does El Sayed justify saying "Union collective bargaining for all" while saying, in the virtual next sentence, that workers should be "self-determinative?"

How do you self-determine when serving up your personal wage bargaining power to a union rep who may not even know your name if you met on the street? That's not self-determinism, boys and girls. Learn your union-speak, because it does not have

'self-determinism' in its dictionary. Words mean things, and woke definition is not in any dictionary.

This last post goes beyond the DSA's platform. This is a summary, only, so there is no blurb from DSA.

So, what is really accomplished by the "fight," the objectives of the DSA, if some workers become bosses?

Becoming, is, after all, the whole point of communism by the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America. Becoming... what? Do they truly, eventually, become bosses, as defined by the last words of their platform? Nope. In the end, what has changed?

"I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution,

Take a bow for the new revolution,

Smile and grin at the change all around.

Pick up my guitar and play,

Just like yesterday,

Then I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again." 

"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Won't_Get_Fooled_Again

This communist version of "democracy" [positively the wrong word to compare to communism] has been around since Eden, my friends, not just 1848's Karl Marx. This was Satan's communist blurb. You know: power, pride, possession & pleasure. The original sins. And y'all thought it was just an apple? Well, it was seedless, wasn't it? Stayed in Eden, that tree did. Must have been a communist. That's why it did not reproduce. Just as communism does not, nor its soft-core socialism version. It all dies within a man's lifetime. But they try again and again, because they fail to learn philosopher Santayana's sage advice: learn from history, apply its lessons, avoid its traps, or we are doomed to repeat it.

DSA wants to defund the police forces of America. Did they know that one-third of the police forces are non-white: black, latino, asian, and other types? Yet, DSA claims even these must be defunded, because the whole of police forces are to be defunded, according to their own words. DSA must believe even those who are of the one-third of the police forces are, nevertheless, white supremacists. Why else would DSA want to defund them, too?

White supremacy is not the communists' problem. Racism is not their problem. Housing is not their problem. Education, voting, private enterprise, workers, and all their other complaints are not their problem. Their problem is simple. The politick they want to impose is a proven failure, and they just cannot face and dance to that music.

True democracy is the gift of heaven: eternal life. It has a life that is continuous, just as man and woman have been since Eden. Life on Earth is not merely generational with starts and stops. It, too, is endless. Even the ancient Egyptians knew this. Hence: "Spells for the Coming Forth by Day," as they titled it. We screwed up the title and the content, calling it, instead, "The Egyptian Book of the Dead." I've read the spells [about 250 printed pages] in their ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. It's not about death. Dead has naught to do with life or democracy. This amateur Egyptologist knows that much. Bad title, bad interpretation. Just like communism, and the Democratic Socialists of America. So the Human Genome Project confirmed in 2003. Where y'all been since then? Stuck in a seedless apple skin? 

Every original word that is mine in this series is the truth as I am equipped to know and embrace it, where I have made claims of evidence. Once, 40 years ago or more, I was selected as the jury foreman in a criminal trial. Once selected, before the trial, we jurors were sworn to an oath by the trial judge. We were asked to swear to be attentive to the trial testimony and exhibits and to avoid bias in our deliberation to seek the truth. I swore, "I do" along with the other jurors. Then in the brief silence immediately following, I asked the judge, "Do you?" He looked at me and smiled. He said, as best I remember, "I take my own oath as a judge, and it is similar, not exactly like yours, but I've never been asked by a juror. Thank you. Yes, I do," he concluded. The trial proceeded, and we did our duty, as sworn. 

As I swear, now. I ask you, "Do you?"

Where is the Yoda Party? That party's platform is much shorter and perhaps more democratic than even the U.S. Constitution.

In The Empire Strikes Back, while training Luke on Dagobah, Yoda tells Luke that the Force connects all living energy and that physical size or limits do not matter.

Luke struggles to lift his sunken X-wing fighter from the swamp when challenged by Yoda to use the Force. Luke says, after trying, "I tried...I can't. It's too big," or words to that effect. Yoda tells him, "Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try." Then he said that size matters not and points out that his own physical size does not limit his power.

Yoda explains that the Force surrounds and binds all things. He contrasts our spiritual energy with our physical bodies to show that the mind and spirit are what connect to the Force, not muscle or physical weight, or any lack of the same. It is not mere belief. Those with an acquaintance with this exercise of mind and spirit know this power by another name: faith. No, not mere belief. That is nothing by comparison to faith, because belief makes no demands. Faith, the "Force," does.

Yoda says: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." Yoda is no communist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Empire_Strikes_Back

- End -

"Empower workers to come together and fight the boss. Protect, expand, and enforce the rights of all workers to form, join, and strike with their unions, regardless of industry. Support union members who organize reform caucuses, democratize their unions, and take political action." 

 - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

So, is it democratic for an employee to fight the boss? What does that employer think in a current democratic society? He, too - or she - has a boss. Does that person, in turn, start an up-bound fight? And how far up the chain does that go? Perhaps it is wrong to consider this relationship to be naturally combative. It is a little cheeky to believe all "bosses" are autocrats. It is supposed that if one believes there are rights to "Protect, expand, and enforce the rights of all workers to form, join, and strike with their unions, regardless of industry..." it follows one should also have the right, in a true democracy, "regardless of industry," and if one chooses, to not "...form, join, and strike with their unions." 

If we really comply with the definition of democracy, that must be a factor relative to joining unions, or not. With a continued eligibility to choose, with acceptance of circumstances to that choice, one is then truly democratic. Does DSA disagree? Apparently, by this lengthy, convoluted platform, it seems they do disagree. Because, according to this fight, bosses cannot also be included in a "democracy," because only "workers" can "...organize reform caucuses, democratize their unions, and take political action."

Again, aren't bosses workers, too? When I was a boss, I spent more time with our team than at my desk. That was the last place I wanted to be. That way, I didn't have to have an "open-door policy," because, usually, there was no door, let alone a separate room.

"Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

By how many buzzwords is DSA going to define "democracy?" What's wrong with the following descriptive definitions of the United States of America?

“A Republic”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary [OED], “is a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.”

“A Democracy,” according to the same source, “is a political system that allows the citizens to participate in political decision-making, or to elect representatives to government bodies.”

These definitions fly in the face of whatever DSA believes is the definition of "Democracy." We do not pick and choose definitions of words on the whim of political divide. And since we are a "republic" by the definition of the word, that means we have a President, elected by the people, not by Congress, just as the definition demands. That DSA disagrees with this definition is entirely their choice of belief. We should not redefine a "Republic," nor a "Democracy," at the whim of political disagreement. That is called something else: chaos; the very word used by DSA in Part 5's first sentence. Do they now like this word, or is it a conundrum to them by lacking a choice? Choice is maintained as a touchstone of communism. Is it? If you believe it, I have a tropical island to sell you. Does that have relevance as a singular ±1.5º C fluctuating climate demanded by the DSA communists?

Please share how an economic drain, a.k.a. DSA Green New Deal, is a service to the public "to spend on public goods and infrastructure." The G.N.D. is a transfer of wealth, not a dedicated creation of wealth, such as our current free market economy is. The DSA platform is not a creator of wealth, but is a wealth drain. This is what GND - not always known as that, particularly in the realm of climate crisis names, let alone the "science." We've had "climate change," [1956] "global warming," [1988] back to "climate change" [2002], not to mention "Green New Deal" [2007]. The science and names have been chameleonic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change Consider, for example, that in 200 years of "climate science" [yes, it is that old, but compared to physics, or astronomy, it is a child] no one, as yet, has resolved lower Mississippi flooding, Midwest tornadoes, or fires in the San Gabriel Mountains of Los Angeles, such as Brentwood in 1961, when my family lost our home in a wildfire, and Pacific Palisades, next door to the West - last summer, and several others in between. So, yes, I am a personal victim of the failure of GND, and its previous names. My father took not one dime of government hand-out. It wasn't offered. FEMA did not exist for another 19 years. He was insured, however, but that payout was a pulling-teeth venture, even though "fire insurance" was one of the policy riders.

But let's reduce "Economic Democracy" to its basic terms. I have already offered my own economic basics: Ambition, Planning, Execution. Economy is a process. We perform processes with excellence and with ignorance. 

Ambition must start the process, and no one can embrace that attribute but by their own initiative. That's what ambition is: a personal attribute. It cannot succeed by groupthink. We think a team succeeds as a team. Yes, but behind that team are its individual players, each of whom, for personal success, must have sufficient personal ambition to succeed personally. Ambition cannot be an entitlement; it must be driven from within each heart and mind with individual effort.

Planning is simply goal-setting and critical path definition, with periodic review of where we each are currently, and what must be done, individually, to participate in the plan's success.

Execution is simply working the plan, achieving the individual interim goals each has committed to achieving on time and within budget. All interim goals achieved, the plan succeeds, and the result is economic personal growth, contributing to the corporation's total success. Every contributor knows what their individual contribution meant to themselves and the corporation. 

That is ownership at an individual level. 

Ownership of most of the current public corporations is already "established public ownership." When we have individually applied "ambition, planning, execution," we have educated ourselves sufficiently to participate in the stock market, in bonds, in precious metals, in a variety of investments that allow us personal ownership that communism does not know how to initiate, operate, or ameliorate a less-profitable condition. This is why communism must use other people's money; they do not know how to generate it for themselves.

This explains precisely why communism has never succeeded for even a continuous century anywhere in the world, any time in the world. Ever. A major problem has always been its failures in nomenclature, alone, regardless of what is meant, with and without dictionaries.

One has to ask: Why is DSA so shy to be ambitious, plan, and execute their own personal wealth, in favor of excessively taxing only the wealthy at aggressive rates compared to less performing members of society? DSA wants equity, but shies from equality. There is a difference.

"Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

No Democrats and no Republicans. A "two-party system" DSA alleges should be "replaced." However, they offer no definition of "a multi-party democracy." Two political paerties is a multi-party democracy already. 

The two major political parties are;

• Democratic registered in 50 States

• Republican   "

However, there are other national parties:

•Libertarian registered in 35 States

• Green " 20 States

• Constitution " 12 States

Is this not a "a multi-party democracy?" By DSA claim, we are not currently a democracy. The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, already guarantees every state in the union a "Republican Form of Government." Republican, not as in the political party, which did not then exist, but as the form of government, comparable to a democracy. [See part 22]

There are other registered political parties in a number of States, but, the fact is currently, even though posting a political platform, the Democrat Socialists of America is not a registered political party in any State, yet wants its "members" to advocate all these platform planks being reviewed in this series of posts. So, if there is not currently a "a multi-party democracy," in the United States, why doesn't the DSA want to register as another political party to add to the existing "multi-party democracy?" Why are they so shy? Answer: DSA wants a communist state, not a democratic republic. Political power in a few hands, not in over 500 hands. In one place, not in 51 places.

Our current major parties could be the Blue and the Red, and what difference is made? That we name them "Democrat" and "Republican" is of little consequence. "What's in a name?" Will Shakespeare's Juliet lamented. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." [Romeo & Juliet, II, ii] In fact, those names mirror the democratic republic that we are, already, so they seem fitting titles. Is this simply a matter that communists who "fight" are merely dissatisfied with everything their lives currently are, and can find no joy in it? Joy is an attitude we make of what we have and are, but it includes hope and faith in a system of a democratic republic, which we already are. The DSA would really make us something else. Namely, communist. 

Reminder: in Part 14 I stipulated "... Marx, in his Manifesto of 1848 does mention "socialism" a couple of times, but the title is not "The Socialist Manifesto." It is, rather, "The Communist Manifesto." For that reason, "socialism" has been more often referred to, in these posts, as communism. After the Manifesto, the one by Marx, that is, which dovetails nicely with the DSA platform. It is no coincidence. Eyes must be wide open in this nomenclature.

We already have proportional representation in the House of Representatives, although as of 1929 by the Permanent Apportionment Act, the House of Representatives is limited to 435 members. The Senate is likewise apportioned to have 2 Senators representing each State. There is no need to "implement proportional representation,"

by a communist system. So, by what logic would the Senate be abolished, yet "expand" the House with more players? To reduce the representation, not expand it.

Yes, the system has problems. Did anyone promise there would be no problems? No. But, they did declare our democratic republic as an "experiment." It is that. Experiments do not always anticipate all results. Thus, Article V was provided before the whole "experiment" was launched by the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Article V details how constitutional changes are made. They devised a change pattern before launching the system. Forward thinking. The DSA is running headlong into the future with eyes riveted in the rearview mirror. Accidents happen that way.

 "For the working class to govern, we need a new political system. End political corruption and legalized bribery: get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United, and publicly finance all elections. Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/'

Governing is a term we associate with elected representatives. It is how a democratic republic operates by the definition of both terms. Look them up. I use the OED. We elect representatives in the United States of America in each state by voting for them. The illustration of voting at the ballot box, as illustrated by the DSA, [I illustrated my own version, here] is denied by the cross-out which DSA did. In all states, voting in a general election in November every two, four, and six years is the means of electing Congress and the Presidency.

What, exactly, is this "new political system" which seems to have avoided description by the DSA? They identify what to abolish, i.e., "... political corruption and legalized bribery: get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United... Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress."

What Congress? DSA would abolish Congress [the proposal is still called "Congress," but it deducts, rather than augments the number of representatives in Part 7]. So who is this new "Congress" that suddenly appears to appoint our President and the Supreme Court, rather than being elected by voters in the case of the presidency? DSA identifies us as "working class," but does that describe all who "work," let alone vote? Even the billionaires? Some of them work; some are retired. doesn't the "working class" retire, too?

But in the view of DSA, billionaires should not be part of this "Real Democracy." How democratic is that? DSA claims "the working class" should govern. Time was, every member of Congress was a working-class before election. Real Democracy, right now, and then, since before 1776. I was educated about that in my day. Remember "education?" The free one that still exists, now, through high school if one is sufficiently self-motivated to finish, and does not need to be re-created.

Abolishing the Electoral College would assure that only the most populated States would elect our Presidents and Vice Presidents. By a popular vote [DSA's suggestion], the maximum number of States needed to elect a President is 24 States, the most populated States. With the Electoral College, 40 of the least populated States are necessary to elect a President. Which is the most democratic system in your view: 24 or 40 States?

And let's not ignore the last zinger, that the appointed President, and the Supreme Court would be "subordinate" to, and not co-equal with Congress in DSA's fantasy world. Which version sounds to you more "democratic?" Democratic Socialists of America, or the Democrats who used to be a rational political party in Kennedy's day, and even Clinton's? Does anybody personally remember them? My hand is up. Anybody else?

"Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents and restore the right to vote for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions. Establish statehood for Washington D.C. and recognize the right to self-determination for all U.S. territories and colonies. Expand and protect voting rights and end voter suppression."

"Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents..." this DSA blurb says.

Very admirable, until the phrase is deconstructed to its individual parts. "Voting rights,"as we observed in Part 10, are really privileges, considering that there is a voting age minimum, which, by the Constitution's XXVIth Amendment, enacted in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18, but that still restricts minor children from voting, even though they are "U.S. residents." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

Further, the DSA would abolish the Presidency and the Senate. For whom, then, on a national level, would our "U.S. residents" vote? Note the cartoon heading for this section of discussion. It is drawn from the DSA website cited above. Therefore, what relevance belongs to this cartoon? Nope, no national elections, period. As for "democracy," an ideal supported by the DSA - it's even in the name of the organization! - DSA seems to pale from the definition, which includes voting. But one must have candidates to vote for, even on a national level. It is the privilege in a democracy for the people to do so, but this DSA "fight" alleges to remove that privilege from us. So, why the cartoon? They're supposed to be funny! This one is a joke, but no one should be laughing.

"Establish statehood for Washington D.C.," this "fight" declares, without realizing that Washington D.C. already enjoys more direct representation in Congress [which DSA wants to abolish!] than any other State in the Union. Did you know? Observe Article I, Section 8, clause 17, which stipulates, in part: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square [100 square miles]) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,..."  

Section 8 describes the specific legislative duties of Congress, both House and Senate. Clause 17 defines the "District" as a "ten miles square" territory. However, in 1846, Congress enacted a statute to return the 31-square miles of VA back to VA, reducing the District to 69 square miles, [in Maryland, only] which has a population of approximately 700,000 residents within that 69 square miles. 700,000, like all congressional districts across the country, is the approximate population represented by a single Representative. However, the legislative authority representing the District is not just that single Representative, which it has, but is the entire population of both House and Senate; 535 individuals. No State enjoys that direct, widespread representation. 

Not to mention that, because the Constitution already dictates these District conditions, only an amendment will change it. Or do communists mandate change by fiat, and not by congressional vote? Well, since DSA wants to abolish one chamber of Congress, the Senate, you have the answer. Go buy a Fiat. That is Italian manufacturing, not American, but you can only buy one model in the U.S. An EV, of course. Sub-compact. Being 6'3", I don't fit but by shape-shifting to a pretzel. Since I still have choice, no thank you.

"End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

My nose is effective for counting, as in the U.S. Census, as noted earlier, but, as employed for the sense of smell, this nose is sub-standard, meaning my sense of taste is also diminished. Result, by the DSA's analysis of alleged useless things, I should cut it off. Defund the police. We do not need law enforcement, according to the DSA, because everyone is law-abiding. That's a joke, right? Abolish the Presidency, the Congress, and the Court. Replace the Constitution. Now, abolish ICE. Why not all government agencies, departments, and councils? According to DSA, we don't need a government, we must replace it with a giverment.

Is this what we really want? It's all okay. Just tax the wealthy, yes? What is "wealth" according to the DSA? That depends on the various echelons of "wealth" DSA defines:

• Upper middle class: $700,000 to $1 million Pop: 1.5M

• Luxury owners: > $1 million Pop: 20M

• Multi-millionaires: $10 million > Pop: 26,000

• Billionaires: $1 billion> Pop: 989

From $700,000 annual increase and above, DSA's answer is to add additional taxation to these wealthy earners, ignoring that no taxpayer in America pays taxes by this currency they call "taxes." We all pay in the currency known as "dollars." That fact is, this designated "wealthy" class already pays, in the DSA vernacular, 40% of all income taxes paid in the U.S. annually. These are called the top 1% earners. That is about $5.2T. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/  with $2.1T paid by the four income levels noted just above. 

If one adds the next lower income level, $250,000 to $699,999, adds another 20%, or 60% total of the entire U.S. personal annual income tax revenue, or $3.1T. All those earning $250,000 and greater amount to 35% of the US population of 340M people. Cut it any way one wishes, 35% of all US taxpayers, 119M people, pay 60% of all income tax. Is a ratio of 60:35 a "fair share" claimed by many Democrats before the DSA platform, which demands a greater "fair share"? Maybe one needs a better understanding of ratio values. Does education ring a bell? [See part 8, where, by typical education as it once was, learning the calculation and function of ratio was taught in that American guaranteed free education range, K-12 ] How's that for a cold bath? Y'all want to abolish that? That tactic is called a house divided, and Lincoln, a real American, taught us all about that. Maybe American education under DSA dismisses Lincoln. He was just a President, after all. Dismissible, that is, by DSA.

"People around the world deserve to live their lives without U.S. interference. End economic warfare against countries whose governments act independently of the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

"People around the world," including people of the U.S.,  also "deserve to live their lives without [DSA] interference." Goose/gander stuff is all this Part 17 blurb is, like the rest of it. What is not okay is to assume one can ignore what is currently established today in the United States as the Constitution, and assume it can be transitioned into something else, without the Senate, which this same manifesto claims should be law of the land, which, by the way, includes a President of the United States, elected by tyhe people of the UnitedStates, and not by the House ofRepresentatives, except under the special circumstances defined in Article II of that Constitution. Maybe someone among the DSA ought to actually read that document, word-for-word, with complete literacy.

"End economic warfare against countries whose governments act independently of the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran." Just as soon as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and others respect the sovereignty of the United States. Stop thinking they, and many other people from countries of the world, have a "right" to come to the U.S. and expect to stay by violating our sovereign immigration laws, passed by Congress, which includes the one House DSA alleges to keep. Has anybody noticed that by the DSA platform, we, the people of the United States, would be represented by fewer people than we are today? How is that "...[winning] the battle for democracy" as claimed in part 7? Democracy is a representative government, yes?

"Recognize the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return, the right to resist military occupation, and the right to self-determination in a free Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital. End all military and economic aid to Israel. Prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders responsible for the genocide in Gaza." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

"Free Palestine" for what, whom, and when? Is Palestine a united people? No, it needs to settle these w's. Is Palestine a singular sovereign state? No. It must determine its own future. It is not even contiguous; it consists of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It claims it is "from the river to the sea," but there is another sovereign territory in between, belonging to the sovereign State of Israel, which Palestine would prefer to occupy, using that last quoted cry. Palestine wants to claim Jerusalem as its capital, but Jerusalem is already the capital of another sovereign state: Israel. To claim Jerusalem as Palestine's capital is, therefore, a matter of aggression, which the previous DSA objective [see part 15] wants to abolish. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/who-governs-palestinians. The last time Jerusalem was rightfully in another's hands was up to the point of Israeli King David defeating the Jebusite [Canaanite] King, Araunua, to win back Jerusalem for Israel 3,000 years ago. I Chronicles 11; 4-5  

The "history" depends on which version is consulted. The Israelite tradition says that Ishmael and his mother, Hagar, were sent to the Sinai, that, when of age, Ishmael married an Egyptian woman, and established a "nation" there. The Islamic [Quran] tradition is similar, but the region was Mecca, in modern Saudi Arabia. In neither case is it what is claimed as Palestine, today, where the modern 'tradition" [if one can call it that, stemming from less than 100 years ago] is "from the river to the sea," which is not where either the Israeli nor Islamic traditions [a thousand years ago, at least] place it. Does anybody have a care to reconcile history?

Does Palestine want to be a communist state? They're divided on that, as well. https://www.leftvoice.org/palestinian-self-determination-and-the-fight-for-socialism/ 

The cited article claims the achievement of a socialist [communist] state is a "fight." Where has that been heard before? [See Part 7]

"Defund the Department of War. End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases. Support and fully employ veterans. End immunity for U.S. war criminals and support the International Criminal Court's mandate to prosecute war crimes." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

War is not a one-sided affair, even with civil war. There is aggression, and there is defense. Even communists go to war, whether for aggression or defense. Yes, Russia [when it was a communist state], China, Cuba... you know the list. It is long and distinguished in its savagery of aggression. So, let's not repeat the failure of the Democrats' "defund the police" campaign by adding "war" to the equation.

So, too, ending any current "war" is not ended merely by walking away from it. Since there are no suggested means to reach a point of ending a war, we presume "walking away" is what the SDA proposes.

Much of our current military presence in foreign countries around the world is in a posture of honor of treaties we have with those nations, such as the members of NATO, who continue to depend on our participation in defense of their sovereignty. Did DSA forget, already, that it stipulated in Part 11, "Honor all treaties?" Oops. Seems DSA has a habitual forgetfulness of its offered commitments, along with forgetting there are others it should promise, but doesn't.

.

DSA accuses the U.S. of war crimes. DSA does not have the jurisdictional right to levy accusations of war crimes. DSA raised the specter of the International Criminal Court [I.C.C], but the U.S. is not a member of the I.C.C., which began operations in 2003, 23 short years ago. In that time, the I.C.C. has filed charges against the U.S. twice, and both cases are effectively dead for lack of evidence. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states#12  

Is DSA variable in its commitment to law and order?

Further, the DSA offers confusion because it does not properly understand the dual role of warfare: aggression and defense. Several of the advocacies of the DSA in this platform review are aggressive in nature. See Parts 1, 5, 7, 13,15, 16. Stay tuned for any others. This one is another wish balloon.

"Workers must lead our democratic transition to a green future. Pass a federal jobs guarantee. Implement massive investment in sustainable, publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure. Phase out the use of fossil fuels. Reclaim and repair our earth's resources for all." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

What does a "green future" have to do with a federal jobs guarantee? Are all jobs to be green jobs? The environment is not our singular issue. Is our future to be all green, and no other energy, raw materials, or transportation sources? Is there any doubt that Earth does not have a singular, ideal climate?

 This discussion was introduced in Part 5, demonstrating that the "GND" is neither Green, New, nor a Deal. In this revisit, we are told there must be a "democratic transition to a green future."

I know this democracy, and the Constitution is the law of the land already. Why is a "transition" necessary to any deal of color? Have a majority of people who have leadership thought about the necessity of "transition?" In December, 2025, Third Way and Impact Research collaborated on a national poll to measure American opinion on an "All the Above" energy grid. Results indicated that 83% of Americans favor an energy grid that combines green energy with fossil fuel energy. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/poll-shows-americans-want-affordable-all-of-the-above-energy-not-the-green-new-deal-or-trumps-coal-plants 

83% looks like not just a majority, but a landslide democratic opinion. That does not mean the Democrat Party, nor its branch, the DSA. The DSA is misrepresenting itself. These are not socialist dogma. Oh, they are Marxist, and Marx, in his Manifesto of 1848 does mention socialism a couple of times, but the title is not "The Socialist Manifesto." It is, rather, "The Communist Manifesto." I've not mentioned that word before, but a spade is a spade, and it shovels shyte as readily as it shovels sand. Neither makes a durable foundation, and that is Communism. Demonstrate the Communist State that has endured for even 100 years. The average is 40. 86% is a landslide. The DSA offers a minority opinion. Sorry, that's democracy.

"Socialist feminism fights for queer liberation and the freedoms of all working class women. Stop gender violence and end policies that oppress bodily autonomy and intimate life, including patriarchal restrictions on abortion, childbirth and childraising [sic], gender expression and transition, marriage, and divorce. Ban sex discrimination and ensure fair compensation and support for all forms of labor, including care work" - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/  

How is "feminism" suddenly "queer?" And why not also fight for masculism? Yes, I acknowledge homosexuality and lesbianism. These terms are already sexually specific identifying male and female, respectively. It's curious that LGBTQ+ does not directly acknowledge F and M in its alphabet. If the fight for feminism is needed, so is masculism. This was already Identified in Part 11. Among its findings is the following:

"The Y chromosome, along with the X chromosome, is often discussed for its role in sexual development. While these chromosomes play a central role, the factors involved in human sexual development are spread across the genome and very complex, giving rise to the array of human sex characteristics found among male, female and intersex individuals. These categories are not equivalent to gender, which is a social category." https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/researchers-assemble-the-first-complete-sequence-of-a-human-y-chromosome

Given this complexity, it is impossible with today's technology to determine the percentage of individuals who express "intersex." One certain thing: exacting science is currently unable to quantify the percentage of those affected simply because the whole population of humanity worldwide has not been tested for anything. The whim of personal choice of identification is not going to be accurate, either. Social, as opposed to science, is going to continue to be at odds. Best not to impose suggested legislation until the science is clearer than it is today, to at least achieve proper statistical accuracy, which is ±2% at 95% confidence.

One wonders why "abortion, childbirth, and childraising" [sic] ought to be combined together in any conversation. Regardless of socialist attitudes, abortion is meant to end pregnancy, prevent childbirth and thus prevent parenthood. "Planned Parenthood" is one of the leading organizations dedicated to advising troubled pregnant females to abort, thus ending parenthood as a possible outcome of pregnancy. These are attitudes that defy the terminology used to advance the socialist agenda. Is that sensible?

For "sex discrimination," the discussion is as disjointed as the discussion of race discrimination in Part 12, above. "Sex discrimination and... fair compensation" is already documented by current statutory law and policy. It is the same problem as race described in Part 12; an individual, not a systemic problem.

Part 12: "What We Fight For" End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity

"Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

Yes, Democrats have been war-crying for a number of years to "de-fund the police" along with D.A.s, mayors, governors, and a prior president who reduced populations in our jails and prisons to put tried and convicted criminals on the street. This is nothing but political immunity. Both immunity issues must be corrected. But the incarcerated, released criminals who have not served their full, legal prison sentences need to return to prison. Otherwise, dire increases in crime result. Blame the billionaires, DSA says, again. And, as it happens, illegal drug use is a crime, social boo-hoo notwithstanding. There is already authority over the police by city, county, and state civilian oversight.

DSA claims the current American system "protects the rich and jails the poor." About 24 million Americans [8.8%] are indeed millionaires, or better, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/05/23/the-making-of-a-millionaire-and-why-100k-is-no-longer-the-benchmark-salary-for-wealth-in-america/  

40 million [10.6%] live below the poverty level. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states That is a difference of merely 1.8% of the people. 

The greatest factor to improve low wages is acquiring practical skills by further education. 8.5% to 10.1% of Americans lack a complete high school education. https://www.ccdaily.com/2025/09/datapoints-educational-attainment-in-the-u-s/  That is virtually all the people who exist below the poverty level. A K-12 education is is tuition-free to all in America. Why do people enter the work force of full-time work without a high school diploma? DSA says its favoring the wealthy. Wealth is inconsequential to obtaining a high school diploma. It is lack of ambition, to which the DSA says not one word. Why not? Because socialism lacks ambition.

"Treat drug addiction and incarceration as health issues, not crimes." Compassionate sentiment, but abuse of illegal substances is a crime, and no amount of talk changes that unless the law, itself, is changed. Where these drugs are demonstrated as being illegal, and in addition, addictive, more the reason to avoid their use. There is a dual aspect to the law. More reason to prosecute and convict, thus the need for incarceration, and to stop the current practice of a turnstile treatment of convicted criminals. Crime must not pay. It sure doesn't provide a useful education.

"End the legacies of slavery and colonialism. Reinforce anti-discrimination laws. Honor all treaties and tribal sovereignty. Enact reparations and massively invest in good jobs, quality housing, and infrastructure in neglected minority communities." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

Memo: The XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Amendments to the Constitution, called the "Reconstruction Amendments," already deleted the legacy of slavery by 1868, 158 years ago. The Declaration of Independence ended colonialism in 1776, 250 years ago. Did we miss our middle and high school US history classes? At least, mine in the 60s included these details, and I know the socialist and communist propaganda was already starting in my high school classwork in Los Angeles, where I grew up 60 years ago, but I was able to dismiss that propaganda for what was valuable historical fact. Where people are sometimes confused is separating the difference between systemic and individual racism. So, once again: systemic racism is that which is codified in statutory law and government policy texts, being "the system." Individual racism is when individuals, both in government and outside it, express racist remarks verbally and in print or broadcast media, or by their own verbal and written communication. If there are no systemic statutory laws and policies that express racial discrimination, then systemic racism is nonexistent. There is no demonstration of the fact of the DSA claim. So, a challenge. Show me an example of currently codified systemic racism. Where no evidence of systemic racism exists, why bother to "reinforce" anti-discrimination law? Congress has enough on its plate without having to till ground already producing fruit to harvest? The target is individual racism, and that is on all of us to combat, because even though the matter is codified, human behavior is still free to express, even illegally.

Honoring treaties and sovereignty is already codified. See the next-to-last sentence of the last paragraph. The same goes in response to the balance of the quote above.

Part 10: "What We Fight For" Housing for All

"Housing is a human right. Build new, publicly-owned social housing, strictly regulate investment properties, establish universal rent control, and guarantee right to counsel for all tenants." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

DSA, and many others, misuse the word "rights," as if that is all we have. No, there are also "privileges." The difference is simple, but easily ignored. Rights are universally applied, young and old, male and female. Any other distinctions are superfluous. Race? According to the Human Genome Project, whose final report in 2003 covered an intensive 13-year study, it concluded that there is no race. 

Not biologically. There is no race gene, period. All humans, of all sexes and genders as alleged, combined, regardless of physical distinctions, are 99.9% identical. "Social scientists have long understood race to be a social category invented to justify slavery, and evolutionary biologists know the socially constructed racial categories do not align with our biological understanding of genetic variation. The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 confirmed humans are 99.9% identical at the DNA level and there is no genetic basis for race."  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604262/

Did DSA not read this report? Obviously, not. Did anyone? Well, I did. So, why is race still a construct for the U.S. Census, let alone housing and a myriad of other government playtime? I am a citizen of the U.S. I am a resident in the U.S. I am male, and I am 76 years old. I am retired. I have a home address. I have a nose. Count it.That is literally all the US Government needs to know about me as a citizen taxpayer, and all I would answer on the last two Census counts; 2010 and 2020, mandated by the Constitution, Article I, Section 2. They have not objected to nor denied my truncated Census reports. I am suspicious that if the DSA were to come to majority power, they would ask more questions in their census report, not fewer. Something like, "Do you now, or have you ever associated, colluded, or otherwise trafficked with a billionaire?" Yes, I have. Sue me.

This went beyond housing concerns, but since DSA is off the path already, calling housing a right, which would imply that minor children can buy or rent a house, whereas home ownership/rental is not a right, by that limitation alone. It is, rather, a privilege. So is voting, by the way, and for the same limitation on minor children. Owning a driver's license and a vehicle is also a privilege, not a right. Minor children cannot sign such contracts. So, DSA, take your "rights" and shove them. Learn what rights are and are not, then do what you will. This problem [ignorance] by the DSA creeps up elsewhere. Everywhere? Being an utter failure, even short-term, I suppose so. The average time to failure of socialist states is 40 years. The maximum has not yet been achieved: 100 years.

Part 9: "What We Fight For" Healthcare for All

"Guarantee universal healthcare at no cost to individuals, including complete access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. Expand healthcare access and quality by investing in new public hospitals and clinics. Make all medical education and training public and free." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

I remember a time when healthcare was financed between my parents direct to a physician, period. No hospital involvement, but for my mother birthing children. I was the last of three. No insurance policy, no co-pays, and no insurance companies vying for medical care coverage. My father, mother, brothers, and me, and a doctor who made house calls and became a family friend. Why couldn't that system continue? Not due to our population increase, because physician count has risen with population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_in_the_United_States

Insurance is one of the flies in the ointment. Virtually non-existent in the 50s, the dawn of the 60s began an insurance revolution, and now absorbs a big percentage of medical cost to patients.

Another fly is not watching what we put in the pie hole, and elsewhere for entertainment, beyond nourishment. The food industry discovered freezer food and processed food, neither of which are as healthy as fresh food, which grocery stores tend to put on the outside walls of the store. Consume healthy food in moderation quantities; lessen obligation to medical treatment.

Limiting over-eating, and eating healthy would reduce the incident of our most lethal diseases. Cancer would be reduced up to 50%. Heart disease and Type 2 diabetes would reduce up to 90%. https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2021/09/29/90-percent-of-heart-disease-is-preventable-through-healthier-diet-regular-exercise-and-not-smoking

In other words, why pay a doctor - or an insurance company - anything when our own self-control and attention to what goes in the pie hole can reduce those costs significantly? Don't need socialism, or frankly, capitalism, to do that. We just have to admit we've been personally irresponsible, and have to change. Don't need to change the Constitution to do that. Don't need any politics to do that. That is true, virtually free healthcare for all, isn't it?

Part 8: "What We Fight For" Freedom to Flourish

"Expand public resources to support recreation, learning, and social spaces accessible to all. Establish paid family leave for all workers, a 32-hour work week with full pay and benefits, and a living minimum wage. Provide free, quality public education from pre-K to college and cancel all student debt." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

"Recreation, learning, and social spaces..." I have recently learned that I can download [I did] an exercise schedule to do "Chair Tai Chi," a yoga routine I can do daily on one of my dining chairs. I'm 76, so cut some slack, ok? My personal physician highly approves and uses the routine himself.

I have acquired a sizable print-book library, have a much larger library accessible on my home-office desk with its iMac, and have a local town library accessible to me. Yes, all towns in America do not have a library [although the smallest town in America, Monowi, NE, population: 1, has a 5,000-volume town library]. Some individuals may not have a home library. However, as of 2025, about 93% of homes in America have an internet subscription. https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/internet-facts-statistics. But this DSA blurb does admit to a lack of appreciation for statistics. OK, "data collection," DSA said, which is a necessary first step to obtain statistics. Their loss.

What are "social spaces?" A park? A rec center? The street? A field, meadow, national park, school gym, the Y, a coffee shop... etc? 74% of my State's landmass is public access land. With a population of 3.5M, that's a lot of available "social space." I would say, conservatively, more than sufficient. Ever notice how big cities in America are, by and large, Democrat-run cities? Here's a political map of the U.S. 2024 House election, by House District detail. With little exception, see the little blue patches in fields of red. https://www.270towin.com/2024-house-election/ Rats come to mind, population-wise.

The quote above notes a "living minimum wage." I'll wager those who inserted this qualification are completely unaware of the original effect of "living minimum wage," when included in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. "While FDR defined a living wage as more than bare subsistence—allowing families to cover food, shelter, and save for emergencies—the statutory minimum of 25 cents per hour enacted in 1938 was historically insufficient to support an average family without additional household earners." https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/blog/posts/what-did-fdr-mean-by-a-living-wage.htm  Now, the offering of the DSA is promising more for less; "a 32 hour work week with full pay and benefits." But, what is "full pay" and what are "benefits?"

"Provide free, quality public education from pre-K to college and cancel all student debt." "Free" to whom? My taxes and yours will be obligated to pay for that increase in education obligation. My children have already attended Free K-12, paid for by property taxes, and their mother was their "pre-K" caregiver and educator, and they are finished with college as of >20 years ago. The education tax on my county property tax bill is still the largest line item of my property taxes. I should ask for, and would vote for, a percentage reduction of my property tax bill. I no longer have children in school, so I am not deriving a benefit at all. Sorry, I believe my obligation is to my family members, only, in this regard. Especially when, just a few years ago, a county school administrator drove a company car to and from work, a Mercedes. I live in a well-to-do community, but it isn't Beverly Hills. My property taxes were supporting that Mercedes. I don't drive one, myself. I drive a 25-year-old Dodge Ram because it refuses to die. That's better manufacturing than one will have under a socialist regime. Is there a Chinese or a Cuban-manufactured car that tops any car-of-the-year award? Come to think of it, are all the citizens of any socialist state in the world meeting the standard of "flourishing?" To "flourish" describes a state of steady development, health, and prosperity.

Part 7: "Our [DSA] Perspective:" Working fighters

"We are workers fighting to transform society: to win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

Recall when some Democrats, from which this DSA branches, cried foul when Trump mentioned "fight" on several occasions in his January 6, 2021 speech in Washington D.C. Perhaps not the best word, under the circumstances, to choose to employ. But, what do we have here? Monkey see, monkey do-ism? Words mean things, and all of us need to remember we cannot just reinvent meaning to suit ourselves. Not as members of a society as diverse as America. Recall in Obama's 2008 campaign that he was running to "fundamentally change America." What is more fundamental to America than its Constitution? I'll defer an answer for a later Part in this commentary.

We are already not just a democracy, but also a republic; a unique combination of the two. Do y'all know the difference? There is. So, what "battle" are we in, pray tell, to "win" what we already are? And why, then, should "a new constitution" be necessary if we already are the "democracy" our current U.S. Constitution already enshrines? Oh, but this missive of the socialists will tell us, later, that this includes the suggestion to remove the Congress [Article I], the Presidency [Article II], and the Judiciary [Article III], as part of their "new constitution." The means are already documented to alter the Constitution [Article V], so why the need to re-invent it from scratch? Perhaps because since ratification of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights [Amendments I through X] in 1791, it has proven difficult to amend, with only 17 additional amendments in 235 years; about 1 every 14 years. It's been 34 years since ratification of the XXVIIth Amendment; the last. This is exactly as it should be, else the Constitution would be as worthless as the socialists already claim it is. So much for unsubstantiated claims. Such as this whopper: men can become pregnant and bear children. Show me. Y'all claim women should not give birth [abortion], but men should, and do? More back-end of bull product.

Part 6: "Our [DSA] Perspective:" Conspiracy theories 

"Rather than fixing our broken healthcare system, they push snake oil and circulate conspiracy theories. The Republicans are in on it, the Democratic Party is asleep at the wheel, and both are funded by the same criminal class of billionaires and war profiteers." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

Who proposed our current "broken" healthcare system? Well, it was first introduced seriously by a non-government employee, but connected: Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of #42. To be accurate, her suggestion was a failure; never got off the ground, politically, nor legislatively. But a similar system was proposed, and enacted by Congress and signed by #44, Barack Obama. 42 + 44 = Democrat, the Party soil out of which the DSA is branching. The DSA is in utter dismissal of the R-Party, but not exactly being embraced by some Ds, either. So, whose "conspiracy" is our current healthcare system? Blame Trump? He seems to be the objective of the current spear, so, why not?

Not sure what DSA means by "snake oil," but, it's their term for pharmaceuticals, and it appears few presidents of the last several decades have accomplished what Trump's [#47] administration has achieved in lowering pharma costs for Americans. I am personally benefiting, so I know its working. Maybe socialists are just very healthy people, unaware of pharmaceutical costs. But, then, why would they call it "snake oil?" Is it because reducing pharma costs is conspiracy-driven? Theirs?

Billionaires are a criminal class? Show me the statute that forbids an attitude of ambition, planning, and execution ➝ billionaire. No, there is no such statute. Therefore, no crime. Therefore, no criminal; not for just being a billionaire. According to Forbes, as of March 2026, there are 989 billionaires in the U.S.; 29% of the world, to lead the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires.

Guess who is second, according to the same source. Did you guess China? 539 Chinese billionaires. They must all be criminals, too? Tell us that, socialists, assuming you know.

Tell me what socialists would do without billionaires. If billionaires are all crooks, what does that make socialists who accept money from some of them to support these brilliant platform planks?

Part 5: "Our [DSA] Perspective:" Beirut, Bulldozers & Billionaires

"The world is in chaos... We can see their plan in the countless heartbreaking images coming out of war zones like Beirut, Gaza, and Tehran. We can hear it in the rumble of bulldozers making way to build detention camps and data centers. We can feel it in the air as the summer heat becomes unbearable, and in the pits of our stomachs when faced with the price of gas and rent. We’re promised magical technology with AI, but in reality, the bosses lay us off and track our every move. The billionaire class is dividing workers against each other, and it’s making us desperate and miserable." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

The world is in chaos. Agreed, but is that due to the free market of the United States of America? Was it the USA who fired the first shots of anger in "Beirut, Gaza, and Tehran," or Israel, Ukraine, and elsewhere in the world where there is current conflict? The list is long, but none initiated by military action from the USA. Careful; Iran fired first on USA allies before US fired a single shot at Iran. So, why blame the USA? Because socialism is not accepted by the clear majority of American citizens across all political stripes [65%]. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/

We have disagreeable people in the US who commit crimes for whatever reason. There is no civilized reason to commit a crime. Therefore, detention centers are necessary to protect ordinary law-abiding people from due-processed convicted criminals. 

What is the problem with data centers? Is socialism contrary to data processing? They certainly use it; is that a discernible contrary attitude in their ranks?

We know socialism is highly tied to and supportive of the environmental Green New Deal. The problem with the GND is that it is neither Green [They use "fossil fuel" in a plethora of clothing items, plastics, and other commodities], New [The movement has been around for at least 100 years, and yet provides just over 20% to the entire US energy grid], nor a Deal [windmills and solar panels are very costly, and necessary to maintain and replace. They are not all that friendly to the environment to produce and operate, let alone dispose of when replaced. EVs still rely greatly on fossil fuel for lubrication - When did Al Gore innovate lubricative Gooey Juice from green resources? - and production of component materials. Plastic is a material used in over 50% of all components in an EV.

"Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a major maritime choke point for world energy trade, has been largely blocked by Iran since 28 February 2026." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Strait_of_Hormuz_crisis 

The US did not force Iran to do this. They are the cause of the "choke point," attacking and supporting attacks on other countries and their ships in the region before the U.S. became involved militarily with Iran this year, raising the cost of oil &gas around the world. That cost is now reducing as the US is protecting shipping in the Strait.

Get the cause here correct, socialists; you're behind the news of the day. 

When was the last time a socialist State shipped oil in 2026? Actually, Vietnam is a producer and seller/shipper of petroleum products. However, it is a net importer of petroleum, and is hard-pressed to keep itself afloat in petroleum trade because its own production does not provide sufficient revenue to keep production afloat. https://eastasiaforum.org/2026/05/29/the-oil-shock-tests-vietnams-overstretched-economy/

Cuba is not a significant oil producer sufficient for its own need. https://english.elpais.com/international/2026-03-19/russian-oil-tanker-headed-for-cuba-despite-the-us-embargo.html 

Russia is not a socialist State anymore.

China is an oil producer, but can supply only 25% of its own petroleum need, so is a net importer, like Cuba. https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/OIES-Presentation-Crude-oil-production-in-China.pdf

Venezuela is not socialist in economic terms. It is, at best, mixed, and moving toward, not away from both economic & political free trade. https://manhattan.institute/article/how-socialism-destroyed-venezuela Same condition as in China, other than China's choice to remain a communist State.

Regarding AI, layoffs from companies citing growth of AI are already regretting their layoffs as they discover that AI is a valuable, calculative force, but human intelligence and innovation still have advantages AI cannot currently meet. They are rehiring. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/01/employers-who-laid-off-workers-for-ai-are-reversing-their-decisions.html 

I'd have to say, given these cited facts, that it is DSA, new as it is, that is "desperate and miserable." Already?

Part 4: "A socialist day off could be like any good day now."

"...what if you were free to spend your time how you like without worrying about cost or dreading going back to work? What if you didn’t have to think about paying rent or loans at the end of the month, or saving for college, or affording groceries?" - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

The first "what-if" has already been debunked in Part 3. All suggestions in this manifesto have cost, therefore, debt.

You're still working for a living, and still have costs/debts on your "free day," so what, exactly, removes the "dread [of] going back to work?" Simply by avoiding mention of it, magically, it's gone? Well, there's another clue that settles the score on socialism: expectation of magic to make life "...like any good day now." If magic were so available to use, why hasn't socialism succeeded longer than it has in any attempt to apply it around the world? See the Intro to this exercise.

Part 3: "Your day off"

"Maybe in the morning, you walk your kids to school, run errands, or go to a doctor’s appointment. In the afternoon, you might play a sport, practice a new skill, read, plan a trip. In the evening, you could meet up with friends or family and eat together, maybe go to the movies or down to the park." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

School, errands, doctor's appointment, play, practice skills, read, vacation, eat, movies... All these activities have a cost/debt. See Part 2. Well, "your day off" implies you have a job. With all those activities, it must be a paying job. Does your paying job pay enough to spend [debt] for those activities on a "day off?" Maybe it does, and you even have money left over. Only left over because the rest paid for cost/debts. I keep repeating that, don't I? Get it, yet; the lie of part 2? You have debt.

You have debt under socialism and capitalism. It is a maxim of life in society. You will have debt to somebody, primarily, as for most people, the cost of your housing, whether rent or a mortgage. Oh, socialism means the government pays for it? Where do they get their money? We've been there, already. You bought the materials and the tooling so the government can produce promissory notes we all accept as money [to pay debts].

Even investment, considering you may be fortunate to afford that activity, is a debt. No, a "day off" is not a free day, after all, is it? I'll now add how this section of the DSA website really begins: "OK, enough about bills." Oops, we were really just getting started, weren't we?

"You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/

Not "...for-profit industries?" Socialists must think that anything produced by humans can be perfect out of the chute, needing no maintenance, nor replacement of parts, nor replacement of the entire facility, whatever that might be in "...retirement, food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation." Anything produced by humans will ultimately fail; nothing has ultimate endurance. Replacement is a necessary ingredient in society, and there is a cost to that replacement, let alone the cost to produce the first generation of anything in the DSA's list of essentials of our society. Anyone producing a car is aware that the car you buy - therefore, a "debt," even when you pay cash - will need periodic maintenance through the duration of your use of that car. And then, it will need replacement. More personal debt.

That's just an example of the last on the list of DSA's housing, food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation - an incomplete list, by the way. There are many other essential consumables we purchase at a cost/debt. Note that socialists have conveniently left off the list one essential: taxes. What does government self-produce as a commodity we require to sustain our lives? Not a bloody thing! And a "commodity" they do have produced [again, they do not manufacture it; they hire private contractors] is our infrastructure. How do they hire? By our taxes. How, by the way, do they buy the materials, and the tools, to coin and print our money? Taxes.

No debt? What a load of what comes out of the back-end of a bull [which, in our modern society, has value, itself, so don't knock it as a mere expletive]. That's public debt, but the money comes out of our pockets, because all government can do is print money, which has no intrinsic value of trade but by the claim of the United States, and every other country on Earth, for their currency, that it all has value. Currency is a promissory note by the governments of Earth that their produced currency has an accepted rate of value for the exchange of it for goods and services. Otherwise, the collected value of countries and their currencies across the globe collapses.

To claim that socialism absolves us of debt is just the second lie they are claiming as your given right to avoid. No, it's just another distribution of that bull-rendering from the back-end. Good thing, I guess, they have it in abundance, because socialists give it out as if it was never-ending. No, when we personally realize the socialist lie, that our debts will never reach our door; guess who suffers first, and dies. The bull out in the field. And, then, no more bull**it. They don't grow on trees, Nor does money.

Now notice, herein, I've said nothing about alleged "human right." I'm saving that one for later, even though it is virtually the first of our losses in socialism.

https://program.dsausa.org/

Intro

The above link will take you to the DSA website, upon which this post and its succeeding posts are based. I will offer my overarching challenge to this entire diatribe: Show me the one successful socialist movement from anywhere in the world that has endured as long as the free market capitalist model of America. No, not from 1776, or even 1787, but from 1619's dual emergence of eventual American expansion. Everyone knows the 1619 Project as the first date of arrival of African slaves, and the modern protest that has resulted. Less known is the Virginia General Assembly meeting for the first time at Jamestown, becoming the first representative legislative assembly in the New World and laying the groundwork for American constitutional democracy via an economic free market. We'll start there: 1619. Show me a successful socialist movement enduring since then. Don't tell me; show me. Well, you can't because socialism does not predate 1619; it's from 1848, Karl Marx. That may not be accurate. It may have started in Eden as the Serpent's beguiling offer to Eve. But it hasn't succeeded from then, either. That's all you have to do, and I'll back off the claim that socialism an an historic failure without a single enduring success story. Enduring being equal to, or surpassing 1619 to 2026; 407 years.

Part 1: The Raised Fis

Socialists claim the raised fist as the symbol of their movement. There it is, prominent in the above weblink, as if they invented it. Nope. Not even that. That symbol has been around since the ancient Greeks, at least. Moreover, the symbol is not a singular fist, but a hundred of them, all from one individual of Greek mythology: Cottus, son of Uranus, one of three brothers, all of whom are giants of Cottus' appearance; monsters of a hundred hands and fifty heads. Looks like a socialist banquet. So, borrowing from the outset, socialism can do nothing more, for it cannot even generate its own wealth; it must borrow[?] it from others. When the borrowing source is depleted, socialism dies of its own lack of ability to sustain itself. Always has; always will. All myths eventually succumb to the demand of real history: Be ambitious, plan, and execute the plan as an individual effort, or wither and die as a disillusioned, collective union population. The following parts to... follow, just like a socialist parade of raised fists. If I used a free market parade, y'all couldn't follow it.