The first Karl Marx Collectivist award goes to…

By Dr. Murray Sabrin

After a year hiatus I will be posting at least twice a week. The tenacious push for more collectivism by public officials, pundits and yes, super wealthy Americans, needs to be challenged in every hamlet, town, city and state.  And, of course, we have to challenge the federal government’s 100+ year long march on “the road to serfdom.”

With this in mind, every week I will announce how an elected official or prominent private citizen has embraced one or more of Karl Marx’s Ten Planks to help create a full-blown collectivist society.

According to the website, the United States has adopted many components of Marx’s vision outlined in the Ten Planks, which have become mainstream policies.  You can determine for yourself how America has become a Marxist society by reading the evidence on the website.

1.    Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2.    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.    Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4.    Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.    Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.    Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7.    Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.    Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.    Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10.Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.(There are additional collectivist planks that Marx did not include in his Manifesto—gun control/confiscation, single- payer healthcare, government retirement benefits, and the war on drugs.)  We thus should amend the 10 Planks to 14.

If you have suggestions for any additional collectivist policies that should be included in Marx’s Manifesto, please email them to me. 

The recipient of the first Karl Marx collectivist award goes to Mayor Bill de Blasio who stated in his State of the City address the other day:

“Here’s the truth, brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands!”


The Mayor’s statement is the essence of collectivism:  “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”

Based on his public remarks Mayor de Blasio is at least a 70-80% Marxist.  His support for income taxes, rent control, collectivist healthcare, public schools, massive government intervention in the marketplace, especially the workplace, and presumably the Federal Reserve, means de Blasio is a shameless advocate of “trickle-down economics.”

Trickledown economics is the essence of collectivism.  According to this notion, money will flow to the “right hands” if the government—the all-wise collective—has the power to confiscate, redistribute and control our lives to create a Utopia.

Make no mistake this is the battle for the soul of America in the 21st century. 

Lovers of liberty must reject every one of the 10/14 Planks. Supporting any of the 10/14 Planks will only embolden the collectivists who are taking America down the road to serfdom.

Next week the second Karl Marx awardee will be announced.  Guess who?

Trenton newspaper claims NJ safe? Not so fast…

The grandees on the editorial board of the world-famous Times newspaper of Trenton have been vigorously patting themselves on the back again.  Generally they are trying to convince themselves – and anyone who will listen – about how great a state New Jersey is and how fortunate they are to reside in or near that garden spot that is Trenton.  Delusions, yes, but these people are paid to keep writing, “More of the same.”

In the run-up to Governor Phil Murphy’s signing of a formal declaration of war on the Bill of Rights, generally, and the Second Amendment, individually, they came up with a column praising the new restrictions and linking them as part of a tradition:

“… former Gov. James Florio set New Jersey on course to adopt the country's strongest gun-safety laws, including a ban on a wide range of semi-automatic weapons.

This coming week, a successor, Gov. Phil Murphy, is expected to do his part to keep Garden State residents safe.”

We suggest the editorial board and the politicians take some sound advice on this before becoming too overly self-congratulatory…

Crime in New Jersey is pretty much the same as it was when Jim Florio’s anti-gun legislation went into effect.   Other states have seen dramatic reductions in the crime rate, but not New Jersey. 

Before Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani took over, New York City was synonymous with crime.  It was the city of the original “Death Wish” movies.  Giuliani’s new policing methods actually did result in a measurable and, more importantly, noticeable drop in crime.  Does anyone remember that happening in the wake of Florio’s virtue signaling?

New York City never went back to the high crime capital it once was.  And New Jersey’s cities never followed in New York’s footsteps.  Today, if you want to save some money and commute to New York from one of New Jersey’s neighboring big cities, you are taking your life in your hands.

New York City has 3.4 murders per 100,000 people.  Jersey City has 10.2 murders and Newark has 33.3 murders.  For Rape, those numbers are New York (14), Jersey City (17.6), and Newark (36.6).  Robbery… New York (198.2), Jersey City (207), and Newark (688.6).  And Burglary comes in with New York (164.9), Jersey City (368.1), and Newark (622).

So perhaps the self-congratulatory delusion is a bit early and we should have a serious discussion on what works to reduce crime rather than focusing on what feels good.

The Liberal Media vs. President Trump

A study released today shows just how biased the Media is against Republicans:

As President Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, he has received by far the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.

For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.

Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.

For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends. Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.

The Media is attacking Republicans all across America, but especially in "blue" enclaves like New Jersey where the far-left New York City media sets the tune. 

The study's measure of "spin" was designed to isolate the networks’ own slant, not the back-and-forth of partisan politics. The study ignored sound bites which merely showcased the traditional party line (Republicans supporting Trump, Democrats criticizing him), and instead tallied evaluative statements which imparted a clear positive or negative tone to the story, such as statements from experts presented as non-partisan, voters, or opinionated statements from the networks’ own reporters.  Here is one example from the study:

The MRC analysts tallied 1,687 evaluative statements about the Trump administration, of which 1,501 (89%) were negative vs. a mere 186 (11%) which were positive.

The networks spent 223 minutes on the battle over the President’s executive orders aimed at temporarily banning immigration from seven (later reduced to six) countries that are either failed states or otherwise safe havens for Islamic terrorism. All three networks showed their disdain by filling their newscasts with soundbites from those distressed by the order. “I feel ashamed to be living in this country now,” one traveler was shown saying on CBS’s January 28 broadcast, while ABC weekend anchor Cecilia Vega said the order had created “chaos, confusion, and fear.”

“It feels like a nightmare,” a Syrian resident of Pennsylvania told NBC two days later, after his relatives arrival was delayed by the order. There was no balance to this debate, with our analysts tallying 287 negative statements on this topic vs. a mere 21 positive, which computes to an astounding 93% negative spin.

The study was conducted by the Media Research Center, whose mission is "to create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish."  The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Missing victims: Why the Star-Ledger can't be trusted

On Friday, the Star-Ledger -- a newspaper owned by two billionaires -- ran an editorial that advocated taking firearms away from the poor and working class.  In support of their position, the usual politicians were quoted --  those who expect armed protection for themselves even as they deny it to their "subjects" -- as well as a hodgepodge of government statistics.  Oh, the statistics...

Most Americans would agree that the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and Washington, DC -- along with the hijacking and destruction of a passenger jet over Pennsylvania -- were crimes motivated by hate.  In the aftermath of the attack, no less than the President and the United States Attorney General agreed with this assessment. 

Now go to the U.S. Justice Department's Uniform Crime Report for 2001.  The report counts 12,020 victims of crimes that were the result of the "offender's bias."  7,768 of these were victims of "crimes against persons", with another 4,176 counted as victims of "crimes against property." 

Among the victims counted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Hate Crime Data Collection Program were 554 victims of "anti-Islamic" bias crimes. According to the official USDOJ/FBI figures for 2001, just 10 people died (murder/non-negligent manslaughter) in the United States as the result of crimes motivated by hate.  By our count, that is 3,037 victims short. 

The count of homicides in New York City for that year does not reflect the 2,823 victims of mass murder at the World Trade Center; or the 184 victims at the Pentagon; or even the 40 victims in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.  They were all left out of the murder count.    

If you read the official homicide figures for 2001, you will find that the deadliest month in 2001 was July -- and that September actually experienced a drop in homicides from August before rising again in October.  This is not the fault of the FBI, who do their best, but who are, after all, servants of a political class more interested in the preservation of power than in honest and transparent government.

Statistics are always being changed or adjusted to benefit the government of the day.  Remember when they "adjusted" the unemployment figures so that people out of work, but who could no longer collect unemployment, would magically disappear from the count of the unemployed ?  It was as if they simply dried up and blew away.  Did no longer being officially "unemployed" fill their bellies?

The same government that came up with these statistics packages and sells Wall Street's line that the U.S. economy is doing fine.  And they assure us that have the data to back that up.  Hey, are you doing fine? 

Government lies.  According to U.S. Justice Department figures, the United States is experiencing a spike in espionage.  Actually, those figures simply reflect the fact that whistleblowers like Jesselyn Radack and Thomas Drake are being charged with serious crimes in an attempt to silence them and keep America's citizens in the dark.  Most of the cases break down before they ever get to court. 

Law enforcement officials have a plethora of stories about how some urban police departments fail to report "incidents" in an effort show progress against crime, while some rural and suburban departments over-report to secure more funding.  When shown the Star-Ledger editorial on Friday, one long-time police chief explained how one county reduced its drugs crimes by doing away with its narcotics task force.  "Just don't catch them" is one way to reduce reportable "incidents."

The editorial used a very narrow statistic -- the Uniform Crime Report's figures on "justifiable homicide"-- to argue that the 300 or so people whose lives are saved each year are hardly worth allowing them to own a firearm.  They didn't acknowledge that the definition the FBI uses for "justifiable homicide" is "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." 

That definition leaves out a great many "incidents" in which an attacker or intruder is driven away by the appearance of a firearm, the discharge of a firearm, or the non-fatal wounding by a firearm.  Then there's those words "felon" and "felony."  We all know stories about how prosecutors play games with that -- turning felonies into misdemeanors on a whim.   There was a prosecutor out west, this guy got elected governor, who used to change felony drug crimes into "agricultural trespass" misdemeanors just to impress his first deputy (who, it turned out, was also his mistress). 

But even using their own very narrow definition, what the statistics show is that the number of justifiable homicides have nearly doubled in recent years, so that even their own statistics reveal that more innocent lives are being saved by people protecting themselves instead of being lost by people waiting for the police to show up.  The fact is, over 40 percent of the violent felons stopped through the use of a firearm are stopped by average citizens. 

That's not a knock on the police.  The liberal courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect average citizens and when the families of murdered victims have tried to sue government for failing to prevent the death of a loved one, they have uniformly seen their cases tossed out of court. 

Politicians like Senator Loretta "Mother Roach" Weinberg are responsible for lengthening police response times and making service in law enforcement less attractive.  They are as pro-criminal as they are anti-police and against the right of self-defense.  That is different from being anti-gun.  They love guns... for their own protection, just not for ours. 

Until they fight to change the law and allow victims' survivors to sue government when it fails, what politicians like Weinberg and media outlets like the Star-Ledger are telling us to do is to shut up and die.  Excuse us if we don't take their advice.