Let's Talk About 9/11

It 's said that people never forget where they were when big events in history happen. For me, on September 11, 2001, I was called at home that morning by my brother-in-law who was exciting about a jet hitting a building in New York City. 

When I turned on my television, I found that almost all of the television stations were reporting that a passenger plane, a huge Boeing 767 jetliner, had slammed into a building in New York City. It was commercial airline wide-body jetliner, specifically a Boeing 767, that hit the North Tower of the twin towers. 

At first, I thought they were talking about a small jet plane. Then I found out it was a jetliner. A jet is any aircraft powered by a jet engine. A jetliner is specifically a large commercial passenger or cargo airplane. A jetliner is a specific type of jet built strictly to carry large groups of passengers or cargo commercially. Jet planes include military fighter planes and private business jets, those are usually small jet aircraft. Jetliners are very large wide-body aircraft designed to hold hundreds of people. Jetliners are huge in comparison to tiny one-seat military jets.

Jetliners serve scheduled public airline routes and global mass transit. At 8:46 am, a large jetliner, an American Airlines Boeing 767, its Flight 11 in route from Boston to Los Angeles, slammed into the North Tower, 1 World Trade Center, that morning on September 11, 2001. 

For Flight 11, it was only 47 minutes between leaving Boston and smashing into the North Tower in New York City. The timeline of American Airlines Flight 11 on the morning of September 11, 2001, details the events from its departure to the moment of impact: 

5:45am – Muslim terrorists Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al-Omari clear security at Portland International Jetport in Maine to catch a connecting flight to Boston. 

7:59am – Flight 11 takes off from Boston Logan International Airport, bound for Los Angeles. 

8:14am – The Muslims begin their attack on the plane. The aircraft fails to respond to instructions from air traffic control. 

8:19am – Flight attendant Betty Ann Ong alerts American Airlines ground personnel via an inflight phone. She reported that the cockpit is unreachable, that a passenger had been stabbed, and that Muslim terrorists were hijacking Flight 11.

8:24am – Muslim terrorist Mohamed Atta mistakenly transmits a message to air traffic control while trying to address the passengers, stating: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay."

8:32am – Flight attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney reaches a flight services manager at Boston Logan to provide critical details about the Muslim attackers, the hijacking, and the emergency on board.

8:37am – Boston Air Traffic Control alerts Northeast Air Defense Sector, (NEADS). And in five minutes, Air National Guard jets are in the air heading to intercept Flight 11. 

8:46am – The Muslim terrorists were on a suicide mission and force Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The huge jetliner slammed into floors 93 through 99. Yes, instantly killing everyone on board. 

All 92 people on board were killed when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center that morning. Of those aboard, there were 81 passengers, including the 5 Muslim attackers who hijacked the jetliner to use it as a weapon of war, and 11 crew members. As I'm sure everyone can understand, when the airliner slammed into the building, it instantly killed hundreds of innocent people inside the North Tower.

Television stations broadcasting what happened initially reported that it must have been some sort of an accident. Then, a few minutes later, at 9:03am, 17 minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, America and the world watched on television as United Airlines Flight 175 was purposely piloted into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. 

United Airlines Flight 175 was the second jetliner used as a weapon of war on September 11, 2001. 

Flight 175 Morning Timeline

7:15am – The five Muslim terrorists, led by Marwan al-Shehhi, clear security at Boston Logan International Airport.

8:14am – Flight 175 takes off from Boston, bound for Los Angeles, roughly 15 minutes after Flight 11.

8:42am – Flight 175 makes its final routine radio transmission after flight controllers report hearing a suspicious, heavily breathing voice on the frequency.

8:42am – 8:46am – The Muslims onboard start their attack. They breach the cockpit, stab the pilots, and force passengers to the back of the jetliner.

8:47am – The plane's transponder code changes twice, and the aircraft begins deviating from its assigned altitude and flight path.

8:52am – Passenger Brian David Sweeney calls his wife, Julie, leaving a final voicemail, and then calls his mother to report what's taking place. About that same time, passenger Peter Hanson calls his father and describes the chaos and stating that the Muslim attackers stabbed a flight attendant.

8:55am – It was at that time that a New York Air Traffic Control Center controller notes: "We may have a hijack or problems over there with another aircraft."

9:03am – Flight 175 is purposely piloted into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. It slams into floors 77 through 85. All 65 people on board, including 51 passengers, 9 crew members, the 5 Muslim suicide attackers, and hundreds of Americans in the South Tower are killed instantly. 

The impact was broadcast live on television. It's true. The impact of the second jetliners slamming into the South Tower of the World Trade Center was broadcast live on television for everyone to see firsthand. And yes, it was then and there, at 9:03am on September 11, 2001, that Americans and the rest of the world realized that the United States was at war with Islam. The attack by Muslims that morning showed the world how ruthless and truly barbaric Islamic radical are. It was then that the civilized world would have to step forward and meet the evil of Islam head on.

Minutes later at 9:37 a.m. on that same day, September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77, Muslim terrorists intentionally piloted that Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to fly from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport. On board that Boeing 757 was 53 passengers, 6 crew members, and 5 Muslim terrorists. 

The target of the Muslims was the western facade of the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The impact caused structural damage and a massive fire broke out. The fire burned for hours. Besides the 59 passengers and crew, and the 5 Muslim suicide attackers, 125 military and civilian personnel inside the building were killed instantly.

On that same day, at 10:03am, United Airlines Flight 93 went down in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. That happened after passengers and crew fought back against the Muslim terrorists who were trying to hijack that flight. 

The flight was supposed to fly from Newark International Airport in New Jersey to San Francisco International Airport in California. On board were 40 passengers and crew members, plus 4 Muslim terrorists. The Muslims wanted to target either the United States Capitol or the White House in Washington, D.C.

Four of the Muslim terrorists took control of the plane about 40 minutes after takeoff. But, because the flight was delayed leaving the gate, passengers learned via phone calls about the other attacks in New York and Washington. Because of that, passengers and crew took action and rushed the cockpit to stop the Muslims attackers from reaching their target.

It is believed that the struggle in the cockpit forced the plane down into an empty field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. While it killed everyone on board, those heroes prevented those Muslims from accomplishing their mission. Thankfully, their bravery stopped any further loss of life on the ground. 

By the way, while United Airlines Flight 93 went down and crashed in that field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the jetliners that slammed into the World Trade Center Towers or the Pentagon, did not "crash" in those places as if by accident.

The word "crash" carries a heavily negative, sudden, and destructive connotation in almost all contexts. While that's true, and the word "crash" does imply a violent, uncontrolled, and chaotic event rather than a gradual or planned transition, let's not mistake what happened that morning with planes that crash. What happened that morning was violent, but it was completely controlled. It was a planned attack against us. 

Those Muslim attackers purposely and deliberately piloted those Boeing 767 jetliners full of people on board into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and tried to do the same with Flight 93. They used those huge jetliners full of fuel for their long trips as weapons of mass destruction. 

And yes, it upsets me to no end when people say those jetliners "crashed" into the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon as if by accident. It was as far from accidental as one can get. Those Islamic attackers used those huge planes in the exact same way as someone uses any weapon to purposely kill their enemy. 

And as for Islam, after 25 years of everyone in the world seeing all of the death and destruction that the followers of Islam have committed, from the mutilation of women to their rape of children as child brides, to the stoning of women and the slaughter of gay people, to the beheadings of Christians and how we've all witness them burning people alive, to the support of terrorists attacks and killing of innocents around the world, to all of the casualties of wars that Muslims have started over the last 25 years, there should be no question in the minds of any rational person that Islam sees the rest of the world as their enemy.    

 

For me, I will never forgive Islam for its attack on America on 9/11, for creating such homicidal maniacs, for those people on those planes, for the thousands who were killed in the towers, and especially for the hundreds of Americans forced to  jump to their death instead of being burned alive. The horror caused by that Muslim attack is something that I will never forgive. 

According to information later, about 200 people jumped from the upper floors of the World Trade Center towers during the September 11 attacks.

An exact official count does not exist. The chaos, smoke, and destruction made precise tracking of what was taking place completely impossible. While early reports from news outlets that tried to play it down, outlets like The New York Times, tried to say there were about 50 people who jumped rather than be burned alive, subsequent forensic investigations place the figure closer to 200. 

Americans decided that they rather jump to their death and escape the intense heat, thick smoke, and suffocating flames as high as 2,000°F after the planes struck the towers. And frankly, I don't see any reason to forgive Muslims for causing that.

In all, a total of almost 3,000 victims and 19 Muslim suicide terrorists died on September 11, 2001. In New York City, at the World Trade Center, 2,753 people died at the Twin Towers and surrounding area. At the Pentagon, 184 people died, that includes passengers and crew on American Airlines Flight 77 and people inside the building. In a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, 40 passengers and crew died after United Airlines Flight 93 went down. In total aboard all four jetliners, all 246 passengers and crew died. 

As for our First Responders? In total, 441 first responders lost their lives, including 343 firefighters from the FDNY, 37 officers from the Port Authority Police Department, and 23 officers from the NYPD. 

While those are statistic that no one expects anyone to remember from that day, there is at least thing that I hope people haven't forgotten. It's how Muslims here and overseas rejoiced and celebrated at our loss. Yes, that in itself is something that Americans should never forget.  

Tom Correa

Democrat Policies Are Why We Have A Beef Shortage

Whether some folks want to admit it or not, policy decisions under Democrat administrations, notably the Biden-Harris administration (2021–2025), contributed to the financial strain on ranchers -- which resulted in the reduction of American's cattle herd to a 75-year low by the end of the Biden presidency.

Several policy initiatives from Democrat administrations created burdensome economic and regulatory environments for livestock producers. Chief among them is the Democrats use of the federal government to attack American agriculture with "Climate and Environmental Regulations." The implementation of stringent environmental oversight, including their tighter restrictions on public land grazing, water use regulations, and aggressive climate initiatives created tremendous hardship for ranchers and farmers.

Ranchers were forced to either comply or be taken to court and forced to comply, or be jailed, and possibly lose their property, if they didn't comply with Democrat policies and regulations that were trying to destroy their livelihood. The cost to comply with those policies, and the reduction of available grazing acreage all in the name of Climate Change, was a financial burden that put some farms and ranches out of business. Frankly, that seemed like the ultimate goal of those policies which were designed to appease Climate Change fanatics who are huge Democrat Party donors.

Of course, there were huge costs accrued by American ranchers and farmers involved in fighting the Biden administration's government overreach and their authoritarian policies. And let's be even more honest, from forcing Americans to take a trial COVID vaccine, to telling Americans what household appliances that Americans were "authorized" to have, and their attacks on anyone supporting their political opponents, the Biden administration acted more like a totalitarian dictatorship than a representative democracy. 

While we can all guess who was in charge in the White House making decisions and signing laws and pardons since Joe Biden was incapacitated during his presidency, his administration was out of control. Those folks in the White House who were running his administration used the power of the federal government, a power that our Founding Fathers warned us about, to heavy-handedly to force Americans to comply with their Leftist Socialist vision of America. That alone violates the government's Constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.

But really, that didn't matter to the folks running the Biden administration. Their overreach by using the awesome power of the federal government to advance a Leftist agenda is why many of us push for prosecution of the people who were in the Biden administration. Our Founding Fathers designed a system of checks and balances, and federalism, specifically to prevent the centralization of power as what took place when Biden was in office.

His administration's heavy-handed environmental rules from the EPA and Biden's workplace mandates, all enacted by him, or someone in his administration. His administration's implementation of vaccine mandates for federal workers, contractors, and large businesses during the pandemic was an unprecedented infringement on individual liberty. It was something that dictators do. 

As for his administration's huge federal spending, such as the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act, which did nothing for working Americans while making Democrat Climate Change donors even wealthier. It only contributed to the high inflation that we felt at the time. 

The Biden administrations Leftist Socialist policies of Open Borders, of them actually flying Illegals into the United States from other countries, allowing millions of Illegals to enter without care of the consequences to Americans, was all at a huge cost on American taxpayers. That and other huge federal spending to finance Illegal Aliens and other social programs such as furthering the Leftist Gay Agenda worldwide by spending billions of American tax dollars overseas through USAID to further their social science agenda, all increased inflation here at home.

Add to that how the Biden administration tried to kill American Oil Production as another element in appeasing their wealthy Climate Change donors, and there are the reasons why under the Democrat administration, there was accelerated inflation which lead to historically high input costs for fuel, fertilizer, and equipment. 

The lie coming out of the Biden administration at the time was that "U.S. crude oil production reached historic record highs during the Biden administration." Of course, if that were true, than why were we paying so much for a gallon of gas at the time? If that were true, than why did America's agricultural producers have to endure substantial financial strain from high fuel, energy, and fertilizer expenses?

And no, it wasn't as with what's going on now with the Iran War where America is trying to stop Muslim lunatics from having Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear Weapons that would have certainly trigged a Nuclear War if they were not stopped. 

We went through a lot of hardship and high gas prices because the Biden administration tried to kill American Oil production. In fact, Biden killed oil drilling leases on federal lands and the cancelled oil production projects like the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office to the celebration of the Leftwing News who were still promoting the Climate Change hoax. Biden did what he did to pay back his Climate Change donors who want an "anti-fossil-fuel environment". 

Biden's attacks on American Oil contributed to a Global energy price spike. And no, it wasn't because of Putin as Joe Biden claimed. In fact, we learned that gas prices were on the immediate rise when Biden took office and immediately administration cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline. 

Biden later lied to the American public about the price of gas being because of Putin, when in fact it was his administration's war on American oil production that drove up gas prices. Biden didn't think Americans were smart enough to see that gas prices and overall inflation were already climbing steadily for months prior to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Americans food production felt the impact when farmers and ranchers saw major jumps in production expenses, notably for diesel, propane, and natural gas, which are vital for running machinery, heating facilities, and transporting livestock. 

The elevated overhead costs for American ranchers cut profit margins and forced ranchers to liquidate sections of their herds to remain solvent. The bottom line is that the Biden administration's policies forced ranchers to sell their herds to stay in business. That's why we're talking longer to rebuild herds now.

As for other Democrat policies designed to purposely put American ranchers out of business?

Democrat administrations regard the protection of endangered species, such as the management of gray wolves on grazing lands, more important than our ranchers. Yes, so much so that they restricted the ability of ranchers to protect their livestock from natural predators. This also resulted in direct herd losses and increased management costs for producers.

As for the Meat Packing problem? Ranchers have argued for a very long time that the federal government's policies regarding this issue has failed to adequately police the heavily consolidated meatpacking sector. Ranchers contend that corporate consolidation left independent cow-calf operators with reduced bargaining power and lower returns. The fact that it is not profitable discourages herd expansion.

While the impact of Democrat inspired regulations and overreach are bad enough to kill herds, the shrinkage of the U.S. cattle herd to roughly 86.2 million head is also driven by a combination of compounding factors such as  pastureland destroyed by fire and limited forage availability across major cattle-producing regions; natural multi-year biological and market cycles where periods of high liquidation are followed by slow, cautious herd rebuilding; then there are trade dynamics and the availability of cheaper imported beef from foreign markets that squeeze domestic producer values. 

Of course, there's America's long-term problem that American ranchers are aging and no one knows who will take their place when they ride out their string. For me, I believe another huge problem is agricultural lands being converted into commercial developments and residential sprawl. This is all forcing American ranchers to sell of their herds.

So yes, Democrats have created environmental regulations that are so strict, especially those regulations under laws like the Clean Water Act (such as definitions of "Waters of the United States") or the Endangered Species Act, that they place uncalled for restrictions on our private property land use. This has only increased the burdensome operational costs that American ranchers already endure.

As for public land management? Democrats have hurt ranchers by limiting grazing on federal government lands, increasing grazing fees, refusing permit renewals, and increasing land-use restrictions. Democrat administrations, who have sold their collective souls to their wealthy Leftist Climate Change donors, have used federal government agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to destroy American ranchers. 

 

Democrat administration policies have been aimed at "reducing cow farts," the supposed methane emissions from livestock, and have tried to get ranchers to move away from producing beef. Their policies have been a direct threat to America's ranching industry.

Democrat policy makers are ignorant of the fact that American ranchers and framers are better Stewards of the land than they are. American ranchers and farmers don't need more burdensome regulations from what seems like a hundred different federal agencies that seem more interested in stopping American beef and food production, than feeding our nation. 

Democrats argue that they need to regulate land and water use to prevent overgrazing, protect wildlife habitats, and preserve public lands. But for what if their policies have create starvation for future generations.

Democrats refuse to understand that livestock have been on this earth for a very long time. They refuse to understand that agriculture and livestock production does not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions or hurt the planet. They refuse to accept the truth and instead accept what even the United Nations as now said is unacceptable bogus climate information. 

The "Livestock's Long Shadow" Controversy has to do with a 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that falsely claimed that livestock was responsible for 20% of global emissions -- stating that livestock emission, cow farts, were higher than the transportation and manufacturing industries worldwide.

While that report was shot down and acknowledged as a lie to create a sense of doom, people on the Left still believe the lie. 

In fact, in the United States, the EPA estimates that the entire agriculture sector, cow farts and equipment use, only accounts for less than 6% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which is lower than the transportation, electricity generation, and industrial sectors. 

But no, that hasn't stopped Democrats from creating more federal rules and regulations to kill American ranching and farming. Instead of helping to promote sustainable farming practices and reducing the industry's burden on trying to adhere to unreasonable government regulations, and instead subsidize crop insurance, disaster relief funds, provide agricultural conservation grants, and provide critical financial safety nets to American farmers and ranchers, Democrats aim is to prosecute ranchers and famers through legal actions that in many cases have put American ranchers and farmers out of business. 

I really believe that today's Democrat policies, and their use of government agencies to attack and strongarm American industries like agriculture, have put small businesses and family farms and ranches, in many cases some that have been in families for generations, out of business completely.  

For me, I believe that attacks on American ranchers is part of the Left's concerted effort to wage a war to destroy America from within. The same Democrats who have attacked America's Oil and Manufacturing Industries have attacked American ranchers and farmers.

As for the Left targeting American beef producers? I believe it's all a part of the Left's Green New Deal and the Climate Change extremist's war on beef. 

President Trump is fighting to undo the damage done by Democrat administrations. To do that, he has enacted several policies aimed at supporting American ranchers. In fact, he has just rolled out his Rancher's First Initiative to the angst of Democrats who put Climate Change and appeasing European Global Warming groups ahead of American food production.

As with many Americans today, President Trump recognizes that America's cattle herds are at a 75-year low. And as with many Americans, he rightfully blames burdensome government regulations imposed by past-Democrat administrations. Heavy-handed authoritarian policies from Democrat administrations have proven to be heavy burdens for American food and energy production to endure. 

President Trump is working for American ranchers and farmers to change things for the better, And really, his policies allow common sense to take over where the Leftist ideology has screwed things up. 

Tom Correa

Franklin D. Roosevelt's War Against Government Handouts And Socialism

Franklin D. Roosevelt was commonly referred to by his initials FDR. He was a Democrat president who rejected the idea of government handouts and fought against allowing Socialism to get a foothold in America. Yes, he was just the opposite of today's Democratic Party politicians.

FDR was against free government handouts so much so that he openly criticized "the dole," a term used at the time that means direct welfare payments without working for it. He believed getting money for nothing destroyed a person's work ethic and pride. He believed in "Work over Welfare." 

Instead of handing out free government cash to Americans, FDR created massive work programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). He wanted people to earn a paycheck. FDR saw direct relief as a temporary last resort during the Great Depression, not a permanent way of life.

FDR believed in the "Dignity of Work." In fact, President Franklin D. Roosevelt championed the idea that there is a dignity of work that people can't find when they're simply getting handouts from the government. That's the number one reason that he favored job creation over direct welfare handouts during the Great Depression.

It's true. That's why FDR chose "Work Relief" over simple cash handouts because he believed labor preserved personal self-respect and individual worth. He absolutely rejected being on the "Dole" because he feared that pure welfare handouts would act like a narcotic and destroy a person's initiative. He felt that a person's pride much be preserved.

That's exactly why he argued that letting people earn a living through physical labor or creative effort meant allowing Americans to keep their self-respect intact instead of forcing them to rely on charity.

In fact, Franklin D. Roosevelt felt so strongly about rejecting "the dole," which was a term used back then to describe direct unearned cash handouts from the government, that he said he believed that it destroyed human dignity and created a cycle of permanent dependency. Roosevelt argued that direct cash handouts fractured the American work ethic. In a famous 1935 address to Congress, he outlined his moral opposition to unearned "income":

He said, "Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

Instead, FDR championed work relief, ensuring that citizens earned their state assistance through public labor. To help bypass the dole, FDR created specialized New Deal agencies designed to provide temporary employment on public works projects. It was all in an effort to get the economy started again.

To do that, FDR created the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) in 1933. FERA initially distributed state grants. FDR quickly shifted its focus away from direct cash toward creating unskilled local government jobs because work was "psychologically more beneficial to the unemployed"

FDR then created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) which replaced FERA in 1935. The CCC employed young men in environmental conservation, forestry, and park maintenance.

FDR also created the Works Progress Administration (WPA). This program built massive infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, and schools. The WPA employed millions of Americans without relying on direct cash handouts. In fact, the WPA was such a massive agency, that it employed more than 8.5 million Americans. 

Of course, while most Americans of that time knew that WPA workers built public infrastructure like schools, roads, and bridges, some folks may not have known that the WPA also funded work for writers, historians, and artists. In fact, some monuments around the nation were build by the WPA during the Great Depression.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt also applied his anti-dole, anti-handouts, philosophy to Social Security when he designed the Social Security Act of 1935. This is seen by the way he insisted that retirement benefits be funded via worker payroll taxes rather than the general treasury.

According to historical records, FDR rejected a "pay-as-you-go" system because he felt unearned federal pensions would turn Social Security into an unsustainable government dole. He wanted workers to earn their retirement so that no future politician could legally strip away their benefits.

His belief that pure welfare handouts would act like a narcotic and destroy a person's initiative paid off as it benefited the worker and their community. In fact, paying wages put real money back into local communities and stimulated local economies and the broader market. To him, and many Americans, that was preferable than simply receiving handouts from the government.

So yes, FDR believed in the dignity of work. In fact, FDR expressed strong reservations about people being on welfare permanently. He believed that able-bodied Americans preferred earning their livelihood through productive labor.

FDR contended in the depths of the Great Depression that "The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."

As for Socialism? Contrary to what Democrats today say, Social Security is not a Socialist program. In fact, FDR was against Socialism. FDR did not want Socialism in America. When he created the Social Security, he famously stated that his goal was to save the American Capitalist system -- not destroy it with a Socialist program.

Franklin D. Roosevelt viewed Social Security as a way to protect free-market Capitalism by easing economic insecurity. He did not see it as a step toward Socialism. In fact, FDR believed the Great Depression threatened the survival of American Capitalism. He saw extreme poverty among older adults as a major flaw in our free-market system. He designed the Social Security Act of 1935 to provide a safety net so free-market American Capitalism could survive.

FDR stated that government relief programs like Welfare, his recovery programs like the CCC and WPA, and his reform programs were tools to preserve the profit system -- not to replace it. 

He wanted to give workers basic protection against unemployment and old-age destitution. He believed that working class Americans would never surrender their personal freedoms to Socialism and Communism. He believe that working and earning a living, and not being in a position to take temporary handouts from the government, would protect the United States and ultimately prevent radical Leftist political movements from taking hold in America.

He actually viewed his New Deal as a practical path to get American back to work and combat state sponsored Socialism and Communism, and the unrest that comes with both of those evils. He viewed Socialism and Communism as authoritarian threats that stripped individual liberty. His aim was to neutralize them by eliminating the poverty that fueled their growth.

So don't let Socialists today attempt to re-write history. Don't let them tell you the opposite of what President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to do by putting Americans back to work.

FDR's New Deal was a deeply practical Capitalistic reform program designed to save the American economic system from collapsing into the extremism of Socialism and Communism. During the height of the Great Depression, with unemployment soaring past 20%. And yes, FDR recognized that widespread economic desperation was a breeding ground for social unrest.

He feared that if the federal government did not act decisively to get Americans back to work, citizens might turn to radical political alternatives like state-sponsored Socialism or Communism. So, instead of seeking to destroy American Capitalism, FDR argued that his New Deal was its savior.

By introducing federal jobs programs, stabilizing the banking sector, and establishing a social safety net, his administration aimed to fix the structural flaws of the free market so that authoritarian ideologies would lose their appeal. He did that because he knew that Socialism and Communism, and their totalitarian state control on the lives of those under such systems, would mean the end of our freedoms and nation as we know it.

Too bad Democrats today aren't more like FDR.

Tom Correa

Are Colleges And Universities A Scam?

Democrat Socialists who took out huge student loans want to be bailed out of their student debt. I figure they must be Democrat Socialists because somehow they think it is the responsibility of American taxpayers to bail them out after they bought into the College scam that says "Everyone should go to College." And worst, they bought into the College scam that says even a worthless degree in Liberal Arts will be a benefit when looking for a job.

Sadly, they either listened to their high-paid teachers in College or their Leftist professors in Universities who are making big salaries -- those who push useless degrees. And what did they get for listening to the Leftist teachers or the Communism-promoting University professor besides being up to the neck in debt, they are the proud holder of a useless College degree. 

For the record, degrees that are labeled as "useless" are considered "high-risk" by employment analysts because they don't offer a path to getting a job. Degrees becomes "useless" when they are lousy investments and have no employment value. 

They come with high debt load since students, and their families, borrow tens of thousands of dollars for a career path that pays entry-level low wages and positions that don't require College degrees. Useless degrees are worthless because they lack hard skills. Students in those majors lack the training in modern workplace tools like data analysis, coding, or financial software.

But most of all, those useless degrees as seen as scams because they have no clear path of returning one's investment. So instead of pursuing a degree as way to succeed in life, gullible students are scammed into treating college as a general experience rather than a targeted professional launchpad. That's why those degrees, typically degrees in humanities, social sciences, and fine arts, are useless, worthless to the working world, and seen as scams designed to bilk kids out of their money. 

Examples of degrees that are considered "useless": 

• Gender and Women’s Studies degree holders have very few entry-level jobs available that require this specific credential. 
• Ethnic and Civilization Studies degree holders, including degrees in Black History or Chicano Studies, does not lead to employment because of a lack of technical training or direct corporate pipelines to find job placement. 
• Interdisciplinary Studies degree holders find that they were not trained for a clear profession. 
• Art History and Fine Arts degree holders suffers from high underemployment rates, often exceeding 50%. So half of all of these degree holders are unemployable when using the degree that they spent tens of thousands of dollars to get.
• Studio Arts degree holders have high tuition costs with a job market that values a personal portfolio over a formal diploma.
• Theater and Dance degree holder will find themselves in an extremely competitive fields where practical auditions matter more than classroom hours or how much money they spend on their worthless degree.
• Performing Arts and Drama degree holders put out an enormous amount of money and spend many years pursuing degrees that won't matter -- especially when seeking corporate employment. 
• Philosophy and Creative Writing degree holders aren't employable because those degrees are used in the technical job market and often require graduate school to see a financial return. 
• Anthropology and Archaeology degree holders rank high in post-graduation unemployment and underemployment surveys. 
• Sociology degree holders often lead to jobs in the public-sector or entry-level administrative roles with lower pay. 
• General Psychology Bachelor's degree, they won't find practical career placement in counseling or research until the get a Master's or Doctoral degree.

Understanding the above situation regarding the unemployability of those degrees is important since I was contacted by a University professor about degrees and their employment value. At least he said he was a professor, though he did not say where he teaches. 

He wrote to tell me saying, "Educators genuinely believe Universities are for intellectual growth and personal enrichment, not just a gateway to a job. No, they are not scamming anyone. Promises of employment are not made. Employment upon graduation is not ensured. The traditional view of educators at the College and University level is to emphasize critical thinking, have civic engagement, and experience a sense of lifelong learning, over mere vocational training."

Believe it or not, there are faculty members and administrators dedicated to that way of thinking. The problem that I have with it is that is goes against the realities faced by today's graduates who don't see such idealistic crap paying the rent or putting food on the table after they pay their student loans. The academic idea that "success is measured by personal growth and cultural enrichment, not starting salaries" does not pay one's bills.

Being pragmatic escapes such people as the professor who wrote me. Because of how high tuition costs are, and how student debt have interest attached to them, most families thinking about sending the kids to College or a University see a degree as an economic investment, as a stepping stone to making great money in the working world of reality. They expect a direct return on investment (ROI) via career placement and financial stability. Those expectations are not unreasonable.

It's said that Universities don't make explicit, legally binding contracts guaranteeing jobs, but their marketing materials frequently showcase high employment rates and successful alumni. 

This is why many people think that College and Universities are a "Scam." Maybe  not literal criminal scams, but they do promote a very expensive path to take while eluding to high employment rates in the marketing for students. Sure they downplay the risk of under-employment, but that's only after they have students hooked. This feels like a very deceptive way of doing business -- especially considering students will be faced with decades of debt payments.

Of course, while traditional Universities are more or less legitimate institutions that look like they are running scams, there are fraudsters are out there scamming students with all sorts of fake tactics. Besides the standard false claim scam that Colleges and Universities are running by saying that Liberal Arts degrees and Social Science degrees are in demand somewhere, there are scammers posing as the University financial aid offices and bank representative demanding immediate payments or offering fake grants. These impostor scams go after the know-it-all students who "trust without verifying" anything -- and end up being cheated out of even more money. 

As for the student housing and fake scholarship scams? Yes, there are also the bogus housing and scholarship scams out there. Scammers post fake rental listings to target incoming students. Scammers also post fake scholarship programs that charge upfront fees to "claim" winnings. Sadly, not-so-bright students fall for both and are too quick to call their parents to get the money to "claim" their winnings.

 
As for the predatory "scam" schools, they are out there. While they used to be seen as only the "unaccredited" or "low-quality for-profit online programs" that take federal student aid while delivering little educational value, now their tactics are said to be used by Colleges and accredited Universities that are also too willing to scam not-so-bright students out of their cash.

So, if you think Colleges and Universities are scams, that really depends on how you view spending your money on a useless degree. Because of rising costs, something referred to as "administrative bloat," and low job placement for certain degrees, modern higher education looks like a scam. And worse, it's a financial trap for many students who are too ignorant to stay away from taking out loans they can't afford.

And yes, people call College a scam because the cost to attend has outpaced starting salaries of graduates. That's part of the reason many graduates have heavy student debt and poor job prospects. 

Average public university costs exceed $30,000 per year, while private universities can cost up to $90,000 annually. This leads to massive student loan debt that can take decades to repay. To me, what Colleges and Universities are doing smells of a con game that has been going on for years. Frankly, the con game is never-ending.

College tuition has increased by over 200% since the 1990s while starting pay for graduates has grown by only 16%. So, students who are not-smart-enough to know that you don't borrow tens of thousands of dollars that you can't afford to pay back, put themselves in a deeper hole by taking out more loans.

For some reason, there are lots of College students who might be too ignorant or just plain lacking experience and wisdom to understand that the loans they took out are huge and will weight them down for years to come. In fact, since those loans came with high interest rates, students don't seem to understand that they cannot be easily cleared. 

And yes, there are the "extras" such as luxury dorms, gyms, and campus parks that do not improve a student's career path. It's called "Administrative Bloat." If this were a con game, this is when the con artists' associates show up. 

College administrations put out cash to associates in the "Administration Bloat" phase of their operation. In fact, "Administration Bloat" is built into their system. It is when tuition money goes toward everything else but a student's education. Imagine that. For example, it's when tuition funds goes toward those "extras" in the form of luxury amenities, sports complexes, and "large non-faculty staff salaries" rather than direct academic instruction. 

It's the way most old fashion con games work. All of those people involved in "Administration Bloat" have roles that someone might say makes them look a lot like "shills" in a con game. 

While I'm not saying they are, the people running the luxury accommodations, the folks who operate the sports facilities for students, and even those "non-staff" members who are getting paid large salaries, seem to all be getting a piece of the action. Just as in most old fashion con games, it's traditional for all of the shills involved with helping the con artist take the suckers for everything they have -- gets paid. What's known as a "taste" of the haul. 

Remember, a shill is important to making the con game work because they make the victim feel good about the experience. As I said, one could make the case that by providing students who are already heavily in debt with such things as a sports complex is one way of taking their mind off how much of their tuition money may be going to "extras" that they can financially do without.  

A shill is an accomplice to a con artist. They are the con artist's cohorts who usually pretends to be an ordinary outsider. They are part of the scam to trick others. They are there to help the victim, also known as the "mark" or the "sucker," believe that he or she isn't being scammed when in reality they are. 

A shill is planted in the scheme to bilk people out of cash. The shill acts like an independent buyer, a player, or audience member. They act as an outsider when in fact they are working directly with the con artist. 

In Carnivals, a shill is someone planted in the crowd. He or she pretends to win the rigged Carnival game. They help set the trap. They use crowd psychology to make victims feel good about losing their money. 

And come to think about it, can Liberal Arts professors who know that they are teaching classes for degrees that won't benefit their students be considered shills for working with a University that's scamming students? If College or University teachers and professors know that his or her school is taking advantage of naive students who keep taking out student loans, and getting further and further into debt, just to get a degree that may not help them in the future, if not a shill, what part of the scam are those teachers or professors playing? 

In the age old "shell game," the "shell" in a con artist's shell game refers to the con artist using three walnut shell halves to hide a pea or small ball. A shill is an accomplice who pretends to be a winning bystander. The shill is their to help keep the victims interested in the game by showing him how easy it is to win.

We know that College and University marketing staff members work for the schools to lure students. Some might say they are shills to keep students in the game -- even though they know that their high employment claims after graduation with Liberal Arts degrees are lies. Modern online marketing is notorious for using shills as online reviewers and influencers who secretly gets paid to promote a product while pretending to be neutral. That's why product reviews are untrustworthy.

Though it might have been the case once upon a time, today a College diploma no longer guarantees a high-paying job or career security unless it's a technical degree such as in Engineering or a degree in the Medical field. Because of this, some people say many graduates who were scammed into pursuing worthless Liberal Arts degrees, end up in low-skilled jobs that in most cases don't even require a degree.

Of course the question that's never answered is a simple one that has to do with integrity on the part of the Colleges and Universities. That question is this: "Why would a College or University allow students go into huge debt to pursue worthless degrees when the schools know full-well that there are little to no jobs for those degrees?"

The simple answer is that they don't care and want the money. Caring about how deep students go into debt is not their concern. Their concern is making money to support their scam.

Integrity says they should be honest, and say its because Liberal Arts degrees are an easy scam. Other than salaries, the fact is that Liberal Arts programs don't take much money to run. Liberal Arts classes don't need the expensive labs and machines that Science or Engineering classes need. That makes Liberal Arts cheap for schools to offer. 

Like the con artist and his shell game, all he needs are three walnut shells and a pea to run his con game. It's very cheap to run and the "marks" always lose. That's why they are called "suckers."

Of course, Liberal Arts graduates, unlike Nursing or Engineering graduates, often find that they need extra training, internships, or networking to find good roles because job prospects are so low. And yes, that's part of the reasons why some people view College as a risky financial bet rather than a guaranteed investment.

While a degree is essential for specialized fields like Engineering or Medicine, poor student choices and low-value majors are still being taken by students who are scammed into pursuing those worthless degrees. 

So why would people call College a "Scam?" Besides tuition prices are outpacing wage growth, leaving many students with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt that takes decades to pay off, there is a low return on the investment (ROI) in some Majors, and a lot of graduates struggle to find good-paying jobs in their field of study. 

The fact that a lot of graduates struggle to find good-paying jobs in their field of study after getting deep in debt after spending many years in College, that is the reason that some people think College is a scam.

I understand that University marketing and admissions offices focus on recruitment and making promotional promises, but why don't Colleges and Universities have the integrity to stop students from making mistakes with their lives? Why don't their career counselors explain to them that their useless degree will only add them to the huge number of underemployed "College Grads" with worthless degrees?

It is a massive financial commitment for families putting their kids through College. And frankly speaking, knowing that your school's graduates are entering the real world with heavy debt and few job prospects looks like dishonesty on the part of the College or University. The fact that they do not intervene has to make folks believe that they are scamming students because of the financial incentive to be dishonest.

Is it all simply about securing funding, about making money? While that is sort of ironic considering these are institutions that are indoctrinating students to want Socialism and Communism, and subsequently everything for free, Colleges operate like businesses that rely heavily on tuition dollars to fund campus operations, administrative salaries, all of the "extras," and of course high-paid facility members.

Academic departments must maintain minimum student counts to secure funding, keep their majors alive, and prevent faculty layoffs. While it sounds like they run their Leftist institutions like free-market Capitalism, does any of that justify a scam to bilk students out of thousands of dollars? It seems to me that Colleges and Universities apparently believe it does.

Why? Money! Faculties make big money. University pay correlates directly with academic ranking, typically based on standard 9-month academic contracts. While actual salaries and yearly compensation packages fluctuate based on rank, institution type, and field of study, a Full Professor, that guy or gal who may be teaching his students to hate America and love Communism, makes an average of $160,000 a year. And yes, that can increase to up to $250,000+ at elite private Universities. Associate Professors make on average $106,000 a year. Assistant Professors make on average $92,000 a year. And yes, Lecturer / Instructors make $55,000 to $75,000 a year. 

Because the average full-time faculty salary across all ranks at accredited American Universities is $119,836 per year, a baseline tracked across higher education institutions by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), it is important for schools to pull in as many students as possible. That's a lot of "suckers" for con artists to hook in. That's a lot of ignorant students to get to buy into their lie that any degree is worth the tens of thousands of dollars that students end up paying in loans.  

While I may personally believe that Colleges and Universities are a scam, I have a hard time with the University professor who wrote to me to say that "Educators genuinely believe Universities are for intellectual growth and personal enrichment, not just a gateway to a job."

Maybe that's true for what used to be called "Career Students" who don't work and have either milked the system for all its worth in funding, bled their parents dry, or don't care about how much they owe in student loans because they didn't have any intention of paying it back anyway.

But for people who go to a College with the intention of being able to further themselves in their present job, or for people who go to a College with the intention of having a degree to help them move up the selection ladder for a position they are seeking, the idea of spending years of study only for "intellectual growth and personal enrichment, not just a gateway to a job" is bullshit. It's a a way of Colleges and Universities of attempting to justify their scam. But it doesn't pass muster.

Now, since I've talked about what are worthless and useless degrees to our society, fair is fair and here is a short example of degrees that are considered "valuable" to finding graduates great paying jobs:

• Medical Doctors (MDs) focus on human anatomy, physiology, and pathology. They diagnose illnesses, perform surgeries, and prescribe medications for people. Many train further in fields like pediatrics, cardiology, or neurology.
• Veterinarians (DVMs) study multiple species, including domestic pets, livestock, and wildlife. They must understand how different diseases affect various animals that cannot describe their own symptoms. They protect the human food supply by inspecting livestock and preventing animal-to-human diseases (zoonosis). They contribute heavily to biomedical research, vaccine development, and pharmacology. They are heavy sought after because there is a shortage of Veterinarians in America today.
• Inspection Technology graduates are critical to public safety, quality control, and regulatory compliance across major industries. They bridge the gap between engineering designs and real-world execution. They are needed in the Aerospace, Oil & Gas, Construction, and Manufacturing industries, and for Infrastructure Inspection. Using NDT (Non-Destructive Testing), their regulatory knowledge and deep understanding of OSHA, ASME, and AWS codes, Advanced Tooling, and Risk Mitigation, graduates often secure lucrative roles quickly due to niche technical skill shortages.
• Metallurgical Engineers and Material Scientists are critical to modern society because almost every physical product relies on advanced metals and alloys. From smartphones to spaceships, their expertise directly drives technological innovation. Graduates are highly sought after.
• Agriculture degrees are exceptionally valuable because modern farming, food production, and environmental management rely heavily on advanced science and technology.
  
• Chemistry degrees hold high value because they build strong technical, analytical, and problem-solving skills applicable across diverse, high-growth industries. Graduates work as laboratory technicians, quality control analysts, or chemical manufacturing associates. Higher-level research and academic positions often require a master’s degree or a Ph.D. Mid-career pay often exceeds general averages, reaching strong earnings.
• Chemical Engineers work in pharmaceuticals, energy, semiconductors, food production, and environmental protection. Degree holders are very valuable because they offer high earning potential and flexible career paths across multiple major industries.
• Civil Engineers design and build public works like roads, bridges, and water systems. They need at least a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering to find great employment.
• Mechanical Engineers build and test mechanical devices, thermal sensors, and engines. A bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering is mandatory.
• Electrical Engineers plan complex electrical systems for buildings, grids, and technology. They require a dedicated engineering degree. 
• Environmental Engineers solve ecological problems concerning waste, pollution, and public health. They must hold an undergraduate degree in an environmental or civil engineering field.
• Registered Nurses (RN) provide direct patient care and manage medical treatments. They need an Associate degree or a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) plus a state license. 
• Nurse Practitioners (NP) diagnose illnesses, order tests, and prescribe medication autonomously. They require an advanced master's or doctoral nursing degree. 
• Nurse Midwives deliver specialized reproductive and postpartum care to women. They require graduate-level clinical training and a postgraduate nursing degree.
• Accountant / CPA analyzes financial records and prepare taxes. You need a bachelor's degree in accounting or a related field.
• Actuary assess financial risks using math and statistics. Most workers hold a bachelor's degree in an analytical subject like mathematics. 
• Pharmacist dispenses prescription medicines and advise patients on drug safety. This role requires a specialized Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) degree.
• Occupational Therapists degree holder help patients recover daily life skills after an injury or illness. In most states, you need a state license to practice.
• Registered Dietitian plans medical nutrition therapy and food programs for patients. You must complete a bachelor's degree in nutrition and dietetics plus supervised practice.

Of course, there are folks who are returning to Vocational Trade Schools which I whole heartedly support. And yes, not falling for the College and University scam is also why people are looking at alternatives such as learning specific technical skills online at a very low cost without attending a University. Students who want to earn money get technical degrees and find great paying jobs. Those that do are smart enough not to accept the scam that everyone has to go to College. 

Tom Correa

Denmark, Sweden, and Norway's Nordic Model Is Anti-Socialism

Younger generations of ignorant Democrats view Socialist ideas as more favorable than older generations of Americans who understand that Socialism is just Communism with lipstick.

Older Americans grew up during the Cold War and are educated to understand that Socialism is the last step before a nation is controlled by full-blown authoritarian Communism. Unlike young Democrats, older Americans are not ignorant of history and rightfully associate "Socialism" with the Soviet Union and authoritarian Communism.

Older Americans understand that Socialist policies have historically lead to oppression, the elimination of freedom, liberty, and personal autonomy. They've seen Socialist government overreach, the economic stagnation of Socialist countries, the hardship, the empty store shelves, the people standing in long lines to buy bread, the death and defeated people of those nations. Educated Americans understand that there's no difference between Socialism's heavy handed state control and Communist oppression, authoritarianism, and how people become slaves to the state under such forms of government.

Generational differences are stark. Older Americans see Socialism from the lens of seeing the horrors of Socialism and Communism in China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union all first hand. This versus that of young Democrats who have been indoctrinated into loving such a slave system by snake oil salesmen like Bernie Sanders, leftist teachers, and wealthy celebrities who are not very bright.

The word "Socialism" is used today to attract young Democrats who think something called "Socialism" means free stuff. 

Historically, Germany's National Socialist German Workers' Party, also known as the Nazi Party, used the word "Socialist" in its name to attract working-class voters. Yes, the same thing that the Democrat Socialists are doing today. Of coarse, today, the goal for Democrat Socialists is to transition America from a wealth creating  nation into a state of shared poverty -- a land suited for the Democrat Left, the lazy, the ignorant, those with absolutely no drive to get ahead, those who demand to be cared for, those who want lives of dependency on the state. 

The use of the term "Socialism" among younger Democrats reflects a significant shift in political language and generational values. Modern polling shows that younger Democrats view the word more favorably than older Americans for good reasons. Most young Democrats associate "Socialism" with "Democratic Socialism" and they will tell you that the Nordic Model works. 

They claim the Nordic Model system offers universal healthcare, free college, and stronger labor protections. They say it is a prime example of "Democratic Socialism." Their problem is that they have no idea what they are talking about. And yes, even the nations that are practicing the Nordic Model have come out to dispute what Democrats are saying. Those nations disavow any connections to radical "Democratic Socialism." So yes, we're being lied to. But I'll get to that in a minute. 

What Democrat Socialists are doing is trying to rebrand "Socialism" to make it easier to swallow. That is what today's young Democrats, those who adore Communism, are all about. Both they and Democrat politicians use the label "Democratic Socialism" to show their dissatisfaction with our Democratic form of government, our Republic as a whole, and our free-market Capitalism. 

They say "Socialism" will work if "everyone" is forced to be onboard with it. Their idea is an old one. Their idea is that "everyone" has to be on the 'Socialist" page to make it work. Yes, including using the policy of "Forced Collectivization." Forced Collectivism is a government policy that abolishes private property and forces individuals into government-controlled group ownership and labor. Today, young Democrats are relabeling government-controlled group ownership as "Democratic Socialism." 

Historically, Socialist/Communist nations used "Forced Collectivization" to consolidate private farms into government-run collective units. It failed badly and resulted in severe economic disruption and immense human cost. It originate in the Soviet Union when they implementation the policy under Joseph Stalin. He instituted "forced collectivization." 

Private family farms were ended and merged into large "Collective Farms"  called "Kolkhozy" and government-run farms called "Sovkhozes". The government then targeted landowning "peasants." The government outlawed private property for the "good of the collective," and through arrests, land confiscations, forced deportations to work camps and prisons, and executions, the Socialists eliminated opposition to their policy.

What it resulted in would make anyone who believes in Karma, stand up and applaud. Socialist agricultural declined drastically. Because the Socialists either  deported the farmers to work camps and prisons or executed them, the loss of those experienced farmers, those who actually knew what they were doing and not political theorists who didn't known their ass from a hole in the ground, there was a catastrophic drops in farm productivity -- which resulted in widespread famines. 

Government controls failed drastically and output of food was almost nonexistent. Soon, the government imposed quotas and below-market fixed pricing to feed growing urban and industrial centers. Yes, this is why they had long lines for food before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their government mandated "Forced Collectivism" led to widespread starvation. 

 
Here's something else, the Socialists-Communists who came up with those Brainiac policies forced other Soviet-bloc Eastern European nations to do the same. They all used the same coercive systems across various Eastern Bloc and international Communist countries, and every one of those nations had horrible results including economic collapse and food scarcity. 

So yes, there are good reasons why older Americans who remember what took place not that many years ago, are now looking at the young Democrats today who are wanting Socialism so bad, and shaking their heads. Young Democrats are too ignorant of the past to understand the threat of what they want.  

For older Americans, their memories of what took place not that many years ago under Socialism and Communism have shaped their negative view of those two evils. It's because of what older Americans witnessed, that they understand why Socialism and Communism are the apex models of government overreach, high taxation, authoritarianism, oppression, loss of individual freedom, the loss of civil liberties, and the political repression that comes with Socialism. And yes, for those of us who lived through the Cold War era, Socialism is rightfully seen as a stepping stone to Communism.

While Millennial and Gen Z Democrats typically do not associate the word "Socialism" with Soviet-style Communism, they instead put lipstick on Socialism by referring to the same snake oil as "Democratic Socialism" or "Social Democracy" which they say is successful in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. 

But is that true? Do "Democratic Socialist" policies really work well in Capitalist countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, or is that just a scam? Are Americans being lied to in order to sell young Democrats on the lie that Socialism works?

The short answer is no. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are free-market Capitalist countries no different than the United States. But, they use extremely high taxes to fund very large social programs, a system known as "Social Democracy" or the "Nordic Model," rather than "Democratic Socialism."

Calling what those nations do, "Democratic Socialism," is a malicious lie. It is a tactic of purposefully mislabeling by Democrat politicians who refuse to accept that a Capitalist free-market system works better than state-controlled Socialism.

The Nordic Model is Anti-Socialism 

The Nordic Model is anti-Socialism and goes against everything Democrat Socialists are pushing for in America today. Democrats are using the example of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway to say "Democratic Socialism works in those nations." But that is an out and out lie.  

The policy of privatizing state monopolies, lowering top tax rates, and maintaining a universal basic social safety net is known as the Nordic Model. Specifically its modern, market-reform variant, is known as "Social Democracy." 

While historically associated with "Anti-Socialism," the Nordic Model preserves a welfare state while leveraging free-market Capitalism to pay for it. 

Denmark, Sweden, and Norway transitioned in the late 20th century by lowering corporate and top marginal income taxes and deregulating certain state industries such as telecommunications and transportation to increase their economic competitiveness. This enables them to retain universal health, education, and social insurance systems.

The nations using the Nordic Model rank very high on global indexes for economic freedom, private property rights, and ease of doing business in the private sector. Companies can hire and fire workers easily, which keeps businesses competitive. In return, the government taxes their people through the roof so that it can provide universal healthcare, parental leave, and subsidized education. 

How it's funded is not a secret. High broad Middle-Class taxes keep it going. Since services are not truly free, their working-class are taxed heavily. Those supposed "free programs" are paid for through heavy taxation of the Middle-Class. 

So let's look at that again, and talk about the things that Democrats don't want to talk about: 

The Nordic Model which Democrat Socialist keep pointing to as an example of making "Democratic Socialism" work, did not use the scam they are calling "Democratic Socialism." Instead, the Nordic Model works by using Capitalism, having high broad Middle-Class taxes, enacting lower corporate and top marginal income taxes, deregulated corporations. privatized state monopolies, lowered top tax rates, and maintains a universal basic social safety net by leveraging free-market Capitalism to pay for it.  That's completely Anti-Socialism and goes against everything the Left is promoting today. 

Imagine trying to sell a system that depends on High Middle-Class taxes to keep it going? No wonder the Democrat Socialists are lying to us. 

Unlike the United States where the wealthy pay the bulk of our taxes, in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, under the Nordic Model, their Middle-Class contribute the bulk of the taxes. In fact, their Middle-Income workers and their consumption taxes (like VAT tax) pay the bulk of their tax burden. Rather than just taxing wealthy corporations and "the rich," they go after their Middle-Class. That would never fly in the United States. 

So, we know that the Nordic Model is a free-market regulated Capitalism system, and not a successful example of "Democratic Socialism." Leaders in Denmark and Norway have stated publicly that their economies are market-driven Capitalist systems, not Socialist economies.

While "Democratic Socialism" aims to replace or dismantle private ownership of major industries in favor of government or worker control entities, yes, another step toward full-blown Communism, the Nordic Model uses wealth generated by private capitalism to fund public services and help the vulnerable. 

As for Sweden specifically? That nation reformed its economy heavily following a major financial crisis in the early 1990s. It reduced public spending relative to GDP, privatized certain state monopolies, and lowered top tax rates while maintaining universal basic social insurance.

As for the "Third Way," also called "Right-Social Democracy." This system was popularized in the 1990s. It is a political philosophy that explicitly rejects State-Socialism. It embraced privatization and market efficiency while using the tax base to fund universal public goods. 

And here's something else that I found interesting, historically, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced the world's first universal social insurance plans in the 1880s specifically as an "Anti-Socialist Strategy." His goal was to offer workers security under a Capitalist framework to kill the political appeal of Communist and Socialist revolutions. 

Tom Correa

 

From Socializing To Killing Each Other: The Gunfight At The O.K. Corral

Ike Clanton

Some say the famous feud between the Clanton gang and the Earp clan was more about a local, bitter clash over political power, business control, and hate for each other. But was it? Frankly, I don't know about that.

Most of the people who I've known have acted the same way when it's come to dealing with people that they don't like. For the most part, they stay away from them. I know for myself, the last thing that I want to do is associate with or socialize with people that I really don't care for.

 
Professional obligations and working with others often requires us to be civil with individuals we personally dislike. As for social circles, that's a different story. I don't like some people and I hate having to tolerate them just because we have mutual friends or a family connection. I'm polite. At least I try to be. But, even though I like a good joke, and love to talk about history and politics, when I have to deal with a person that I don't like -- I don't say much at all.

So what does any of that about how people deal with people who they don't like have to do with the gunfight near the O.K. Corral?

Well, on October 25, 1881, the night before the now famous shootout in the vacant lot near the O.K. Corral, whilst Ike Clanton was in Tombstone, a very drunk and very loud Doc Holliday accused Clanton of lying about the Benson stagecoach robbery. Holliday didn't like being implicated in that robbery. Luckily for Ike that Tombstone City Marshal Virgil Earp was on hand. He intervened and threatened to arrest both Doc and Ike if they did not stop arguing.

Right after that, with Wyatt's help, Doc Holliday went home. The fact is that after the confrontation with Ike Clanton, Wyatt Earp took his friend Doc Holliday back to his boarding house at Camillus Sidney "Buck" Fly's Lodging House to sleep off his drinking. Then, Wyatt went home and to bed.

From that evening to dawn, four people who supposedly hated each other, socialized and drank together over cards. It's true. As hard as it is for me to understand how it played out, a group of people who history says hated each other spent the night together playing cards. As crazy as it sounds, Virgil Earp played cards with Ike Clanton, Tom McLaury, Cochise County Sheriff Johnny Behan, and a fifth man (unknown to history), until the early morning. 

At about dawn on October 26, the card game broke up and Behan and Virgil Earp went home to bed. Ike Clanton testified later that he saw Virgil take his six-shooter off of his lap and stick it in his pants when the game ended.

So on the morning of October 26th, 1881, a loud-mouthed Ike Clanton was boasting about what he was going to do to the Earps "one of these days." He was fully armed, and shouting threats against the Earps.

Let's look at this again, from late that previous night to that morning, Ike Clanton was drinking and socializing and playing cards with Tombstone City Marshal Virgil Earp, Cochise County Sheriff Johnny Behan, Tom McLaury, and a fifth unidentified man in the back room of Tombstone's Occidental Saloon until early that morning. That's true.

And please, think about that. From the way they acted on the night and early morning before the shootout, I don't know if anyone can honestly say that these were people who hated each other so much that they stayed away from each other.

Staying away from the people who I don't like serves as a way for me to maintain my personal peace of mind. Of course, in my professional life, I've had to treat people with common courtesy and be polite even though I didn't like them. It's not being a fake, it's just having good manners. It's just being raised right. 

These weren't people who were placed in a professional situation where they had to endure each others company for the sake of a job or a project or some other pursuit. And no, these weren't enemies who avoided each other as I would have expected them to do. 

In 1881, Tombstone had 110 active liquor licenses and drinking establishments to serve miners and visitors. That town had 14 dedicated gambling halls, alongside many saloons that also offered card games and gaming tables. So no, it wasn't as if they couldn't find a card game anywhere else. 

They volunteered to sit down and enjoy a night of playing cards together. That's not how people act who hate each other. Yet, the Clantons and Earps are said to have been bitter enemies. If so, why were they drinking and socializing and playing cards together all night long on the night before they had their gunfight? 

That was the reality of what took place. Despite their sharp divides, their supposed lawmen versus outlaw dynamic, taking into consideration all of the backroom deals and betrayals, all of the earlier threats made by the each group against the other, these supposed enemies sat together socializing, drinking together, and gambled in the same card game for hours throughout the night. 

That's what took place the night and early morning before the gunfight in that vacant lot near the O.K. Corral. They associated with each other socially. And yes, I find that incredible.

It's said Ike Clanton's tension started as the game went on and he lost a lot of money. He supposedly grew agitated as he lost money. Here's a bulletin for anyone who has never sat in on a game of cards expecting to win, but the cards didn't come your way and you end up losing. Losing will agitate you. In fact, it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that someone would get agitated over losing money all night. 

He later testified that when the game broke up around dawn, he noticed Virgil remove a six-shooter from his lap and tuck it into his pants. So, let's take a minute to talk about Tombstone City Marshal Virgil Earp sitting there playing cards with a pistol on his lap. Frankly, it shouldn't have surprised him or anyone else that Virgil took his pistol out of his waistband and put it on his lap during the game -- or when it started.  

Let's remember that Virgil Earp carried his pistol tucked into his waistband rather than wearing a traditional holster during the gunfight near the O.K. Corral. He didn't wear a holster. In fact, very few men in Old West towns actually wore holster rigs during everyday town business.  

Just like his brother Wyatt, who kept his revolver in an overcoat pocket, Virgil typically tucked his personal sidearm which is believed to be a Smith & Wesson revolver, into his waistband. I'm sure sitting there with a pistol in your waistband gets uncomfortable after a while. So no, it shouldn't shock anyone, including Ike that morning, that Virgil took his pistol out of his waistband and placed it on his lap while playing cards. 

But, it was after Ike noticed Virgil remove a six-shooter from his lap and tuck it into his pants, that a still drunk Ike Clanton is said to have become paranoid and started brandishing a rifle and making threats that morning. It was then, when Ike Clanton started running his mouth. It was after their card game had ended, later that morning that Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral where he had stabled his wagon and team. He deposited his weapons after entering town just as the Tombstone City Ordinance required him to do. 

By noon that day, Ike was drinking again and he was armed. It was then that he told others he was looking for Holliday or an Earp. 

At about 1:00 pm, Virgil and Morgan Earp surprised Ike on 4th Street where Virgil buffaloed (pistol-whipped) him from behind. Disarming him, Virgil and Morgan took Ike to appear before Judge Wallace for violating the city's ordinance against carrying firearms in the city. Virgil went to find Judge Wallace so the court hearing could be held.

Ike reported in his testimony afterward that Wyatt Earp cursed him. He said Wyatt, Virgil and Morgan offered him his rifle and to fight him right there in the courthouse. He said he declined. Ike also denied ever threatening the Earps. Ike was fined $25 plus court costs and after paying the fine left unarmed.

Virgil told Ike that he would leave his confiscated rifle and revolver at the Grand Hotel which was favored by Clantons when they were in town. And yes, that answers why Ike was not armed at the shootout. In fact, later Ike testified that he picked up his guns from William Soule, the jailer, a couple of days later after the shootout. 

So while this tells us what some of the key players of the whole "gunfight at the O.K. Corral" was doing the night before their 30-second shootout, it doesn't tell how these men went from playing cards all night, socializing, and drinking together all night and into the morning, to trying to kill each other later that day. 

I think most people naturally choose to avoid spending time or associating with individuals they do not like. For me, it's definitely about avoiding conflict. And really, it saves us from a lot of unneeded drama and keeps our daily stress levels low if we don't socialize with people who we don't like. That's probably why people prefer being around those who share similar values and views. 

That's why this is so surprising to me. As I said before, from the way they acted on the night and early morning before the shootout, I don't know if anyone can honestly say that these were people who hated each other so much that they stayed away from each other. These people didn't act like they hated each other, yet they shoot it out later that day. Imagine that. 

Tom Correa