Leftist social programs haven't worked, and won't


Unfortunately, like the recent gun control debate, immigration and control of our national borders has lost its sense of common sense, truth, and pragmatic solutions. Instead the American left is focused on generation emotional outrage, public shaming, ethnic division, and victimhood mentality in their propaganda campaign to rally voters to the mid-term elections.

Even more disgusting is the use of children who are being used by political activists, indoctrinated by their parents and teachers to become leftist ideologues. I believe that is morally unacceptable to use children as political pawns, pushing ideas they don’t fully comprehend, and raising them to become clones such as themselves.

In the parts of Africa and Asia, children are drafted as child soldiers. In the Middle East, suicide bombers and human shields protecting ISIS fighters. In Gaza, young babies have been carried directly into the line of combat between Hamas and Israelis.

And here in the USA, to witness rioting or marching with radicals carrying posters with malicious writing and chanting filthy malicious slogans. 

Now we have migrants putting unaccompanied children into buses, trucks, trains, endangering their own children in an attempt to illegally breach American borders. 

I myself am a “second generation” American — both of my grandparents were born in Europe. It should be remembered that up to and until the LSD-marred 1960s, U.S. immigration policy was based on two very important and fundamental principles. First, quotas were determined by the economic needs of the country, not on the various needs of the immigrants. So in times of prosperity and low unemployment, it made sense to allow young families to migrate into our country.

Secondly, family “chain migration” was tempered by the fact that their families had to “sponsor them.” In so many words, that meant that either they would provide a means of employment, and/or promised that their relatives — young or old — would avoid seeking government (taxpayer) assistance or social services.

It was eccentric liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy and his party that destroyed these foundational and sensible concepts in their attempt at racial reintegration. Now emigrants believe they have the right to choose a new homeland whether or not they are welcomed, and “shop” various countries to see which ones offer them the most taxpayer-funded social services.

Many present-day tired, poor, huddled migrants now expect government support and subsidies, and no longer feel the least bit stigmatized being dependents of their homelands. 

Fortunately, there are millions of patriotic Americans who don’t feel guilty about being nationalistic or enforcing control of our national borders. And a great majority wants to limit the time and amount of social services provided to these newcomers. We understand the concept and believe in American exceptionalism, knowing that our country was created by an enlightened group of polymaths, and formed by a political philosophy, which respects human rights, supports representative government, free enterprise, and the rule of law.

How is it possible that after decades of purposeful effort, the left still manages to divide us on the issues of race, gender and class? How is it that liberals have never taken responsibility for the many failures of welfare to have actually improved the lives of the very people that they profess to represent? Where is the scientifically researched, neutral fact, statistical evidence that any of their social agendas or welfare policies have actually been successful?

They refuse to admit that many of their applied domestic policies have resulted in failure, a shocking example of being a welfare system whose most noticeable achievement has been the growing destruction of the two-parent family among black, Hispanic and white racial groups. Their continuing endorsement of single parenthood, one income, half families, has caused havoc in our inner cities, and has now spread into both suburban and rural America.

Children born into such circumstances are oppressed by poverty, poor living conditions, imbalanced parental guidance, and statistically suffer much greater rates of serious emotional disturbance.

The fact remains that neither European nor American socialists have any sensible solutions on how to manage or make productive healthy work-age citizens who take more than they contribute to their countries. They refuse to address the bad lifestyle choices, lack of education and trade skills, of people which neither benefit themselves or their societies.

Liberals have touted the success of their welfare programs on the growing numbers of people who are now dependent on them.

Conservatives wish to create a system that removes healthy people from welfare and into the work force. If we accept the idea of a basic living standard for our citizens, what should those whose productive wealth is confiscated to pay for these programs expect of its recipients in return? 

What should be their responsibility toward us, and contribution to our society? What should taxpayers demand of the government agencies whose role is to implement, cost, monitor, analyze and evaluate the success — or lack thereof — of such programs?

Here in the United States, liberals have constructed a tax system that punishes (with increased taxation) most productive effort, and a welfare system that generally rewards negative behavior.

Does anybody truly believe that the economic gap between rich and poor is actually lower in Russia or China? The concept that there is any “moral equivalency” between democratic states and totalitarian societies controlled by elitist one-party rule and/or the cult of personality is yet another example of skewed liberal rationale, which in two words can be summed up as “seriously flawed.”

Lou DeHolczer,