As Venezuela's disaster worsens, detailed NY Times story avoids mentioning socialism as cause
What happens when a once-wealthy nation, with huge natural resources, ends up with a socialist government? Hillary, Bernie and the dems/liberals/"progressives" say the result would be great: paradise--total equality. Everything equally shared. Abundance for all. Yay!!
Really? Does any sane person really think Hillary would give up her luxurious lifestyle and share her vast wealth with the poor? Of course not: she'd declare that she had zero income, carefully omitting that her tax-free "foundation" was paying all her living expenses.
Clever, huh. "Foundations"--funded largely by foreign governments as a barely-disguised bribe of U.S. politicians--are a great thing to have if you're a senator or sec-state. Not so useful for us little people, but hey....
Back to the opening question: Since the crazy 48% of American voters are about to elect (with the help of 4% fraudulent votes) a second full-blown socialist as president, y'all might wanna see what socialism does to a country.
And fortunately you don't have to take my word for it. We don't need to guess, because we have an example going on right now in what used to be the richest country in South America.
Venezuela's predictable plunge into starvation and literal darkness is getting worse. There's so little food that people are ambushing food delivery trucks. Deliberate power cuts--ordered by the president but of course not imposed on him or his government supporters--have cut power to hospital operating rooms and respirators, literally killing patients.
Hospitals lack the funds to buy medicines, bandages, sheets. Government troops are killing starving people rioting for food.
Of course most Americans believe this is just a scare story created by republicans who oppose Hillary. Can't be true, because they haven't heard a word about it in the Mainstream Democrat Media. (And be honest: you haven't either.)
They naively believe that if something this awful were actually happening to an entire country, our media would be reporting it. But (with a couple of rare exceptions) the Democrat media haven't said much about Venezuela's problems. Gosh, why do you suppose that is?
Because most Democrats and Dem media outlets were very enthusiastic about Venezuela's socialist revolution. They think socialism, with its guaranteed government care, subsidized food and housing, equally shared wealth--is great. As does their presidential candidate.
So you can appreciate the media's dilemma: Pointing out the horrible, ghastly, deadly problems in Venezuela might make a few million voters wonder if perhaps socialism might not be quite as faaabulous as Hillary and the Dems make it sound.
In any case, in a rare break with peer pressure one mainstream media organ ran a piece on Venezuela's latest problems. Believe me, it's well worth your time to click the link and read the whole thing. Heart-wrenching stuff.
Of course the Times story doesn't blame socialism. Perish the thought! Any reporter or editor who blamed socialism would be thrown off the A-list for DC parties.
In fact, astonishingly, the article doesn't even mention socialism. The author notes that the politician who ran the first socialist government said "the country’s inability to provide for its people, and the state’s repression of the uprising, were the reasons Venezuela needed a socialist revolution." But that's it.
So what does the author think has caused their misery if not socialism? There's a line or two about "some economists think..." unspecified "policies" might have something to do with the problems, but quickly comes back to the normal party line that the evil U.S. has sabotaged their economy. While this might have resonated back in 1950, one wonders who could possibly be dumb enough to believe the Obama regime would want to sabotage a fellow socialist.
It's not really a surprise that even this rare media article doesn't put the blame where it belongs--on abysmally stupid socialist policies. Instead the author blames electricity shortages on a long-term drought that's cut hydroelectric output. Food shortages are blamed on a drastic drop in the government's oil income, due to the sharp drop in world oil prices that started about two years ago.
Thus even in reporting the disaster in Venezuela, the Times and other mainstream Dem media seek to protected its darlings--the emperor and his successor. And in so doing it's avoided educating American college students--because according to several polls a majority of American college students believe socialism is better than capitalism.
Finally, given the historic tradition of American presidents to give billions of dollars of aid to any nation anywhere in the world that's been hit by disaster, you might wonder why the emperor hasn't sent megatons of food and a few billion dollars to help Venezuelans. I think the answer is that because this disaster was caused by dumb-ass socialist policies, the emperor and Dems leaders don't want to get American voters thinking that their problems might have anything to do with the totally predictable results of socialism. Because Dems are pushing socialist policies very, very hard.
Really? Does any sane person really think Hillary would give up her luxurious lifestyle and share her vast wealth with the poor? Of course not: she'd declare that she had zero income, carefully omitting that her tax-free "foundation" was paying all her living expenses.
Clever, huh. "Foundations"--funded largely by foreign governments as a barely-disguised bribe of U.S. politicians--are a great thing to have if you're a senator or sec-state. Not so useful for us little people, but hey....
Back to the opening question: Since the crazy 48% of American voters are about to elect (with the help of 4% fraudulent votes) a second full-blown socialist as president, y'all might wanna see what socialism does to a country.
And fortunately you don't have to take my word for it. We don't need to guess, because we have an example going on right now in what used to be the richest country in South America.
Venezuela's predictable plunge into starvation and literal darkness is getting worse. There's so little food that people are ambushing food delivery trucks. Deliberate power cuts--ordered by the president but of course not imposed on him or his government supporters--have cut power to hospital operating rooms and respirators, literally killing patients.
Hospitals lack the funds to buy medicines, bandages, sheets. Government troops are killing starving people rioting for food.
Of course most Americans believe this is just a scare story created by republicans who oppose Hillary. Can't be true, because they haven't heard a word about it in the Mainstream Democrat Media. (And be honest: you haven't either.)
They naively believe that if something this awful were actually happening to an entire country, our media would be reporting it. But (with a couple of rare exceptions) the Democrat media haven't said much about Venezuela's problems. Gosh, why do you suppose that is?
Because most Democrats and Dem media outlets were very enthusiastic about Venezuela's socialist revolution. They think socialism, with its guaranteed government care, subsidized food and housing, equally shared wealth--is great. As does their presidential candidate.
So you can appreciate the media's dilemma: Pointing out the horrible, ghastly, deadly problems in Venezuela might make a few million voters wonder if perhaps socialism might not be quite as faaabulous as Hillary and the Dems make it sound.
In any case, in a rare break with peer pressure one mainstream media organ ran a piece on Venezuela's latest problems. Believe me, it's well worth your time to click the link and read the whole thing. Heart-wrenching stuff.
Of course the Times story doesn't blame socialism. Perish the thought! Any reporter or editor who blamed socialism would be thrown off the A-list for DC parties.
In fact, astonishingly, the article doesn't even mention socialism. The author notes that the politician who ran the first socialist government said "the country’s inability to provide for its people, and the state’s repression of the uprising, were the reasons Venezuela needed a socialist revolution." But that's it.
So what does the author think has caused their misery if not socialism? There's a line or two about "some economists think..." unspecified "policies" might have something to do with the problems, but quickly comes back to the normal party line that the evil U.S. has sabotaged their economy. While this might have resonated back in 1950, one wonders who could possibly be dumb enough to believe the Obama regime would want to sabotage a fellow socialist.
It's not really a surprise that even this rare media article doesn't put the blame where it belongs--on abysmally stupid socialist policies. Instead the author blames electricity shortages on a long-term drought that's cut hydroelectric output. Food shortages are blamed on a drastic drop in the government's oil income, due to the sharp drop in world oil prices that started about two years ago.
Thus even in reporting the disaster in Venezuela, the Times and other mainstream Dem media seek to protected its darlings--the emperor and his successor. And in so doing it's avoided educating American college students--because according to several polls a majority of American college students believe socialism is better than capitalism.
Finally, given the historic tradition of American presidents to give billions of dollars of aid to any nation anywhere in the world that's been hit by disaster, you might wonder why the emperor hasn't sent megatons of food and a few billion dollars to help Venezuelans. I think the answer is that because this disaster was caused by dumb-ass socialist policies, the emperor and Dems leaders don't want to get American voters thinking that their problems might have anything to do with the totally predictable results of socialism. Because Dems are pushing socialist policies very, very hard.
posted by SF at
9:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home