​To listen to the Democrat candidates for president , you'd think that our economy is in the tank and must be saved by an infusion of “Socialism”. Does anybody in their right mind really believe that garbage? The answer is “YES”, by some misinformed economic illiterates (mostly Millennial's) who by almost 50% think that socialism is the preferred system over capitalism.

This false conclusion shows us the deficiency in our educational system – students are graduating with a woeful ignorance of economics by being brain-washed by an oversupply of left-wing professors and school administrators. How else can you explain why so many people are wanting to get rid of the economic system handed down by our founding fathers, that has rocketed the U.S.A. to be the pre-eminent economic power of the world.

Ole Bernie Sanders (and his cohorts Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris Beto O'Rourke etc.) is valiantly trying to promote his form of socialism as the alternative to our system of capitalism. He acts like he is running for a third grade class president instead of the president of the United States. He is promising all kinds of “freebies” for everyone (free college, paying off student debt, a government mandated $15 minimum wage, a government job for anyone unemployed, and the real killer, Medicare for all) in order to get votes, but he never says how he would pay for all this government largess. Even though socialism has never succeeded wherever it has been tried, he says he can make it work (maybe he needs Obama's magic wand). Is this a case of ole Bernie using rose-colored glasses or is he just ignorant of basic economics?

Well, what is the definition of Bernie's socialism - “Socialism requires the intervention and control of the marketplace by an overwhelmingly centralized government. It penalizes high achievers, rewards laziness, and stifles choice. Incentives for people to succeed financially is scrapped under this economic system”. In the words of Sir Winston Churchill, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”.
Touche!

The “Democrat Socialists” (as Bernie likes to label himself) never point out the most recent failures of Socialism in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and most of the African and Muslim countries. All are classified as economic “basket cases”, and most all are ruled by vicious dictators who have been robbing their countries treasuries while many of their citizens are poor and starving. That fact points up the fallacy of the socialist system as compared to the modern up-to-date countries that espouse capitalism.

So, when some of these brain-washed heads full of mush try to convince you of the benefits of socialism, just mention the facts listed in this article. It might be an exercise in futility as many of them are blinded to the facts by their loony liberal ideology, but might be worth a shot.

Conservative Commentary by Chuck Lehmann

According to government statistics, we have an unemployment rate of 3.6% (that's equivalent of full employment), but many jobs are gone wanting for people to fill them. To add to this dichotomy, we have a rising homeless population that is increasing by the week, month, and year. Why is that happening?

Besides some people being lazy, as our headline infers, we have a growing population of addicts of alcohol, drugs, and opioids, generally people that are considered unemployable. It seems that our moral compass, as a nation, is being tested and, in many cases, turned by the wayside. Some people seem to be also addicted to the government's largess by getting “freebies” from the government in the form of welfare, and not having to work. An example is the trend in many of our states to legalize formerly bad and illegal behavior, specially the mind altering drug marijuana, claiming that it is a “benign” drug. In addition, our organized religions are under attack and ridiculed as being repressive, and out-of-touch with the people. We are, in the words of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Defining Deviancy Down”, where with what used to be against the public interest and morality is now considered to be the norm. To add to Mounihan's admonition, pundit and legal historian, Mark Levin, has stated, “A people cannot remain free and civilized without moral purposes, constraints, and duties”. Just recently in the past few years, we've seen high government officials commit crimes and not be held accountable for their illegal acts (ex: Hillary Clinton and her illegal server when she was Secretary of State). That points to two-tier justice system whereby people in high places can get away with bad and illegal behavior, while the “average Joe” would be punished and possibly jailed.

Back around the 50's and early 60's, the out-of-wedlock births was around 5%. Since President Lydon Johnson's “War on Poverty” was passed in 1965, till today, the out-of-wedlock births are now 40% of the whole population, while in the black population it is around 70%. That statistic is a major problem in our society, and is one of the prime causes of homelessness and crime. This “do-gooder” policy, instead of reducing poverty actually has increased it by forcing the father (or male role model) out of the home in order for the woman to get welfare benefits. It has caused many people to become lazy and to rely on the government for their subsistence.

Our government should be pursuing a policy of giving people a “hand up” rather than a “hand out”. We should be encouraging people to get off the dole and to work, where possible, and not to rely on that government welfare check. We shouldn't reward people who are too lazy to work. For their own self-esteem and for the benefit of society, we must try to make them self-sufficient. We will always have poor people and also lazy people, that's human nature, but we should try to make it the exception rather than the rule. The government should be there as a safety net, not as crutch for people who are too lazy to work and who want to “suck on the teat” of Uncle Sam.
​
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Since the 1950's and '60's, and the rise of “feminism”, we've been told that businesses discriminate against women by paying them only 77¢ (Kamala Harris says 80¢) of what men earn in the marketplace. Is that charge true? Let's look at the facts.

At one time, most women were not employed in the workforce, to any great degree, as most were mainly housewives (homemakers), with some gaining employment as teachers, nurses, and store clerks. Since the 1950's, women have made their mark in the business world, and even today, now make up approximately 55% of the matriculating college students. So, what about that figure of 77¢, is it still valid today? The answer is a resounding “NO”, and here are some reasons why that figure of 77¢ is grossly misused by feminist groups and presidential wannabe's (like Kamala Harris), and by those with a decidedly liberal bent who profess that there is a “war on women” as practiced by the Republicans (this charge always seems to pop up around election time, looking to influence the woman's vote).

Economists have come up with an answer as to why you can't equate the pay of women and men without some insight as to why some women might earn less than men. One stubborn fact of the labor market argues against the idea, that women doing comparable work, make less than men. They (the economists) claim that there is a gender-hours gap, a close cousin of the gender-wage gap. The numbers showing that women make less than men don't take into
account the actual number of hours worked. And it turns out that women generally work fewer hours, on average, than men.

The Labor Department defines full-time work as 35 hours or more, and the “or more” is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female workers. More than 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week, are men. In other words, the famous gender-wage gap to a considerable degree is a gender-hours gap. The main reason that women are unlikely to be the richer sex (in terms of wage income) is obvious - children. Today, childless 20's and 30's something women do earn as much or even more than their male peers. But, they are most likely to cut back their work hours after they have kids, giving men the hours and income advantage.

Another fact as to why some women don't make as much as men, is the fact that women make up 2/3 of America's part-time workforce, a fact concurred to by the Federal Reserve, which found that college educated women who were wives were opting out by mid-career, especially those with wealthy husbands.

This is not just a phenomenon by working American women, but women worldwide who make up the large majority of the part-time workforce, and surveys suggest that women, on the whole, want it that way.

Another aspect as to some wage difference between what men and women make in total income is the fact that today over 40% of American children are now being born to unmarried women (it's even over 70% for black women).

So when you hear some of the feminist groups complain that women make less than men, you must look at the whole picture and not just be misguided by emotional facts that a man's paycheck is bigger than a woman's paycheck, as there might be reasons other than wage
discrimination at work here, and that women are getting the short end of the stick. In most cases, it is not true and just a ploy by militant woman's advocates to gain acceptance by “low information” women, and to stir up the political pot.

If women were just as qualified as a man to do a job and a company could be able to pay less to woman, why would they hire a man for more money? That's why the claim that women are paid less just doesn't make sense.

So the answer to the headline question is “NO”, women, in general, do not earn less than men.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

The definition of those two words are as follows: “Disagreement” – a difference of opinion or dissent; “Disdain” – to look upon or treat with contempt, to despise or scorn someone or something. In politics there always will be disagreement, but in today's toxic political environment, the Democrats (and the “fake news” media) replace disagreement with disdain. The animus is so pervasive that no matter what President Trump might say or do, the Democrats will twist and turn what he says or does to make it look like he is the reincarnation of the devil.

Take the crisis at the border, any sane person with a calm and discerning disposition and half a brain, must realize that we, as a nation, cannot continue on this policy of letting hordes of illegal aliens into our country. But, what is the answer of the Democrats? They claim that President Trump has “manufactured” the crisis out of whole cloth, and that there isn't a crisis at all. Even Jeh Johnson, Obama's Homeland Security Director, has come out to declare that there really is a crisis at the border, thereby backing up what Trump and the Republicans have been saying. The Democrats have had the majority in the House of Representatives for over 120 days and still haven't come up with any legislation to address this problem, which they hypocritically claim they want to solve.

All parties, who are involved in trying to secure our border, the Border Patrol, I.C.E., and Homeland Security etc., all say that the situation at the border is out of control and must be addressed.

Because President Trump has made proposals to try to address this “invasion” of illegals, the Democrats, because of their “disdain” for the president, will not do the right thing and give the president a “win”. To the Democrats, giving the president a victory at the border would be antithetical to their attempts to impeach him or to beat him at the 2020 election. In other words, the hell what is a benefit to the United States, they must win in 2020. This is the “modus operandi” of the Democrats, using the old adage of “the end justifies the means”.

We all know that politics is a “blood sport”, and that people who indulge in politics must have a thick skin, but what has happened to President Trump over the past 2 1⁄2 years, has been a disgrace. The “main stream media”, who are really an integral part of the Democrat Party, have, on a daily basis, attacked the president and his policies unmercifully. A Harvard University research paper, found that 90% of the stories, in the media, about the president and his administration, were negative in tone and substance. Even with all this animus and vitriol, the president has presided over major policy gains that have been unprecedented. A raging upward stock market, the lowest unemployment rates in decades (3.6% in April), a GDP that in April was at 3.2%, an increase in wages for all workers, especially those in the lower income brackets, from his tax cut legislation, getting rid of those oppressive job killing business regulations, and the renegotiating of those one-sided trade deals with So. Korea, Mexico and Canada. Hopefully, China will be next. The Democrats and the media don't give him any credit at all for those accomplishments. They'd rather see Trump fail that to have the country succeed.

So, why can't the opposing politicians do the right thing and support policies that are good for our country. Should “disdain” for the president be the be all and end all for the Democrats, by being obsessively resistant to any and all policies proposed by him? So yes, disagreement with the president is okay when called for, but using disdain for him, his family, and people in his administration borders on being unpatriotic and counter productive for the good of our
country.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann