One would think that a Congressional resolution calling for the condemnation of communism and socialism would be an easy one to vote for, but one would be wrong. Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), the daughter of Cuban refugees, introduced a non-binding resolution to Congress this past week called “Denouncing the horrors of socialism.” Most of the historical villains referenced in the resolution —Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Nicolás Maduro—were Communists. Nevertheless, not only did 100 members of the Democratic Party vote against a statement of principles that flows directly from our founding documents and core values (Jefferson wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it,” and Madison added that it “is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest…), they were confident enough of the effectiveness their party’s pro-socialist propaganda to go on the record as opposing that statement. All the worst villains are there: the “Squad,” Pelosi, Jaimie Raskin, Maxine Waters.
The number of Democrats unwilling to condemn socialism, and therefore its nasty offspring communism, was even more damning: in addition to the 98 naysayers, two Democrats voted “present” and 47 weenies refuse to vote at all.
Democrats are now telling us exactly who they are and what their agenda is.
Ethics Alarms 
Jefferson’s a wealthy, dead, slave owning, white colonist who needs to be silenced.
I don’t know.
A non-binding resolution?
Stupid grandstanding. The purpose of the Legislative branch is to pass laws, otherwise known as “binding resolutions.”
Does a non-binding resolution endorsing the Protestant Reformation violate the First Amendment? It’s non-binding, after all. You know, pointless.
Now, of course, this is not the first time they have done such a thing. Congress has done stupid things many times.
Me? I probably would have abstained, even though I agree with the sentiment and the Founding Father’s embrace of the opposite view.
(Having said all that, there might be a non-binding resolution that I think would be worthy of consideration. Not sure.)
-Jut
I find that kind of non-binding resolution justifiable for exactly what happened here. Now we know. They raised their hands and said, we oppose the system that brought the United States its success, wealth and unique culture. We want to be more like Europe. Good to know!
Well, except it seems a little hypocritical.
It is not as if there are not socialist policies passed by the Federal Government. So, while they decry the horrors of socialism, many of these representatives would not vote to repeal federal socialist policies.
SNAP benefits are a good example. But, any kind of federal welfare program will do.
But, maybe they are not hypocrites. Maybe they are just ignorant that certain policies are socialist. Or, maybe the ability to control money gives them power and they like having the power.
And, I don’t really think I need a vote to know where AOC stands on socialism.
(However, I want to distinguish my viewpoint from a sentiment circulating around that proclaims that if you are against socialist policies, you have to be against public education, fire departments and the Court system, etc. Those are not socialist programs.)
-Jut
We know socialism is a slippery slope. Employing a program that responsibly adapts socialist principles to a limited extent doesn’t mean that the nation is socialist. It’s pretty clear what the resolution means, and it isn’t that unemployment insurance is a threat to the nation.
The full on revolution of Stalin-lover FDR followed by the virtually unstopped Communist infiltration of American education and pop culture did its job…
“We Will Take America Without Firing A Shot” attributed to N. Khrushchev
PWS
We see WW2 as a great battle between classically liberal constitutional democracies and totalitarianism. And totalitarian FDR successfully convinced us that the constitutional democracies won. (Now I’m not saying that naziism or communism won. But totalitarianism in general took giant chunks out of our classical tradition. So much so the communists could easily subvert the rest).
I’d put money on transporting an American from 1920 to 1950 (therefore free of the slow progressive reworking of the American mind) and the odds are that they wonder what country they stepped into.