AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM


AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE,FOR THE PEOPLE -- ECONOMIC FREEDOM BASED ON FREE MARKET INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURISM -- WEALTH CREATION AS A SOURCE OF GREAT GOOD FOR THE DISADVANTAGED -- IMMIGRANTS PROVIDING UNPARALELLED ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS, RACIAL DIVERSITY -- OUR MILITARY PROVIDING AND PROTECTING WORLDWIDE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

I''m 73 and Tired

By  Robert A. Hall
   

Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard,  since I was 18.
Despite some health challenges, I still put in
50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in
seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but
I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I
worked to get where I am. Given the economy,
there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired.
Very tired.   

   
I'm tired  of being told
that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to
people too lazy to earn it.  

   
I'm tired   of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men
killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't
"believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari ???a law tells them to.  

   
I'm tired   of being told that, out of "tolerance for other cultures," we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund
mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America and Canada , while no American nor Canadian group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance..   

   
I'm tired   of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.


I'm tired   of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the
damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder uptheir noses while they tried to fight it off?  

   
I'm tired   of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes,
stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was  etting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.  

   
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the
government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems. 

   
Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 73 . Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughters and grandsons. 
   
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served
five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

Women Are Paid Less Than Men- -- Old Lies

Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, August 09, 2016
We expect to hear a lot of lies during an election year, and this year is certainly no exception. What is surprising is how old some of these lies are, and how often they have been shown to be lies, years ago or even decades ago.
One of the oldest of these lies is that women are paid less than men for doing the same work. Like many other politically successful lies, it contains just enough of the truth to fool the gullible.
Women as a group do get paid less than men as a group. But not for doing the same work. Women average fewer annual hours of work than men. They work continuously for fewer years than men, since only women get pregnant, and most women are not prepared to instantly dump the baby on somebody else to raise.
Being a mother is not an incidental sideline, and being a single mother can be a major restriction on how much time can be put into a job, either in a year or over the years.
People like Hillary Clinton can simply grab a statistic about male-female income differences and run with it, since her purpose is not truth but votes. The real question however is whether, or to what extent, those income differences are due to employers paying women and men different wages for doing the very same jobs, for the very same amount of time.
We do not need to guess about such things. Many studies have been done over many years -- and they repeatedly show that women and men who work the very same hours in the very same jobs at the very same levels of skill and experience do not have the pay gaps that people like Hillary Clinton loudly denounce.
As far back as 1971, single women in their thirties who had worked continuously since high school earned slightly more than men of the same description. As far back as 1969, academic women who had never married earned more than academic men who had never married.
People who are looking for grievances are not going to be stopped by facts, especially if they are in politics. But where are our media pundits and our academic scholars? Mostly silent, either out of fear of being denounced as anti-women or because they have chosen to take sides rather than convey facts.
Nevertheless, there are enough scholars, including women economists, who have done enough honest studies over the years that there is no excuse for continuing to repeat a discredited lie, based on comparing apples and oranges. A book written by two women and titled "Women's Figures" shows the results when you compare women and men with comparable qualifications.
It is much the same story with black-white comparisons. More than 40 years ago, my own research turned up statistics on black and white professors who had Ph.D.s from equally high-ranked institutions in the same fields, and who had published the same number of articles.
When all these things were held constant, the black professors earned somewhat more than white professors. But, since all these things are not the same among black and white professors in general, there is a racial gap in pay that allows some to loudly denounce racial discrimination among academics.
Those who wish to check out my statistics can get a copy of my 1975 monograph, "Affirmative Action Reconsidered." It has not been updated because not all the same statistics will be released now. This is not unusual. Statistics that might undermine some other popular conclusions -- whether on affirmative action, global warming or whatever -- have been kept under wraps when other researchers tried to get them.
Too many people in the media and in academia abandon their roles as conduits for facts and take on the role of filterers of facts to promote social and political agendas.
In all too many educational institutions, from kindergartens to postgraduate university programs, students may never hear any facts that contradict the prevailing groupthink.
How many students taught by Keynesian economists will ever learn about the 1921 recession, when the Harding administration did nothing -- and unemployment dropped steeply as the economy recovered on its own?
There are many reasons why old lies, refuted long ago, are still heard every election year, and in all too many other years.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

E Pluribus Unum - America Under Attack From Within

Excerpts from George:

Sorry - no idea as to who George is but he does grasp the greatness of our Country and the danger of diversity that is pulling us apart.
  • We began with a Revolution and we did not execute the losers, those who supported the other side or who sat on the fence during that eight year struggle. Per capita it was the second most deadly war we have ever fought. Yet, when it ended we coalesced as a country. Check your history books to find another revolution that achieved such an outcome.  
  • We fought a civil war with over one million casualties and over a half a million killed, our highest casualty and killed rates of all our wars.  We not only survived as a nation but became an economic powerhouse and eventually a major world power.  We allowed the losing side to retain their personal weapons and reunited the union plus we ended slavery.
  • In WWII we not only fought a major two front war but, we were the economic and industrial engine that permitted the Allies victory.  Then, we rebuilt our enemies into thriving and co-operative nations, while claiming no territories.  No, perfection was not achieved but, there will never be perfection.  We in the spirit of "E Pluribus Unum" kept trying to make it better.
  • During the 1960's, we saw the first overt signs of divisiveness that would eventually collapse the motto that had been the backbone of our success.  it was a strange occurrence for at the same time there was a great civil rights surge to become more inclusive.
So where are we today?

"E Pluribus Unum begins at home in the family unit, with the dissolution of the family unit today on a grand scale and the emphasis on diversity being taught to our children in the public schools from K thru University --- reinforced by the Progressive Political Philosophy of the Democrat Party,  "E Pluribus Unum is rapidly disappearing not only as a motto but as the backbone of our strength as a nation.  Today,  through our misguided policies we have sacrificed unity and inclusivity at the alter of diversity. By segmenting our citizens into hyphenated groups we divide our loyalties, inclusivity and unity. The overbearing central government and the struggle for voting blocks by political parties have created the belief of self before country.  If this Progressive Diversity Philosophy continues  we will dissolve as a nation not from outside forces but from within.
 
 

Saturday, July 30, 2016

America At Its Worst

Alphabet Soup Corruption

Thursday, July 21, 2016
Name a government agency or cabinet, and chances are its reputation has nosedived since 2008.  A Pew poll, which has charted public trust in the federal government over some 57 years, hit a historic low last year, with only 19% expressing confidence in Washington. Despite President Obama’s campaign promises in 2008 to usher in a new era of accountability and transparency, formerly disinterested agencies have either been politicized to the point of corruption or rendered ineffective by the appointment of incompetent and politically driven directors.
The Hillary Clinton email scandal has tarnished the reputation of both the FBI and the Department of Justice for the foreseeable future. FBI Director James Comey concluded that his agency’s investigation of Clinton’s careless use of private emails to transmit confidential and classified communications on a private server likely led to security compromises, but that her actions were not a result of intentional wrongdoing—and thus not in his view prosecutable. However, the statutes in question do not require willful intent to break the law, only negligence (the causes of such dangerous carelessness are irrelevant).
Clinton’s conduct has been described as “extremely careless” and yet neither Comey nor progressive legal gymnasts have been able to explain why that’s not synonymous with the statute’s standard of “gross negligence” for indictments—as if the adverb “extremely” is not a synonym for the adjective “gross,” or the adjective “careless” is not equivalent to the noun “negligence.”
In other words, Comey laid out a case for wrongdoing but then erroneously reinterpreted the law to largely exonerate Clinton, the all but certain Democratic nominee for president. His conclusions followed the bizarre meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac between the private jets of Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. The two allegedly serendipitously met and yet ordered the private meeting to be kept from the media. Surely two Ivy League trained lawyers know that the spouse of someone under investigation does not consult privately with the principle prosecuting attorney in an ongoing case.
On the day of Comey’s announcement, Clinton was scheduled to campaign with President Obama, Lynch’s boss. And earlier, unnamed Clinton advisors had reported to The New York Times that Lynch would be welcome to stay on as Attorney General in Hillary Clinton’s envisioned administration—purportedly to “prioritize diversity.” The resulting incoherence of the FBI and numerous angles of conflict of interest in the Obama Department of Justice have nearly tarnished the reputations of both agencies. After all, ordinary Americans do not get away with having their spouses meet off the record with the principal district attorney about their ongoing exposure to tax evasion charges, or find exemptions on the grounds that their serial violations of statutes were supposedly without ill-intent, or, if in a possible position of superiority, promise to retain the prosecuting attorney at a future date.
Lynch, remember, replaced Attorney General Eric Holder, the first and only AG to be held in contempt by Congress. Holder was at the center of scandals, both personal and professional, ranging from the failed Fast and Furious gun-running sting operation to the unlawful use of a private government jet to junket family and friends to the Belmont Stakes horse race. He also dropped a voter intimidation case by the New Black Panther Party and made inflammatory statements such as referring to African-Americans as “my people” and deriding America as a “nation of cowards” for not framing racial issues in the manner Holder would have wished. To top it all off, toward the end of his time in DOJ, he was accused of improper and stealthy surveillance of Associated Press journalists. For her part, Lynch, when called to testify before Congress, on 74 occasions refused to answer questions concerning the administration decision not to pursue an indictment for Clinton’s likely violations of the Espionage Act.
The Internal Revenue Service is likewise now a tainted agency, having lost the public trust. In similar fashion to the Clinton email scandal, the FBI found that the IRS had mismanaged taxpayer accounts, but argued that the agency had no deliberate intent to break the law. Yet Lois Lerner, an IRS director of tax-exempt organizations, publicly confessed to targeting Tea Party groups and others deemed inordinately conservative. Lerner, who pled the Fifth Amendment before Congress and was held in contempt, was allowed to retire with full pension, after ensuring that several conservative grassroots organizations were denied tax-exempt status in the critical months before the 2012 presidential campaign.
It doesn’t stop there. The director of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, stepped down shortly after Obama’s reelection, given that she belatedly admitted to using a false email alias “Richard Windsor” to conduct official EPA correspondence in a fashion that was not subject to public transparency. After pressure from congressional committees and the EPA’s own inspector general’s requirement for Jackson to produce some 12,000 “Richard Windsor” alias emails, Jackson resigned—and was almost immediately hired as an environmental consultant by Apple Inc.
The United States may not any longer have the capability to launch a rocket capable of sending men into space, but the National Aeronautical and Space Administration administrator Charles Bolden, shortly after assuming office, assured the public that among the agency’s foremost priorities would be “to reach out to the Muslim world . . . to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.” Bolden is a decorated military officer, but he might have worried more about the underfunded and sclerotic NASA building rockets before he assured Al Jazeera that it will find ways to emphasize the historical scientific contributions of the Islamic world.
Gen. Eric Shinseki, who became a hero to the progressive anti-war movement for his congressional testimony during the Bush administration questioning troop levels, became Obama’s Secretary of Veterans Affairs. But the agency was quickly mired in scandals at the Veteran Health Administration, where critically ill veterans were not given prompt care, lives were needlessly lost, and records were doctored to cover up such incompetence. Like the IRS and the EPA, the VA also remains under a cloud of suspicion, well after Shinseki’s resignation.
Perhaps no agency has been rendered more suspect that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, largely because U.S. immigration enforcement for all practical purposes has been rendered null and void, and no longer can or will stop illegal immigration from crossing the southern border. The old reputations of the “Border Patrol” as a no-nonsense law enforcement agency that ensured foreign nationals entered the United States legally has been redefined by ICE as a sort of politicized facilitator of executive amnesties. Over 300 municipalities in multiple states have now declared themselves exempt from enforcement of federal immigration law, and ICE has agreed that it will allow such nullification of federal law and will not deport over one million illegal aliens who have been arrested and charged with or convicted of crimes.
The Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Janet Napolitano admonished Americans that “terrorism” should be redefined as a “man-caused disaster” and counter-terrorism as an “overseas contingency operation,” while issuing a report warning that among our chief terrorist threats was not radical Islam, but right-wing extremism, especially among supposedly suspect returning war veterans. The agency proved inept in articulating and assessing the threat of Islamic terrorism following the Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Orlando terrorist attacks. Just as the IRS seems more interested in pursuing conservative groups than tax-cheaters, so too does DHS seem more concerned with finding euphemisms for terrorist attacks to deflect responsibility away from radical Islamic terrorism. Certainly under the current Secretary Jeh Johnson, DHS does not see serious existential security challenges from either illegal immigration or radical Islamists, but rather seems more worried about the undue reactions of Americans to such perceived violations of the law and threats to their national security.
To the above alphabet scandals could be added the a number of scandals involving the Secret Service; the General Service Administration debacle of lavish conferences and unauthorized government junkets; the abrupt post-election resignation of CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus under mysterious circumstances; the likely forced resignation of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius after the promises of the Affordable Care Act proved fantasies and its website unworkable; and the diminution of National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who falsely assured the public on five Sunday morning news outlets that the Benghazi terrorist attacks were the fallout from an obscure video maker (subsequently jailed)—when both she and Secretary of State Clinton already knew that an al Qaeda affiliate was responsible for the killings and that such terrorism proved inconvenient to the pre-election narrative of an “al Qaeda on the run.”
What do all these scandal and embarrassments have in common? Aside from the fact that many appointees were selected based on their progressive bona fides and that they saw their missions to promote liberal causes, sometimes even at the cost of overriding their own agencies’ mandates, there was a widespread sense that the law simply did not apply to them. The President set the tone with a series of executive orders that overrode federal immigration law. He arbitrarily suspended some elements of the Affordable Care Act for fear that they would prove unpopular in the months before the 2012 election, and has bypassed congressional oversight and jurisdiction, whether by sidestepping the Senate’s ratification of treaties with the Iran deal or allowing the EPA to create new laws regulating coal plants and water standards that were never ratified by Congress.
The ensuing message was that social awareness, fairness, and egalitarianism trumped the rule of law. And the result was that an IRS director, a Secretary of State, an Attorney General, and a Department of Homeland Security Director were assessed not by whether they executed the law but by whether they promoted a progressive agenda.
The Obama administration in this regard was largely successful in warning conservatives that the government was not neutral, but now a force for social justice, led by a “pen and phone” president who was quite willing to reward friends and punish enemies, without much worries over the legal niceties involved. Given a largely obsequious media, it will take years to assess the full legacy of the Obama administration. But, eventually, historians will find that it marked one of the more politically driven, corrupt, and unconstitutional eras in the history of American governance.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Believeable? You Be The Judge


"FBI Director James Comey basically delivered a coded message to the American People and the world. He said...she is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, certainly should not be president and should be brought to justice ..however our country has been infiltrated and is basically corrupt!

Lynch and Obama made it clear to him...if he pressed for an indictment, he would be taking the Democrat nominee for president out of the election...If....he then failed to get a conviction...he would be facing charges of tampering with and changing the outcome of a federal election to which he would be facing the rest of his life in prison...

Now you know why he presented his case the way he did and why it was so obvious he was reluctant to not press for indictment.

Also....The key is in what Comey said...80 email chains.....that means an exchange between people...Hillary sending AND RECEIVING.....so if he charges Hillary he has to charge the others in the chain...what if the exchange is with Obama...it is not a stretch to think the Sec of State would be in email contact with POTUS....Let’s just say...Bill went to Loretta and said shut this down...or else if Hillary is charged she will tell under oath that some of the emails were with the President...so he is also guilty of a felony...THAT is IMPEACHABLE...the Republicans would go for it...the Dem would yell racism and the country erupts in violence......Lynch tells Comey...you better watch it or you could be to blame for violence tearing this country part...what is he to do???...So Comey takes 20 minutes spelling out everything bad Hillary did....just like a trial in public.....then stops short to prevent any unrest......"

Saturday, July 23, 2016

A Rational Answer To The Obama/Clinton/Liberal Media Coalition Question - Why Are So Many Americans So Angry?


Franklin Graham speaking at the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville,
Florida - January, 2015,


A coalition of blacks, Latinos, feminists, gays, government workers, union

members, environmental extremists, the media, Hollywood, uninformed young

people, the "forever needy," the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens and

other "fellow  travelers" have ended Norman Rockwell's America. 

You will never again out-vote these people.  It will take individual acts

of defiance and massive displays of civil disobedience to get back the
 
rights we have allowed them to take away.  It will take zealots, not

moderates and shy, not reach-across-the-aisle RINOs to right this ship and

restore our beloved country to its former status - as One Country, Indivisible
 
With Liberty And Justice For All.


People like me are completely politically irrelevant, and I will probably

never again be able to legally comment on or concern myself with the

aforementioned coalition which has surrendered our culture, our heritage

and our traditions without a shot being fired.

 
The cocker spaniel is off the front porch, the pit bull is in the back

yard. The American Constitution has been replaced with Saul Alinsky's

"Rules for Radicals".  The likes of international socialist George Soros are now 
 
pulling the strings on their beige puppet - having brought us Act 2 of the New
 
World Order.

A Rational Answer To The Obama/Clinton/Liberal Media Coaligtion Question - Why Are So Many Americans So Angry?


Franklin Graham speaking at the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville,
Florida - January, 2015,


A coalition of blacks, Latinos, feminists, gays, government workers, union

members, environmental extremists, the media, Hollywood, uninformed young

people, the "forever needy," the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens and

other "fellow  travelers" have ended Norman Rockwell's America. 

You will never again out-vote these people.  It will take individual acts

of defiance and massive displays of civil disobedience to get back the
 
rights we have allowed them to take away.  It will take zealots, not

moderates and shy, not reach-across-the-aisle RINOs to right this ship and

restore our beloved country to its former status - as One Country, Indivisible
 
With Liberty And Justice For All.


People like me are completely politically irrelevant, and I will probably

never again be able to legally comment on or concern myself with the

aforementioned coalition which has surrendered our culture, our heritage

and our traditions without a shot being fired.

 
The cocker spaniel is off the front porch, the pit bull is in the back

yard. The American Constitution has been replaced with Saul Alinsky's

"Rules for Radicals".  The likes of international socialist George Soros are now 
 
pulling the strings on their beige puppet - having brought us Act 2 of the New
 
World Order.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Oh Yea!!!! for the Swiss!!




Sometimes it's the little things that are most telling. In Switzerland it has long been customary for students to shake the hands of their teachers at the beginning and end of the school day. It's a sign of solidarity and mutual respect between teacher and pupil, one that is thought to encourage the right classroom atmosphere. Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga recently felt compelled to further explain that shaking hands was part of Swiss culture and daily life.

And the reason she felt compelled to speak out about the handshake is that two Muslim brothers, aged 14 and 15, who have lived in Switzerland for several years (and thus are familiar with its mores), in the town of Therwil, near Basel, refused to shake the hands of their teacher, a woman, because, they claimed, this would violate Muslim teachings that contact with the opposite sex is allowed only with family members. At first the school authorities decided to avoid trouble, and initially granted the boys an exemption from having to shake the hand of any female teacher. But an uproar followed, as Mayor Reto Wolf explained to the BBC: "the community was unhappy with the decision taken by the school. In our culture and in our way of communication a handshake is normal and sends out respect for the other person, and this has to be brought [home] to the children in school."

 Therwil's Educational Department reversed the school's decision, explaining in a statement on May 25 that the school's exemption was lifted because "the public interest with respect to equality between men and women and the integration of foreigners significantly outweighs the freedom of religion." It added that a teacher has the right to demand a handshake. Furthermore, if the students refused to shake hands again "the sanctions called for by law will be applied," which included a possible fine of up to 5,000 dollars.

 This uproar in Switzerland, where many people were enraged at the original exemption granted to the Muslim boys, did not end after that exemption was itself overturned by the local Educational Department. The Swiss understood quite clearly that this was more than a little quarrel over handshakes; it was a fight over whether the Swiss would be masters in their own house, or whether they would be forced to yield, by the granting of special treatment, to the Islamic view of the proper relations between the sexes. It is one battle – small but to the Swiss significant – between o'erweening Muslim immigrants and the indigenous Swiss.

Naturally, once the exemption was withdrawn, all hell broke loose among Muslims in Switzerland. The Islamic Central Council of Switzerland, instead of yielding quietly to the Swiss decision to uphold the handshaking custom, criticized the ruling in hysterical terms, claiming that the enforcement of the handshaking is "totalitarian" (!) because its intent is to "forbid religious people from meeting their obligations to God." That, of course, was never the "intent" of the long-standing handshaking custom, which was a nearly-universal custom in Switzerland, and in schools had to do only with encouraging the right classroom atmosphere of mutual respect between instructor and pupil, of which the handshake was one aspect. 

 The Swiss formulation of the problem – weighing competing claims — will be familiar to Americans versed in Constitutional adjudication. In this case "the public interest with respect to equality" of the sexes and the "integration of foreigners" (who are expected to adopt Swiss ways, not force the Swiss to exempt them from some of those ways) were weighed against the "religious obligations to God" of Muslims, and the former interests found to outweigh the latter.

 What this case shows is that even at the smallest and seemingly inconsequential level, Muslims are challenging the laws and customs of the Infidels among whom they have been allowed to settle [i.e., stealth jihad toward sharia dominance].Each little victory, or defeat, will determine whether Muslims will truly integrate into a Western society or, instead, refashion that society to meet Muslim requirements. 

 The handshake has been upheld and, what's more, a stiff fine now will be imposed on those who continue to refuse to shake hands with a female teacher. This is a heartening sign of non-surrender by the Swiss. But end and will not stop. And the greater the number of Muslims allowed to settle in Europe, the stronthe challenges of the Muslims within Europe to the laws and customs of the indigenes have no logical ger and more frequent their challenges will be. They are attempting not to integrate, but rather to create, for now, a second, parallel society, and eventually, through sheer force of numbers from both migration and by outbreeding the Infidels, to fashion not a parallel society but one society — now dominated by Muslim [sharia].

 The Swiss handshaking dispute has received some, but not enough, press attention. Presumably, it's deemed too inconsequential a matter to bother with. But the Swiss know better. And so should we.

There's an old Scottish saying that in one variant reads: "Many a little makes a mickle." That is, the accumulation of many little things leads to one big thing. That's what's happening in Europe today. This was one victory for the side of sanity. There will need to be a great many more.
________________________________________________________________
And then this comment: from a 30 year old follower
 
Switzerland is my target country if we ever end up with Elizabeth Warren or someone of her ilk as president.  A well run country.  
One of the hardest things to convey to my liberal friends without immediately being shouted down as racist is that the reason smaller states cited as models of "socialism that works" more or less succeed despite large levels of welfare spending is the extraordinary level of social cohesion and shared values that countries like Sweden, Denmark, and especially Switzerland have.  These countries don't have leaders unwilling to even name the problem - it is completely uncontroversial to expect that you will adhere to basic customs of decency and decorum at all times, something that would be derided by sneering progressives in the US as "nationalist", "neo-imperialist", "white privilege", etc.  You're also much less willing to game a welfare system and disobey laws when you have shared values as a community, something that has been proven over and over even in the increasingly politically distorted and useless world of social science.  Customs like this, which would be derided as conservative under Obama types, are the reason Switzerland can hand a Carbine to every capable man of military age and still have one of the lowest levels of gun violence in the world.  Don't tell that to Barry though.  
 
\