The media-created Leftist darling Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) gave a talk this week in which she once again extolled the supposed virtues of Marxist socialism as the panacea for the supposed ills of capitalism.
Much of what she said was typical Leftist blather — red meat for the budding revolutionaries at a Martin Luther King forum in New York City who have been taught by a corrupt education system to hate America and everything about it — a belief that has been reinforced by Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media and entertainment industry.
But something she said stuck out as a monument to socialist hypocrisy: She was askedÂ by The Atlanticâ€™sÂ Ta-Nehisi Coates ifÂ â€œa world that allows for billionairesâ€ is â€œa moral outcome.”
“No, it’s not. It’s not,” she said to applause.
It isn’t? What if billionaires contribute millions of dollars to charities? Or provide a living for thousands of employees? Or use their wealth to create life-saving devices? Or develop the next-generation of personal computing devices that lead to all sorts of scientific breakthroughs?
Mind you, the context of the question her answer was to serve as an indictment of capitalism, a wonderfully successful economic model that drives motivation, encourages innovation, promotes freedom, and, importantly, creates wealth.
Casting aside Ocasio-Cortez’s assumption that only Leftists can reasonably define what is and is not “moral,” especially in a large, diverse country like ours where traditions, values, and mores differ by region, religion, and ethnicity, it’s worth noting that ‘moral,’ in her world, is obviously a relative term, given that some of the world’s most brutal dictators and authoritarian leaders are, in fact, billionaires — many having appropriated much of the wealth of the countries they lead.
The difference is none of them are what you’d call ‘capitalists.’ In fact, most of them are what you’d call socialists, communists, and Marxists — supposedly the antithesis of capitalist.
Take the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. He was reportedly worth over $1 billion after looting his country’s oil wealth before he died. In 2015, his daughter,Â MarÃa Gabriela ChÃ¡vez, had bank accounts in the U.S. worth $4.2 billion.
Chavez’s socialist dicator successor, Nicolas Maduro, is only worth about $2 million, however, having taken power long after the oil wealth and other Venezuelan assets had been plundered. But while he lavishes millions on himself, his people can’t buy basic commodities, health care is nearly non-existent, and a growing faction of Venezuelans want to depose him. Moral?
How about Russian President Vladimir Putin? He’s no piker himself. There are some estimates that put him worth some $200 billion, and even if that figure isn’t accurate, he’s definitely worth ‘billions.’ Meanwhile, he is steadily crushing dissent as he murders political opponents and suppresses the country’s media. Moral?
Chinese dictator (President) Xi Jinping is not doing too badly either. This leader of the world’s largest communist country is worth $1.51 billion. As for civil and human rights in China, there aren’t any — at least, not outside whata the authoritarian Communist Party will permit, which isn’t much. Moral?
Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un the leader of the world’s most dictatorial Stalinist-communist country, North Korea, is worth a cool $5 billion, even as a substantial portion of his people nearly starve each year because the country’s top-down, regulated Marxist economy is inefficient, corruption-prone, and backward. But Kim, the billionaire leader, won’t suffer. Moral?
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whose country is in shambles now because he was such a brutal tyrant who refused to listen to his people’s demands for reform, is worth $1.5 billion. There isn’t a city left standing after a half-dozen years of war except for Damascus, the capital, but Assad is comfy — and still a dictator. Moral?
When he was president of Nigeria, Jonathan Goodluck amassed a fortune of $100 million during a scandal-filled tenure, while his people had to manage on less than $1 a day. Moral?
“President”-slash-dictator Paul Biya of Cameroon, who has been at the helm of his socialist country since 1982, is worth $200 million (besides scandal and theft, his claim to fame has been to change his country’s constitution so he can’t be prosecuted when he finally does leave office). Moral?
The leader of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, is worth $215 million — not bad for having served prison time with former ANC leader Nelson Mandela. And while he wards off charges of corruption, elements withint the South African legislature are contemplating stealing land from white farmers. Moral?
There are many other examples of dictatorial, socialist leaders around the world who have pilfered and stolen their country’s wealth at the expense of their people, right after declaring themselves leader for life. Many are millionaires many times over; some are billionaires. But nearly all of them govern their countries under economic and political philosophies and ideologies backed by Ocasio-Cortez.
I believe most Americans would look at the manner in which these socialist leaders accumulatedÂ theirÂ wealth — through expropriation and outright theft, leaving their people impoverish — asÂ immoral, not a Bill Gates or a Mark Cuban or a Donald Trump who accumulated theirs by earning it.
The grotesque and wholly misinformed characterization of our country by this little socialist visionary from New York isn’t cute anymore. Ocasio-Cortez is a member of Congress and therefore someone of Â influence.
I suspect the people of her district would not appreciate a form of government that ‘appropriated’ their wealth for the ‘good of all the people,’ when doing so would impoverish everyone except those in power. She owes it to her constituents to be honest about the cause and effect of her extreme economic policies and strange sense of morality. Â — Jon Dougherty
Never miss a story! Sign up for our daily email newsletter â€”Â Click here!