When Venezuela’s Marxist dictator Nicolas Maduro addressed his citizens on Sunday, he told them that their electric power would be rationed: “I have approved a 30-day plan to regulate the output.” He called the plan “a load management regime.”

Unfortunately, owing to the rolling power outages that have plagued Venezuela over the last month, most of those citizens, if they had television, weren’t able to view his speech because their power was out.

That is the end point of socialism: When government interferes, products and services formerly provided by the free market become limited. Prices go up and price controls follow. The price controls further limit supply, and the final step is rationing what’s left.

Maduro admitted to two failures in that short sentence: His government is unable to provide for his people; and those shortages are likely to last for a long time. The unspoken message being delivered is that socialism, no matter what it might be called, always ends in tyranny, misery, and death.

Venezuela’s power industry was nationalized in 2007 under the socialist administration of Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Marxist Hugo Chavez. The ideology of socialism, termed Chavismo, continued under Maduro following Chavez’s death in 2013. Consequently, those professionals running the energy grid were removed and replaced with political appointees as rewards for their loyalty to the socialist regime. Since then some 25,000 technicians skilled in running the power industry have left the country, leaving the incompetent in charge.

As Maduro’s economy spiraled downward, funds for maintenance dried up. In early March a grassfire burned some trunk lines feeding power from the country’s Guri dam, causing turbines generating power to fail. This plunged the populace into darkness for days. On March 25, another outage led to more misery, and more socialist intervention in the form of rationing the remaining electricity that the power plant is able to produce.

The impacts are predictable, and widely known: Patients are forced to bring their own bedding, water, and medicines to hospitals, where there is no air conditioning and few sanitary services available. Without gasoline, which is limited in supply, backup generators are only able to provide electricity to parts of the hospitals. Newborns are dying due to lack of sanitary conditions and adequate supplies.

When the power grid goes down, nothing works: no phones, no gas, no water, no credit card transactions. Without water citizens are forced to find what they can on their own, many filling jugs from the polluted Guaire river flowing through Caracas. This predictably leads to more sickness, more demand for diminishing medical hospital services, and more deaths.

In the final analysis, socialism is a political and economic system of war against the most helpless in society, as Alexis de Tocqueville explained 171 years ago. In February 1848, the Second French Republic was established and debates raged about how to cure the problem of unemployment.

The issue centered on continuing the public assistance programs established by the monarchy of Louis Phillippe, and de Tocqueville’s eloquence in explaining why it would continue to fail is unmatched:

Now, the first characteristic of all socialist ideologies is, I believe, an incessant, vigorous and extreme appeal to the material passions of man. [Signs of approval.]

Thus, some have said: “Let us rehabilitate the body”; others, that “work, even of the hardest kind, must be not only useful, but agreeable”; still others, that “man must be paid, not according to his merit, but according to his need”; while, finally, they have told us here that the object of the February Revolution, of socialism, is to procure unlimited wealth for all.

A second trait, always present, is an attack, either direct or indirect, on the principle of private property. From the first socialist who said, fifty years ago, that “property is the origin of all the ills of the world,” to the socialist who spoke from this podium and who, less charitable than the first, passing from property to the property-holder, exclaimed that “property is theft,” all socialists, all, I insist, attack, either in a direct or indirect manner, private property. [“True, true.”] I do not pretend to hold that all who do so, assault it in the frank and brutal manner which one of our colleagues has adopted. But I say that all socialists, by more or less roundabout means, if they do not destroy the principle upon which it is based, transform it, diminish it, obstruct it, limit it, and mold it into something completely foreign to what we know and have been familiar with since the beginning of time as private property. [Excited signs of assent.]

Now, a third and final trait, one which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. [“Excellent.”]

For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, [Further signs of assent.] to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom. [Lively assent.]

Just as there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9), nothing new is occurring in Venezuela that hasn’t happened countless times in history. What Venezuela teaches is unknown to so many who want to make policy in the United States. Absent knowing their history, they should make a short visit to Caracas to see for themselves the end game of the socialism they so ardently revere and promote.

An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.

Israel’s occupation army has introduced a new crowd dispersal weapon to be used against Palestinian protesters in the Gaza Strip, Israeli media reported on Sunday. According to Wallah, the weapon uses radio waves to make loud bomb-like sounds.

Apparently non-lethal, the weapon was developed in Israel. Soldiers using it on the first anniversary of the Great March of Return protests said that “it was very effective”.

During the latest Israeli crackdown on Palestinian protesters who are demanding their legitimate right of return to their land usurped by Israel since 1948, the occupation troops killed four people, three of whom were just 17 years old, and wounded 316 others. Those wounded included 86 children, 29 women, three paramedics and seven journalists.

Since the start of the Great March of Return protests on 30 March last year, Israel has killed around 280 protesters and wounded more than 30,000 others.

In the wake of last week’s unfortunate decision by the EU Parliament to vote for the terrible EU Copyright Directive, Casey Newton over at the Verge has a thoughtful piece about how this could lead to the internet splitting into three.

…this latest effort is hamfisted in the extreme, and may have the effect of splintering the internet beyond what seemed possible even a few years ago. In the wake of GDPR’s passage, Europeans couldn’t visit the websites of some US publishers for months as new privacy frameworks were put into place. That sort of thing may be about to become a lot more common. The time has now come to speak of the internets, plural. And to get around, you might just need a passport.

Basically, as Newton notes, it just might not be worth it for many sites to serve EU visitors:

Perhaps the big platforms will feel so motivated to preserve their European user bases that they will indeed negotiate the deals necessary to keep their existing services operating basically as is. But it’s just as easy to imagine them scaling back their services, as Google has already done, and further divide the internet into zones. If it goes far enough, the entire internet may begin to feel like Netflix, whose library of content varies dramatically depending on which country you log on from.

But that’s just the big platforms. Smaller platforms aren’t even going to be in a position or have the resources to negotiate those deals.

And, this is just one symptom of a broader trend. China practically has its own internet already. The EU’s efforts here may create an EU-focused silo as well. India has been making noises about following China’s lead, perhaps cleaving off its own internet in addition. And, of course, there’s always Russia with its plan to unplug itself from the internet.

Perhaps this kind of splintering of the global internet was inevitable. Perhaps we, as a society, simply can’t handle a global network for everyone. But, from my perspective, this is still incredibly disappointing. The grand experiment of a global open internet is on its way out. And it’s especially depressing that the EU is the one who decided to lead the way on this.

A pro-Israel New York lawmaker has prompted outrage by tweeting that “Palestine does not exist,” drawing criticisms of racism and Islamophobia.

The incendiary comments have come under heavy fire on Twitter and accusations of “Islamophobic hypocrisy” have been directed at US officials, who have failed to denounce the comments in the same way they denounced Democratic representative Ilhan Omar.

Brooklyn councilmember Kalman Yeger tweeted: “Palestine does not exist. There, I said it again. Also, Congresswoman Omar is an antisemite. Said that too”.

Yeger’s remark was part of a Twitter exchange with a writer for the blog Bklyner. The author of the blog, Zainab Iqbal, slammed the pro-Israel lawmaker for calling Congresswoman Omar an anti-Semite, saying: “Brooklyn council member calls Ilhan Omar an antisemite. This is the same council member who has repeatedly said that Palestine does not exist and refers to them as ‘so-called Palestinians’.”

Yeger hit back by repeating the racist trope: “Palestine does not exist.” This remark, along with the notion that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people,” is part of the racist narrative that has been used to deny 11 million Palestinians their right to self-determination.

Prominent activists also became involved in the conversation. Journalist Shaun King responded to Yeger’s tweet saying “Wow. This is a real tweet from a New York City councilman”.

“It’s disgraceful, irresponsible and dangerous for a sitting NYC council member to engage in blatant bigotry and erasure,” Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American community organiser from Brooklyn told the Brooklyn Eagle.

One incensed Palestinian called for Yeger’s resignation: “I am Palestinian. I exist and so does my community. Yeger needs to be removed from the NYC Council Immigration Committee and apologize publicly to Palestinian New Yorkers.”

This is not the first time Yeger has made such comments. In March 2018, according to an article by Iqbal, Yeger said “there is no such thing as Palestine,” and has a history of tweeting Palestine in quotation marks.

Read More…

Israel has killed 267 Palestinians in Gaza during the Great March of Return protests and wounded more than 30,000 others.

According to a statement by Gaza’s Ministry of Health yesterday, the deaths include 50 children, six women and one elderly person. This morning another Palestinian was killed, bringing the number of deaths to 267, Quds Press reported

In addition, the ministry said that the deaths included two journalists and three paramedics.

Meanwhile, the ministry said that 30,398 others were wounded, including 3,175 children and 1,008 women.

The ministry also said that 536 of the wounded sustained serious injuries, 6,843 sustained moderate injuries, and the others sustained light wounds or experienced suffocation due to Israel’s heavy use of teargas.

Large numbers of Palestinians are preparing to take part in a one-million-man march to mark the first anniversary of the Great March of Return, which was launched on 30 March last year.

Today, March 29, was the day that the United Kingdom was originally scheduled to leave the European Union. That deadline has now been moved ahead to April 12. But that doesn’t mean that March 29 was not still a momentous day in British history. For this is the day that Great Britain found out that very few members of their government have any spine whatsoever.

Today, the House of Commons rejected Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal for a third time by a vote of 344 to 286. The vote has likely doomed May’s deal for good. Prospects going forward are that the UK either crashes out of the EU without a deal on April 12 or that a prolonged delay of Brexit ensues, which could last for an undefined amount of time.

May described the result of the vote as “grave.” She further said that “we are reaching the limits of this process in the House,” signaling that she might believe it is time to put Brexit’s future back into the hands of the voters given the parliamentary impasse.

“On Monday, this House will continue the process to see if there is a stable majority for a particular alternative version of our future relationship with the EU,” May told the House of Commons.

“The House has rejected no deal. It has rejected no Brexit. On Wednesday it rejected all the variations of the deal on the table. And today it has rejected approving the Withdrawal Agreement alone and continuing a process on the future.”

Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, responded to events in the House of Commons by calling for an emergency meeting. “In view of the rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement by the House of Commons, I have decided to call a European Council on 10 April.”

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for May’s immediate resignation in order to trigger a new general election. “On Monday, this House has the chance … the responsibility to find a majority for a better deal for all the people of this country,” Corbyn said.

May had already offered her party her resignation in exchange for a yes vote on her Withdrawal Plan. She told the powerful 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers, “I know some people are worried that if you vote for the withdrawal agreement, I will take that as a mandate to rush into phase two without the debate we need to have. I won’t — I hear what you are saying. But we need to get the deal through and deliver Brexit.”

“I am prepared to leave this job earlier than I intended in order to do what is right for our country and out party.”

But then the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, a crucial part of May’s governing majority, crushed that idea by still refusing to back May’s plan because it “poses a threat to the integrity of the UK.”

MPs today also voted down eight separate indicative votes on alternatives to Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan. Tory MP Michael Fabricant tweeted an image of the indicative vote ballot.

The votes went like this:

1) Leave with no deal on April 12: Yes – 160; No – 400

2) Cancel Article 50: Yes – 184; No – 293

3) Hold a second Referendum: Yes – 268; No – 295

4) Permanent customs union with the EU: Yes – 264; No – 272

5) Norway style Brexit: Yes – 65; No – 377

6) The Labour Party’s Brexit plan: Yes – 237; No – 307

7) Malthouse Compromise: Yes – 139; No – 422

8) Common Market 2.0; Yes – 188; No – 283

The “leave with no deal” option is self-explanatory. The “cancel Article 50” option would trigger a vote on whether to cancel Brexit altogether if no deal can be agreed upon within two days of the new April 12 deadline. The “second referendum” option would require that any deal reached be put back to the public in a confirmatory vote. The “permanent customs union” option would require a permanent trade relationship with the EU and remove British sovereignty in trade issues.

The “Norway style” plan would not involve a customs arrangement with the EU but keep the UK in the European Economic Area, much like Norway currently is. The “Labour Party” plan includes a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU but with UK autonomy on future trade deals and continued participation in many EU programs. The “Malthouse Compromise” is a managed no-deal of sorts, requiring the UK to give the EU billions in exchange for a two-year “standstill” period. “Common Market 2.0” consists of continued membership in the EU customs union along with freedom of movement between the UK and EU, with the UK paying the EU for the privilege.

And if all of that sounds confusing to you, you’re not alone.

Again, these were “indicative” votes, in other words they were merely testing what PMs might support going forward. The second referendum option received the most votes, while a permanent customs union was the closest, with only an eight-vote majority voting no.

So, regardless of what happens going forward, Theresa May is likely out as prime minister within weeks — possibly even days. Several Tory MPs are said to be in the running to take over if May leaves, the most aggressive being former cabinet minister Boris Johnson, a hardline Brexiteer. Other expected to be in the running are Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt and Sajid Javid.

Meanwhile, the EU is openly mocking British indecision on the issue. “If I were to compare Great Britain to a sphinx, the sphinx would be an open book by comparison,” said EU President Jean-Claude Juncker in a speech to the European Parliament today.

“And let’s see how that book speaks over the next week, or so.”

Given a simple directive by their citizens in 2016: Leave the European Union. Politicians have complicated and obfuscated the issue so much that it has become unrecognizable to anyone but themselves. With Theresa May’s abject failure on the Brexit issue, along with Parliament’s utter intransigence, the British ship of state appears both rudderless and leaderless.