Category: socialism
Leftist heresy: This Bible pitch sounds holy — until you spot the socialist trick
“Nothing is free.” I can still hear my dad saying this whenever I excitedly told him I got something for “free.” I would argue, “But it was free for me,” and he would reply, “Yes — because someone else paid for it.”
That is exactly how many of the 40 million Americans hooked on food stamps and government assistance think. It feels “free,” but it is paid for by hardworking taxpayers — like yours truly. And a government that can feed you can also starve you.
On paper, socialism looks compassionate — until you remember history and human nature.
In the wake of the New York mayoral election, socialism is trending again. Zohran Mamdani is just the latest pawn to make it look flashy and appealing.
Even worse, progressive Christians have jumped on the bandwagon, insisting that socialism is biblical and pointing to Acts 2 as their proof text. They say, “We need to feed the hungry,” “We need to provide for the homeless,” “We need to sell what we have so others have more.” These are admirable sentiments. But they are often advocated by people who rarely offer up their own property or pocketbooks, though they are eager to demand yours.
But who is the “we” in Acts 2?
The answer is simple: the church — not the government.
Acts 2 took place during Pentecost, when Jerusalem was crowded with Jewish pilgrims from across the empire. After thousands came to faith, many stayed longer than expected, creating urgent, unusual needs. In response, believers shared what they had. Acts 2:44-45 says Christians “had everything in common” and “were selling their possessions” and distributing the proceeds “as any had need.”
A few important clarifications:
- These were Christians, not government officials.
- Their giving was voluntary, not legislated.
- Their generosity was rooted in personal sacrifice, not state coercion.
- This was a temporary response to a specific moment, not an economic model for nations.
The early church practiced radical generosity because the situation demanded it — not because God or scripture command state-run redistribution. It was compassion from the heart, not a political system.
Socialism starts and ends with a deadly sin
Socialism is inherently immoral because it is built on envy — one of the seven deadly sins. Envy is a resentful desire for what someone else has. Scripture warns against it repeatedly because it is rooted in covetousness: “Do not covet.” Proverbs says envy “rots the bones.” Galatians tells us not to provoke or envy one another. It is part of the “acts of the flesh,” something to root out of our lives entirely — not something to build public policy around.
Socialism claims it reduces inequality by redistributing resources “fairly.” In practice, that means taking from those who earn and giving to those who don’t, with the government deciding how every penny is spent. The poor become dependent, the productive get punished, and the state grows stronger.
On the NYC campaign trail, Mamdani promised a buffet of freebies — free child care, free bus rides, rent control, city-run grocery stores. Margaret Thatcher famously and pointedly said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Economist Thomas Sowell put it even more bluntly: “What do you call it when someone steals money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes money by force? Robbery. What do you call it when politicians take someone else’s money and give it to people likely to vote for them? Social justice.”
That is how Mamdani won and why the fantasy of socialism keeps selling. There’s a reason the mousetrap always has “free” cheese.
Interestingly enough, Mamdani also claims to be in favor of feminism and woke policies at the same time — but these contradict with his Muslim faith entirely. His ideas end up at stark odds with Christian values and the dominant moral language of modern progressives alike.
As believers, we must reject his ideas altogether and fight for what is true and good for human flourishing.
Socialism sounds compassionate — but it’s not
On paper, socialism looks compassionate. Everyone gets something “free,” and everyone is supposedly happier. It can even sound like something Jesus would endorse — until you remember history and human nature.
The Bible promotes voluntary generosity, not government-run redistribution. From “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15) to Paul’s reminder that giving should never be “under compulsion” (2 Corinthians 9:7), scripture keeps ownership and charity in the realm of personal moral choice. With socialism, religious liberty — living out your faith convictions — goes out the window completely.
Every nation that has embraced socialism — from the Soviet Union to Venezuela — has collapsed into shortages, inflation, and hunger. Power consolidates at the top, innovation dies, dependence grows, and people lose freedom, dignity, and hope.
RELATED: How one ancient sin empowers wokeness, socialism, and cancel culture
bauhaus1000/iStock/Getty Images
Human nature hasn’t changed, and it will not change any time soon. No one wants to build a business through blood, sweat, and tears only to watch the government seize most of the earnings and waste them. The more you make, the more the state takes.
Arthur Brooks’ research in his book “Who Really Cares” shows conservatives give about 30% more to charity than liberals — even though liberals earn slightly more. Conservatives volunteer more, give blood more often, and donate more time.
Why? Because voluntary, faith-driven generosity is far more effective than state-mandated redistribution.
Socialism is born from envy, mandated by force, and finished by famine. It has never worked, and it will not magically work now. Socialism in practice is like being a zoo animal: fed and controlled, but never free. Liberty lets you roam, build, create, and live with dignity.
I will choose freedom over control every single time.
The Bible doesn’t endorse socialism — and neither should we
Scripture calls believers to voluntary generosity and selflessness. It never once advocates for government coercion or its reckless policies. And America’s heritage of Christian-informed self-governance affirms personal responsibility and limited government.
That’s why the Bible doesn’t endorse socialism, and that’s why Mamdani’s state-centered vision should concern anyone who values Christian freedom and America’s founding principles.
Government has a role, and the church has a role. They are not the same. And because politics deals with morality, Christians must be engaged — especially when socialism resurfaces dressed up as compassion.
My dad was right: Nothing is free. Not then, not now, not ever. Someone always pays for it.
‘Don’t Let Them Have a Public Dinner Without Getting Yelled At’: Maine’s Platner Calls for Harassment of Lawmakers Who Oppose Medicare for All
WINDHAM, Maine—Senate candidate Graham Platner (D., Maine) urged his supporters to publicly harass members of Maine’s congressional delegation who oppose Medicare for All.
The post ‘Don’t Let Them Have a Public Dinner Without Getting Yelled At’: Maine’s Platner Calls for Harassment of Lawmakers Who Oppose Medicare for All appeared first on .
Socialism Comes to Congress: 98 House Dems Vote Against Measure To Condemn Far-Left Ideology
Ninety-eight House Democrats on Friday voted against a resolution “denouncing the horrors of socialism” that came just hours before President Donald Trump is set to meet with socialist New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.
The post Socialism Comes to Congress: 98 House Dems Vote Against Measure To Condemn Far-Left Ideology appeared first on .
Mamdani sells socialism — and Republicans peddle the Temu version
New York City has elected a self-professed socialist as mayor. Critics worry about Zohran Mamdani’s inexperience, his approach to law and order, and his views on Israel and Islamic radicalism. But the most urgent issue inside the walls of City Hall is his economic agenda.
Mamdani promises “free” bus transit, a freeze on rent increases, a $30 minimum wage, government-run grocery stores, free child care, and higher taxes in a city already crushed by some of the nation’s highest tax burdens. His brand of socialism isn’t subtle. It’s explicit — and guaranteed to fail.
A movement confident in free enterprise can beat socialism — first in the arena of ideas, then at the ballot box. But only if we choose clarity over imitation.
Many on the right treat Mamdani’s victory as cosmic justice for a deep-blue city that keeps moving left. Others welcome his rise, convinced that showcasing a hard-left mayor will repel voters nationwide. That might be true. It might also be fantasy.
New Yorkers didn’t elect Mamdani so conservatives could score a talking point. His win advances ideas — and conservatives must decide whether they still believe ours are better.
When the right copies the left
Mocking government-run grocery stores is easy. Yet national Republicans just embraced government ownership in Intel — a massive corporation that dwarfs any Manhattan supermarket. Some even support a federal sovereign wealth fund to buy equity across private industry, handing Washington the power to pick winners.
Mamdani demonizes Wall Street and high earners who keep the city solvent. Republicans respond by demonizing “big pharma” and pushing policies that treat major U.S. innovators as villains.
Mamdani wants to redistribute income with New York’s already-extreme tax code. Some on the right now call for $2,000 government checks to lower-income households — financed with borrowed money and paid back by business owners already hit with $350 billion in new tariff taxes this year.
Mamdani would freeze rents because, in his telling, landlords “make a killing.” His economics ignore taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintenance costs that devour margins across New York’s rental market. Yet GOP proposals on health care routinely blame insurers for “making a killing while the little guy suffers.” The overlap with left-wing rhetoric isn’t coincidence. It’s drift.
High grocery prices fuel Mamdani’s push for government-run grocery stores. He blames “capitalistic greed.” Republicans answered high beef prices by accusing meat companies of “price fixing.” Again, the same logic — just delivered with a different logo.
Resurrecting failed policies
Mamdani’s worldview mirrors the same interventionist thinking that powered the Affordable Care Act. Subsidies, mandates, and price controls promised relief. They delivered higher premiums, higher costs, and lower-quality care.
Conservatives should highlight that failure. Instead, too many mimic the left’s solutions — regulation dressed up as populism, government expansion sold as “tough on corporations,” and class warfare renamed as “standing up for workers.”
If Mamdani’s win teaches anything, it’s that conservatives must draw a bright line: free enterprise or the road to socialism. Blurring that line weakens the argument and cedes the moral ground socialism feeds on.
RELATED: Mao tried this first — New Yorkers will not like the ending
Bettmann/Getty Images
The real fight
The conservative movement faces serious internal debates — debates worth having. But Mamdani’s election exposes one fight we cannot dodge: the fight for limited government and competitive markets.
We cannot counter socialism with lighter versions of the same policies. We cannot attack Mamdani’s economic program while pushing our own price controls, government takeovers, and redistribution schemes. A movement that refuses to defend free enterprise won’t defeat socialism. It won’t even understand the threat.
Mamdani comes into office with plenty of flaws. New Yorkers will feel the consequences soon enough. But conservatives face a choice: defend our own principles or mimic the left and call it “the new right.”
A movement confident in free enterprise can beat socialism — first in the arena of ideas, then at the ballot box. But only if we choose clarity over imitation.
A Manhattan Project to Stop Socialism and Revive the American Dream
Last Tuesday’s elections were a wake-up call for the Republican Party that conservative leaders need to be doing more to…
Mao tried this first — New Yorkers will not like the ending
More than 50 years ago, I witnessed firsthand how Mao Zedong’s socialist experiment dismantled market competition, suppressed innovation, and plunged China into economic ruin. As a survivor of that experiment, I watched in horror last week as Zohran Mamdani won over 50% of the vote in New York City, promising a socialist illusion of city-owned grocery stores, free public transit, universal rent control, and a defunded police department.
Such proposals might sound compassionate, but they threaten to repeat the class warfare and state control that devastated China from the 1950s to the late 1970s, only this time they are taking place in the financial capital of the world.
The unpleasant truth is that America may have won the Cold War, but we are losing the ideological war at home.
Consider Mamdani’s push for “good cause eviction” laws and expanded rent control. He claims these measures protect tenants from exploitation, but they discourage property ownership and investment — just as Mao’s housing policies did.
In communist China, the state assigned apartments to urban families, but most people lived in poverty. My family of five was crammed into a 200-square-foot unit with no running water or a toilet. Today, rent control has already reduced housing supply by 20% in parts of New York City, driving up costs for everyone else. What Mamdani offers isn’t progress — it’s stagnation disguised as equity.
Mamdani’s support for “Medicare for All” and fare-free buses also ignores fiscal realities. Mao’s “barefoot doctors” promised class equity but delivered substandard care, contributing to millions of preventable deaths. America’s health care system leads the world in breakthroughs because of merit-driven research and competition, not government mandates. Meanwhile, New York City’s transit authority estimates free transit would cost taxpayers $1 billion annually without improving service. When socialism promises “free” services, it often delivers shortages, rationing, and inefficiency.
The proposal for city-owned grocery stores is another red flag. Under Mao, government-run stores led to chronic food shortages. Rice, cooking oil, and meat were rationed. Each urban citizen received only two pounds of meat per month. Even with ration coupons, I had to wake at 3 or 4 a.m. and wait in line for hours to buy a few ounces. Mamdani’s plan threatening private grocery competition risks repeating this nightmare.
Then there’s his support for defunding the police and replacing them with vague “community safety” alternatives. In 2020, he co-sponsored bills to slash NYPD funding by $1 billion, claiming it would combat systemic racism. This mirrors Mao’s Red Guards, who dismantled law enforcement and replaced it with ideological enforcers — leading to chaos, violence, and mass suffering.
Since 2020, crime in New York has risen by 15%, according to NYPD data. Weakening law enforcement doesn’t protect vulnerable communities — it leaves them exposed. As a father of a New Yorker, Mamdani’s reckless approach to policing is not just a political concern; it’s a personal one.
Mamdani also seeks to eliminate gifted and talented programs in public schools, calling them “inequitable.” But these programs offer high-achieving students — often from diverse backgrounds — a path to excellence.
RELATED: The right needs bigger ideas than tax cuts
Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images
During the Cultural Revolution, China crushed its intellectual class and smothered innovation. New York is making a similar mistake. Gifted programs lifted math proficiency by 25%, according to a 2022 Department of Education report, yet Mamdani wants them eliminated in the name of “equity.” As an Asian-American parent who raised a child in STEM, I’ve seen how excellence takes root: You cultivate talent; you don’t level it.
Mamdani’s agenda mirrors the same destructive ideology I fled from. Socialism thrives on utopian promises pitched to voters who have never lived through the consequences. I have. And I recognize the warning signs.
Yet according to CNN exit polls, 70% of voters ages 18-44 supported Mamdani, compared to just 40% of older voters. Even more alarming: 57% of New Yorkers with college degrees voted for him, versus only 42% without. This reflects the growing influence of pro-socialist indoctrination in American universities.
The unpleasant truth is that America may have won the Cold War, but we are losing the ideological war at home. To prevent a socialist takeover, we must fight back by reforming higher education and teaching our children the truth about socialism in K-12 classrooms.
The Faulty Idealism of the Anti-Wealth Brigade
Twenty-four years after 9/11, New York City elected a 34-year-old whose biography reads like a Marxist coming-of-age novel with a…
‘Those Who Can Leave Will’: Mamdani, ‘Partner In The Hammer And Sickle’ In For Rude Awakening, Says Campaign Vet
Socialist Democratic New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani named his administration’s two top advisers, as he gears up to lead the Big Apple in a decidedly left-wing direction that may cause some residents to bolt. Mamdani announced his current chief of staff, Elle Bisgaard-Church, a fellow Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member, will stay in […]
Explaining Mamdani’s appeal to the young, with polling
It’s a sad week for the de facto capital of the world, New York City. The epicenter of American finance, media, and dynamism now enters a self-imposed trajectory of decline.
But those of us on the populist right should not merely shake our heads and bemoan the extremism of Zohran Mamdani, frightening though it is. Instead, we must understand his appeal, so that we might effectively counter his un-American ideas and continue to build on our 2024 triumph by earning further big gains nationally among young voters.
We have much to learn from Mamdani, even though he is a dangerous Marxist. Establishment Republicans have no effective answer to this kind of populism.
Polling shows the pathway to that success.
First, the great news. Young voters have swung massively to the right over the last three presidential election cycles. President Trump won young men in 2024, and overall, voters 35 and under shifted materially from a +37% preference for the Democrats in 2016 to only a +13% preference in 2024, cutting the young adult margin by two-thirds in just over eight years. It represents a massive macro shift.
In addition, a new national poll of 2,100 voters ages 18-25 shows a substantial rejection of Democrats’ radicalism on key social issues, especially transgenderism and free speech. Simultaneously, young voters express extreme frustration with the current economy, creating a clear opening that Mamdani drove a campaign truck right through.
So, backed by data, here are the three lanes of success that Mamdani exploited.
‘Affordability’ is key
Even though all of his Marxist answers are wrong and immoral, Zohran is laser-focused on the issue that matters most to voters, especially younger ones. Most young citizens have not benefited from the massive run-up in asset prices in recent years. Without substantial holdings of equities or real estate, they struggle to afford the staples of life amid sky-high costs. Even worse, the job market got substantially tougher for young adults, adding even more angst.
These voters correctly blamed the Democrats for the pain of Bidenomics, but that anger has now shifted over to Republicans, fair or not.
Right now, per TIPP Insights polling, only 24% of young adults rate Trump’s performance on the economy as “good” or “excellent,” while 54% rate it as “poor” or “unacceptable.” On inflation, using letter grades, only 6% of young independents give the president an A, while 44% deliver an F.
Mamdani smartly dove into this issue. All his proposed solutions will only make inflation worse, of course, from “free” public transit to lavish benefits for illegal aliens. But regardless, he fixated on what matters to voters, especially young ones.
Media skills
After watching Mamdani throughout the campaign, it’s clear he hates the founding principles and history of the United States. He exemplifies how America’s immigration system — even its lawful pathways — too often imports people who reject the nation’s heritage rather than embrace it.
That said, as a media professional, I can only respect his acumen in front of the cameras.
In this new digital age, which President Trump helped create, successful politicians must be able to perform effectively. Mamdani exudes charisma and likeability. His youth and enthusiasm captivated voters, especially those in the streaming/TikTok spaces.
Media savvy combined with lots of ludicrous promises of freebies is a pretty powerful approach in this populist age. Young people are especially receptive to the heavy use of new/alternative media. TIPP Insights shows that only 31% of independent young adults have positive sentiment for legacy media, and only 34% of young women.
Focus on home
Perhaps the most compelling moment of the campaign for Mamdani was during the July debate, when all candidates were asked where their first foreign visit would be as mayor of New York. All of them said Israel, with Ukraine thrown in as well. But Mamdani gave a truly “New York First” answer instead, one that might well have been uttered by a MAGA partisan. He said, “I would stay in New York City.”
That answer clearly appeals to young voters, who are decidedly non-interventionist abroad. For example, a whopping 69% of young men think we “intervene too much in foreign conflicts.” Only 26% of young adults think the United States should remain involved in Ukraine if Putin and Zelenskyy cannot reach a settlement soon.
RELATED: The kids aren’t all right — they’re being seduced by socialism
Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
That non-interventionism seeps over into a very negative view of Israel among young voters. Survey results found that only 25% of them have a positive view of Israel, versus 52% negative. Among young independents, only 18% have a positive view of Israel.
Therefore, Mamdani probably did not generate the blowback he deserved for extremist postures, such as embracing a pro-terror jihadi who was implicated, but unindicted, in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
We have much to learn from Mamdani, even though he is a dangerous Marxist. Establishment Republicans have no effective answer to this kind of populism, because their default is always “cut taxes for the wealthy and go to war.”
The MAGA movement has a very different vision — one that can appeal to reasonable young people in increasing numbers — to continue this patriotic, populist surge for decades to come.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
