Presidential Politics

Opinion/Analysis: Socialist Sanders is most dangerous major party presidential contender in US history

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the improbable current front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, is lying to the American people when he tell us that “democratic socialism” simply means he wants to give the vast majority of Americans new opportunities to succeed and wants millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes. In fact, my extensive research on comments Sanders has made going back decades shows he has warmly embraced not just socialism but communism, and praised tyrannical dictatorships that have trashed the freedoms Americans enjoy under the Bill of Rights that are part of our Constitution. Sanders is not just another liberal Democrat who wants to expand social programs, in the tradition of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. He is the most radical candidate in American history with a real shot at winning the presidential nomination of one of our two major political parties. While candidates have run for president in the past on radical platforms under the banners of socialist, communist and other fringe political parties, they have drawn only tiny percentages of the vote. Sanders, elected in Vermont as an independent and not as a Democrat, is trying to convince the American people that policies implemented around the world by socialist and communist regimes that have resulted in death, destruction and economic mayhem are in our best interest. But like the wolf in the children’s tale of Little Red Riding Hood who donned a nightgown and covered his face to pose as the young girl’s grandmother, Sanders tries to disguise socialism. The socialist senator wants us to believe socialism is a kind and caring philosophy that is the embodiment of justice and equality for all. Sanders thinks that by sticking the word “democratic” in front of the word “socialism” he can trick millions of Americans into supporting the horrific philosophy he espouses. As the old saying goes, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Communism and socialism give government far more power than our capitalist system does, enabling leaders to become tyrants. This has been proven the case again and again in dozens of nations that have abandoned capitalism for communism and socialism. The truth is that more than 167 million people were exiled, imprisoned, or killed by socialist and communist parties in the 20th century. And, contrary to claims made by Sanders, his talking points about socialism’s successes in countries such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark are completely false. Those countries are not socialist nations and their citizens are, in many ways, not better off than most Americans. Yet despite these well-documented facts, Sanders has managed to sell his socialist snake oil to many well-meaning, kind-hearted Americans who think that the only way to solve the world’s problems is to give government far more power over their lives. The following quotes from Sanders illustrate just how truly radical and disturbing his ideology is. In a “special interview” in 1981 with a communist newspaper called The Militant, Sanders, who had just become mayor of Burlington, Vt., claimed there are American police departments “dominated by fascists and Nazis.” “We’ve got cops here who are good trade unionists on all the regular trade union issues, and who also have a concern for young people,” Sanders told The Militant, in reaction to some concerns voiced by socialists who were worried that he received too much support from local police during his 1980 mayoral campaign. In other words, Burlington had good cops – but bad cops dominated many other police departments. The attack Sanders made on police is not only outrageous, it’s also incredibly ironic. The Nazis were, in fact, socialists who believed in collectively managing property and most of the German economy. Further, some of the most ruthless, murderous regimes to exist during the past 100 years were led by committed Marxists – not free-market capitalists devoted to defending individual rights. Sanders has a long track record of supporting communist and socialist organizations. For example, in 1980 and 1984, he endorsed Socialist Workers Party presidential candidates, and he even agreed to be an elector for the party. This shows clearly that Sanders is no Democrat. He’s an opportunistic radical trying to hijack the Democratic Party and turn it into a socialist party. In the 1980s, the Socialist Workers Party was mostly devoted to espousing radical Marxist and communist ideas, and it was widely known as being largely Trotskyite – an ideology made famous by Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, who promoted the necessity of global communism. According to an article in The Militant, Sanders issued a press release in 1980 in which he said he supported the Socialist Workers Party in part because of its “continued defense of the Cuban revolution.” At the time Sanders lauded the “Cuban revolution,” the ruthless dictator Fidel Castro had been in power for two decades. During that period Castro stripped Cubans of their basic political and individual rights, murdered and imprisoned dissenters and welcomed Soviet missiles to his island nation. That action led to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which brought the U.S. and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war. Sanders has a long track record of framing his ideology as one that is completely contrary to capitalism. This precludes any possibility that he wants to merely reform America’s current market-based system. For example, in a speech Sanders delivered in May 1981 while introducing the head of the Socialist Workers Party, he explained that the “real debate of our time” and the “debate of our century” is “socialism versus capitalism.” Further, throughout the 1980s Sanders said the Democratic Party was not radical enough to accomplish his goal to usher in his Marxist utopia and win the “socialism versus capitalism” debate. For instance, according to reports by the Burlington Free Press, in a speech Sanders delivered in the early 1980s before students at the Vermont Law School he said Vermont needed a new and radical party that “must develop a membership base of workers and farmers” and called for “the rejection of the Democratic and Republican parties.” Based on his own words, it is clear that the “revolution” Sanders is always talking about staging would spell the end of capitalism and economic freedom in the United States that made us the richest, most prosperous and most powerful nation on Earth. And once economic freedom goes, history has shown that political freedom and many of our human rights go as well. My question to each of you reading these words is simple: Do you really want to see America turned into a “workers’ paradise” like China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and so many other failed communist and socialist nations? Sanders doesn’t frame his campaign that way, of course. But that is the choice facing voters.

Indeed..  Thanks to Justin Haskins for that well-researched assessment of Bernie’s history, and his actual philosophical and political beliefs, which he’s espoused for decades.  Justin Haskins is the executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute and the editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com. He’s the author of “Socialism Is Evil: The Moral Case Against Marx’s Radical Dream.” Follow him on Twitter @JustinTHaskins.

Joe Biden, 77, Becomes Youngest Male Candidate in Democrat Primary

Former Vice President Joe Biden, 77, is now the youngest male candidate in the Democrats’ presidential primary after former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the race Sunday. As of last week, Buttigieg, 38, was the field’s youngest candidate. He would have been 39 years and one day old upon taking up the White House had he won the general election. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the presumed frontrunner, is the oldest at 78 years old, followed by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is only eight months younger than the Vermont senator. Sanders will be 79 if he wins the White House. At 73 years old, President Donald Trump is younger than Biden by four years. On Inauguration Day, the president became the oldest to assume office at 70 years and 220 days. John F. Kennedy was the youngest elected president at 43 years and 236 days. In contrast, the field’s woman candidates are all younger than Biden. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is the youngest at 38, while Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is 59 years old. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is the oldest at 70 years old. She would be 71 years and 212 days old if inaugurated after a successful campaign.

Some interesting, and yet relevant, stats.  In a recent poll, those asked said that candidates whose age was over 75 was a cause for concern.  That should be a red flag to both Joe Biden, and especially Bernie who in addition had a recent heart attack.  Bernie may be doing very well with his rabid base in this primary season.  But, the general election is a whole other matter.   And, in the age and health category, Trump clearly has the advantage.  Biden is only 4 years older, but boy does he act old, and his chronic verbal gaffes…  Let’s just say… Trump would destroy him on the debate stage.

Hillary Clinton Received Over 800,000 Illegal Votes, Research Claims

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton received over 800,000 illegal votes from noncitizens of the United States, according to academic research. A study by political scientist Jesse Richman from Old Dominion University in Virginia found that 6.4 percent of the 20 million noncitizens who reside in the United States voted in November’s presidential election. He then extrapolated these results into support for each presidential candidate, estimating that Clinton would have received 81 percent support from noncitizens, therefore receiving an extra 834,000 votes. The number of 834,000 is significant enough to have tipped some of the closest races in Clinton’s favor, including New Hampshire, Nevada, and Maine, all of which Clinton won by margins of under 3 percent. It would also have reduced Clinton’s margin of victory in the popular vote, which she won by 2.8 million by dominating cosmopolitan centers such as New York and California. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said he would be opening up a “major investigation into voter fraud,” promising to “strengthen up voting procedures.”

Great!  It’s about time!  Voter ID should be a no-brainer.  That, and making sure that voter rolls are clear of people who are dead, no longer living in a given precinct…and so on.  This research substantiates Trump’s position that a significant number of illegals DID, in fact vote last November…and had a significant impact.  It only makes sense that a thorough investigation be done to get all the facts, and make the necessary adjustments/fixes to prevent this from happening again.

Obama’s farewell address longer than Reagan’s, Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s combined

President Obama’s farewell address to the nation was longer than the good-bye speeches of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined. Clinton spoke for 7 minutes, 25 seconds; Reagan spoke for 20 minutes, 42 seconds; and George W. Bush spoke for 13 minutes, 7 seconds. Obama spoke for 51 minutes, 10 seconds, nearly 10 minutes longer than the other three put together. Obama also broke from the tradition of delivering his final speech from the White House. Clinton and Reagan both spoke from the Oval Office, and George W. Bush spoke in front of a small audience in the White House East Room; the Obama administration distributed public tickets for his speech at the McCormick Place convention center in Chicago. Obama spoke to a crowd of 18,000.

Thankfully I wasn’t able to watch this nauseating, self-righteous, self-serving, narcissistic, ego-building session last night.  Reading the transcript was vomit-worthy enough.  He actually had the audacity to suggest that race relations have improved in America since he became President 8 years ago.  Wow..  That takes denial to a whole new level.  Just 9 more days, folks..

 

Analysis: Media say hacked emails are critical, but can’t say why

Many in the national media are certain that hacked emails hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances in the election, but their reports and columns rarely cite any of the emails’ contents that would have presumably affected the outcome. Members of the press have made a new push to assert that Russian hacking had an effect on the election, especially after last week’s unclassified report that said Russia did try to help President-elect Trump, and hurt Hillary Clinton. That report made no finding of how effective Russia was, but many in the press are deciding nonetheless that the effort had a huge impact. “While Russian hacks ‘were not involved in vote tallying,’ the publishing of pilfered emails … altered the zeitgeist, poisoned the political environment and shifted public opinion, all of which redounded to Trump’s benefit,” liberal New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote on Monday, citing the intelligence report. The night before, Blow’s colleague Jim Rutenberg, who writes a column on media, said the “spilled secrets” in the emails were “damaging” to the Clinton campaign. He noted that the email revelations saw the resignation of Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and led CNN to terminate its contract with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. But neither Blow nor Rutenberg explained why the emails were damaging nor did they cite examples as to what was in them. The emails — first the DNC ones hacked and published last July, followed by those of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s in August — contained no explosive revelations, though they did show DNC officials preferring Clinton to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. They also showed Clinton aides questioning some of their candidates’ decisions. Another email showed Podesta referring to former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Transportation and Energy Secretary Federico Pena, both of whom are of Latin descent, as “needy Latinos.” (At the time of that email’s publication, neither the Times nor the Washington Post covered it.) But news reports and journalists are asserting that the emails, at least in some capacity, cost Clinton the election. “Was it the Russians who turned Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania truly red?” said Times columnist Maureen Dowd on Saturday, referring to the formerly blue states that Trump won on Election Day. The Trump team has maintained that its victory is legitimate and that it was not helped or guaranteed by foreign intervention. That assessment hasn’t been challenged by the intelligence community, at least not in the public version of its report. The report did say Russia’s intent was to aid Trump and harm Clinton, but it also said intelligence officials “did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.” Still, in an interview Sunday on CNN, anchor Jake Tapper, without discussing the contents of the emails, asked Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, “How can you say that the hacking had no impact on the election when Mr. Trump [during the campaign] kept invoking WikiLeaks which was printing, publishing things that the Russians had hacked?” An article Friday in the Times called the intelligence report “a damning and surprisingly detailed account of Russia’s efforts to undermine the American electoral system,” but did not mention the contents of the emails. The Washington Post’s write up of the intelligence report referred to the emails as having “embarrassed Democrats and kept voter attention on Clinton’s email controversy.” But again, that story listed no “embarrassing” details that might have swayed voters away from Clinton. Similarly, a USA Today report in December referred to the emails as “a trove of sensitive communications” but did not say what made them sensitive. One hurdle for the press as it tries to claim the emails were decisive were prior assessments from the media that downplayed the emails. Before the intelligence findings last week, some news outlets had actually diminished the importance of the email hackings. In October, Times columnist James Poniewozik dismissed the contents of them. “Just because it’s hacked doesn’t mean it’s important,” he wrote, adding that, “Where there’s a smoking gun, there isn’t always fire.” And PolitiFact, on Dec. 1, in a since updated article, said, “Based on the evidence, it seems highly unlikely that actions by the Russian government contributed in any decisive way to Trump’s win over Clinton.”

Of course it didn’t.  And, the Dir. of National Intelligence said as much.  Yes, the Russian government engaged in cyberwarfare, and yes tried to engage in information and disinformation campaigns, including the recent presidential election.  That’s hardly new.  We do the same thing.  Heck, Obama tried to (and illegally, I might add) undermine the election in Israel, so as to unseat Bibi Netanyahu.  Where was the media outrage about that?  Look, it’s all bs; smoke and mirrors.  Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate, that was seen by the overwhelming majority of Americans as someone who was not trustworthy.  If anything, all the hacked emails did was reinforce the attitudes and decisions that voters already had.  It IS interesting that the dominantly liberal mainstream media has failed to substantiate its assertion that that these emails were the cause for Hillary’s loss in November….but, it’s not surprising.

Democrats fall short in bid to stymy Trump in Electoral College

House Democrats attempted to lodge protests Friday against the Electoral College votes of several of the states that backed President-elect Donald Trump but each was ruled out of order by Vice President Joseph R. Biden. Protesters then attempted to disrupt the count, standing up and chanting their own objections as they were dragged from the chamber by police officers. Mr. Trump was confirmed the winner with 304 electoral votes, well more than the 270 needed for a majority. Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ nominee, earned 227 votes. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was also confirmed as the next vice president, with 305 electoral votes. As the roll call of states proceeded a handful of House Democrats refused to accept the results, claiming that massive voter suppression, interference by Russian-backed actors and other problems poisoned the vote in a number of states, making it invalid. But under the rules, an objection needs to be in writing and signed by a member of both the House and Senate. No senators signed onto the objections, and Mr. Biden tossed each of them out.

And our Republic stands strong as ever!  Kudos to VP Joe Biden (D) for doing his job and not putting up with this nonsense from members of his own party.  Crazy Uncle Joe, as he is sometimes called, oftentimes does and says some breathtakingly stupid things.  But, on this day, when it mattered, he stepped up.  So, we give credit where credit is due.  Now..all you sore loser Dems…it is now officially over.

Colorado ends presidential caucuses in favor of primaries

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) signed two measures to allow voters to choose presidential nominees through a primary, and not caucus, process. Each measure was approved by voters in November referenda by margins of two-to-one. Proposition 108 allows all voters to participate in party primaries, even if they are not affiliated with parties. Colorado voters, since 2004, were required to identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans in order to participate in presidential primaries. Proposition 107 eliminates the state’s caucus procedures. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, signed both on Tuesday. Se. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., won Colorado’s Democratic caucuses in 2016. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, won the most delegates in Republican Party district conventions, held instead of precinct-level caucuses. It is anticipated the expanded primary procedures will increase the cost of elections in Colorado, and local and state governments will pay for them. The state estimates the 2020 presidential primaries will cost it $2.7 million, and counties are expected to spend an estimated $5.3 million.

Oh yea..  What this also means is that those unaffiliated voters can just arbitrarily vote in a primary.  That should not happen, and was a big con that a bunch of Democrat lawyers inserted into the ballot initiative.  Only those registered with a certain party should be allowed to vote in that party’s primary.