Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
|Register||FAQ||Pictures||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Clinton, sanders and progressive racism
CLINTON, SANDERS AND PROGRESSIVE RACISM
Only historical ignorance could explain black affinity for progressivism.
By Walter Williams
Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders seek to claim the "progressive" mantle. Both claim the other is not a true progressive. Clinton teased Sanders as being the "self-proclaimed gatekeeper for progressivism." Bernie Sanders said that Hillary Clinton can't be both a moderate and a progressive and that most progressives don't take millions from Wall Street. But let's talk about the origins of progressivism. It's only historical ignorance that could explain black affinity for progressivism.
The Progressive Era is generally seen as the period from 1890 to 1920. President Woodrow Wilson, a leading progressive, had a deep contempt for the founding principles of our nation. Progress for Wilson was to get "beyond the Declaration of Independence," because "it is of no consequence to us." President Wilson implored that "all that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when 'development,' 'evolution,' is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine."
President Woodrow Wilson was a believer in notions of racial superiority and inferiority. He was so enthralled with D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" movie, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan, that he invited various dignitaries to the White House to view it with him. During one private screening, President Wilson exclaimed: "It's like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." When President Wilson introduced racial segregation to the civil service, the NAACP and the National Independent Political League protested. Wilson vigorously defended it, arguing that segregation was in the interest of Negroes. Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilson's first term, "I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time."
President Woodrow Wilson's predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, was another progressive captivated by the notions of racial inferiority. He opposed voting rights for black Americans, which were guaranteed by the 15th Amendment, on the grounds that the black race was still in its adolescence.
Theodore Roosevelt said that "race suicide," a term coined by sociologist and eugenicist Edward Ross, was the "greatest problem of civilization." "The theory that races are virtually equal in capacity," wrote Ross in the journal of the American Sociological Society, "leads to such monumental follies as lining the valleys of the South with the bones of half a million picked whites in order to improve the conditions of four million unpicked blacks."
The Progressive era gave birth to the "separate but equal" doctrine that emerged from the Supreme Court's notorious 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that symbolized Jim Crow racism. Progressives were also people who attacked free-market economics. Along with muckraking journalists they attacked capitalistic barons. They were advocates of what might be called "scientific racism" that drew from anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, eugenics and medical science. Popular books during the Progressive era included Charles Carroll's "The Negro a Beast" and R.W. Shufeldt's "The Negro, a Menace to American Civilization." A best-seller was Madison Grant's "The Passing of the Great Race," where he argued that inferior races were out-breeding their betters, leading to race suicide. Economist John R. Commons regarded blacks as immutably inferior therefore justifying slavery.
Legal scholar Richard Epstein concludes that progressivism sought to grant the state vast new authority to manage all walks of American life while at the same time weakening traditional checks on government power, including private property rights and liberty of contract, two principles that progressives hold in contempt. Epstein notes, "The sad but simple truth is that the Jim Crow resegregation of America depended on a conception of constitutional law that gave property rights short shrift, and showed broad deference to state action under the police power."
It is clear that today's progressives have the same constitutional contempt as their predecessors. I hope they do not share the racial vision. Black voters ought to demand, at a minimum, that progressives disavow their ugly racist past. They should re-label themselves to something other than progressives, maybe compassionate totalitarians.
Last edited by Paparock; 02-20-2016 at 06:32 PM..
The progressives’ phony democracy
THE PROGRESSIVES’ PHONY DEMOCRACY
The fears of the Founders and the prophecies of Tocqueville are on their way to becoming reality.
By Bruce Thornton
The sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia has sharpened the divide between the progressives’ idea of technocratic federal power, and the Constitution’s limited government that Scalia eloquently championed for almost 30 years. This division has a long history that transcends the failed presidency of Barack Obama.
The Democratic Party grew out of opposition to the elitist Federalists, whose president John Adams was known as “His Rotundity” for his girth and alleged aristocratic tendencies. James Madison in 1792 established the contrast between the two parties that persists to this day: the Federalists were “more partial to the opulent,” and believed that “government can be carried on only by the pageantry of rank, [and] the influence of money and emoluments.” Those who would become Democrats, Madison wrote, believed “in the doctrine that mankind are capable of governing themselves,” and he charged that power lodged “into the hands of the few” is “an insult to the reason and an outrage to the rights of man.” In short, the Democrats were about power to the people rather than to privileged elites.
Two centuries later, the Democratic Party still uses the rhetoric of democracy, and castigates the Republicans as the tools of greedy corporations and crypto-fascist plutocrats––“Wall Street” and the “Koch brothers” being the shorthand for this nefarious cabal. Yet in their policies and practices, the Democrats are now the true elitists who have narrowed government “into the hands of the few,” even within their own party. Consider the recent two presidential primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. In the popular vote Bernie Sanders tied Hillary in Iowa and wiped her out in New Hampshire. Yet Hillary ended up with more delegates––394 to Sanders’ 44. Why? Because there are 712 “superdelegates,” Congressmen, governors, some mayors, and certain party apparatchiks. Each superdelegate is worth about 10,000 of one citizen’s vote. So much for believing “mankind are capable of governing themselves.”
Much more dangerous for the country has been the consolidation and concentration of power in the federal government, and its metastasizing regulatory agencies and expansive presidential reach, a goal of progressive ideology starting with Theodore Roosevelt. Of course, early progressives continued to use democratic rhetoric to mask this undemocratic inflation of the chief executive’s constitutional authority, and their tyrannical assaults on the people’s autonomy and freedom. Roosevelt spoke of the “triumph of a real democracy,” and Woodrow Wilson touted the “sovereignty of self-governing peoples.” Opposed to this “people” were the “sinister special interests” that “beat back the forces that strive for social and industrial justice,” as Roosevelt put it, and the “invisible empire” of “bosses and their employers, the special interests,” in Wilson’s words. Sound familiar?
But the “people” of the progressives is not the “people” of the Constitution. The progressives’ “people” were not individuals and factions with their clashing interests and beliefs. Those different interests reflected the diverse regional, sectional, and religious identities and folkways comprising the flesh-and-blood peoples of the original states. Rather, the progressives homogenized that variety into an abstract collective “people,” now unified by interests, ideology, and aims as defined by the new techno-political elite.
Moreover, reducing this variety to a unified people helped rationalize the concentration of power in Washington. Since such a collectivized people had the same interests, they required a centralized authority of technocrats better able to serve them. “The national government,” Roosevelt argued, “belongs to the whole American people, and where the whole American people are interested, that interest can be guarded effectively only by the national government.”
Wilson was more frankly, and frighteningly, collectivist. The government must be rebuilt by political “architects” and “engineers,” in order to create a political order “where men can live as a single community, cooperative as in a perfect coordinated beehive.” Gone now are the founders’ acknowledgement of the diverse “factions” that reflect various “passions and interests,” whose dangerous competition for power is limited and contained by the separation of powers and checks and balances of the Constitution. And the question progressives begged is whether a nation of such diversity can in fact all have the same “interests” (other than self-defense, foreign policy, and protection of the borders) that can be best served by a distant federal government.
Accompanying this brief for centralized power is the need for an executive much more powerful than the Constitution’s president. Wilson is again eerily prophetic about where the Democrats have ended up. If the “people” are united in their interests, then the clash of factions the Constitution was designed to manage is counterproductive. As Wilson said, “You cannot compound a successful government out of antagonisms.” Instead we must “look to the President as the unifying force in our complex system, the leader both of his party and of the nation.” Wilson’s description of the qualities such a leader needs is a portrait reminiscent of the tyrants who devastated the 20th century:
Whoever would effect a change in modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.
The Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda could not have said it better.
Wilson also described the next step for the “leader of men,” from an essay of the same name:
The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much-everything [sic] for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question of the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them?
In the intervening 116 years we have seen this question answered: the progressives have “moved” people by corrupting the schools, marginalizing civic society, intrusively regulating lives, hijacking the culture, and rigorously policing and punishing any “opinions” that stray from the dogma of the technocratic elite.
Finally, the progressive ideal of the “leader of men” takes us down the road to tyranny the Founders strove mightily to avoid. Remembering the history of the ancient city-states, they feared a tyrant who violently redistributes property in order to buy the support of the masses. But Alexis de Tocqueville more astutely recognized that in an egalitarian democracy, a “soft despotism” was a greater danger than violent revolution. A centralized and concentrated government becomes “an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure [the people’s] gratification and to watch over their fate,” one that “covers the surface of the society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform,” and thus keeps the people “in perpetual childhood.” Self-government disappears, as the government spares the people “all the care of thinking and the trouble of living.”
For over a century modern Democrats have been the agents of this ongoing transformation from self-rule to technocratic “soft despotism.” They are the true privileged elites that Madison scorned. Just think of Hillary panhandling Wall Street and thug regimes for cash, and ignoring the laws governing the handling of national intelligence. But progressives hide their drive for more power and control under the phony democratic rhetoric of “concern for the people” whom they in fact regard as unruly children to be controlled by their more intelligent betters. During the two terms of Barack Obama, the progressives have accelerated this process. The entitlement regime has expanded, intrusive regulatory powers have multiplied and intensified, executive authority has blown past the limits of the Constitution, and the progressive thought-police has vigorously attacked those who still think for themselves––all at the cost of our freedom and autonomy.
And now, the untimely death of Justice Scalia has made this monitory history of progressive sham democracy and soft despotism even more pertinent. As Scalia said of the Supreme Court decision imposing same-sex marriage on the states, “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.” If the Senate Republicans don’t stand firm and resist Obama’s choice to replace Scalia, then for decades to come the progressive program to subvert the Constitution’s protection of political freedom will continue, abetted by a Harvard- and Yale-educated Supreme Court unchecked by the electoral accountability to the people that limits Congress and the president. Then the fears of the Founders and the prophecies of Tocqueville will become our reality.
Who is elizabeth warren?
WHO IS ELIZABETH WARREN?
Presidential candidate? Supreme Court nominee?
By John Perazzo
Following the death of Antonin Scalia, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren was among those who most emphatically denounced Mitch McConnell's suggestion that the GOP might resolve to block the confirmation of President Obama's next Supreme Court nominee—so as to reserve the task of making that nomination for whomever the voters elect as president in November. Said Warren: “Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did—when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes. Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates [J]ustices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate.... Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that—empty talk.”
Moreover, Warren herself has garnered some support as a possible successor to Scalia. Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson, for one, has directly implored President Obama to appoint Warren to the Court “before the end of this week,” which “would make it a 'recess appointment'” and thereby enable Warren to “take office immediately.” According to Grayson, Warren “deserves” to be appointed because she has produced “scholarly work [that] is renowned”; has been “an indefatigable watchdog over the capital markets for almost a decade”; and is “an outstanding writer and communicator.”
So who, exactly, is Elizabeth Warren?
Prior to becoming a U.S. Senator in 2012, Warren spent twenty years as a professor at Harvard Law School. From the mid-Eighties through the late Nineties, she deliberately misrepresented herself as a “minority professor” of “Native American” heritage. This falsehood was to Warren's great professional advantage at that time, as Harvard was under heavy pressure to add more nonwhites and women to its faculty. During her 2012 Senate campaign, Warren's deceptions came back to haunt her when it became obvious that she had been lying about her background for decades. In response to media questions about the matter, the strongest explanation she was able to provide was that she had always viewed the “high cheekbones” of her late “papaw” (grandfather) as solid evidence of her Native American lineage. Warren's genetic arithmetic said otherwise, however. Even by the most generous interpretation of the facts, she is no more than 1/32 Cherokee.
Warren's racial obsessions were likewise on display in March 2004, when she spoke at a Virginia symposium (http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...next-frontier/) entitled “Critical Race Theory: The Next Frontier,” alongside a number of academics who, according to (http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-r...zabeth-warren/) the Washington Free Beacon, “have advocated for corporate and government reparations for African-Americans, criticized the concept of U.S. citizenship, and accused the United States of operating under a system of 'apartheid.'” Critical Race Theory (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/v...ry.asp?id=1566), founded by the late Derrick Bell, is an academic discipline which maintains that society is fundamentally divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines.
In an article which she published (http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...next-frontier/) soon after that symposium, Warren lamented “how black families are having much greater difficulty accumulating wealth” because “tax codes or other seemingly neutral statutes systematically disadvantage black families.” Giving voice to her core belief that no one is ever really responsible for their own successes or failures in life, Warren said nothing about the fact that the rate of out-of-wedlock births—which in the black community exceeded 70 percent—was (and still is) by far the strongest predictor of poverty, regardless of one's race or ethnicity.
Warren's other big obsession is her unabashed contempt for free-market capitalism, contrasted to her devout faith in big-government redistributionism as the cure for all that ails mankind. In 2003 Warren and her daughter, Amelia Tyagi, co-authored a book titled The Two-Income Trap, wherein they portray capitalism as a financial system where “the game is stacked against” ordinary people by greedy exploiters. A few years later, Warren argued that the cataclysmic subprime mortgage crisis was caused by the devious tactics of capitalist “lenders [who] have deliberately built tricks and traps into some credit products so they can ensnare families in a cycle of high-cost debt.” Her solution? More “regulation” by the very same federal government that—though Warren didn't mention it—had literally forced banks, on pain of severe penalties, to make countless loans to underqualified nonwhite borrowers—all under the noble flags of “racial justice” and “inclusion.”
Speaking of “inclusion,” Warren also served a stint with the FDIC's Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion (ACEI), which focuses on “expanding access to banking services” and “promot[ing] asset accumulation” for “underserved populations”—essentially the same goals that had created the financial crisis in the first place. Having apparently learned nothing from the calamity of 2008, the ACEI, echoing Warren, advances the false notion (http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsr...mic-inclusion/) that the meltdown was the result of insufficient government “oversight” of lending institutions; “predatory” lending practices by private-sector banks; and all manner of “deception” and “discrimination” directed against poor, unsuspecting cherubs seeking mortgage loans. By Warren's telling, capitalism had shown itself to be “a financial system that saw [people] not as customers, but as prey ... a financial system … devastated by mindless deregulation and unchecked greed.”
In 2009 Warren appeared in Michael Moore's anti-capitalist film titled Capitalism: A Love Story, wherein the filmmaker told Warren, on screen, that “capitalism in and of itself, at least the capitalism we know now, is immoral, it’s not democratic, and worst of all, it doesn’t work.” “We have to rewrite [capitalism's] rules,” Warren said in agreement, blasting corporations for trying to “sell [people] more credit cards that are loaded with tricks and traps.”
In 2011 Warren famously asserted that the government and the public sector must play a vital role if wealth creation is to occur: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own—nobody.... You built a factory out there?... You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.” That fall, Warren—while enjoying a $429,000 (http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/30/el...000-worth-mill) Harvard salary and residing in a $5 million mansion—expressed support for the anti-capitalism rallies of Occupy Wall Street. “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she boasted (http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ll-street.html) to an interviewer. “I support what they do.”
Elizabeth Warren is all about big government. All about a centralized economy. All about wealth redistribution. All about class warfare. All about picking relentlessly at society's racial scabs. All about fundamental transformation. It would be difficult to think of a more appropriate individual for Barack Obama to nominate to the Supreme Court.
Last edited by Paparock; 02-22-2016 at 04:56 PM..
Bernie sanders touts marxist economists
BERNIE SANDERS TOUTS MARXIST ECONOMISTS
America's most prominent Marxist economist backs Bernie
By Daniel Greenfield
In response to criticism of his financial proposals, the Bernie Sanders campaign posted a list (https://berniesanders.com/wp-content...t-Letter-1.pdf) of “economists and financial experts” who support his plans.
Left-wing websites describe it as a list of the “nation’s top economists”, but it includes financial planners, some with no degree in economics at all, an instructor at Chemeketa Community College, and PhD candidates, including Mohammad Moeini-Feizabadi, an Iranian PhD candidate studying Marxian Political Economy. Also present is Michael Meeropol, the son of the Stalinist atom bomb traitors.
Not only isn’t this a list of the “nation’s top economists,” but the Sanders list is thick with economists defined by their interest in Heterodox economics, encompassing everything from Marxian economics to feminist economics. There aren’t many Austrians on Bernie’s list, but there are a whole lot of Marxists.
The Bernie list of economists who endorse his financial program includes Richard D. Wolff who has been listed as "America's Most Prominent Marxist Economist". Wolff is quite popular among the left, which pretended until now that it wasn't Socialist and is now busy pretending that it's not Marxist.
Wolff has been quoted as being thrilled that Bernie Sanders isn’t “shying away from the label ‘socialist’” which “raises questions of whether you are a Soviet agent”. In that same interview, he complains that “The left became lost in the kind of leftism in which Karl Marx became more and more irrelevant.”
Perhaps Bernie Sanders is meant to redeem the old monster and reintroduce him to the American left.
By putting up this list on his campaign website, Bernie Sanders is openly touting his support from "America's Most Prominent Marxist Economist." That should have been beyond the pale not too long ago, but once Socialism comes through the door, Marxism hitches a ride to America along with it.
The Bernie Sanders economist list is one where Karl Marx is extremely relevant. You might even say that Marx is the grand unifying principle of the list.
There’s Hans G. Ehrbar who teaches a class on Marx’s Das Kapital at the University of Utah. His webpage asks whether there are “alternatives to capitalism.” It includes Saule T. Omarova, whose thesis at Moscow State University was on “Karl Marx’s Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in Das Kapital.” Currently Omorova teaches financial regulation at Cornell University Law School.
The focus on Marxism is pervasive among many of the names on the Bernie Sanders economist list.
John Weeks is described as a Marxist (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/04/ps4-a09.html) who has called for the (https://philosophersforchange.org/20...ationalization of finance” so his appearance on the list is not terribly surprising. Weeks is a Sanders fan and wonders (http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/ber...r_from_vermont) whether “his class-focused political message can realize the long term dream of American populist progressives.”
Antonio Callari is the author of “Marxism in the Postmodern Age: Confronting the New World Order,” Nancy Folbre has been described (http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/editorials/marx.php) as a Marxist and Yavuz Yaşar is the author of “Teaching Macroeconomics by Bringing Marx into the Classroom.” Ilene Grabel appeared at Marxism Now, a forum sponsored by Rethinking Marxism, a publication to which many on the Sanders list had contributed.
Xuan Pham teaches “An Introduction to Neoclassical and Marxian Perspectives on Inequality.” Anwar Shaikh contributed to “A Dictionary of Marxist Thought,” Wolfram Elsner wrote, “Marx, Veblen, and Contemporary Institutional Political Economy: Principles and Unstable Dynamics of Capitalism,” Philip Pilkington wrote the article, “Was Marx Right?”, Jon D. Wisman wrote his article on, “Why Marx Still Matters” and Matias Vernengo states that his view is partly based on that of Karl Marx.
Beneria Lourdes was a Marxist feminist economist, as are a number of others on the list. Gary Mongiovi has been described (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarc...-it-or-lose-it) as a Marxist. Spencer J. Pack is the author of Reconstructing Marxist Economics, Michael Nuwer authored “Harry Braverman's Marxism” and Mayo C. Toruño authored “Marxism, Institutionalism and Social Evolution”. William Darity is the author of “Contemporary Marxism: Ideology or Science?”, John F. Henry authored “Marx, Veblen and Contemporary Institutional Political Economy” and delivered a presentation (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/h/henryjf/PDFS/Vita.pdf) on “Racism and the Economics of Privilege” at the Marxist School of Sacramento (http://www.keywiki.org/Marxist_School_of_Sacramento).
There is Radhika Balakrishanan, a feminist economist, who in a paper on “Sexual and Economic Justice”, writes that, “Capitalism was aptly characterized by Marx as a system that “overthrows the narrow parochialism of earlier society, destroys traditions, and disrupts personal dependence in favor of impersonal connection of the ‘cash nexus.’”
While not everyone who writes a book or article about Marxism, or who teaches Marxism, is necessarily a Marxist, it does indicate a certain interest in the subject of a totalitarian radical economic philosophy. And, along with Veblen fandom, it is shared by significant numbers of the economists whose support Bernie Sanders boasts.
Radical policy programs are ubiquitous among the list members. Pavlina Tcherneva has called on Bernie (http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2...html#more-9629) Sanders to offer job guarantees for all. Antoine Godin demanded guaranteed green jobs and John Weeks wants to nationalize financial institutions. Richard Wolff has written that, "When regulation proves inadequate or insufficient, nationalization is often a logical next step."
Albena Azmanova complained that, “Not even leftist parties are proposing the de-privatisation of parts of the economy, thus failing to pursue a genuine left agenda exactly when the time seems to be ripe for it.”
All of this is at variance with Bernie Sanders’ attempts to claim that he is no more radical than Truman or Teddy Roosevelt. This list of economists whose support for his program he touts suggests that he is far more radical than we have been led to believe, that his jaunts to Communist countries were not mere amateur diplomacy, but support for ideological left-wing comrades on the red side of the map.
Bernie Sanders supporters are told that they will only be getting the same style of Socialism that has failed in Western Europe, but it is disturbingly possible that they will instead be getting the style of Socialism that had to be violently overthrown in Eastern Europe.
Larry Sanders, the brother of Bernie (https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2...iel-greenfield) who had a huge influence on his politics, said that his brother will “flex his muscles” and go big, no matter what Congress or even the Democratic Party might say. According to him, Bernie Sanders believes that “the cause of socialism” is more important than anything else. He also describes turning on Bernie to his studies of “Marx and Hegel” to “help him get started.”
A discerning reader may have noticed that many of the names on the list of economists are foreign. There is an extensive organization abroad aiding the Bernie Sanders campaign. It includes the “Corbynists,” the worst elements of the radical left in the UK, who are openly supportive of Islamic terrorism, hate America and Israel, and promote a radical Marxist economic program. They are considered well to the left even within Labour. Their support means that Bernie Sanders isn’t just too radical for the Democratic Party, but for many European Socialists.
There’s something fundamentally wrong with a campaign that boasts of its support by “America's Most Prominent Marxist Economist” and is fueled abroad by left-wing extremists that hate America.
The media has given Bernie Sanders the image of a cuddly grandpa. His staffers describe an angry and impatient radical with no patience for people who was fanatically bent on his cause. Behind the selfies with smiling teens is a political radical opposed to the cause of human freedom coming into his own.
Last edited by Paparock; 02-23-2016 at 03:03 PM..
What the political horserace is distracting voters from.
By Thomas Sowell
Amid all the media analyses of the prospects of each of the candidates in both political parties, there is remarkably little discussion of the validity -- or lack of validity -- of the arguments these candidates are using.
It is as if what matters this election year is the fate of a relative handful of people-- currently seven -- running for their respective parties' nominations. Meanwhile, the fate of the 320 million Americans who are going to be affected by the outcome of this year's election fades into the background.
The fact that Hillary Clinton's election prospects, for example, depend on her ability to get the black vote has been talked about in the media numerous times. But what about the fate of millions of black people, and how that will be affected by the way Hillary Clinton is trying to get their votes?
Her basic pitch to black voters is that they have all sorts of enemies, and that blacks need her to protect them, which she is ready to do if they vote for her. In short, Hillary's political fate depends on spreading fear and, if possible, paranoia.
Similar attempts to get the votes of women are based on conjuring up enemies who are waging a "war on women," with Hillary again cast in the role of someone ready to come to their rescue, if they will give her their votes.
In both cases, rhetoric and repetition take the place of hard evidence. The closest thing to evidence being offered is that the average income of blacks is not the same as the average income of whites, and the average income of women is not the same as the average income of men.
But the average incomes of people in their twenties is usually lower than the average income of people in their forties -- and by a greater amount than the income difference between women and men, or the income difference between blacks and whites. Does that mean that middle-aged people are enemies of young adults?
In countries around the world, and for centuries of recorded history, people living up in the mountains have usually been poorer than people living on the land below. Does this mean that people in the lowlands have somehow been robbing mountain people? Or does it mean that the circumstances of people living in mountains have usually been less promising than the circumstances of others?
If poverty among blacks is due to whites, why has the poverty rate among black married couples been in single digits every year since 1994, despite far higher poverty rates among other blacks? Do most white employers even know -- or care -- which blacks are married?
When the imprisonment rate of blacks with a college education is a fraction of the imprisonment rate of other blacks, does that mean that white cops check out the education of blacks before they decide to arrest them?
Or does it mean that blacks who have chosen one way of life have very different prospects than those who have chosen a very different way of life -- as is true among whites, Asians, Hispanics and others?
Economic differences between women and men are not wholly due to personal choices, since only women have babies, and it is usually mothers who take time out from the job market to raise them.
When women work fewer hours per year than men, and do not work continuously for as many years as men, how surprised should we be that the sexes have different incomes on average?
Anyone who is being serious -- as distinguished from being political -- would have to take many factors into account before saying that male-female income differences, or black-white differences, are due to people with identical qualifications and experience being paid differently.
Any number of studies, including studies by female scholars, have shot down the oft-repeated claim that women are paid less than men with identical work qualifications. But that will not stop that same bogus claim from being made repeatedly this election year.
What about blacks, women or others who believe the political hype? Will that help them improve their lives, or will it be anther counterproductive distraction for them and another polarization of society that helps nobody, except those who seeking votes? As for the media, they are covering the political contests, not the effects of the lies generated in these contests.
Sanders adviser suggests Israel gassed Syrians
Sanders adviser suggests Israel gassed Syrians
Foreign policy adviser to Bernie Sanders bashes 'Jewish lobby' controlling America, suggests Israel may have gassed Syrians in 2013.
By David Rosenberg
Vermont Senator and self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders has tapped retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson as a foreign policy adviser for the dark horse candidate’s presidential campaign.
Wilkerson, who served as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff, emerged in the years following the 2003 invasion of Iraq as an outspoken critic of the Bush administration and the war on terror.
In 2013, Wilkerson also criticized the assumption that embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for a deadly chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians.
In an interview with Cenk Uygur on Current TV, Wilkerson suggested that Israel was in fact responsible for the attack, part of what he suggested may have been a false-flag operation to force American intervention in Syria.
This is not his first controversial statement regarding Israel. In 2007, Wilkerson appeared in a Dutch documentary produced by VPRO investigating the influence of “the Israel lobby”, suggesting that American foreign policy was dominated by American Jews.
“The connections between America and Israel are so great and so strong that geostrategy, political strategy, grand strategy is of no consequence here,” he said. “America simply cannot say, ‘Israel you’re on your own’. It just wouldn’t work. And one of the reasons it wouldn’t work is because we have a very powerful Jewish lobby in America.”
Wilkerson went on to cite an example of the powerful grip of the “Jewish lobby”, noting he had once “received an e-mail from Dershowitz” over comments he had made regarding Israel. Wilkerson condemned Dershowitz as a “Harvard professor who protects the Jewish lobby in America like an attack dog.”
In 2015, Wilkerson gave an interview to MintPress News, where he blasted Israel as “the most predatory capitalist state in the eastern Mediterranean, and that’s saying something because we [the US], China, and Russia have exemplified predatory capitalism in the last 20 years, but Israel outstrips us all.”
Wilkerson went on to accuse Israel of betraying the US to Russia and China.
The Sanders campaign has refused to comment.
Bill whittle: The most shameful injustice
BILL WHITTLE: THE MOST SHAMEFUL INJUSTICE
Death by Democrats.
Transcript: see video below
Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.
This tidy little structure was by all accounts the community anchor of a safe, friendly, booming little corner of muscular, dynamic, Motor City USA: Detroit, the crown jewel in the Arsenal of Democracy where cars and trucks, and later tanks and planes, rolled off assembly lines manned by workers who lived across the street or down the road from libraries like this one.
This is the interior of the Mark Twain library as it looked in the early 1940’s: airy, ordered, quiet, spotlessly clean.
This is the interior of the Mark Twain library in 2011. For decades, the librarians and the public complained about the deterioration of the library, and for decades the Detroit municipal government allocated funds for its repair, and for decades those funds somehow never arrived at the Mark Twain library… but mold did, and trespassers, and looters, and just before they tore it down just about everything of any value had been stolen: furniture, light fixtures, the copper wire from the walls.
They only thing they didn’t steal were the books.
Author John Perazzo has compiled a remarkable booklet called “The New Shame of the Cities,” which contains an exhaustive, amazing and depressing army of statistics that outline The Detroit Pattern that has killed those American cities ruled by unbroken lines of Democrats and Democratic Party policies. So if we want to understand the Detroit Pattern, maybe we should start in Detroit.
Through the 1940’s, 50’s and into the 60’s, Detroit was not the blasted ruin you see today, but the thriving, pulsating center of American business enterprise. By 1960, Detroit… yeah, Detroit..! had the highest per capita income of any city in the United States. Factories were humming, Motown records was spinning out blues and soul and Detroit’s school system – called by New Republic “One of the finest in the world” was turning out world-class students of every race. Up until 1960, Detroit could boast a large and prosperous black middle class, black congressmen, and wages for unskilled were higher than the national average. That was the last year Detroit had a Republican mayor.
So, what happened?
The first of the Democratic Dynasty, white liberal Jerome Cavanagh, greatly expanded the role of the city government in the city’s business, and, to his credit, made a serious effort to appoint Blacks to prominent positions in his administration.
This was preamble. The wave that eventually destroyed Detroit and so many other American cities came from Washington DC, and Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty programs.
$490 million in Federal money – an enormous sum in the mid sixties – poured in through the Model City program. It went to housing projects and social programs, dispersed by City Hall, and not to help small business and entrepreneurs keep the city economically viable. By 1990, Detroit’s Model City area had lost 63% of it’s population, 45% of its housing units, and were unimaginably violent and dangerous.
34% of Detroit’s citizens were on the welfare rolls by 1987 – four times what it was twenty years earlier.
Sociologist Walter E. Williams looked out over the financial ruin of Detroit and said, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black family.”
In 1976 the Democratic mayor cut the police force by 20%; by 1987 the homicide rate was three times higher than it had been twenty years earlier. When locals complained about the skyrocketing crime, the mayor openly stated that calls for law and order were simply code words for white racism.
So where did all the money for law enforcement go? Into the same pockets that the money for education went. Today, the Detroit Public School system spends $15,500 PER STUDENT per year; that’s half again more than the national average. It’s not that there wasn’t enough money. It’s where the money went.
In 2009 forensic accountants discovered 257 “ghost” employees on the payroll. Another 500 people were illegally drawing millions of dollars in benefits from the public school fund, and after a few months of this seven additional public officials were charged with felony embezzlement, having pulled tens of thousands of dollars from the school system. In 2009, Detroit’s children had math scores lower than any ever recorded in the history of the city and they now read at a level 73% below the national average. One in five fourth graders can write with fourth grade proficiency.
Economically, 55 years of Democratic corruption in Detroit means the city now has the highest property tax rates in America, and yet, in 2012 city revenues were 40% LOWER – in constant dollars – than they were in 1962. In terms of economic freedom – the ability to start new businesses without acres of government red tape, Detroit ranks 345th out of 384 regions measured. When facing this ocean of fees and regulations, most people trying to start new businesses simply give up. Their dreams simply die.
What never dies, of course, is the City’s vast bureaucracy with forty-some individual labor unions, each with high salaries and lavish retirement benefits. Their schools are the worst in the country, and their Murder rate is either first or second, but Detroit can proudly state that fully one-third of all the money it spends every year is paid to some 21,000 public-sector retirees and their families.
This is what 55 years of Death by Democrats has done to Detroit: 911 police calls average 58 minutes response time – the national average is eleven minutes. There are 12,000 fires every year in Detroit – Fire Department money goes the way of the Twain Library repairs. Half of the city parks have closed due to lack of funds since 2008. About 100,000 housing units – nearly thirty percent of the city – are vacant. And 40% of the population hopes to escape the Detroit Pattern of Democratic Destruction within 5 years.
And it is precisely the same pattern for other major cities like Baltimore, where the city government awarded the family of a deceased drug dealer named Freddie Grey 6 million dollars and indicted six police officers on trumped up charges for having the temerity to arrest him. As in Detroit, millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are regularly funneled not into law enforcement or education, but rather into contracts for friends and political supporters.
By the end of the 1990’s the murder rate in Baltimore six times higher than New York’s. In Baltimore, Maryland, some 54,000 open arrest warrants, including 250 for murder or attempted murder, are being worked by four police officers. Four.
In 2010 Democratic Mayor Sheila Dixon was convicted of embezzlement and perjury; 14% of the city’s fourth graders can read proficiently. The Baltimore Teachers Union successfully opposed a desperate plea from city residents for a voucher program to allow them to find schools that would, you know, actually educate their children; the $15,483 per student, per year is paid to abysmal union teachers then paid, via Union dues, directly to the Democratic party to run candidates that keep the heist in motion. .
That’s how it’s done. That’s how it’s done in Washington DC, where by 1992, 52,000 people – one in twelve! – were on the city payroll. Los Angeles is five times the size of DC but has 14,000 fewer taxpayer-funded workers. Washington DC has an unbroken succession of Democratic mayors and city councils for the last 43 years.
Like Detroit, and Baltimore, Washington DC constantly vies for the title of the nation’s murder capital; when Democrat Marion Barry, videotaped by the FBI and shown smoking crack on national television, was tried for 14 counts of cocaine possession, he called the prosecution “a political lynching;” NAACP executive director Benjamin Hooks said that “overzealous, hostile—if not openly racist—district and U.S. attorneys will bring a black official to trial on the flimsiest of evidence.” Ten blacks and two whites found him guilty of 1 count of possession. A few years later he ran again as Mayor and was handily elected; he ran for a seat on the DC council in 2004, got 95% of the vote, and still serves on the council today.
Eighty-three percent of DC eighth graders cannot read proficiently, but in 2011 – with a deficit of $400 million dollars – DC taxpayers were making lease payments on two luxury automobiles – around two grand per month per car – for council chairman Kwame Brown. Why two cars? Well, Brown had asked for a fully loaded, extended wheelbase Lincoln Navigator with a black interior; when the car came with a grey interior, he ordered the second vehicle at city expense and had DC schoolchildren pay the additional $1,500 for expedited shipping.
I could do this all day but I can’t bear it anymore.
Here’s a list of ten failed cities, and beside them, the number of years of uninterrupted Democratic control.
It’s not that these officials are corrupt because they are Democrats or because they are black. THEY GET AWAY WITH IT because they are Democrats, or because they’re black.
And while civil servants pay the expedited shipping on their second Lincoln Navigators, the overwhelmingly black kids keep failing in school and killing each other by the thousands, and their overwhelmingly black mothers and fathers keep electing the overwhelmingly black liars, thieves and con artists who fail to protect them, and who pocket the money for the jobs and schools that would set them free.
And by continuing to elect these heartless, greedy, Democratic swindlers, the prisoners of these cities are inflicting upon themselves the most shameful injustice to befall Black America since slavery.
Bernie sanders and his left-wing anti-semites
BERNIE SANDERS AND HIS LEFT-WING ANTI-SEMITES
Palling around with Jew-haters for the radical cause.
By Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Bernie Sanders hates discussing his Jewish roots, but that hasn’t stopped his lefty Jewish fans from gnawing at the subject like poorly trained puppies chewing on old tennis shoes.
Think Progress claims that Bernie Sanders is a "devout secular Jew". "Bernie Sanders Is Jewish, but He Doesn't Like to Talk About It," the New York Times coughs apologetically. (And the Sulzbergers ought to know.) A Forward editorial neurotically screeches, "We Need To Out Bernie Sanders as a Jew — for His Own Good".
But Bernie Sanders likes his devoutly Socialist closet. He prefers to describe himself as the son of Polish immigrants. Asked about religion, he disavows Judaism and embraces Pope Francis. The Times has him embracing the description “Non-Jewish Jew” which was coined by a Marxist in an essay explaining anti-Semitism, including the Holocaust, as a “superficial” reaction against capitalism.
Where Obama and Hillary ran on race and gender, Bernie Sanders avoids Jewishness as much as possible. He doesn’t practice Judaism, isn’t part of a Jewish community and avoids the “J” word.
One of the few times he used the dreaded “J” word was when a Muslim activist who cheered anti-Israel terrorism told him that she was afraid of Republicans. Suddenly Sanders puffed out his chest and told her, “I’m Jewish, my father’s family died in concentration camps. I will do everything that I can to rid this country of the ugly stain of racism.”
Considering that the activist, Remaz Abdelgader, had a quote stating, "It would be wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs" and snarled that, “Islam and civil rights issues are mutually exclusive”, that might not have been nearly as reassuring to the former MSA president as he intended it to be.
While Bernie Sanders invoked his last few drops of Jewishness and the Holocaust in support of a Muslim anti-Semite’s crybullying, he didn’t feel the need to do so for the Jewish State when it actually stood on the verge of destruction. Instead he had called for denying arms to Israel before the Yom Kippur War.
In 1971, he told an audience, “no guns for Israel.” Two years later, the Yom Kippur War brought Israel to the brink of destruction and shipments of American arms made the difference. But Bernie Sanders did not care and in 1988 still insisted that, “It is wrong that the United States provides arms to Israel.”
In 1990, he called for America to “put more pressure on Israel”.
Bernie Sanders sneeringly condemns what he calls Republican bigotry, but he endorsed Jesse Jackson despite his racist “Hymietown” slur. Before a joint appearance with Jackson, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan had warned Jews, "If you harm this brother, I warn you in the name of Allah this will be the last one you harm.” Despite that, Jesse Jackson refused to cut his ties with Farrakhan.
Jackson had told a Washington Post reporter, “That's all Hymie wants to talk about, is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that's all they want to talk about”. Bernie Sanders however tried to prove he was a good “Hymie” (or a good Non-Hymie Hymie) by defending Jackson’s hostility to the Jewish state.
Bernie Sanders brags about his endorsement from Congressman Keith Ellison despite his past support for the Nation of Islam and his appearance with Khalid Abdul Muhammad who had called Jews “bloodsuckers” and had said, “If you're a Jew, I'm against you.” Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan, who calls Jews “false Jews”, praised Bernie Sanders as a “real Jew, not a so-called Jew”. The very thing that makes Bernie Sanders seem suspect to Jews makes him more appealing to anti-Semitic hate groups.
Sanders met with Al Sharpton despite his anti-Semitic remarks and the horror of the Crown Heights Pogrom in which an entire Jewish community was besieged by racist mobs chanting, “Death to the Jews”. The former Democratic presidential candidate had taunted, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” Not a problem for Bernie Sanders.
While Bernie Sanders is quick to call Republicans bigots, he not only fails to stand up against anti-Semitism from the left, but he has supported and collaborated with anti-Semites.
And he’s still doing it now.
When Bernie Sanders reached out for perspective on the Middle East during his campaign, he contacted James Zogby, who defended Hamas and Hezbollah, and Lawrence Wilkerson, who had accused Jewish officials of dual loyalty and suggested that Israel was behind Assad’s chemical weapons attacks.
The truth about Bernie Sanders is that he is not Jewish in any sense other than the genetic. He is a left-wing radical who is uncomfortable with any mention of his Jewish background because he does not like Jews. Even his time on an Israeli Kibbutz, a staple with which his Jewish fans nurtured their fantasies of a Jewish Bernie, fell apart when it emerged that his Kibbutz had flown a red flag and admired Stalin and the Soviet Union as part of a radical leftist movement that had initially opposed the creation of Israel.
His first and foremost allegiance has always been to the left at the expense of the Jews.
Bernie Sanders cheered the Sandanista regime whose mobs chanted "Death to the Jews," "Jewish Pigs" and "What Hitler started we will finish." He did not invoke the Holocaust when a synagogue was firebombed and in an echo of Hitler’s Germany, its president was forced to scrub the streets.
The anti-Semitic regime that Bernie Sanders supported ethnically cleansed the Jewish population of Nicaragua. It marched the indigenous Indian population into churches and set them on fire.
And Bernie Sanders defended the Marxist terrorist regime that was committing these atrocities.
Bernie Sanders was equally enthusiastic about Cuba and the Soviet Union, two other Communist dictatorships that were persecuting the Jews. Sanders did not see fit to invoke the Holocaust on behalf of Jews actually facing anti-Semitic persecution the way that he has invoked it on behalf of Muslims.
But perhaps he thought that, like the other victims of the left, they were getting what they deserved.
When Bernie Sanders went on his visit to the USSR, there were no more concentration camps in Europe, but there were still Jews locked up in the gulags of the Soviet Union. While he was admiring Soviet youth programs, Jewish refuseniks were still being denied permission to leave the Communist dictatorship.
While American official visitors often met with political dissidents, there is no sign that Sanders did so. It would have been out of character for a man who had justified Communist crackdowns on the opposition to have met with enemies of the regime. For Bernie Sanders, the Sandanistas, Castro and the Soviet Union were models to be emulated and victims of capitalist repression by America, Wall Street and its evil corporations. Much in the same way that Muslim terrorism against Jews is excused today.
Bernie Sanders invokes the Holocaust when asked about his Jewish identity, not because he has empathy for Jews, but in a classic leftist maneuver to distract attention from that lack of empathy. His conception of the Holocaust is detached from Jewish suffering. It is purely about his leftist politics.
Surreally he references the Holocaust only to add that it taught him that politics is “important”. The Holocaust has no Jewish meaning for Bernie Sanders. It merely validates his self-importance.
At a Democratic debate, when asked about the historic nature of the election, he avoided saying that the first Jewish president would be as historic as the first female president. Instead he mumbled that it would be his “views” of “taking on the big money interests” that would make him historic.
Bernie Sanders does not want to be the first Jewish president. He wants to be the first Socialist president. There is nothing Jewish about Bernie Sanders except his vestigial accent. He makes common cause with anti-Semites because Jews don’t matter to him, only the agenda of the left does.
See Original Article for many links to more source material> http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2620...iel-greenfield
Last edited by Paparock; 03-03-2016 at 03:25 PM..
What is the fair share of taxes?
WHAT IS THE FAIR SHARE OF TAXES?
Why voters fall victim to political charlatans.
By Walter Williams
Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, along with President Obama, say they want high-income earners, otherwise known as the rich, to pay their fair share of income taxes. None of these people, as well as the uninformed in the media and our campus intellectual elites, will say precisely what is the "fair share" of taxes. That is because they would look ignorant and silly, so they stick with simply saying that the rich should pay more. Let's you and I take a peek at who pays what in federal income taxes.
The following represents 2012 income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service, compiled by the Tax Foundation (http://tinyurl.com/j5yr8cd). The top 1 percent, 1.37 million taxpayers earning $434,682 and more, paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent, those earning $175,817 and more, paid 59 percent. The top 10 percent of income earners, those earning $125,195 and up, paid 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 25 percent, those earning $73,354 and up, paid 86 percent. The bottom 50 percent, people earning $36,055 and less, paid a little less than 3 percent of federal income taxes. According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, slightly over 45 percent of American households have no federal income tax liability.
With this information in hand, you might ask the next person who says the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes: Exactly what percentage of total federal income taxes should the 1-percenters pay? I seriously doubt whether you will get any kind of coherent answer. By the way, since 1-percenter income starts at $435,000, it might be pointed out that $400,000 or $500,000 a year is not even yacht or Learjet money. Plus, if one has two kids in college, a big mortgage and car payments, I doubt he would declare himself rich.
Our demagogues also claim that corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes. The fact of the matter, which even leftist economists understand but might not publicly admit, is corporations do not pay taxes. An important subject area in economics, called tax incidence, says the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the full burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden can be shifted to another party. If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if the corporation hopes to survive, it will have one of three responses to that tax or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends or lay off workers. In each case a flesh-and-blood person is made worse off. The important point is that a corporation is a legal fiction and as such does not pay taxes. As it turns out, corporations are merely tax collectors for the government.
Politicians love to trick people by suggesting that they will not impose taxes on them but on some other entity instead. To demonstrate the trick, suppose you are a homeowner and a politician tells you that he is not going to tax you, he is just going to tax your land. You would easily see the political chicanery. Land cannot and does not pay taxes. Again, only people pay taxes.
Leftist politicians often call for raising the death tax, euphemistically called inheritance tax. The inheritance tax brings in less than 1 percent of federal revenue. It is on the books because it serves the interests of jealousy, envy and our collective desire to tax the so-called rich. The effects of inheritance taxes are economically damaging. It has this impact because in order for people to pay the death tax, they often must sell producing assets, such as farms, factories, stocks and bonds. These are high-powered dollars that are shifted from productive activity to government consumptive activity.
Too many Americans are ignorant of tax issues and thus fall easy prey to the nation's charlatans and quacks.
Last edited by Paparock; 03-03-2016 at 04:02 PM..
If this article doesn't open your eyes about Bernie Sanders, what will? A Non-Jewish-Jew??? Does he even know what that means? I was born a catholic, and while in Israel embraced their culture and faith, but i did not call myself a non-catholic-catholic!!
Watch Dem Senator Struggle to Respond
Watch Dem Senator Struggle to Respond When MSNBC Host Explains GOP’s ‘Constitutional’ Case for Not Considering Obama SCOTUS Nominee
By Chris Enloe
Democratic Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) had an awkward exchange with MSNBC “All In” host Chris Hayes Wednesday night during a discussion about Senate Republicans’ decision to withhold consent from any person President Barack Obama nominates for the Supreme Court vacancy.
Hayes pointed out that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), along with a host of other top Senate Republicans, believe they are perfectly within their constitutional powers to preemptively withhold the consent.
To back his claims, Hayes pointed to a letter (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites...20hearings.pdf) that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote to McConnell earlier this week, which was signed by all of the committee’s GOP members.
“Well, the argument that Mitch McConnell made in that letter and that the Judiciary Committee made is that, ‘Look, the Constitution is clear, advise and consent,’” Hayes said. “And they use that word, ‘We are holding our consent preemptively to anyone that you nominate.’ Their argument is that this is squarely constitutional.”
Franken, in response, looked confused. He ultimately conceded that Senate Republicans are within their constitutional rights to preemptively withhold consent from Obama’s nominee.
“Well, uh, I understand that, but, what’s unprecedented about this is, you know, I guess, we don’t have to do anything,” Franken responded. “It’s probably constitutional for me to stay in Minnesota and not show up here. But that’s sort of not the point of bothering to become a senator.”
Hayes, seemingly unsure if that was Franken’s complete answer, didn’t say anything for several seconds until Franken gave a head-nod to signal that he was finished.
While Senate Republicans continue to be adamant in their position about preemptively withholding consent, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) revealed Wednesday that Obama might announce his high court nominee (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016...court-nominee/) in as little as a week.
Last edited by Paparock; 03-04-2016 at 03:21 PM..
Black conservatives aren't really black?
BLACK CONSERVATIVES AREN'T REALLY BLACK?
The ugly identity politics of the Democratic Party.
By John Perazzo
As far as left-wing Democrats are concerned, black conservatives aren't really black. To Democrats, black is a state-of-mind, not a color, and the only acceptable state-of-mind for an African American is that of a perpetually embittered, aggrieved victim of white racism. California Representative Karen Bass, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, articulated this sick and demented perspective in the immediate wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's recent death, when she suggested (http://freebeacon.com/politics/democ...-doesnt-count/) that Scalia's replacement should be black, so as to finally give the Court the “African-American voice” that it allegedly lacks. “I think many people would like to see an African American on the Supreme Court,” Bass declared in spite of the fact that Clarence Thomas has held a seat on that Court for the past quarter-century. “I think to have an African-American voice that has definitely not been there since Thurgood Marshall would really be an incredible contribution to our country,” she added.
Karen Bass is just the latest in a long line of black leftists who derive obvious pleasure from smearing black conservatives as race traitors, and Clarence Thomas has been among the most frequent targets of the left's ugly and vile rhetoric for many years. You may remember, for instance, when Jesse Jackson, objecting to Thomas's vote to place certain limits on affirmative action programs, characterized Thomas as an “enem[y] of civil rights” and likened the latter's black judicial robe to the white sheet of a Klansman. Or when former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown depicted (https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...01,28977&hl=en) Thomas as a man whose views are “legitimizing of the Ku Klux Klan.” Or when the late columnist Carl Rowan sarcastically suggested (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan) that “if you give Thomas a little flour on his face, you'd think you had [former KKK Grand Wizard] David Duke.”
The front cover of the periodical Emerge, which billed itself as “Black America's News Magazine,” once featured a cartoon (http://www.blackcommentator.com/236/...as_emerge.html) depiction of Thomas alongside the caption: “UNCLE THOMAS: Lawn Jockey for the Far Right.” Movie director Spike Lee (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1990) claims that Malcolm X, if he were alive today, would view (https://books.google.com/books?id=Ko...%20Tom&f=false) Thomas as “a handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.” The late author June Jordan characterized (https://books.google.com/books?id=QN...omenon&f=false) Thomas as a “virulent Oreo phenomenon” and an “Uncle Tom calamity.” And Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) has disparaged (http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/201...varnished.html) Thomas as an “Uncle Tom” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-clarence-tho/) who “doesn't like being black” and “doesn't even like black people.”
The theme of racial treachery was likewise articulated by the late political scientist Manning Marable (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2229), who once asserted (https://books.google.com/books?id=7K...erican&f=false) that Thomas had “ethnically ceased being an African American.” Author and columnist Barbara Reynolds, for her part, derides (http://michellemalkin.com/2014/01/15...-is-not-alone/) Thomas for having married a white woman: “Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman.” And the Reverend Joseph Lowery (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2359), former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, says (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6998) he is “ashamed” of Justice Thomas because he “has become to many in the African-American community what Benedict Arnold was to the United States, a deserter; what Judas was to Jesus, a traitor, and what Brutus was to Caesar, an assassin.”
Occasionally the left's contempt for Thomas is so strong, that death is openly wished upon him. As columnist Julianne Malveaux (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2515) once told (http://archive.mrc.org/specialreport...DeathWish.aspx) a television audience: “I hope [Thomas's] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter, and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease…. He's an absolutely reprehensible person.”
Responding to this type of filthy rhetoric, Justice Thomas laments (http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...?ARTID=22232): “Long gone is the time when we [blacks] opposed the notion that we all looked alike and talked alike. Somehow we have come to exalt the new black stereotype above all and demand conformity to that norm.” By the same token, Thomas stalwartly affirms what he calls “my right to think for myself [and] to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black”—a statement that represents the precise, polar opposite of the Democratic Party's shameful perspective on race.
Pathetically, the party (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6214) of slavery, Jim Crow, and the Klan has never been able to shed its racial obsession—nor its contemptible belief that blacks are intellectually inferior to everyone else. It has merely learned to frame that obsession and that belief in a more politically palatable way—for its own political expediency. How else could one possibly explain, for example, the core Democratic article of faith which says that African Americans can't even be expected to figure out something as simple as how to obtain a free voter-identification document that they can present at the polls on election day? If that isn't racism, then what on earth is?
Last edited by Paparock; 03-11-2016 at 04:28 PM..
In the Name of Lenin, What’s a ‘Democratic Socialist?’
In the Name of Lenin, What’s a ‘Democratic Socialist?’
The modifier “democratic” should raise suspicions, and not in ways flattering to Bern and his red ilk.
By J. Robert Smith
It’s a curious quirk of leftists like Bern Sanders: qualifying “socialist” with “democratic.” Of course, it’s designed to make socialism less menacing and more appealing to Americans, who, at least, have some vague recollection of the “Better dead than red” Cold War trope. But the modifier “democratic” should raise suspicions, and not in ways flattering to Bern and his red ilk.
If socialism is so wonderful (http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...hrough-it.html), so about equality and justice, so respecting of the individual and his place in a collectivist system -- so inherently democratic -- why the need for the qualifier? You mean to say there’s undemocratic socialism afoot? A system of rulers and subjects? Of elites whose superiority confers on them the right to chart the course for the masses? Who won’t blink about using force when the masses get uppity?
If socialism can be made acceptable by appending “democratic,” why not so for fascism, whose history parallels its socialist cousin?
Yes, cousin. Those isms are first cousins.
Fascism and socialism had a spirited and bloody competition for the masses’ loyalties in the 1920s and 1930s. In Western and Central Europe, fascists proved more adept and ruthless than the socialists and won out. But Hitler’s fanaticism and megalomania blew the fascist experiment to pieces – literally. Note that der Führer fancied his movement as “National Socialism.” Hitler wasn’t careless with important concepts and terms.
Post World War II, socialists were understandably anxious to distance their movement from the prewar Hitler-Stalin Pact, and to expunge any hint of ideological association with their now vanquished fascist cousins. So they spun a tale. The propaganda became that fascism was a phenomenon of the right. Capitalists, republicans, nationalists, true democrats, and liberty-lovers were, inexplicably, prone to tack “right” -- right into the arms of dastardly fascism.
Socialists like to peg fascism as principally racist and chauvinistic. Xenophobia and chauvinism were characteristics of the fascism practiced in Nazi Germany; chauvinism was more to Mussolini’s taste. (Mussolini began as a socialist.)
When leftists hurl the epithet “fascist” at someone or some group or party (Republicans), it’s much to do with supposed xenophobia or chauvinism. Or they say that nationalism, informed by prejudice, is proto-fascism. They refuse to acknowledge that one can be an American for individual rights and limited, federalized government and be a nationalist, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were.
Socialists like to consider their movement as international. But how to explain Russian nationalism during its period of communism? Or Chinese nationalism under Mao – and now in the still “People’s Republic?” Or Ho Chi Minh’s nationalism? There are Greek “democratic” socialists who are nationalists.
A feature of fascism is authoritarian or dictatorial? Fascism has no corner on that market. What were Lenin and Stalin, if not dictators? Fidel? Mao? Pol Pot?
Mind you, though, the socialist argument against fascism is less so about economics, which is the meat of both statist variants. In broad strokes, fascism is control of the means of production. Socialism is ownership of the means. If you control, you own. Hitler didn’t much care if Krupp (http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...e/krupp-08.htm) pocketed profits as long as the government’s biding was done and Nazi jackboots got their skim. Better that a commissar and state enterprise gets the dough? Hitler co-opted or coerced capitalists into his fascist scheme, not the other way around. Socialism doesn’t lure or intimidate producers into its orbit? The difference between the two isms is more facile than believed.
Bern’s socialism has more the substance of fascism, as a matter of fact. Nowhere on the stump has Bern called for the nationalization of business and industry – the people’s ownership of the means of production, which is true socialist creed. Bern wants a better distribution of wealth, via higher taxes and wage hikes, for example, but doesn’t dare call for the wholesale expropriation of wealth, which is another socialist tenet. Let’s add that fascists are for massive public works and “social insurance.”
Bern’s platform runs more along corporatist-fascist lines than socialist. But let’s give Bern the benefit of the doubt. He’s a bona fide socialist who can’t fully disclose his aims. Bern needs voter buy-in, and socialism still raises -- red -- flags.
The 20th Century is a treasure trove of socialism’s history in all its forms. Lenin argued that socialism was a transitional stage to communism. Socialists dispute Lenin (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/s...alist-analysis), but that’s just a squabble in the Church of Marx.
History amply records what socialism in its communist form led to in the defunct USSR and Mao’s China. Economic implosions or, at best, stagnation; bread lines and empty rice bowls. Elsewhere, in Cuba, meat and beans and toilet paper are rationed. Pogroms, to the tune of tens of millions of innocents executed, starved, or worked to death. The dead assigned to mass graves in Russia, the Ukraine, China, Vietnam, Cambodia (where the skulls of victims(https://newmatilda.com/wp-content/up...Pot-skulls.jpg) were stacked like cordwood).
In none of those places, under glorious socialist rule, did (or do) the leaders and elite ever proclaim anything other than democratic intent. They acted as a “vanguard” for the people, they claimed. Elections and plebiscites were routinely held. The people’s parties won lopsided victories -- or were simply acclaimed unanimously. Fabulous marches and parades celebrated the people’s revolutions. Democracy flowered (http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-...cy-plan-2015-6).
How unfair to Bern, you say? Bern’s a socialist of a Western European stripe. There, socialism has an admirable track record, no?
In Western Europe, socialism survives because it piggybacks on capitalism’s successes. It’s parasitic. It battens itself off the blood of the entrepreneur, the innovator, the investor, the shopkeeper, the go-getter. Truth be told, most of Western Europe is a mix of isms. There’s some ownership of the means of production, but more control thereof. Welfare and social insurance abound. There’s high taxation and redistribution of wealth, but not so much that the capitalist golden goose is killed off entirely.
The E.U. is the exemplar of the corporatist model with brushstrokes of socialism. It seeks to obliterate borders among its member states, giving it a quasi-internationalist aim. It acts to erase ancient, embedded differences in culture among its subjects. And subjects they are, which may be the E.U.’s undoing, other than trying to make Spaniards, Germans, and Germans, Frenchmen. (Or everybody Germans.)
Among the E.U.’s pols and bureaucrats, smugness reins; an odor of superiority hangs in the air… imperiousness with a veneer of democracy. Better that the E.U.’s Pooh-Bahs ape the old Orwellian Eastern Bloc and Asian pure socialists who appreciated grandiose democratic pretense.
As we’re seeing with the evolution of the E.U., and now are seeing creep into the U.S. -- fascism, corporatism, communism, and socialism are systems given to hierarchy, imposition, and subordination of rights. They claim to be for the people while subjecting them to the will and aims of elites. Socialism is no less prone to tact undemocratic. (Please don’t gainsay with Switzerland or Scandinavia, any more than citing pure democracy in ancient Athens. Scandinavian socialism is about as applicable to the rest of the world as is Chicago machine politics are to Stockholm.)
If you see Bern Sanders, ask him: “If socialism is democratic, why qualify it?”
Whatever his answer, don’t expect the truth.
Last edited by Paparock; 03-16-2016 at 02:23 PM..
Bernie sanders meets with leader of designated terrorist group
BERNIE SANDERS MEETS WITH LEADER OF DESIGNATED TERRORIST GROUP
CAIR’s Rasha Mubarak and her Jew-hating history.
By Joe Kaufman
On March 10th, the Florida chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) posted on its Facebook page a photo of its Orlando Regional Operations Coordinator, Rasha Mubarak, shoulder-to-shoulder and smiling beside an equally smiling US Senator Bernie Sanders. Next to the photo, CAIR stated that the two were together “for a meeting with local Orlando leaders.” Question: Why was a leader of a group with so many connections to terrorism invited to such a meeting featuring a candidate for United States President?
CAIR was established in June 1994 as part of a terrorist umbrella group headed by then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. In 2007 and 2008, CAIR was named by the US Justice Department a co-conspirator for two federal trials dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. Since its founding, a number of CAIR representatives have served jail time and/or have been deported from the United States for terrorist-related crimes. In November 2014, CAIR itself was designated a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government.
CAIR-Florida has reflected and practiced the extremism of its parent organization. In August 2010, CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly, who has denied that Hezbollah is a terror group, wrote, “Israel and its supporters are enemies of G-d...” In July 2014, CAIR-Florida co-sponsored a pro-Hamas rally in Downtown Miami, where rally goers shouted, “We are Hamas” and “Let’s go Hamas.” Following the rally, the event organizer, Sofian Zakkout, wrote, “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!”
US Senator and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been traveling though Florida, during early voting this month, giving speeches and meeting with groups and individuals whom he believes could help him obtain votes and support. Evidently, one of those individuals was CAIR operative Rasha Mubarak.
According to Mubarak, she had met with Sanders to express “OUR concerns” (http://s1227.photobucket.com/user/ka...nders.jpg.html) over “Islamophobia and human rights violations of Palestinians.”
In September 2015, Mubarak took over the job of CAIR-Florida Orlando Coordinator from Ahmad Saleem, who had been arrested for traveling to have illegal sexual intercourse with someone whom he understood to be a twelve-year-old girl. Saleem’s trial is set for next month.
Prior to coming to CAIR, Mubarak had made a name for herself as an organizer of anti-Israel demonstrations. These events have included flags of terrorist organizations and virulently anti-Semitic signs. One handmade sign read: “Terrorist: noun: Ones that commit violent or destructive acts. SEE JEW."
Mubarak retweets messages made by the Palestinian Information Center (PIC), the media arm of Hamas. She did this as recently as August 2015. PIC tweets and disseminates communiques, including issued violent threats against Israel, from the militant wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.
In November 2014, Mubarak was a featured speaker (http://s1227.photobucket.com/user/ka...ntion.jpg.html) at the Al-Awda 12th Annual International Convention, held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition, is a US-based activist group, which opposes Israel’s right to exist and whose leaders support terrorist acts against Israelis, including Israeli civilians. Abbas Hamideh, National Vice Chairman of Al-Awda and fellow speaker at the convention, stated in October 2015, “Rest assured Zionism will be eradicated and if you’re lucky you’ll be sent back to Europe where you belong...”
During Senator Sanders’ recent speeches, Sanders has made sure to state his support for the Muslim community and pander to Muslims. This has been done mostly in a cynical effort to take a shot at Presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has made some controversial statements regarding Muslims and Islam.
However, for Sanders to hold a meeting with a leader from CAIR is not only a condoning of terror but a tacit acceptance of CAIR officials as representatives of the Muslim community and, by extension, a disservice to Muslims who do not embrace CAIR’s fanatical Islamic activities or beliefs.
Senator Sanders, who has gone out of his way to make strong statements against bigotry, should move immediately to denounce CAIR and its leadership and repudiate their documented intolerance and bigotry.
To voice your opinion and concern that action be taken on this matter, contact Bernie Sanders’ Senate office by phone at 202-224-5141 or send an email to his spokesman at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please be respectful in any and all communications with these individuals and this office.
Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.
Last edited by Paparock; 03-16-2016 at 02:44 PM..
Beware 'Democracy Spring'
BEWARE 'DEMOCRACY SPRING'
The proper response to the left’s violent provocations must be zero tolerance.
By Mark Tapson
March 21, 2016
As the 2016 field of election contestants narrows, Republican Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has become the stormy center of campaign news coverage and a lightning rod for violent tension at his rallies. Many in the left-leaning media place the blame for the heated confrontations at his events on Trump himself; others on his supporters. Few are pointing the finger at the swelling numbers of leftist protesters aggressively organizing to shut Trump down altogether.
A recent analysis (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich...paign-violence) of ABC, CBS and NBC news coverage found that all three broadcast networks have made the violence plaguing Trump’s rallies the near-exclusive focus of their campaign coverage. Their reporters specifically placed 94% of the blame – 46 instances to 3 – on Trump and his campaign, while virtually ignoring the protesters such as those who forced the cancelation of Trump's recent appearance in Chicago.
As Monica Crowley observed in the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-back-togethe/), the hordes of protesters who swarmed the Chicago arena and forced Trump to cancel were operating “straight out of the Alinsky playbook: create chaos, blame the victim, stop free speech and advance progressivism.” It is “the same leftist revolution that’s been roiling America for decades.” That is evident if for no other reason than the fact that domestic terrorist Bill Ayers showed up (http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/bill...real-terrorist) at the Chicago protest to give it his imprimatur.
In conversation with Sean Hannity on Fox after the Chicago cancelation, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke called (http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/brian-lo...wn-free-speech) the protesters “a totalitarian movement”:
“You have cop haters. You have anarchists. You have criminals. You have some rowdy juveniles. You have organized labor. And there is a spattering of well-intentioned people who are being exploited in this, and they’re the ones pushed out front, and those are the ones pushed out in front of the camera as they do their dirty work.”
Aaron Klein wrote at Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...f-the-century/) that some of those same radicals are now plotting a mass civil disobedience movement to begin next month called “Democracy Spring” – a name which echoes the “Arab Spring” that unleashed not democracy but bloody Islamic fundamentalism across the Middle East. Democracy Spring was organized ostensibly to transform a political system corrupted by “big money interests.” The members intend to meet up on April 2 at the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, then march to the Capitol building in Washington D.C. for a sit-in that will constitute the “largest civil disobedience action of the century.” They claim to be fully prepared to provoke and accept the arrest of thousands of their activists, in preparation for which they will be holding mandatory nonviolent civil disobedience trainings twice a day and securing pro-bono legal counsel.
Though Democracy Spring claims to be nonpartisan, signatories to this movement include leftist actor and Occupy Wall Street supporter Mark Ruffalo and Code Pink (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6149) founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, as well as progressive organizations such as NOW, People for the American Way, People for Bernie, Young Democratic Socialists, the George Soros (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i....asp?indid=977) -funded groups MoveOn.org (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6201) and the Institute for Policy Studies (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6991) (the left’s oldest think tank and a supporter of Communist and anti-American causes), and the Democratic Socialists of America (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6428) (DSA), the largest socialist organization in America. The DSA’s Chicago branch literally transported protesters to Trump’s canceled Chicago event, according to Klein.
As the Democracy Spring website declares, “The stage is set for a bold intervention to turn the tinder of passive public frustration into a fire that transforms the political climate in America, that sparks a popular movement that can’t be stopped.” The “drama in Washington” they are planning “will rock the business-as-usual cycle of this election and catapult this critical issue on to center stage.”
Klein notes that Democracy Spring’s website does not mention Trump by name, and it stresses nonviolent intentions. But considering the aggression inherent in the radical left, as evidenced in the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements, it is highly likely that demonstrations involving mobs of thousands will result in violence somewhere along the line, and the news media will find a way to characterize it sympathetically as understandable pushback against the rise of “fascist” Trump (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2621...bruce-thornton). At the very least, the Democracy Spring mob and their radical ilk likely hope to provoke violence from Trump’s followers, which they can then use to deflect responsibility and pin it on the billionaire candidate who has become the target of their hate.
As the election season heats up, the proper response to the left’s violent provocations must be zero tolerance. It is time progressives were held accountable for their criminal aggression and for their totalitarian impulse to silence conservative candidates and disrupt the election process. As Monica Crowley wrote, Donald Trump’s campaign “is merely the current pretext for the latest battle of a revolution that seeks nothing short of the destruction of the American democratic and capitalist system.” That revolution cannot be allowed to gather momentum. Trump got it right when he announced recently that he would begin pressing charges against protesters who broke the law. That’s a good start.
Last edited by Paparock; 03-21-2016 at 02:43 PM..
How Bernie Sanders sold his soul to be an authentic leftist
HOW BERNIE SANDERS SOLD HIS SOUL TO BE AN AUTHENTIC LEFTIST
It’s impossible to be authentic and left-wing.
By Daniel Greenfield
Win or lose, the Sanders campaign has its story. Bernie Sanders is the authentic candidate; the unapologetic progressive who pushes the left’s agenda without worrying about offending anyone.
Bernie doesn’t pander. Just look at him glaring into the camera, angrily delivering the same “smash capitalism” stump speech and then waiting for the local college students to take selfies with him. You may disagree with him. But he’s authentic, a curmudgeon who says whatever he really thinks.
And if you believe that, there’s a bridge in Bernie’s old Brooklyn neighborhood you can buy.
The left is not an authentic political movement. It values dogma, not passion. What it sells is the appearance of passion and the hollow illusion of self-expression while pushing a rigid agenda.
The real story of the Bernie Sanders campaign is not that voters reward authenticity, but the illusion of it. Obama beat Hillary because he seemed more authentic. But he was just better at pandering to the left while appearing to be natural and rehearsed in a way that you have to rehearse a lot to achieve.
Bernie Sanders has thrived by abandoning whatever made him authentic and becoming a robot reciting dogma in a voice borrowed from Larry David. Hillary Clinton never had a soul, but Bernie Sanders sold his in the hopes of beating her. And he got a bad deal on his soul because he can’t even seem to do that.
Originally Bernie Sanders was an independent who held unconventional views on some issues and wasn’t tied down to the Democratic Party and its widely loathed identity politics. Instead he could just do his old time Wall Street Socialist shtick and score populist points with angry voters without having to pander to every group and cause in the progressive politically correct spectrum of stupidity.
This was the Bernie Sanders who told Ezra Klein that he opposed open borders because it “says essentially there is no United States” and “would make everybody in America poorer.”
“You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?” Bernie barked.
Liberal heads exploded. Bernie tried to defend his views and then surrendered. Instead he adopted the Democratic Party’s prevailing program of treating illegal immigration as a civil rights issue. A few months later, he was calling for amnesty for everyone, even illegal immigrants who had already been deported, without securing the borders, and attacking Hillary Clinton for being too hard on illegal aliens.
Currently Bernie Sanders is calling for putting “a stop to the notion that the border must be secured before legalization can happen,” abandoning “boondoggle walls” and dismantling deportation and detention, and letting illegal aliens buy ObamaCare. That last one may be more of a punishment.
It took only a few months for Bernie Sanders to go from blasting open borders as a right-wing Wall Street conspiracy to becoming an open borders candidate. Which, by his own definition, would make him a right-wing Wall Street tool of the capitalist conspiracy.
That’s how “authentic” Bernie really is.
The Bernie Sanders who attacked open borders at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was authentic. He’s gone. In his place is Bernie Sanders 2.0, an authentic robot spewing authentic progressive talking points about the wonders and joys of illegal immigration. That’s what an authentic sellout Bernie is.
What happened to Bernie Sanders on immigration is the same thing that happened to him on a range of issues where he formerly deviated from the political orthodoxy of the Democrats. The deviations have been smoothed away. Hillary Clinton has been mocked for adopting Bernie Sanders’ positions, but Bernie adopted more of her positions than she did of his. He sold his soul to try and win. And failed.
When Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders from the left on gun control, he reinvented his views. When Clinton’s political allies sent #BlackLivesMatter activists to harass him, he hemmed and hawed and then endorsed the worst of his new party’s identity politics pandering. Every time Hillary Clinton hit him on a position where he was out of step with political dogma, he scampered to adjust his views.
And it wasn’t just Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders was constantly adjusting his views to atone for past violations of party dogma. Any authentically unconventional views in the past had to be denounced and disassociated from.
The latest Soviet spectacle came when Bernie Sanders delivered an anti-Israel speech in Utah while refusing to come to the AIPAC convention. In Arizona, his campaign placed a member of the anti-Semitic hate group, Students for Justice in Palestine, behind him while he talked.
Bernie was telling the left that he was disavowing the Jewish State. The authentic candidate was desperately pandering to left-wing donors to keep funding his failed campaign. He was lashing out at Jews for “disportionately” fighting the Islamic terrorists who were killing their children. He was appealing to the left-wing bigots who might have believed NPR’s Diane Rehm when she accused him of having dual citizenship in Israel. It was an authentically disgusting moment.
But his anti-Israel Utah speech was more than a shift, it was an apology. One of his more infuriating moments for the left had been his attack on Hamas supporters at a town hall in Vermont. His Utah speech obsessively attacked Israel for having bombed Hamas terrorists in Gaza several years ago. It’s 2016 and Gaza isn’t a current issue. Even Obama and Kerry don’t dwell on it anymore.
Why did Bernie Sanders suddenly feel the need to unload on Israel over its last war with Hamas?
Why focus on Gaza rather than any more current issues and controversies? Bernie was disavowing his past half-hearted defense of Israel. He wasn’t just pandering, he was trying to retroactively rewrite his views as if they had never existed. We have always been at war with Eastasia. Bernie had always been on the right side of the left when it came to Israel or immigration or gun control… or anything else.
Israel may be the last piece of Bernie’s tattered soul that he has to sell to the left for more money to keep going until Hillary’s superdelegates finally crush his miserable campaign. The Jewish State is the last shred of his “authenticity” that he has to give up to become an authentic left-wing hack.
But it’s not as if Bernie Sanders hasn’t done it before.
Back when Bernie Sanders was with the Liberty Union Party, he was militantly anti-Israel. Then when he went mainstream, he softened his views. Bernie was anti-Israel before he was pro-Israel before he was anti-Israel. The “authentic” candidate has spent his political life pandering to someone.
There was never really an authentic Bernie Sanders. Bernie was always a politician who reshaped his views when he needed to. Bernie’s supporters like to claim that he isn’t for sale. But Bernie Sanders sold his soul long ago. Now he’s auctioning off the used pieces of it a second and a third time for a few bucks.
The left’s greatest lie is that it is a movement for rebels, non-conformists and independent thinkers. It’s impossible to be authentic and left-wing. The left values conformity above all else and harshly punishes even mild forms of dissent. On the left, speaking freely is impossible. Even thinking freely is dangerous.
Bernie Sanders is selling the same illusion as Obama, that it’s possible to be left-wing without sounding like an ideological robot. That you can be progressive without being Hillary Clinton. And that’s a myth.
Hillary Clinton is too clumsy to mask the rigid process by which leftists adopt the party line. Obama and Bernie Sanders obscure the same creepy process with personality and style. But they are no different. They can’t be. There’s no room for dissent, independence and authenticity on the left.
Bernie Sanders sold his soul to be an authentic leftist. Souls are the price of membership in the left.
You know what plays right into isis' hands? Muslim immigration
YOU KNOW WHAT PLAYS RIGHT INTO ISIS' HANDS? MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
By Daniel Greenfield
After every Muslim terror attack, the media starts claiming that anyone warning about Muslim terrorism is "playing right into ISIS' hands". Google and you'll see too many examples of this meme to count after the Brussels attacks.
"Playing right into ISIS' hands" is another version of "Shoot the messenger". If you point out the problem, you're responsible for it. If you talk about Muslim terrorism, ISIS will be able to recruit more terrorists. Unlike when Obama decided to ignore them and they seized major parts of Syria and Iraq.
Warning that there's a problem is the only way to solve it. Pretending the problem isn't there solves nothing. The technical term for it is cover-up.
Muslims don't join ISIS because people warn about Islamic terrorism. They join ISIS because they believe in rebuilding a Caliphate and living under full Islamic law. They aren't jobless, marginalized or desperate youth. They're fanatical killers.
But do you know what really plays into ISIS' hands? Muslim immigration.
ISIS does not care what Americans say about it. It cares a great deal about the strategic problems of carrying out attacks abroad. The only way to do that is Muslim immigration, in the past, present or future tense. Without it, ISIS has no way of doing anything here. With it, it can strike anywhere that the Muslim settler population is embedded.
Warning about Muslim terrorism doesn't play into the hands of ISIS. Bringing millions of Muslims to as a recruiting base for Muslim terrorists does.
Cowardice in the face of leftist jew-hate
COWARDICE IN THE FACE OF LEFTIST JEW-HATE
How Bernie Sanders and other leftists help whitewash anti-Semitism on the Left.
BY Daniel Greenfield
At a Bernie Sanders event (http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/26...iel-greenfield) in New York City, a black “community activist” began ranting about “Zionist Jews” running the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. At previous events, Sanders had been quick to condemn what he claimed was bigoted and Islamophobic rhetoric by Republicans. But when confronted with the real thing by a left-wing activist at one of his own events, he couldn’t do it.
There was no condemnation of anti-Semitism. Instead after an initial claim that he was proud to be Jewish, he switched to a rambling speech criticizing Israel and distancing himself from Zionism.
Bernie Sanders had suggested at the same event that President Clinton was racist for defending his crime fighting policies to Black Lives Matter protesters, but would not condemn anti-Semitism. Instead of defying left-wing hatred for Jews, he tried to suggest that he wasn’t one of the “bad Zionists”. He was one of the “good Jews” who had a balanced position on Israel and “Palestine”.
It was a sad and shameful display. And this was not the first time that Bernie saw bigotry and blinked.
When NPR’s Diane Rehm accused him of having dual citizenship in Israel, he stumbled through a reply, but never condemned (http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/25...iel-greenfield) the anti-Semitism inherent in the question. He backed Jesse Jackson despite the Hymietown slur. When asked about it, he did his best to avoid directly condemning anti-Semitism.
Bernie Sanders came out of a political movement rife with anti-Semitism. He encounters it in public on a regular basis. And he is too much of a coward to stand up to it.
After Roseanne Barr ran for president, she stated that during (http://www.israellycool.com/2016/03/...barr-rips-bds/) the campaign, "everything I had ever believed about the left was severely shaken" and that she discovered that "many of those I had considered comrades were naked bigots".
And she did what Bernie Sanders won’t do. She condemned the bigotry.
There’s little doubt that Bernie Sanders has encountered far more anti-Semitism in private than he has in public. And at every turn of the road, he made the decision to fall in line and keep his mouth shut.
In the UK, prominent Jews and non-Jews within Labour have been speaking out (http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/15...ond-university) against growing anti-Semitism within the party and its political adjuncts. But here there’s a culture of silence about anti-Semitism on the left. And those who speak out pay the price. Consider the response to (http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/books/nas) Phyllis Chesler’s The New Anti-Semitism. And, in contrast, the mainstreaming of Max Blumenthal’s blatant bigotry (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2236...iel-greenfield).
The “gentleman’s agreement” used to be that Jews were expected to keep quiet about anti-Semitism on the left while claiming that all the bigots were on the right. Bernie Sanders is a product of that system. His refusal to talk about anti-Semitism while accusing the right of bigotry is typical of how it works.
The Sanders event at the Apollo Theater also featured Harry Belafonte, who had claimed that "Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich" and Spike Lee who had responded to criticism of anti-Semitic stereotypes in his movies by saying that he (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/16/mo...pagewanted=all) “couldn’t make an anti-Semitic film” because Jews run Hollywood. What does it say about Bernie Sanders that these are the ugly views of the people whom his campaign used in order to present him to a black audience?
Bernie Sanders has made his peace with anti-Semitism. He would rather that you didn’t scream it at him in public, but if you do, he will talk about how there are bad people on both sides in Israel.
But this is a “gentleman’s agreement” that isn’t holding up as the anti-Semitism on the left grows more blatant humiliating good “comrades” like Bernie Sanders at public events. During the Iraq War even a veteran anti-Israel activist like Michael Lerner was left with no choice but to write a (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1045015016383156423) Wall Street Journal editorial complaining that anti-Semitism had become the “acceptable –ism”.
Bernie Sanders troops from rally to rally dutifully invoking Hitler and the Holocaust, but he never discusses the fact that the anti-Semitism of National Socialism was rooted in Socialism. Even the inventor of the term, Wilhelm Marr, was a German Socialist who wrote, “Anti-Semitism is a socialist movement, only in nobler and purer form than social democracy.” Georg Ritter von Schonerer, whose “Fuhrer” style heavily influenced Hitler, had been dedicated to fighting “Jewish free-market capitalism”.
The genesis of the movement that led to the mass murder of Jews could be found in a populist Socialism not too different from his own. The origin of Occupy Wall Street, a movement that helped pave the way for his political campaign, was in Adbusters, a magazine which featured articles such as, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” The author of that article, Kalle Lasn, praises Bernie Sanders for saying the same things that Adbusters had been saying.
Why won’t Bernie Sanders say that they’re anti-Semitic? It’s obvious why. He needs their support.
The fact that a presidential candidate of Jewish ethnic origin can’t condemn anti-Semitism even when it’s being shouted right in his face shows how serious the problem is. Bernie Sanders will condemn all sorts of bigotry. But he won’t address left-wing anti-Semitism. It would end his political career.
Bernie Sanders is a coward. But he’s not the only one.
The old “gentleman’s agreement” is coming apart as anti-Semitic tropes are increasingly mainstreamed. Hard left activists like Spencer Ackerman (http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news...4/sounding-off) or M.J. Rosenberg (http://www.israellycool.com/2013/10/...-antisemitism/), who are by no stretch of the imagination friendly to Israel, occasionally scribble a brief complaint about the extremity of the ugliness growing in their movement and then the anti-Semitism business on the left goes on as usual.
A significant portion of the hard left is not anti-capitalist in the abstract, as Bernie Sanders is, but convinced that secretive networks of Jews control the economy. Corporate conspiracies are an easy gateway drug to Jewish conspiracies. Tie in an anti-Israel crowd which blames everything from American police to the Iraq War on Zionism and the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories write themselves.
While these people are a minority, as Adbusters reminds us, they are very influential on the left. They are the types of activists who show up early and leave late, who help shape committees, appear at events and donate without having to be asked. They play a major role in the left-wing networks that boosted Obama’s career and that took Bernie Sanders from an obscure joke to a viable candidate.
Instead of denouncing them, Bernie Sanders panders to them by attacking the Jewish State.
That is why there has been no sustained effort from within the American left to push back against anti-Semitism within the movement. It’s easier instead to ignore it or to pander to it. To respond to anti-Semitism by criticizing Israel, as Bernie Sanders did. Or to just pretend not to hear what is being said.
The Sanders campaign is modeled on Jeremy Corbyn’s successful campaign for the Labour party leadership in the UK. But Corbyn’s victory brought his assorted bigoted allies out of the woodwork like Raed Salah of the Islamic Movement (https://anneinpt.wordpress.com/2015/...itism-problem/) who claimed that Jews use human blood for matzah, Holocaust denier Paul Eisen (http://stv.tv/news/politics/1327077-...sm-and-israel/) and Stephen Sizer (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/c2c5c47...#axzz45SD0qzHj) who claimed that the Jews were behind 9/11. Now anti-Semitism in the Labour party is being vigorously debated. Unfortunately Bernie Sanders’ Jewish origins allow him to “Jewwash” the anti-Semitism of the American left in ways that Corbyn could not. By standing up there and ignoring anti-Semitism, even when it’s directed at him, Bernie Sanders pretends it’s not a problem.
That is what makes his cowardice in the face of left-wing anti-Semitism so useful to the anti-Semitic left.
Are You Ready for $5 Gas?
Are You Ready for $5 Gas?
By Jeffrey Folks
In a version of "hit 'em while they're down,' the Obama administration has unleashed a slew of new regulations targeting U.S. oil and gas production. These include costly methane emission rules on all new and existing wells, reversals of promised offshore acreage leasing, a de facto freeze of leasing on federal lands, and burdensome EPA restrictions of fracking. Then there is Obama's recent budget proposal of a $10-per-barrel surtax on top of the high taxes and royalties already paid by oil companies. Just as low oil prices are driving hundreds of oil companies out of business, Obama is piling on in an apparent effort to drive even more into bankruptcy.
Restrictions on drilling don't hurt consumers so much when the world is awash in oil, as it has been since 2014. The problem is that prices don't remain low for long. Low prices result in reduced investment, which results in less production. And less production results in higher prices. As every economist knows, commodities are cyclical businesses. A wise national energy policy would anticipate volatility by promoting lower production costs in both good times and bad, thereby reducing future price shocks. Obama's energy policy has pursued the opposite path.
Oil prices appear to be at an inflection point, and the administration hasn't a clue as to how to respond. With cuts in non-OPEC production of 730,000 barrels per day in 2016, according to an OPEC report issued Wednesday, global surplus production is expected to end within two months. After that, stockpiles may begin to decline, unless global demand continues to lag, as it has of late. On the demand side, the OPEC report simply states that "there is great uncertainty." Obama's response to this uncertainty – as to the clear evidence of declining production outside OPEC – is politics as usual. When production is high, he attacks fossil fuels. When production is low, he continues to attack them.
The most significant data in the OPEC report point to an increasing pace of decline in non-OPEC production. A 15% decline from recent highs, in and of itself, might not be that worrisome. But a 15% decline that becomes 20% and then 25% by the end of the year, as is possible, would most likely affect global oil prices and perhaps threaten the global economy. With so many regions already facing uncertainly, a global recession could easily unsettle world politics. It is in our interest to stabilize energy prices, but the administration seems intent on driving them up.
No one can predict the future of the oil market, of course. Exogenous factors, including the potential collapse of a proposed OPEC production freeze or a global economic slowdown, not to mention the outbreak of war or regime change, could influence prices one way or the other. With hundreds of producers, an uncertain global economy, and political instability, predicting oil prices is a risky bet. The re-entry of Iran as a major producer is another factor in the mix.
Nonetheless, it is possible to extrapolate from known facts and to make conservative predictions. Non-OPEC production is falling. If an agreement can be ironed out at the forthcoming Doha meeting of OPEC producers or at a subsequent meeting, OPEC production might be frozen at current levels. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has lowered its forecast for U.S. production for 2017 to 8 million barrels per day – down from 9.4 million bpd for 2015. Despite having the world's largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela has seen its production continue to decline since 2005. The International Energy Agency recently downgraded projections for Brazil's production in 2016. Mexico, another major producer, has seen its production "steadily decreased since 2005," according to the IEA.
The idea that U.S. production cuts, resulting partly from government policy, have no effect on global prices is mistaken. Given the effect of maturing fields and declines resulting from mismanagement in Latin America and elsewhere, there may not be enough slack to make up for falling U.S. production.
Obama's assault on the U.S. oil industry has also contributed to job losses and losses to U.S. GDP. Just as his all-out war on coal has cost 31,000 good-paying jobs and $30 billion in market losses, at the end of 2015, job losses in oil and gas were estimated to be "250,000 and counting." Not all of these could have been prevented by government policy, but many of them could. If Obama had taken the opposite tack – backing "all of the above," as he promised to do – the oil and gas industry would have held up better, and Americans would be spared future price increases to some degree. Lowering regulation and opening up leasing on federal lands would have lowered the cost of production for U.S. companies. As it is, Obama has allowed Middle East producers to undercut U.S. producers and gain market share, resulting in fewer jobs for American workers and more U.S. dependence on foreign producers.
Looking ahead, oil price forecasts for 2020 range from $68.50 (IMF) to $74.10 (World Bank). With WTI crude now going for just above $40 a barrel, those forecasts suggest a 75% increase above current prices and a 150% increase over recent lows. No one is suggesting that U.S. energy policy can control global oil prices, but it can lower U.S. production costs, make U.S. producers more competitive, and increase global supplies, thereby moderating price spikes.
Obama understands none of this because he sees the world through eco-colored glasses. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton would be at all different. She too supports the total ban on fracking in New York State and elsewhere.
Killing the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. has been the unspoken agenda of the Obama administration for the past seven years. It is also the agenda of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, whose executive director (Michael Brune) recently said that the club's goal is "to phase out coal as quickly as possible" and also to "use as little natural gas as we can in doing so." As for oil, environmentalists seem even more opposed to its use than natural gas, despite the fact that both are the only efficient and dependable sources of fuel available at affordable prices.
Another voice in the anti-carbon crusade is U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (whose term, thankfully, expires in December). In an interview with Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, the secretary general was quoted as saying that climate change "should not be a subject of political debate" in the U.S. He followed up by saying that if the U.S. Congress refuses to pass legislation supporting the Paris climate accord of 2016, President Obama "may not have to do all this legally[.] … He also has executive power." Is Ban Ki-moon saying that the American people have no right to debate climate change and that the president should circumvent Congress to force his views on the people? That is what I hear him saying, and what many in the environmental movement appear to support.
Now that the president and his environmental allies have partially succeeded in hampering oil production, the effects of that policy can be seen. Oil prices are rising, and gasoline prices are rising with them. Most Americans aren't happy about that, and, hopefully, they will make their displeasure known in the 2016 election. The choice between Hillary Clinton and a conservative opponent would give voters a chance to make their wishes known.
As for Hillary Clinton, her intentions are painfully obvious. She has spoken of seizing the profits of oil companies and investing them in green energy schemes like Solyndra and SunEdison. Without profits, energy companies would have nothing to invest in new production. As existing wells became depleted, production would fall, ultimately to zero
That, of course, is precisely what the environmental left wants. But it is not the future that most Americans would hope for.
It is not too late to reverse policy, though the chance of this administration doing so is zero. A new administration, with a conservative in the White House, could unravel the punishing regulations imposed on the oil and gas (and coal) industries and thereby assure a long-term supply of cheap and efficient energy. That supply would help to assure long-term economic growth and prosperity – and increased income equality – for all Americans.
'democracy awakening': The radical left's latest makeover
'DEMOCRACY AWAKENING': THE RADICAL LEFT'S LATEST MAKEOVER
The same tired, pathetic tropes, repackaged as something new.
By John Perazzo
Have you heard about the latest intellectual “awakening” that's being led by a brand new “progressive” movement called Democracy Awakening (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...p?grpid=7896)? Oh, it's a real thrill, loaded with a host of bold, fresh ideas that'll make you downright grateful for the fact that such brilliant folks are looking out for you. Ideas like these:
What's that you say? You've heard all this before, a thousand times, from the mouths of a thousand left-wing activists and political candidates seeking to erode American liberties? Don't tell that to the good folks at Democracy Awakening. It might hurt their feelings. They kinda like thinking of themselves as intellectual trailblazers.
Democracy Awakening was officially launched a few days ago in Washington, DC, when it led a series of workshops and demonstrations outside the U.S. Capitol—all to promote the ideals and agendas listed above. Among the guest speakers (http://democracyawakening.org/full-schedule-events/) at these events were such notables as Democratic Congressman Raúl Grijalva (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1316), an “immigrant-rights” champion who says that “in a perfect (http://cis.org/grijalva), perfect world we’d have an open border”; labor activist Dolores Huerta (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2074), a former honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America; Phyllis Bennis (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2147), whose Institute for Policy Studies (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6991) has long supported Communist agendas while publicly smearing the United States as the world's principal wellspring of evil; and activist Medea Benjamin (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i....asp?indid=626), a dyed-in-the-wool communist who has lavished praise on Castro's Cuba, the theocratic hellhole of Iran, and the Hamas (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6204) barbarians of Gaza.
The list of Democracy Awakening's nearly 300 member (http://democracyawakening.org/) organizations provides further insight into the coalition's worldview. Among those members are:
Last edited by Paparock; 04-25-2016 at 04:38 PM..