Wife of Bernie Sunk School

Decisions made by Bernie Sanders's better half—his wife, Jane—have run a small Vermont private school, Burlington College, into the ground. Her seven-year tenure as president lasted from 2004 to 2011 ending with a golden parachute: a $200,000 severance package. In 2010, she directed the institution in its $10 million purchase of 33 acres along the bank of Lake Champlain from the Roman Catholic Diocese. Fast forward to 2014, 25 acres have been re-sold for $7 million or a $3 million dollar loss to real estate developer Eric Farrell. This real boon to him, a failed hail Mary effort to keep the school's doors open. Those doors will close for good on May 27^th, ironically just shy of Memorial Day, Monday. As past is prelude, the millennial teachable moment for the 2016 presidential election? Ruling progressive/socialists like Jane, Bernie—and Hillary—always personally live large. However, their Obama style big government policies always leave ruin in their wake.

What was her grandiose, utopian plan? An empty pledge to double the student enrollment. How is that unrealized promise any different than her socialist hubby's of “free” public college? Her pipe dream was to be a paradise: a beautiful new campus funded on borrowed money. What now remains? About 30 educators and staff out of work—and a lender making angry noises about potential fraud in the application filed by Mrs. Sanders. (“Jane, you got some splainin' to do!”) Likewise is Bernie's absurd advocacy of a 90% tax rate, and expanded government dependence programs that will add 18 trillion to the nation's already mammoth, and climbing, 19 trillion dollar debt. (Recall that 9 trillion of that has been added by Mr. Obama alone). Yet, make no mistake, Burlington College's fate is a litmus test of Sanders' style failed leadership. Like wife, like husband, trust that that apple doesn't fall far from its tree!

As proof, anyone at the now bankrupt Burlington College can attest, the economics of socialism are inherently unsustainable. Britain’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher famously said the real problem with socialist governments is that “they always run out of other people’s money.” Well, precisely. Socialists redistribute (think Obamacare). They steal from (capitalist) “Peter” to bribe (voter) “Paul”—and governmentthey mismanage controls all! In a nutshell, that's the fascist Obama presidency. Specifically, consider coddled Michelle Obama's attitude of entitlement as her husband stoops to “lead” us. Therefore, it is no surprise to any clear thinking person that job creators have been driven out of America (read: widespread corporate inversion). These hard leftist locusts rule and consume resources until there is no money left to beg, borrow or steal. Then, these characters perpetually claim hollow victories (fairness! equality!) and move on. All that is required is Mr. Obama's political optics. His formula: a few disconnected, cursory remarks, maybe a fly-in photo-op (read: Flint's water crisis) then onto those all-important waiting golf links. The end result is almost 8 chaotic years of anti-Americanism from every direction. Indeed, our society has been mangled—twisted backwards, upside down and inside out. Hence Black Lives Matter. So much for the hope in that change.

Examples of progressive failures abound. Think of Maryland's “singing cowboy,” former governor Martin O'Malley's “millionaire's tax.” (His “flush tax” and “rain tax” are also real gems.) Of course there is the economic downturn perpetuated by continuous overspending with America's Chinese credit card, and tax-and-spend policies of the aforementioned Obama Administration. Yet, let's cast the net even wider. Think of Venezuela's toilet paper shortage, and two-day work week. Does Jane Sanders's failed leadership, “the crushing weight” of debt incurred during her presidency, portend her husband's?

Jane was Burlington College's fourth president, but rest assured Bernie won't be America's 45^th. That honor is likely reserved for his opposite counterpart, a blustering populist and plain-speaking pro-American capitalist who defies all political odds, and has galvanized the electorate. Someone who actually knows how keep the lights on, the doors open—and pay the bills.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Blended politics and befuddled ideas

In this day and age of tenuous labeling of human behavior, fluid gender identity—and bathroom usage based on the whims of personality—now a self-described Socialist (the badly electorally-challenged presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)) isn't really what he says he is? 

That's what political scribblers like the Stefani Olszewskis of the world laughably claim. Specifically, how is Sanders's outspoken advocacy of a 90% income tax not her idea of hindering economic freedom? Further, Ms. Olszewski specifies Sanders isn't a traditional socialist because he doesn't want the government to “own the means of production.” That trivial statement is ultimately academic. Bernie “free-millennial-everything” Sanders wants to tax private industry into submission, if not oblivion. Why should government do the heavy-lifting of inefficiently controlling production when they can simply take? That's the basis of Democrat's tax-and-spend policies—and the Obama wrinkle—wealth redistribution. 

Fact: Under Mr. Obama almost 10 trillion has been added to the national debt. Per the WSJ, Mr. Sanders's policies, if enacted, will add an additional 18 trillion to that. That's a national tab of almost 40 trillion. It's economic suicide. 

Indeed, Mr. Sanders wants to continue self-described “Democrat” Barack Obama's almost 8 years of economy-destroying policies. However, in practical terms, there is no difference in the nebulous 2016 “Democrat/Socialist alternative.” At least those supposedly in the know like DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and front-runner Hillary Clinton can't explain a difference. Translation: that means there isn't one!

Democrat's obscuring alphabet soup of different labels is meaningless. Whether proffering themselves as “liberals, progressives, Democrats or socialists,” all re-brand the same anti-American principle: big-government, cradle-to-grave dependence with themselves, the elitists, perpetually at the top of food chain. In political parlance, this is the Democrat's poverty plantation (that interestingly keeps 90% of the black population loyal to the party that historically was pro-slavery, anti-women's suffrage and anti-civil rights.) 

The duty of all conservative media outlets is to convey these realities (and their underlying facts, as above) not drink the same propagandist Kool-Aid as their fellows in the MSM.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

The secret meaning of debate handshake

As Tuesday's overly chummy Democratic sham of a “debate” demonstrated Bernie Sanders is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic Party. Why else would he leap to a spirited defense of scandal-ridden front-runner Hillary Clinton? Before shaking hands with a grinning Hillary—no symbolism of collusion there—he said:

“Let me say something that may not be great politics, but I think the secretary is right, and that is the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your [Hillary's] damned emails!”

In any case, in the American sense of the word, there is nothing “independent” about Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders; an outspoken advocate of bigger government, a 90% tax rate and further income redistribution á la Obama. As an avowed Socialist, his collectivist views are anti-Capitalist and antithetical to the American economic system. With 93 million able-bodied Americans looking for full time employment— and uncounted by labor statistics which laughably report 5.1%— a politician with Mr. Sanders’s views is too radical to be elected, even by loopy Democrat standards. So why is such a wild card in the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president?

Make no mistake: he of the little "I" by his surname is nothing more than a plant for the Democrats. Indeed, he who regularly caucuses and votes with Democrats is a de facto Democrat. In truth, Mr. Sanders is running precisely because he is unelectable. His role in this Kabuki theater is to happily serve the Democrat's collective: to be a smiling, friendly placeholder to populate the stage during debates and in the press. To this end, he has not and will not say anything truly controversial about Hillary Clinton as any legitimate contender would. For example, the best Mr. Sanders can muster is milquetoast platitudes: “Hillary Clinton is a candidate, I am a candidate…. The people in this country will make their choice.” The closest thing to a criticism thus far was calling Mrs. Clinton a “fence-sitter” on the Trans-Pacific trade proposal. Mr. Sanders should know that fence-sitting— and going with changing political winds—is the very epitome of Clintonian politics.

Mr. Sanders's colorful presence creates the illusion of a contest for the Democratic nomination—rather than a coronation—and makes Hillary Clinton appear more politically mainstream—and therefore, more palatable to the general electorate. The payoff to Mr. Sanders is increased personal visibility in the political conversation and a wide platform to promote his anti-American agenda.

Socialists like Sanders believe in the economic fantasy of “free” stuff—which is never really free—and is always paid for by someone else. Hence, his policy of “free” tuition for students at public colleges and universities. Likewise, Clinton believes in cradle to grave government dependence though “free money” welfare programs like the ever-expanding food stamp rolls. With typical Democrat blasé, these birds of a feather operate in a fiscal twilight zone (where an 18 Trillion dollar debt and deficit spending don’t matter) and resources just drop magically from the heavens to serve their dystopian designs. In essence they demonize “Paul” (Wall Street) to justify stealing from him (class warfare) in order to pander for “Peter's” vote. Everything for Democrats revolves around garnering numbers for reelection: maintaining their own political power base. In this case, that is exactly Mr. Sanders’s underlying purpose: to get Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office in 2016.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

JFK Democrats no resemblance to Obama, progressives

President JFK once famously said, “But I dream things that never were—and I say: 'Why not?'” Today's progressive, Democratic party—and their propagandist creature, the MSM—twists perceptions of truth with the same ease and disdain as it would JFK's inspiring words of leadership into: “I habitually say things that are untrue—and never were.” It is the oxymoronic concept of “leading from behind;” the abdication of responsibility by those who would lead, but are incapable of accepting the inherent responsibility (and veracity) that comes with the job. Indeed, irresponsible power wielded without the check and balance of law promotes widespread government corruption and ultimately degenerates society into chaos. How far America has fallen in a mere 7 years. Ring any bells for anyone?

Serious character flaws notwithstanding, that is the underlying reason for Obama's (and Hillary's) bold-faced dishonesty with the American people wholly ignored (or greatly diminished) by an abetting MSM. The political optics of promoting “big lies” always serves the modern-day Democrat's primary purpose of self-promotion: maintaining and/or expanding personal political power via overreaching government “control” and the corresponding erosion of individual freedom and liberty. That is why the powers-that-be in the Obama Administration disregard the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights with such maddening regularity. We are literally and metaphorically as a “House of Cards,” just waiting for the next inevitable crisis or worse, some real-world eventuality like widespread domestic terrorism or violent insurgency. Historically, America threw off the yoke of British imperialism for far less than what Obama and his ultra-Constitutional minions have done collectively behind the shield of faceless big government on almost a daily basis.

Based upon results, 7 years of observation demonstrates that Mr. Obama is clearly out-of-his-depth. Couple that community-organizing incompetence with a profound anti-American ideology and one sees a man who has skated through the presidency leaving disasters at home and abroad in his golf-playing wake with little more than a winsome smile, his ethnicity, and a detached coolness that appeals to gaff-prone Joe Biden as well as empty-headed millennials who don't differentiate between style and substance. Whatever is behind the mask of his public persona may never be fully known. One can only infer what his private belief system actually is (or name for God he uses) and how that practice informs his life's perceptions. However, contrast Mr. Obama's supposed Christianity with Mr. Carson's authentic example and the truth—very much like the soft-spoken retired neurosurgeon himself—is quiet and plain. In any case, Mr. Obama is a Machiavellian leader of capricious whims: exactly what did America gain from normalizing relations with the brutal, repressive Castro regime after 53 years? By the sum of Mr. Obama's words and deeds, Mr. Kennedy could not fathom such a person as a Democrat let alone a two-term U.S. president.

Despite the shifting sands of the political landscape, proof to Mr. Kennedy would be Mr. Obama's wholesale embrace of the dictator Castro brothers. In retrospect, his views would make JFK a mainstream Republican of today especially in light of his emphasis on public integrity and fiscal conservatism. Indeed, Mr. Kennedy would not recognize what his Democratic party has metastasized into: anti-American progressivism so extreme that an unapologetic socialist, Bernie “90% tax rate” Sanders is mounting a spirited campaign on the Democratic side for president in 2016. Could one imagine what passes for current would-be Democratic “leadership,” the “madhouse” of Hillary, Obama, Biden or Sanders being taken seriously as presidential contenders in JFK's day? Not a chance.

Today, there is no daylight between mainstream Democrats and their unchecked, socialistic authoritarianism where the State, not the individual, is king. Undoubtedly, Kennedy was pro-government programs—but as a means of their original intention, temporary assistance—not what they've mutated into: multigenerational economic cradle-to-grave government dependence. Kennedy wanted to create economic circumstances conducive to his fellow citizens reaching their individual potential. However, progressives à la Obama and his fellow Democrats want just the opposite: to bring everyone down to the same basic level of subsistence with all economic power and decision-making flowing like manna from a centralized, autocratic government they helm. To them—this elite ruling class of “public servant” influence-peddling millionaires beyond the fray—it is better to reign in America divided against itself, distracted by blame. This is the true meaning and purpose of Obama's “fundamental transformation” of America. His Orwellian desire, it seems—for which he unfortunately has had an astonishing degree of success—is to cripple our democracy into a Third World hellhole similar to that of his Indonesian childhood. In this, he is not only anti-Kennedy, he is also anti-Reagan's view of America as a way-showing, First World shinning city upon a hill. To make a political analogy, Obama progressives wish to extinguish Lady Liberty's flame by covering her with the muzzling black robe of the Burka, the Muslim women's garb of silent submission to Islam.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976