Primary Upset Shows Red Innards

The cannibalization of Democrats—now philosophically interchangeable with Bernie Sanders-style socialism—is fascinating (and deeply disturbing) to see.  What else explains last week's primary defeat of establishment candidate Rep. Joseph Crowley?  Shockingly, the fourth most powerful Democrat in Congress—a 10-term incumbent—pink-slipped by the voters of NY-14.  In Mr. Crowley's former slot now stands a genuine pinko: 28-year-old political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ah, à la Obama, another fresh-faced progressive spinning the old yarn of collectivism.  On NBC's “Meet the Press” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez mirrored the former “hope and change” president by stating, “I’m an educator, I’m an organizer. And I believe that what we’re really seeing is just a movement for health care, housing and education in the United States.”  Well, everyone values such things; the question is how they’re achieved.  In reality, capitalism already provides that to the most people of any economic system—with the added benefit of self-determination. 

Socialism is always based upon redistribution of government resources.  Therefore, in practice, this House nominee peddles de facto economic enslavement via perpetual government dependence.  That's not the American way.  In truth, it’s a complete abandonment of the principles that defined their party under JFK.  Would President Kennedy want higher taxes, single-payer healthcare, radical criminal justice “reform” to empty prisons, and open U.S. borders (by abolishing ICE)?  Furthermore, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s claim “Democrats are a big-tent party” is as hollow as her dystopian rhetoric.  By today’s standards, JFK’s policies place him slightly left of mainstream Republicans.  On that basis, Jack would be shown the door as unceremoniously as Joseph Crowley was. 

Would the late Norman Thomas, a fellow socialist, Presbyterian preacher and six-time presidential candidate, be that surprised by the unvarnished emergence of another democratic upstart?  Reverend Thomas famously prophesied that socialism would stealthily (and incrementally) arrive in America wearing the mantle of the Democratic Party.  In the modern era, it emerged with the failed campaign of Bernie Sanders in 2015.  That movement has gained a latest toehold with the unexpected victory of millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  The white and blue has been drained from the Democratic Party, but the red—at its metastasized heart—remains.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

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

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

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

Another Time of Choosing

“Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.” - President Ronald Reagan

In retrospect, Barack Obama has been a hard, leftist fascist: carcinogenic change based upon his personal ideology without a thought to the tremendous harm perpetrated by his ilk to this nation. Let me be clear: he is socialistic wolf masquerading in sheep's “Democrat” clothes. Back in 2008, he duped Edward “the Lion of the Senate” Kennedy as easily as he did the American people, not once, but twice. At that time (and ever since) Mr. Obama has used shiny, superficial surfaces to successfully appropriate JFK's moniker: a new, cool, youthful sheen. Notice how Edward Kennedy's words then invoked his martyred brother when speaking of Mr. Obama's candidacy:

“There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a New Frontier... So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now. I believe that a wave of change is moving across America. If we do not turn aside, if we dare to set our course for the shores of hope, we together will go beyond the divisions of the past and find our place to build the America of the future.”

Yet, all that glitters here has been fool's gold. Mr. Obama's presidency has actually been the antithesis of JFK's pro-American, anti-Communism (read: Fidel Castro and the Cuban Missile Crisis). Specifically, Mr. Kennedy's “New Frontier” was a youthful transition of American power into new hands that preserved their original ideals. Contrast that to Mr. Obama's “fundamental transformation of America” which has systematically dismantled American economic, military and geo-political influence worldwide.

Why is the millennial generation infatuated with progressives' “nanny” state socialism? This is the same coddled crowd that needs “safe spaces” on college campuses—and goes into apoplectic fits when someone at Emory University writes 'Trump 2016' in chalk on a public sidewalk. (Can these 20-somethings walk and chew gum at the same time?) What else explains a Gallup poll in which approximately two-thirds are comfortable with an “unconventional” person for president: 69% a socialist; 75% an atheist; 76% a Muslim? Seriously? Hence, the unexpected success of Bernie Sanders insurgent candidacy. (A sham designed to make polarizing, liar Hillary more mainstream and therefore more palatable to the electorate.)

In theory, it's great Utopian idea to “spread the wealth around.” That is, when we had some. Yet, our reality is a dystopian society now 19 trillion in debt (and counting, with interest). So a newsflash to entitled millennials: there isn't any—so stop whining! This latest generation is so indoctrinated by liberal touchy-feely (“don't question, do whatever feels good”) philosophy, that that exorbitantly expensive six-figure college degree is a complete waste of time and resources. Of this, the great Abraham Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” Indeed, colleges of today no longer teach reason or logical thinking (read: their defining purpose). That is why, for example, the most ridiculous, nonsensical appearances are tolerated by this tattooed generation of rainbow hair, masochistic body piercings and adult-sized onesies. Millennials know nothing about the patriotism (and sacrifice) of WWII's Greatest Generation or “pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps:” the take-charge responsibility inherent in every free, flourishing society. I'd wager they see the America's once pioneering spirit through the modern lens of unrelated “Brokeback Mountain” cowboys. In other words, everything in their careless, narcissistic heads is a scramble of anti-American college “intellectualism” and MSM spoon-fed propaganda. That's just how progressives maintain political power despite the abject failures of the current administration:

“Public opinion is controlled by the media (Hollywood, news, internet), and education. So, whoever controls media and education controls the country.” - William J. Federer

And what do the young find when they get beyond their empty-headed Kardasian style reality TV and their “safe” ivied walls? They join the 93 million other able-bodied Americans who cannot find gainful employment (read: Obamacare's restrictive employer mandates) as the country teeters towards bankruptcy like Greece, and complete disarray like Venezuela's two-day work week. (That's a “weekend” to the rest of us.) Of this deplorable latter dynamic, even the sycophantic Washington Post (which supports Mr. Obama's similar economy-killing policies) aptly observed: “Venezuela has a lot of problems, and a good number of them are quite clearly the government's fault.” Well, hallelujah! Out of the mouth of these leftist, drooling babes comes rare insight. Too bad, their hysterical political blindness prohibits them from seeing the same things transpiring here.

As present is often prelude to future, Venezuela—holder of the world's largest oil reserves—makes an informing case study. 40 years ago, this now failed state was then, per capita, the fourth richest nation in the world. For the last 20 years—like our mercifully ending two terms under Mr. Obama (and a possible further ruinous continuation under a Clinton 2.0 regime)—the Venezuelans also embraced Hugo Chavez socialism under the banner of his successor Nicolas Maduro. Their economy shrunk by 10% in 2015. Similarly, China overtook the U.S. as the largest economy by GDP in 2014 (and likely still is because they have artificially undervalued their currency. Indeed, in their closed society, the true strength of their economy is difficult to gauge.) Venezuela's inflation is in triple digits, their currency the bolivar is almost worthless, and the decline in worldwide oil prices has crippled the worth of their exports.

Here, our economy has been hot-wired to bolster Mr. Obama's political standing. Specifically, the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates at or near zero for almost all of the Obama presidency while simultaneously funneling $3 trillion into the stock market. (Likewise is the fuzzy math fiction of the Department of Labor's published of a “5%” unemployment rate.) Despite the political cover, Mr. Obama's “transformative” efforts at big government socialism were the same failed leadership decisions that wrecked Venezuela in just 20 years. Now what they have to show for it is hours-long breadlines to obtain basics like eggs and milk. Contrast that experience to any local grocery store—a for-profit venture—with a readily accessible, overflowing bounty of foodstuffs.

The poverty rate in Venezuela is now 76%. It's so bad there they've even had toilet paper shortages. Meanwhile, we blissfully debate the “high class” problem of how many bathrooms—and the wisdom of making them unisex for the gender fluid. As with Mr. Obama's failed stimulus programs, tax-and-spend policies and embrace of excessive regulations (related, for example, to discredited fictions like “global warming”), both Chavez and Maduro wasted tremendous amounts of money. (Ring any bells yet, supporters of progressives and/or Bernie Sanders?)

Spoiled millennials have gone from the safety of home, to college where they have been conditioned to believe that big government (“Uncle Sam” as Santa Claus) will simply provide for them as their parents did. Therefore, everything earned by previous generations through risk, hard work and capitalist enterprise, is now an entitlement: food (food stamps), shelter (vouchers and section 8 housing), health care (Medicare and Medicaid) et cetera. The majority under 30 do not support capitalism even though it has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic system. By why should these would-be welfare waifs work when everything is “free,” right?

Just ask the rioting, downtrodden Venezuelans: there is no such thing as a “free” lunch there anymore. Any U.S. presidential candidate claiming otherwise is a Sal Alinsky style class warfare fraudster. Such immoral politicians are wolves. They are power-hungry, promising the sun, moon and stars to hold the reins of political power. Yet, the fact remains that an empty treasury filled with IOUs can't fill a belly forever. After eating the MSG Chinese food, the economic hell of that $19 trillion bill is rapidly coming due. If Americans don't choose wisely will empty shelves and power blackouts become our new normal?

Make no mistake: a rebirth or a reckoning is inevitable. Once again, this election cycle is a critical heartbeat in our culture, what Ronald Reagan presciently called in 1964 “A Time for Choosing.” A free market, pro-capitalism Republican or a big government progressive/socialist “Democrat.” In 2016, which option is likely to preserve the Founding Fathers great experiment in liberty, what remains of our (gutted, mismanaged) democracy known today as Mr. Reagan's “shining city on a hill? Will that light flicker and dim or stay bright?

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

Barack's Shaming, MLK Mirror

Given the ongoing, fawning MSM coverage of our first black U.S. president, to revisit the 'him' of this pair of peas in a political pod now seems inevitable. 'Hers' was an appropriately appalled reaction to a Marie Antoinette-style sense of coddled, arrogant entitlement called Michelle's chastising, honest mirror. Likewise, 'his' will detail her fascist hubby as the antithesis of MLK's dream. MLK would have advocated a positive, unifying figure who, through example, sees beyond superficial differences of color or creed. We got the opposite: a manipulative, divisively petty personage who stirs up current or “past grievances” (reflecting his personal biases) for a divisive political effect beneficial to Mr. Obama and his fellow travelers in the Democratic Party.

An important critique of Obama's classless “character” such as it is: our black president ignores Lincoln, the Great Emancipator's 150^th anniversary rather than appropriating honoring a truly prescient American leader. (That was a president who knew how to use executive orders to good, long term effects.) Contrast an abolitionist decisively ending the horror of slavery with something beyond his wildest imagination: a black president who customary race-baits (same as differences of class, gender, orientation etc.) as political wedges to turn American society against itself. This ideologue's reason? To distract from personal ownership of his abject failures domestically and abroad.

Specifically, Mr. Obama constantly changes the subject from his obtuse ineptness. To that end, he uses the visibility of the presidency to repeatedly elevate and exaggerate the import of minor, otherwise isolated and unfortunate incidences (read: Henry Louis Gates Jr.; Trayvon Martin; Darren Wilson UN speech) into full-blown scandals. Given his well established pattern, he perpetuates artificial crisis to short-circuit debate (read: demonized Republican objections to his “pen and phone” imperialistic change.) Indeed, Mr. Obama wields power to compel progressive change. This is the way of all law-violating fascists. (In retrospect, the “hope,” it turns out, was a pipe-dream; a superficial sound-good 2008 campaign slogan.)

Aided at every turn is the biased MSM, the Democrats' slavish humpbacked creature who minimizes (or completely ignores) the virtual Noah's Ark of unresolved pink elephant issues (illegal aliens; porous U.S. borders; potential terrorists re-settled here as Islamic migrants), and shrieking gorilla situations (read: ISIS; Iranian nuclear deal; 19 trillion debt). Then, there is the third category, those alternate-universe dupes who carry press badges like devotional rosaries who waste breath on the embers of this man's presidency, and his shameful legacy. That's The Washington Post's Petula Dvorak.

Ms. Dvorak wrongly claims that Mr. Obama is the victim (rather than a perpetrator) of hate. Fallout, she assumes, from what is admittedly the most crassly juvenile, small-ball issue, unpredictable presidential race in modern history. Yet, given how these same dynamics have exactly mirrored Mr. Obama's own contentious tenure, one would think he would be quite at ease.

In nature, what else would Mr. Obama be other than a parasitic organism, a bottom-feeder sapping America's strength and poisoning her citizens' good will? Look around at the carnage of a once thriving nation. From E Pluribus Unum—out of many: one—to the divisive Obama Doctrine of rewarding friends (read: cronies of now bankrupt Solyndra) and punishing enemies (read: the American people; Republicans; Israel and the West). What hasn't fallen apart in his almost eight years of honing little more than his golf game? Truthfully, Mr. Obama has damaged our republic at every opportunity—perhaps beyond repair—with his nebulous “fundamental transformation of America.”

The only hate that truly exists is reflected back in Mr. Obama's own gilded presidential mirror. What Ms. Dvorak is completely oblivious to is the simple logic that one does not “fundamentally transform” anything that is truly beloved in the first place. (I challenge Ms. Dvorak to try that tack on her significant other some time—and see where she ends up. I'm betting the dog house, if she is lucky.) Moreover, his hate-filled effort to change America from a capitalistic haven of upper-mobility to a full-on big-government socialistic hell, has been neither gentle or measured. It has been more than seven years of polarizing gale-force winds, boiling over American's “melting pot.” In effect, he has pressure-cooked America's First World golden goose status to a ruined, debt-laden husk.

As America's first rabble-rousing president, Mr. Obama has intentionally exploited our society along its inherent fault lines. Specifically, he used his ethnicity to silence (and unfairly smear) detractors as innately intolerant, rather than respecting their legitimate right in a democracy to object. Case and point: on the campaign trail, he certainly objected to George W. Bush's accumulated debt (4.899T) as irresponsible and unpatriotic. And how Mr. Obama—grand hypocrite that he is—has outdone Mr. Bush on these measures (to a degree the Republican could hardly fathom) is obvious. In any case, what loyal American would not take issue with Mr. Obama's anti-American posturing (read: Castro Cuba trip). His job-killing economics (read: 93 million jobless; 8.63T Obama debt (difference between 10.6 debt at end of Bush II presidency and current escalating figure of 19.23T))? His wealth redistribution via the government's bureaucratic ObamaCare take-over of the one-sixth of the economy (and the world's best medical system)?

Have the well-heeled Obamas forgotten where or how they have lived for the better part of almost two presidential terms? Perhaps the greatest sin of these truly careless people is their complete disregard of the widespread suffering of average citizens during the Obama years. They forgot long ago that they work for us, not the other way around. It is we—not once, but twice—who have placed them in the rarefied air they frivolously waste. They are there by electoral votes, not divine right (much as they pretend otherwise.)

What is truly unseemly here is the lack of compassion, kindness or respect shown by the Obamas for the rest of us. We struggle to pay bills, and worry mightily about an uncertain future—caused, in large measure, by this president. Meanwhile, utterly tone-deaf, Mr. Obama has “transformed” the presidency into “lifestyles of the rich and famous.” His mindless extended vacations of golf games, tangos in far-flung tropical locales, and watching baseball with decades-old American's geo-political foes are a complete embarrassment. The intrepid Ms. Dvorak makes a real funny with: “For someone who has been attacked the way Obama has... who has endured verbal assaults and [unrealized] physical threats to his family President Obama's demeanor has been dignified.” So, one again, a Post columnist discloses that Mr. Obama shares his wife's high class problem: what others say about them. In the final analysis, how dignified is a president who heartlessly abandoned Chicago families to record-setting, senselessly tragic killings of their children at the hands of their peers? Spinning no doubt restlessly in his grave, I wonder what colorful language MLK would have for Mr. Obama's pampered sensibilities!

For her part, Ms. Dvorak does her “journalistic” duty as professional fluffer for Mr. Obama's deservedly tattered reputation. She cites the meaningless measure of a weekly Gallup poll of presidential approval: Obama's 53 percent compared to that of George W. Bush, his predecessor's 32 percent during the same time frame. (A partisan swipe at Republicans for good measure.) Speaking of world leaders, I would dearly like a candid poll of their impressions regarding this current president. Out of Mr. Obama's earshot how friend and foe alike must snicker at this apology-tour adventurer, this emperor with no clothes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize a pervasive level of rightful resentment for this Tiger Woods-style fop literally “playing at being commander-in-chief.” (Incidentally, this precise, unfounded Ronald Reagan smear by liberals fits Mr. Obama to a golf link “tee.”)

Ms. Dvorak's column reads like a '60s-style homage to the period piece “The Help.” A time now long past, when blacks were routinely marginalized and discriminated against solely due to their skin color. Her writing apes this warmed-over, superficial skin-deep claim. Specifically, for her ilk, race is always the causal factor for any negative attention directed at this first black U.S. president. Meanwhile, she completely neglects even the merest mention of Mr. Obama's real-life track record of aforementioned failures: “Obama received triple the number of threats that previous presidents faced... [b]oth the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have seen huge jumps in threats against the president and the formation of hate groups during the past seven years.” The social and economic context—which this piece briefly details—is never even hinted at, stated explicitly or adequately explained.

Undercutting the serious nature of her subject matter, she uses slang unworthy of a precocious middle-schooler—let alone a major newspaper scribe—when she scribbles, “It's impossible to utter a single word about the White House, the first family or the president without a blast from the fire hose of haterade.” (For those of us rare birds who confine ourselves to the use of proper English, the Urban Dictionary defines this absurd term as a figurative drink consumed by those who, in turn, are consumed by the negativity of their subject matter.) Beyond demonstrating that she truly is a bad writer, this half-wit is an insult to even the yellowest journalist. Ms. Dvorak is so out of touch—so hysterically blind as the man she thoughtlessly lionizes—she mistakenly assigns bile appropriately directed at him as a “sign of the times” rather than as a natural consequence of Mr. Obama's own words, deeds and policies.

As spurious proof of “everybody else's hate,” she cites one reader's irate response to Mr. Obama, “Go back to Kenya.” The reader's curious assertion brings up a salient, still unresolved point: Mr. Obama's nebulous background and upbringing. (To make an analogy, Mr. Obama's authentic-or-not released long-form birth certificate continues to be as controversial and uncertain as the “settled” science of “global warming,” now discredited, and re-labeled as vague “climate change.”) Likewise, Mr. Obama's own wife publicly muddied the waters at a Denver luncheon during an August 2008 GLBT speech: “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya... showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested, and we did it as a couple.” Would any worldly and educated spouse in a 20 year marriage ever misspeak her husband's birth origin—and not bother to issue a correction? Moreover, would any American generally confuse a home country with somewhere else? No wonder the rumor persists to this day that Mr. Obama is a foreign-born Muslim. After all, that's how he acts, and where his loyalties evidently philosophically lie.

Ms. Dvorak is encroaching dangerously on Courtland Milloy's murky turf as the Post's resident racial-scribbler. Not surprisingly, both of these progressive potted plants masquerading as journalists sing from the identical Democratic-sanctioned sheet music: both summarily condemn Americans as being secretly guilty of “racial contempt” regarding the Obamas. Yet, this is a factual impossibility. After all, by large margins, average Americans voted Mr. Obama into the highest office in the land through two election cycles. If race truly was a negatively pervasive element that could never have happened.

Therefore, the unfounded rumor and intangible innuendo these columnists wrongly engage in is nothing more than propaganda. They blame the “scenery” rather than the “star” of the show. In Ms. Dvorak's case, she compares the current presidential campaign to a primordial swamp (another veiled, unworthy swipe at Republicans). Yet, the real problem remains where it always has been with Mr. Obama—likely the worst U.S. president in recent memory, if ever. Certainly, her unwarranted, sycophantic praise of a black man bereft of MLK's content of character only mirrors a delusional true-believer with sludge stuck between her ears.

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