Posted on 02/10/2016 9:41:32 AM PST by Kaslin
At the start of the Democratic presidential race, the media viewed the contest as a cakewalk. The compassionate and gloriously wonky Hillary Clinton faced no one who could be viewed as her equal. Game over. When Sen. Bernie Sanders made noises about running against her, nobody thought he could be the actual Democratic nominee. He was old, he was cranky, and he wasn't even a Democrat.
The conventional media wisdom had it that Sanders would be a healthy deterrent to the Clinton tendency to crawl toward the corporatist middle. On NPR, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne saw it as positive: "Let's list two names who we don't get to talk about, Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas. This is the most serious socialist candidacy for president since they ran. But Bernie Sanders has a long list of particulars that he wants to put on the table, and I think by shifting the campaigns to economics, he will generally help Democrats."
Yes, the media elite, which eternally predicts the tea party and the Christian conservatives will destroy the Grand Old Party, could only see better days ahead for Democrats with a self-described socialist contender in the race.
Sanders reminds conservatives of that appendix in Milton Friedman's 1980 book "Free to Choose" where he underlines that most of the 1928 Socialist Party platform of Norman Thomas was already part of the American federal establishment when President Reagan began his tenure. The Democrats distance themselves from the word "socialist," but continue marching the country toward its definition.
The usually servile Chris Matthews has offered one important contribution in recent months by asking leading Democrats to name the difference between a Democrat and a socialist, only to watch them babble and bumble over their barely suppressed ideology. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz tried to change the subject to the difference between Democrats and "right-wing extremist" Republicans. Sen. Charles Schumer protested, "I'm not going to get into it." Hillary said, "You'd have to ask him [Sanders]."
Journalists like Karen Tumulty at The Washington Post have described the Democratic base as torn between their idealistic (socialist) heart for Sanders and their poll-calculating head favoring Clinton. So the more that the garbage barge of ethical scandals casts a pall over Clinton's image, the more tempting it is for Democrats to toss out the caution and go crazy for the capital-S socialist.
Sanders is running a campaign based on the concept of American exceptionalism in reverse. America is exceptional only in her pathetic failure to enact every socialist "reform" that Scandinavian countries have ever implemented. He barks that America is a "great country," so of course it could be truly "great" in abandoning every notion of liberty that ever crossed the minds of the Founding Fathers.
When Rachel Maddow asks Clinton in a Democratic debate whether she is "too far to the right" for Democratic voters, it only underscores the media's location on the political spectrum. It's way over in a spot where Sanders is championed as a mainstream Democrat while boosting an "Occupy Wall Street" agenda, where every financial institution is smeared as "based on fraud," and where everything begs for a hostile government takeover.
If America ever succumbed to a President Sanders, we'd suggest the vaunted "revolution" should start by nationalizing the media companies, and throwing pampered anchors out of their high-priced Manhattan condos to house the homeless.
what happens if there is ever (God forbid) a CWII and we win and decide the press were traitors to the republic?
like i said, pray that never happens.
What's a CWII?
cracker wafers. they’re delicious. look them up and buy some
ya see, the first CWs weren’t that good.
but they added salt and butter.
CWII = Civil War II
No surprise. The Left is the vanguard of abandoning trust in the Lord and embracing confidence in man and his government. At its core America’s “cultural” and political war is really a spiritual war. The Left exhibits all the characteristics of the spirit of anti-christ and the love of tyranny.
That’s what we’re up against and we have too be at least, if not more, determined than they are to see our goals and agenda met. The Left is pretty clear, although dishonest when they have to be, about their goals and agenda - more unconstitutional federal government tyranny. But I’m not so sure a lot of us on the Right are so clear about our goals and agenda. In fact many so-called “conservatives” actually adhere to much of the Left’s unconstitutional governmental agenda. We either get clear about who we are and what our goals are and be ready to fight at least as hard as the Left fights, or the Left wins by default.
The goals of the Right SHOULD be FREEDOM: 1) political freedom (the opposite of governmental tyranny and coercion) - to reinstate the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and cut government down (about 80%) to its constitutional size 2) economic freedom - unleash the free market and get government out of the market and 3) individually promote the gospel of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ to influence personal change throughout or land.
Didn’t left wing Vermont try to develop a single payer health plan for its residents? After 3 years of trying when they determined there were not enough of Bernie’s “millionaires and billionaires” to fund it and that state taxes would have to be raised 160% ,they let out a big collective never mind.If there is one thing a socialist dislikes more than “millionaires and billionaires”, it is facing the reality of having to pay for their own entitlements
The “media” is like the useful idiot. They “think” they will be one of the “rulers” when the masses become slaves of the State and have no individual Natural Rights from God.
Socialism always kills the individuals who don’t conform or are useless or a problem to the State. The sycophantic media lick the b*tts and really,honestly believe they will be spared and live like our masters.
As the ex-KGB Yuri Bezmenov so eloquently explained, they are the FIRST to be eliminated-—they fulfilled their “duty” once the Leftists get in total control and their whining for a piece of the pie is not tolerated.
Sanders IS where the heart of that party is today.
Hillary is where it was in 1992.
The MSM: Soft in the Head because they’re in Bed
Something very troubling to me, is the silence from the Republican side, to refute Sanders’ socialism stands, and support market capitalism as the superior economic systems.
The truth is the average Dem lives better than 99% of the people on the planet. Nevertheless, for Dems life in the U.S. is just horrible.
That's the picture they have of themselves. And naturally, they want to help all those other poor and oppressed people by inflicting socialism on the country.
As far as CWII/secession goes, we should pay attention to the Constitution as mandatory authority AND the Declaration of Independence (D of I) as persuasive authority.
The feds and states are bound by the enumerated limitations of the Constitution. Outside enumerated constitutional limitations on the states, states are sovereign and may and should nullify unconstitutional federal acts. However, the D of I gives guidance I believe for valid secession from an existing government, which the South failed to observe and thus were not in the moral or legal right.
Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause) of the U.S. Constitution, confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, give individual states valid basis for nullifying and rejecting unconstitutional federal acts which by definition are acts of tyranny. Individual states must begin doing this, which, of course will mean those states must be ready for financial independence from the feds - but of course that is the basis of America’s beginnings - INDEPENDENCE.
Individual states must in good-faith nullify unconstitutional federal acts and notify the feds and the world why the nullified and rejected acts are unconstitutional. This is the only legitimate basis for action IMO toward further state independence from the feds which one would hope would not be needed unless necessary.
At some point, individual state secession may be necessary. The Declaration of Independence gives instruction and guidance for valid secession. The D of I shows valid secession 1) should not be “for light or transient causes” 2) requires a certain “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable” 3) notifying and submitting the facts of abuse “to a candid world” (27 specific abuses are listed in the D of I) and finally 4) “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government.” This is not a constitutional dictate, but, as the D of I says, what “Prudence, indeed, will dictate...”
The South jumped the gun when they ceded from the Union without first going through the necessary steps outlined by the D of I of first nullifying and notifying the feds of why certain acts are unconstitutional. So the South’s cessation was invalid IMO and I believe the North had a constitutional right to fight them and get them back into the Union.
Our beginning point here is for state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts. Also possibly a well-organized and rightly focused Convention of States but it takes longer and exactitude is required for every step or else you may have made matters worse. State nullification can begin NOW as long as the state publicly declares in good faith why the federal act in question is unconstitutional.
“what happens if there is ever (God forbid) a CWII and we win and decide the press were traitors to the republic?”
“the press” is a set of institutions. Individuals cannot be held responsible for freedom of speech.
What is needed are drastic reforms. No government money for jounarlist schools. No money for NPR or NPT. No political censorship. No “Ad Council”. No “public service announcements” No propping up of the media cartel networks by government fiat.
Have the Federal Communications Commission oversee the transfer of spectrum by strict property rules, as is done with real estate. They did a fair start by auctioning off cell phone spectrum.
Do not allow the federal government to censor broadcasts by their definition of “the public good”.
The difference between a democrat and a socialist is the spelling.
Bernie Sanders’ supporters need to be introduced to Swedish tax rates.
“...anders reminds conservatives of that appendix in Milton Friedman’s 1980 book “Free to Choose” where he underlines that most of the 1928 Socialist Party platform of Norman Thomas was already part of the American federal establishment when President Reagan began his tenure...”
Sad, our once proud Republic of Free Men. Not a jerk from the path of destruction, just more lurches to the Left...all in the time-span of 2 generations.
Oh, I remember the calls to abolish the DoEd some 30 odd years ago. Now a days, it’s the GOP pushing NCLB, Common Core and more $, more $$, MORE $$$.
I know, let’s continue voting in the (R), though they’ve shown NO ability, NO compunction to end the wild ride to Socialism. Those crazy 3rd parties don’t know what they’re talking about... /s
The meaning of the term “liberalism” was changed - essentially inverted - in the 1920s. Thus, when T. Roosevelt enunciated it in 1910 his “man in the arena” speech was, as the word was understood at the time, liberal:It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.Plainly the TR quote is the antithesis of “every financial institution is smeared as ‘based on fraud.’”
The reason that journalists areliberalsocialist is simple: journalists are critics rather than doers. Naturally journalists refuse to credit “the man in the arena” and are enamored of “critics” like Sanders, Hillary, and any otherDemocratsocialist you care to name.
I've been worried about this as well. I suspect that at some point in the near future--post-nominations--the subject of socialism will come up in a debate. Or, it will suddenly be the topic du jour in the MSM. The MSM of course, will water it down with articles sympathetic to its cause. They'll try to re-define it, insisting that "we're partly socialist today," and "...public works, education, fire and police departments, the FDA, etc. are ALL socialist!"
At this point...hopefully sooner..the emerging Republican candidate will need to clearly articulate what true socialism is, and they'll need to tell the American people why it's a bad thing.
Someone like Donald Trump can't go out and give a Gordon Gekko speech. He can't just say, "Capitalism is great because...Capitalism!"
In my opinion, only Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio can make a passionate defense of capitalism, one in which they can not only point out socialism's ills, but also tell people of why capitalism is the best economic system, the one most-aligned with American freedom and exceptionalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.