Bernie Sanders

Now just in case there is anyone still wondering how it is that Bernie Sanders, that self-professed Socialist from Vermont, came to lose to Hitlery in the Democrat primary it was in a recent interview on the Communist News Network (CNN) that he shed a little light onto why that likely came about.  You see, it was during a recent interview with faux journalist and that purveyor of fake news, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, that old Bernie took the opportunity to rail against President Trump.  And in so doing Bernie said that Trump’s decision, via his recent executive order, to prioritize jobs over climate change is “a nonsensical and stupid and dangerous approach.”  What?

Blitzer reminded Sanders that Trump’s order is intended to “curb the federal government’s enforcement of climate regulations by putting American jobs above addressing climate change.”  To which Bernie responded by saying, “Wolf, that is such a nonsensical, and stupid, and dangerous approach. It’s almost indescribable.”  Bernie went on to claim, “Look, the scientific community is virtually unanimous. While Trump and his friends think climate change is a hoax, what the scientists are telling us it is real, it is caused by human activity..It is already causing devastating problems.”  Sorry Bernie, but I hate to be the one to tell you that you’re wrong again, and all points.

This goes was beyond Bernie merely being wrong, the truth is he thinks you’re stupid.  And frankly I’m getting sick and tired of hearing about this silly nonsense called ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’, THERE IS NO SUCH THING. The climate is not going to matter a hill of beans if the country is in a great depression and everyone is dying of starvation. Yes, we should work to take care of the environment, but jobs should come first, and in addition if you push this nonsense then make other countries like China, India, and a few others step up to the plate with the same restrictions, which they don’t do, why because they want their economies to be thriving.

So face it Bernie, we the reasonably intelligent people still left are going to fight you and your rabidly left wing colleagues every single step of the way.  What’s so important about jobs?  Really?  We’re supposed to believe what really matters is climate change, allowing into our country thousands of refugees who we have no idea who they are, transgender rights, open borders and high taxes?  And we should all come to realize that a government made up of people like you knows what’s best for us?  And will take care of us for free, no less?  He’s really retarded, folks.  Which is just another way of saying he’s a Socialist. And if you’re not careful it can happen to you.

A Public Safety Announcement: We apologize that someone let this patient out of his psycho ward and few years too early.  It should be known that he carries a not so rare psychological mind virus called Socialism that can, in some instances, be considered contagious, depending on one’s IQ.  The lower one’s IQ the more susceptible you become.  Symptoms include the draining of your free will and a further reducing of one’s IQ until one becomes essentially little more than a babbling idiot. Americans can inoculate themselves against this contagion by avoiding any and all contact with the state-run media complex, ignore the blatant propaganda and to start thinking for themselves.



It would seem to me as we are now being provided with yet another example in the making of just how it is that socialism simply does not work anywhere it’s tried, that Bernie would have a difficult time keeping supporters.  And while I dream of the day that those who so enthusiastically support him, as well as Hitlery, will somehow come to see light and recognize it as being the disaster that it most certainly is, I am not naïve enough to think that they ever will. And I feel quite confident in saying that they most certainly will not.  But it’s not only the young and impressionable who, while watching Venezuela crash and burn, refuse to see it for what it is.

Throughout his entire 14 year reign of terror as leader of his country, during which time he took great pleasure in mistreating his own people, now dead Socialist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez was continuously praised by any number of those leftist mongrels in academia, journalism and Hollywood despite the fact that those doing the praising were very well aware of the brutality that was taking place at the direction of this thug.  As you may recall that Sean Penn and Oliver Stone were but a couple of the Hollywood elites who felt it appropriate to pay homage to the man who they claimed provided the perfect example for America to follow.

But it was also many in our state-controlled media were also very eager to heap all manner of praise on Chavez.  For instance, it was Salon writer David Sirota who wrote a piece after Chavez’s death which was entitled “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle.”  And in the British publication ‘The New Statesman’, a headline as Chavez was nearing death in January 2013 was “Hugo Chavez: Man against the world,” and its sub-headline read “As illness ends Hugo Chavez’s rule in Venezuela, what will his legacy be? Richard Gott argues he brought hope to a continent.”  I can only assume that Mr. Gott must define hope in much the same manner as does Barry “Almighty’.

But all of the praise that was so energetically heaped upon Mr. Chavez while he was alive, and that has pretty much continued even after his death, by so many who have reaped the benefits of living in a capitalist society is now coming undone and very rapidly so.  And that they could do so while knowing full well what a disastrous economic record Chavez, as well as his successor President Nicolas Maduro, possessed says much more about those who were doing the praising than it does about the man they felt so comfortable praising.  Because it’s not like what was going on wasn’t there in plain sight for all to see.  These are some truly twisted individuals.

Especially after the Mexican Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), the Citizens’ Council for Public Security and Criminal Justice, published its annual ranking of urban crime earlier this year in January, and found that in 2015, Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, was the most murderous place on the planet.  Caracas has 119.87 murders per 100,000 people, making it even more dangerous than Chicago. Other than personal concerns for safety, Venezuelans also suffer from lacking any economic opportunity due to low oil prices as well as from complete government mismanagement of the state-owned oil firm.

From 1998, when Chavez was first ‘elected’, up to until the time he died in March 2013, oil output at Pdvsa, which is the state-owned oil firm of Venezuela, had fallen 25%, from 3 million to 2.4 million barrels per day.  And that would be despite the fact that Venezuela has what’s been identified as being the largest hoard of oil reserves on the entire planet, at more than 500 Billion barrels. And that number would be according to Forbes’ Christopher Helman.  OPEC reports that Venezuela has 24.9 percent of proven crude oil reserves as of the end of 2014 — Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, comes in a close second with 22.1 percent.

But when comparing GDP per capita, Venezuela’s economic problems become devastatingly clear. Venezuela’s GDP per capita is $12,771.6 as of 2012, while Saudi Arabia’s GDP per capita is almost double at $24,883.2 for that same year.  Venezuela’s GDP has only gone down significantly since 2012 (since Venezuela has not provided The World Bank with more recent data), while Saudi Arabia’s 2014 data demonstrates only a slight dip of $24,406.5. Even the small oil-rich Arab Gulf state of Qatar, which only has 2.1 percent of the world’s proven crude oil reserves, boasts a 2012 and 2014 GDP per capita of $94,407.4 and $96,732.4 respectively.

It’s pretty much a given that Venezuela’s economy will only continue to get worse since according to the country’s Vice President for the Economy, Miguel Perez, the country will remain in a recession through the end of next year. The country’s economy shrank by 5.7 percent in 2015 alone, the second year of what will be a long-running economic downturn.  And despite the irrefutable evidence that Venezuela finds itself in an incredible economic hole, one that is entirely of its own making, several media types, such as Wired’s Linda Poon, continue to peddle headlines like “Venezuela’s Economic Success Fueled Its Electricity Crisis.”

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan workweek for government employees was limited to four days a week and then to just two days a week in April in order to deal with electricity shortages. Daily four-hour blackouts across most of Venezuela is another policy that was implemented in April by the socialist government in an attempt to deal with its self-made crisis.  But economic problems aside, Venezuela has faced a long-running political crisis.  Mass protests in February 2014 were halted through repression and fear-mongering by government forces that arrested the U.S.-educated opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez.  Things have only managed to go from bad to worse.

Now I thought it worth mentioning that Chavez’s daughter happens to be worth a rather impressive $4.2 billion. So it would seem that as long as one happens to part of the ruling elite, socialism can be seen as being beneficial!  Likewise, the Clinton’s are now worth over $2 Billion while the Castro Boys are multi-millionaires.  So it appears that life is good as long as you happen to be one of those at the top of the socialism food chain.  But if you’re one of the poor unfortunate souls more toward the bottom then you’re essentially left scrounging for something as basic as toilet paper and paying $200 for a burger.  What a deal!  And yet Bernie is still packing them in.

It would seem then that in order to be a Democrat, one must either be intellectually dishonest or a complete moron.  And in the Democrat Party what we have are leaders who are dishonest riding herd over followers who are essentially morons.  Because it doesn’t matter how many times socialism fails Democrat leaders continue to say it works and their followers continue to believe them.  Excuses include: it was not executed properly, or some capitalist conspiracy undermined it or it just didn’t have time to work.  Imbecilic followers are unwilling to take responsibility for their failed choices and will always try to take from those who have made better choices.

And what’s happening in Venezuela is the mirror picture of what Sander’s ideological fervent will produce in the United States. Nationalization of the largest corporations; mandated salary controls for working people from top to bottom; socialist indoctrination; invalidation of the US Constitution; further weakening of Congress and its powers; military turned into national police, composed of foreign nationals who could care less about firing upon citizens and free benefits from all the wealth redistribution; electrical brownouts; utility failures; economic collapse, followed by long lines to get into food markets that have nothing to sell or give away.

When it comes to the net result of choosing Socialism over Capitalism, the natural outcome is always going to be the same.  What you will always end up with is political leaders determined to rape their nation of as much of its wealth as they think they can get away with and then create for themselves foreign banks accounts to hide all of their illegally acquired booty and then making sure that those people who dare to stand in opposition are first made examples of and then made to secretly vanish in the dark of night.  Ah, the utopia that yokes people to the slavery of an ideology that has proven itself to be a failure throughout these many generations.


millinnials 4

If a recent Harvard University poll is anywhere near to being accurate, it would seem that the decades of liberal brainwashing that has been taking place in our public schools, and then taken to the next step once students/victims arrive at one of our many so-called institutions of ‘higher learning, is now finally starting to pay off big for the radical left in this country, aka the Democrat Party.  Because it’s according to this poll that 51 percent of young adults between 18-29 reject capitalism, while only 42 percent support it.

According to the report:  “The word ‘capitalism’ doesn’t mean what it used to,” said Zach Lustbader, a senior at Harvard involved in conducting the poll, which was published Monday. For those who grew up during the Cold War, capitalism meant freedom from the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes. For those who grew up more recently, capitalism has been described to them, primarily by those on the left, as being to blame for a financial crisis from which the global economy still hasn’t completely recovered.

It’s an open question whether young people’s attitudes on socialism and capitalism show that they are rejecting free markets as a matter of principle or whether those views are simply an expression of broader frustrations with an economy in which household incomes have been declining for 15 years.  Or might it be, instead, that it’s because they have essentially been force-fed, and on a daily basis, all manner of leftist drivel since their very first day of kindergarten, or in some case even earlier than that, while in pre-school?

And it in the same poll that only 33 percent said they support socialism. One of the pollsters explained the numbers and why “capitalism” has become the equivalent of a dirty word for those in the younger generation.  And even though these millennials aren’t as quick to claim the term “socialist” in this poll, they are busy demanding some of its better perks, like many who want health insurance for all, food and shelter given to those who can’t afford it, and more government involvement all around.  They obviously have no understanding of unintended consequences.

To this group revealed just how ignorant they truly are when they describe capitalism as being “unfair” and “greedy,” and socialism being more “compassionate.”  How is it exactly, than any sane person is able to come to the conclusion that Socialism is in any way “compassionate”?  Try going up to a retailer and argue that their prices need to be more compassionate.  And if you’re white, be sure to ask about the privileged discount too.   The old Soviet Union “compassioned” the population right into the house of destitution and misery.

These poll numbers are about as surprising as finding out that it’s this very same group of individual who has largely thrown its support towards “Democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders. Since they are having a hard time with the definitions perhaps they should click here and find out that “Democratic socialist” doesn’t mean “compassion”; what it actually means is “dictatorship.”  But they won’t, primarily because they prefer not to know, that way it become much easier for them to claim ignorance and to blame their idiocy on others.

And it’s also that 51% of millennials who have no understanding of money, don’t understand economics, and most certainly don’t understand socialism.  But I suppose we shouldn’t be too hard on them since they are, after all, the very same ones who apparently possess not much of an understanding regarding the basic biology of how to tell the difference between a girl and a boy.  So what should we really expect?  And the sad thing is that there is likely nothing we can say to them they will ever make them realize where it is that they’re headed.

Sure, they will hate Capitalism now, and likely will continue to at least until everyone, including the government, goes completely broke and they’re forced to eat whatever they can instead of their favorite organic and vegetarian food, or having their favorite Starbuck soy latte at a perfect 182 degrees. When they run out of money to buy that crap and have to resort to groveling for their food, it will be then that Capitalism will start to look pretty good. Just ask anyone living in Red China, Cuba or North Korea if they love their lives.

Look, the level of stupidity in this country has now gotten to point where it’s actually painful.  People forget, or simply don’t care, that it was ‘Slick Willie’s’ changes to the, Jimmy Carter created, Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) along with Janet Reno’s strong-arming of the banks to give mortgages to people who didn’t meet even the minimal of requirements that created the 2008 housing/mortgage crisis. The banks may have gone along with the plan, but it was the government that actually caused the crisis, not capitalism.

Capitalism might as well stand for working for a living and accepting responsibility in order to preserve the freedoms you were given at birth. These simpletons actually think they’re owed that, as a birthright entitlement.  And after registering to vote they then proceed to vote for communists all of their life without ever understanding anything at all when it comes to what Marxism is.  And after electing people to essentially destroy the economy, from Washington, they then feel free to blame “capitalism” for the collapse.  What a deal.


Bernie Tax Plan

It would seem that 2016 Democrat presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders‘ has quite the economically destructive tax plan in mind.  One which has been, and continues to be, the subject of much conversation across the country.  But now that he seems to be gaining some level of traction in the polls it might behoove the rest of us to start taking a look at exactly what he has in mind.  And we should start by asking, “What would it mean for my paycheck if this boob actually manages to get himself elected?”  And while this self-described Socialist said his economic proposals would provide free college, Medicare for all and a slew of other new welfare programs, the cost of his grand expansion of government would likely be far steeper than he’s letting on.

Bernie has said that moving people out of poverty is absolutely crucial for the success of our country.  And he seems quite comfortable with taxing Americans from top to bottom in order to carry out his plan. Indeed, with Bernie in the White House, every income bracket – including even the lowest bracket – would lose at least 7 percent off of their weekly take home pay.  Gee, what a deal!  Just when we thought it had gotten just about as bad as it could possibly get with Barry in the White house, along comes Bernie who would make matters even worse.  So why allow us to keep anything of what we work for?  It would seem that instead of moving more people out of poverty, Bernie’s objective here would be to move far more people INTO poverty.

Anyway, Scott Greenberg is an analyst at the Tax Foundation, which is, I’m told, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C.-based think tank.  And it was Mr. Greenberg who recently took a closer look at exactly what Bernie is proposing here, and in so doing he focused on a hypothetical single filer with no children using the standard deductions.  And what he found was that in the bottom 10 percent of earners, an American making $18,870 a year would see a $45 drop – or, 7.3 percent reduction – bringing their paycheck from $616 down to $571 every other week.  An individual in the lower-middle income range taking in $23,430 would take a 7.6 percent hit, with them seeing their checks falling from $751 to $694 every other week.

And then he found that someone like myself, a middle-income earner now taking in $36,200 a year – placing those like me in 50th percentile, when looking at 2015’s wage data, I could expect to see an 8 percent reduction, with my bi-weekly income slumping from $1,131 down to $1,040.  And it would be those who are in the 75th percentile, with an annual salary of $58,900, who would be hit with a 7.9 percent reduction in the amount they are allowed to take home.  And I can only assume that Bernie is under the impression that most Americans will be more than happy to hand over to our increasingly wasteful government even more of our hard-earned money.  This is nothing less than sheer socialist madness!

And as expected it’s the high-income earners who are set to be hit the hardest, with Americans with an annual salary of $92,110 seeing their checks fall from $2,609 to $2,391 – a whopping 8.3 percent, or $218, drop in their bi-weekly pay.  Those in the highest income bracket, which is not reflected in the graphic at the top of this post, would face a colossal 17.91 percent reduction in annual income due to additional taxes placed on top earners.  It never fails how socialists like Bernie have very little trouble when it comes to ridiculing supply-side economics. That idea being that with a lower tax burden and increased investment, business can produce (or supply) more, increasing employment as well as boosting worker pay.

But the socialist model is, as we can very plainly see, is based more on the trickle up of poverty theory, focused on bring everyone down.  Mr. Greenberg said, “Crucially, these calculations do not take into account the effects of eliminating employer-sponsored health insurance, which would increase workers’ paychecks significantly.”  And he cautioned, adding numbers do reflect the 6.2 percent employer-side payroll tax, the 2.2 percent individual income surtax and the 0.2 percent employer and employee-side payroll taxes.  He said, “This is because there is no way to tell how much workers would value their new, federally provided health insurance under the Sanders plan, compared to their current health insurance from their employers.”

And still these numbers don’t fully depict how incomes would be affected by the projected, and rather significant, drain on the U.S. economy that Bernie’s plan is projected to cause.  Because according to those who are seen as being the experts in such matters, the GDP would drop by an estimated 9.5 percent, capital investment would plummet by around 18.6 percent, wages would be reduced by roughly 4.3 percent, and just under 6 Million more full-time jobs would be lost.  That’s according to the Tax Foundation’s analysis.  Also under Bernie’s proposal, all taxpayers would face a new 2.2 percent tax on income, and a 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax would be applied to incomes over $250,000.

A financial transaction tax would also be put into place with rates of .5 percent on stock trades, 0.1 percent on bonds, and 0.005 percent on derivatives, which many economists say could hinder Americans from investing.  The death tax would also be increased, using graduated rates: 45 percent for estates worth $3.5 million or $7 million for couples, 50 percent for those valued between $10 million and $50 million, and 55 percent for those over the $50 million threshold. A new, additional 10 percent surtax would be imposed on any estate over $500 million, or $1 billion for couples. And oddly enough, it’s even some left-leaning economists who have now gone as far as to say Bernie’s plan for the economy is all “puppies and rainbows.”

It’s absolutely amazing how, that despite all the proof that should make it crystal clear how Bernie’s favored system of governance never works, there remains those people who think it’s the perfect solution for what ails America.  But all one has to do is it too look at any European country to see what an abysmal failure it is.  And if that isn’t enough, take a look at any big city here at home or any state that is under complete Democrat control.  And Hitlery isn’t all that different from Bernie, because Hitlery has said that it is her intent to raise taxes by $1 Trillion.  This is complete insanity and yet millions of Americans either don’t understand what’s being proposed here, or they simply don’t care, being blinded by the promises of all that ‘free stuff’.


Socialism 7

Socialism is: An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production.  Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce.  It also makes individuals dependent upon the state for everything from food to health care.  And it is China, Vietnam and Cuba that are prime examples of modern-day socialist societies.  And it would be wise to remember folks that what the state giveth, the state can also taketh away, whenever it wants.

Something which has been described as ‘shocking news’ is a new survey recently conducted by YouGov which finds that millennials seem to have a far more favorable view of socialism than they do of capitalism.  So why is it, exactly, that this should, in any way, be viewed as shocking?  Our children are force-fed this tripe upon day one of entering the door of their local public school and it continues through college.  And yet when asked them to provide to you an accurate definition of what socialism actually is, not one of them can provide a coherent response.  And yet they seem totally in favor of turning complete control of their lives over to their government.

I’m reminded of that old adage which says, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Because less than two decades after socialism seemed to have finally been relegated to the ash-bin of history, it would now seem to be experiencing a revival, of sorts, with yet another generation willingly positioning itself into having to learn those same hard lessons learned by generations past.  But, like I said, none of this should come as being a surprise since this is exactly the type of drivel that our kids are indoctrinated to believe.  And is there time enough remaining for them to have the requisite epiphany on the subject?  I’m not sure.

Anyway, in getting back to this survey, apparently it was taken at the end of January, and what it found was that 43 percent of Americans under the age of 30 had a favorable view of socialism.  And what is somewhat worrisome is the fact that less than a third of millennials had a favorable view of capitalism.  No other age or ethnic demographic preferred socialism over capitalism.  Ah yes, the future of America is beginning to look very much in doubt.  Because, after all, when we look into the faces of today’s young people, regardless of race, gender or faith, what we are really looking at is the not so distant future of our country.

It was seniors who, rather unsurprisingly, had the most favorable view of capitalism. Just 23 percent of Americans older than 65 had a positive view of socialism. Sixty-three percent of seniors, though, had a favorable view of capitalism. Seniors, after all, experienced the long-standing intellectual battle between capitalism and socialism played out in real life. They witnessed a post-war economic euphoria grind down into a socialist malaise, only to be reinvigorated by a global embrace of disruptive technology, deregulation, and global trade.  Is it that same socialist malaise that our young must first experience before coming to their senses?

In the past 20 years, the number of people living in poverty worldwide has fallen by half.  In 1990, 43 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. In 2013, the United Nations estimated that just 22 percent of the world’s population continued to live in extreme poverty.  And it was the UN Human Development report that stated: “Never in history have the living conditions and prospects of so many people changed so dramatically and so fast.”  But I would like to know what it is that the UN identified as being the reason behind this phenomenon.  Surely it can’t be because of capitalism!  After all, this organization is overrun with Socialists and Communists.

Even if these millennials aren’t swayed by the dramatic improvement in worldwide living standards, one would hope that they would be bright enough to recognize the benefits of capitalism in the products and services that inhabit their world.  After all, they live, and thrive, in what is a consumer-driven, on-demand society.  They have immediate access, at their fingertips, to far more knowledge, art, music, and communication than the wealthiest oligarch just a few decades ago.  Each and every one of the products and services they use, and enjoy, every single day was developed by someone chasing profit and market-share.

It is a cliche to say that capitalism has powered the technological and scientific innovations that have improved all our lives. Apparently, however, it is a cliche that bears repeating.  No discovery of any real significance, be it related to science, healthcare, transportation, communications or anything that even remotely technological or innovative, has ever come from a country where the people granted to the government complete control over all things.  It just doesn’t happen.  And yet, or so it would seem, many of our younger generation tends to be in favor of a system which would literally stifle all manner of creativity and innovation.

And in doing my best to try to locate that ever elusive silver lining in any of this, we do strike upon one slightly positive note, that being the fact that every other demographic block in America still prefers capitalism over socialism.  That being said, however, it’s Democrats, perhaps naturally, who are evenly split between the two economic systems. At least Democrats, though, have slightly higher unfavorable ratings of socialism than capitalism.  I thought it funny that that when recently asked to explain the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist, neither Debbie Wizzerman Schultz nor Chuckie Schumer were willing to do so.

The danger, of course, is that the demographic in America that does seem, at least at the present time, to prefer socialism also represents what I think can be said to be, the future of our country.  Of course, they have the luxury of looking positively on socialism, since any impact on their lives is restricted to dusty old history books.  Because today instead of being able to understand the dangers of an all-powerful government, young people are presented with what are said to be its many benefits.  The finding also seems to present something of an existential dilemma for the conservative and libertarian movement in this country.

Since the 1980s, the institutional infrastructure of the conservative and libertarian movement has grown exponentially.  Aside from dozens of national think tanks and advocacy organizations devoted to propagating conservative and free market views, there are more than a hundred free-market think tanks in states across the country.  It is safe to say that billions of dollars have been spent over the past two decades promoting and educating the public on the benefits of capitalism and free markets. There are publishing imprints, media companies and new conservative news sites everywhere. Yet, something has gone horribly wrong.

Many of those who are members of our state-controlled media, have watched the rise of Bernie Sanders, presidential candidate and committed Socialist, with a certain touch of condescending nostalgia. “Oh, look a socialist is running for President, isn’t that cute,” you can almost hear them type.  For many, Bernie’s label as a socialist was something he would have to overcome if he were to make a serious run for the White House.  It may now be, however, something he needs to more warmly embrace.  But there may still be a downside to doing so, since Bernie will need far more than socialism-favoring millennials in order to win the general election this November.

And something that many of our younger folks today would do well to realize as they cheerfully embrace this new found enthusiasm for socialism, is the fact that they are not going to be the younger generation forever.  And there is going to come a day, and a lot quicker than they may like, when they will be asked to pay the piper.  A day when they will be forced to cover the costs generated by who will comprise a whole new population of young people, just like we who are older are now simply expected to happily cover theirs.  And I’d be curious to know if they will remain as enchanted with Socialism as it would seem that they are today.


Socialism 3

Once upon a time, in the not so distant past, politically speaking, a guy like Bernie Sanders would have, I think, enjoyed very little success as a Democrat.  For sure, there would have been very little chance of someone like him finding his, or her, way to leading in any presidential polls.  Instead, he would have been ridiculed by the party’s mainstream as a lunatic, a lefty, a “pinko,” and as being unelectable.  But we see today something very different taking place.  It would seem to be that that was then and this is now, with those days likely being gone forever.

You may recall how it was this past summer, when MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz, “What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist”, that he got no response.  Now you would think for the head of the Democrat Party that should be a relatively easy enough question to answer. And when she didn’t, Matthews asked again, and again, all to no avail. Instead, Wasserman Schultz chose to respond in typical fashion by blathering on about how the GOP is now captive to its extreme right.

And then just a few weeks later it was yet another Democrat suck up, Chuck Todd, who tried to get old Debbie to answer the very same question when she appeared on his program, “Meet the Press.” And again she refused. And when asked a third time at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast for reporters, Wasserman Schultz replied: “I’ll give you the same answer that I gave both of them.” And then, once again, old Deb proceeded NOT to answer the question.  She wasn’t about to acknowledge the fact that the Democrat Party is now captive to the extreme left.

Now Debbie may choose to disagree, but this isn’t some political game of gotcha. It’s what I, and even some in the leftist media, think is a very legitimate question and one deserving of a straight answer.  After all, it is self-described socialist Bernie Sanders who is beating Hitlery Clinton in some state polls for the 2016 Democrat Party presidential nomination. The reason Wasserman Schultz won’t answer the question is because Democrats have now moved so far to the left that there’s hardly a dime’s worth of difference between the two anymore.

That’s right.  There is no longer any real difference, and while some would say that that is not a good path to national election for the Democrats, I’m not so sure.   It would seem that more and more Americans now seem quite content to just sit back and watch as others are made to pick up their tab as they go through life functioning as nothing more parasites, consuming everything that comes their way while producing nothing more than waste.  They have been told by those for whom they vote that there’s really no need to work if they choose not to.

And I suppose one could argue that at least ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton tried to move his party toward the center.  After all, he did work with the GOP to pass welfare reform and he did sign free trade agreements like NAFTA. ‘The Slickmeister’ understood that the party had gone too far to the left and was losing the middle class.  And many think that it’s ‘Slow Joe’ Biden who would be able to perhaps move the party back toward the middle.  But having said that, how would old ‘Slow Joe’ be able to please the Sanders voters in the process?

It wasn’t all that long ago that many on the left mocked the GOP as the party of old guys clinging to their guns and the 10th Amendment.  But these days I think one could safely argue that it’s the Democrats who are the party of old guys, and old ladies, clinging to the Great Society and their Woodstock LPs.  And as well I think it can also be argued that there is no longer such political animal able to be defined as a either Conservative or a Centrist Democrat.  Such a breed of Democrat can be said to have long ago gone the way of the dinosaur.

Since the arrival of Barry “Almighty” onto the political scene the Democrat Party has made a pretty significant lurch to the far left.  And among those who identify themselves as being a Democrat, there has been a shift from equal support for socialism and capitalism to a six-point swing in favor of socialism. Meanwhile, there has also been a seven-point dip in Republican support for capitalism.  Weird, huh?  And while on the GOP side that may be little more than noise, can we also then identify the Democrat swing as being little more than noise as well?

I don’t think so.  Because when Democrats are asked whether Sanders calling himself a socialist makes them more or less likely to vote for him, 20 percent say more versus just six percent who say less. And when Democrat voters are asked to describe themselves politically, this is what you get.  Out of 356 Democrats that were asked, 14% said they supported capitalism, 21% said they supported socialism, 47% said they supported neither and, get this, 17% actually said they weren’t sure.  They weren’t sure? And from 390 Independents the numbers were 25%, 5%, 53% and 17% respectively.

Now that we’re 25 years removed from the dissolution of the USSR, I suppose memories of what revolutionary socialism looked like have pretty much faded and have now been replaced with smiley-face domestic initiatives like “free” college for everyone and happy talk at Democrat debates about Denmark which, actually, is less socialist in some ways than is the United States. One of the more lasting aftershocks of what can, I guess, be defined as Sandersmania this year, is that on the left there has been a rehabilitation, of sorts, regarding the term “socialist” for young liberals.

Apparently old Bernie intends to offer up his definition of what he refers to as ‘Democratic Socialism’ in what’s being billed as a major speech on that very subject. I suppose that making leftists comfortable with the term “socialism” by slapping the label on garden-variety progressive programs might be a clever first step to making them more comfortable over time with socialism’s grander utopian ambitions. Or maybe Sanders himself is just frustrated with the vagueness of the term.  Most people today have no idea what true socialism represents.

After having spent the last 8 years watching the many bizarre goings on in the Democrat Party it has become quite obvious that this is not your father’s Democrat Party.  Granted the party has always tended to tack more than a little left of center, but these days, regarding of the issue that one might want to discuss, it has come to stray a long way from the center, choosing to hug the far left instead.  And most of those who identify as Democrats don’t seem to be all that bothered by their party’s evolution to the far left. They seem to relish it!