Bernie Sanders on Trump: It's Sanders Who Shouldn't Be Believed

By Eddie Howell

Michael Walsh of Yahoo News reported on Bernie Sanders' remarks during a discussion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C., on June 22.

Is Senator Bernie Sanders correct that President Donald Trump's “authoritarianism” is a threat to American democracy? Hardly. American democracy, in terms of people saying and doing what they like, voting as they like with honest results, and worshiping as they like, indeed the whole Bill of Rights appears to be in quite good shape. Of course the Tenth Amendment hasn't been respected by government in the last century, and more, with few exceptions. But Trump has had little influence on that.

Sanders obviously prefers the policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to those of Donald Trump.

Sanders says no president has told as many “outrageous and blatant lies” as Trump. Really? It would take quite a few misstatements of fact to equal Obama's blatant lie, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” He used that one to sell a destructive health care power grab that a majority of Americans never wanted. Plenty of other lies came from Obama, enough to make Trump look like a faithful Boy Scout.

A few more of Obama's many lies, as listed by Western Journalism in an article by Derrick Hollenbeck, dated September 4, 2012, are the following:

Obama said there has never been a better friend of Israel in the White House, and also “In May 2011, Obama asked G8 member nations to fund the Arab Spring counties who are clearly on their way to planning an all-out attack on Israel.”

“Obama lied and said that there would not be public funding of abortions under Obamacare.” Further,

Remember Obama telling us there would be no earmarks in his 2009 stimulus package? He lied. The bill had over 9,000 earmarks in it; and of course, it failed to deliver even a small improvement for our economy.

And those are just in his first term.

Authoritarianism? When a president uses his legitimate authority, which is considerable, that is not authoritarianism. If you want examples of authoritarianism, consider Democrat presidents. Woodrow Wilson made it illegal to criticize the government or the World War I effort. Barack Obama legislated immigration policies contrary to statute, after previously stating, correctly, that he lacked the authority to do so. His pen and phone were used to usurp congressional authority, but Congress made no real attempt to stop him. They simply criticized him, and filed a few lawsuits.

Trump's efforts with executive orders are mostly aimed at undoing Obama's abuses and keeping his own campaign promises, within existing law, in the fields of immigration, regulations and others.

Largely by his own authoritarian policies, Obama had America set up to suffer his “third term” in the presidency of Hillary Clinton, had she been elected as expected. Fortunately, the election of Trump has, in my opinion, saved America from globalism and a calamitous collapse, at least temporarily.

Also, contrary to Mr. Sanders' statement, President Trump's statement that the “mainstream media” is “fake news,” not to be believed, is quite true in the realm of political news, especially in “reporting” on Donald Trump. It is blatantly obvious that much political “journalism” from the MSM these days is actually anti-Trump propaganda. Also,

[Sanders] said Trump’s outbursts at judges are not simply “temper tantrums” but a blatant disregard for the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution — attempts to delegitimize a coequal branch of government so it cannot constrain his power.

But the courts brought criticism upon themselves by playing politics and ignoring the president's constitutional power to limit immigration. If the president wanted to, he could legally stop any and all immigration, which has been done for long periods in previous years. If the president believes limiting immigration is necessary, he can do it, no matter what he might have said during his election campaign.

Sanders thinks Trump's criticism of judges is a danger to constitutional separation of powers, but Democrats have a poor record in that regard. Sanders thinks Trump is trying to “delegitimize a coequal branch of government.” But he's simply expressing reasonable opinions. And the courts have constrained his power, though not, in my opinion, legitimately. Meanwhile, Democrats and leftists are trying to delegitimize the Trump presidency, i.e., that of the Chief Executive of the coequal Executive Branch of government, which to Sanders is apparently OK.

Further, it must be noted that, while socialist Sanders complains of authoritarianism, socialism is the very acme of authoritarianism, which it has to be, in order to make its anti-freedom, paternalistic system work (for a while). Socialism leads to things like we see in Venezuela, as a relatively mild example. Lenin said, “The goal of socialism is communism.” Ludwig von Mises, libertarian economist said, “The goal of socialism is socialism.” It is not individual freedom or economic prosperity, and even if it were, socialists know no way of producing either.

Barack Obama: Traitor, Liar, Murderer, etc.

By Eddie Howell

 Andrew McCarthy discusses Obama's lawlessness and the seriousness of the danger of the Iran deal.

My comments:

The Iran nuclear deal negotiated (if you can call it that) by the Obama Administration is about the worst kind of international agreement ever made for our country. In short, the Iranian mullahs got everything they wanted and we got nothing. No real inspections, no assurances, nothing. All we got was Iranian officials saying “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” Obama pretends this is not harmful. The claim that the deal will prevent war is ridiculous on its face.

This is an agreement that gives aid and comfort to our sworn enemy, and is therefore an act of treason by Mr. Obama. Not only will Iran be able to proceed with their nuclear weapons development and conventional arms build up virtually unhindered (supposedly with the agreement of our “allies”), but Iran will also be generously provided with about $150 billion in released funds, which they can and will use to ramp up terrorist operations in areas where they are already very active, as well as new places. They will acquire long-range missiles capable of reaching the U.S. They already have missiles that can reach Israel. Ignoring their death threats is such an obviously ill-advised choice as to seem deliberately placing America and Israel in terrible danger.

It can hardly be otherwise than that Obama and his minions know that they have seriously harmed the national security interests of America and Israel. Apparently these interests are far different from their own. If this is not the case, then we have the most careless, inept, and stupid foreign policy negotiators in history.

Obama has often shown his disdain for America as we have known her. His “fundamental transformation” is an attempt to destroy the foundations of our nation and create a socialist society that soon ends up as a third world dictatorship. There must be resistance by states, citizens, and elected representative at all levels to the lawlessness and betrayal we are witnessing. Only Republicans, for all their weaknesses, timidity, and political laziness, represent any kind of political hope to halt this destruction. Hillary, like Obama, is an Alynskyite (only more dedicated) and Bernie Sanders not only wouldn't help, but would soon bring America to absolute bankruptcy through endless spending.

This kind of betrayal is in line with Obama's demonstrated character. He has no problem with the murders of babies in the womb. He promotes and champions abortion as do almost all Democrat politicians. He lies about practically every important issue that gets his attention. There is not enough space for this article to list all or even most of the ways Obama's policies and actions have done a grave disservice to the United States of America. From things as petty as punishing the Washington Redskins organization for their nickname, to encouraging the killing of thousands of birds with windmills, to the multi-billion-dollar boondoggle of Obamacare, to turning against Israel, and placing their and our lives in danger through deliberately America-weakening foreign policy and massively cutting the military, the Obama presidency is already disastrous, with the threat of much more destruction to come.

There must and will be resistance. We must pray that it will be enough.

Obama's Mistake: Ready to Turn Syrian Tragedy into American Failure

Cropped version of File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why, oh, why does President Obama think he can correct or improve anything by launching a military attack on Syria? There are so many things wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start. I am listing a few of the major reasons why I believe Obama's proposed attack is a very bad idea.

1. Obama has waited too long for military action to be of any benefit. Two years ago was the time to do something, if something was to be done. He chose not to. That was a good choice, but now the situation has changed so much that even if military action were a good idea now in some kind of theory, which it definitely is not, there are many complications that make it very unlikely to succeed in any significant way. Russia is Syria's supplier and champion. Hezbollah and various other entities have reinforced Assad to the point that without America's actual participation in the civil war, Assad is virtually assured of victory. Even if he were deposed, his replacement would be someone even worse. The rebels would soon set about to create an Islamic state that would hate America as much as Assad does, or more.

2. If there were any practicality to attacking Syria now, and there isn't, telegraphing the intention weeks in advance could only harm the chance of success of actually destroying anything that would affect the outcome in Syria.

3. The leaders of the so-called “free world,” not necessarily the sharpest these days, are at least smart enough to see that Obama's desired attack is a misguided idea. There would be little support in the international community for his actions, and much blame for America for things that would go wrong.

4. Just about everyone can see the utter hypocrisy of overreacting to the tragic gas attack – when Saddam Hussein was gassing his own countrymen during the George W. Bush years, Obama and his friends saw no need to do anything about it. Saddam killed many thousands more than Assad has thus far. Also, Obama knows that under Assad over 100,000 Syrians have died by means of bullets and bombs, but that has warranted no action on the part of the U.S. in Obama's estimation. But the people killed by conventional means are just as dead as those killed by poison gas.
   
   
5. Obama brought this “crisis” upon himself with his “red line” statements. It was a red line that seemed definite, but the consequences of crossing it (more than once) were anything but. It is mainly to avoid the embarrassment of not enforcing the red line at all that Obama now wants to attack Syria. As bad as the evil gas attack was, it does not warrant the response Obama wants to use.
   
   
6. Obama's proposed attack would require a supplemental appropriation by Congress since there is not sufficient funding to do it otherwise. It is doubtful that Congress wants to approve Obama's plan (to the extent he has any plan), and doing so would cost many millions and kill a good many people – for what? To save Obama's ego?
   
   
7. It seems obvious that this idea is poorly thought out in terms of its consequences. Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized that this would not be like Iraq, but if one examines the history of U.S. interventions in the Middle East under Obama, it's easy to see that nothing has worked out as well as was hoped. Libya has been changed from a dictatorship under Qaddafi into an Al-Qaeda stronghold. Egypt, where we have not intervened militarily but diplomatically, has endured an Islamist regime only recently removed. Egypt is now a horrifying place for its citizens, especially the Christians. The economy is in shambles. How long before someone thinks we must intervene militarily there, too? “Mission creep” is inevitable in military interventions. The war in Afghanistan has dragged on for over a decade without really accomplishing the whole mission, not because of our military, but because of our politicians.
   
   
   After the U.S. Attacks Syria, if such an attack takes place, what happens to the neighboring countries, especially Israel? Neither Syria nor Iran nor Hezbollah would feel constrained from sending multiple rockets there if they feared no U.S. response, or maybe even if they did. In any event, Israel would be left in a very difficult position, and the result could well be a wider Mid-East war in which we would have to fight.

Probably, some big financiers think they would profit from an attack on Syria, as they typically do from any war. As I see it, it would be of serious harm to America and Israel and would not be of any benefit to Syrian people vulnerable to Assad's attacks with either conventional or chemical weapons. The only realistic solution is a negotiated settlement, to be reached, hopefully, before Assad destroys even more thousands of people. The U.S. can probably have very little influence on such a settlement.

The Obama Administration and Congress need to think this through a lot more thoroughly than they have up to now. They should listen to Sarah Palin's advice: “Let Allah sort it out.”

Related articles

• Obama Will Advance Islam By Attacking Syria
• Obama's Stunning Reversal: "The Start Of The Historic American Retreat"
• General: Obama's backing wrong Syrian rebels

Fear Not, GOP, You Have the Initiative on the Budget

Dreamstime.com

President Barack Obama, after dissing Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, only to put himself in the position of receiving a stern and well-deserved lecture from said prime minister, is spending time traveling and seemingly trying to ignore the national debt and deficits.

It is to be hoped that Republican congressional leaders will stand firm on the idea of serious budget cuts, but this is far from certain. The best way forward, in my view, is to unite behind the Paul Ryan plan and not accept anything else, other than minor (and I mean minor) tweaking. This will require more political courage than some have seemed willing to show. And the Democrats are feverishly working to advance their weak position. Can the GOP rise to the challenge?

First, of course, the Democrats are already attacking the Medicare provisions of Ryan’s plan. Never mind that these provisions fall into the out years and won’t affect anyone who is now over 55 years of age. Even then, it will be a more efficient and means-tested plan that assures the likelihood that Medicare will still be around. If nothing is done, it will surprisingly soon be extremely difficult to fund Medicare and Social Security. The liberals would rather demagogue the issue and try to scare the recipients of these benefits, than face up to their responsibility to deal with reality.

The Democrats’ actions should be seen as a good political opportunity for the Republicans, assuming that the GOP doesn’t cower in fear of political risks. Whenever such challenges present themselves, there is going to be substantial risk to any person or group that attempts to responsibly take them on. Remember G. W. Bush’s Social Security proposals? He took extreme heat from the opposition, who couldn’t be bothered to suggest anything of their own. Here are some suggestions for the Republicans (which mostly they’ve already thought of, I hope).

1. Don’t fear a government shutdown. This may very well be the only way to effectively assert majority power in the House of Representatives, where the GOP has control of the purse strings.

2. Counter the Democrats’ fear tactics with the facts on the unsustainability of Medicare if changes aren’t made. The right changes will preserve it.

3. Understand that up to now there has been no serious proposal to effectively cut spending, other than Paul Ryan’s plan. Rep. Ryan seems to be the best defender of his work. GOP leaders should understand what he is proposing. They would do well to support it if they are actually serious about the deficit. Cutting a trillion dollars over ten years won’t help much when the debt is increasing well over $1 trillion per year. Someone should be doing the math.

4. Don’t allow any tax increases. This would stop the recovery. Point out the absurdity of raising taxes on the “rich” who earn $250,000 a year and still struggle to stay in business because of government over-regulation. Tax increases on the “rich” would hurt everyone.

5. Be aware that the Democrats want to increase the number of Americans who pay no income tax (currently about half), then count on them to support increasing taxes on everyone else. If possible, they will try to promote the entitlement mentality and encourage Wisconsin-type demonstrations by anyone who fears there may be a reduction in government benefits.

6. Help people to understand the problem: If serious measures aren’t undertaken now, there probably won’t be any, this side of a serious collapse that would make 2008’s financial crisis look like a minor downturn.

7. Understand the weakness of the Democrats’ position. They have offered little to nothing outside of demagoguery and scare tactics. But they can’t deny that there are serious fiscal problems.

It’s still possible to get on top of this debt problem. But it ultimately must include serious reform of entitlements if these programs are to be preserved at all. Paul Ryan has offered a credible approach. Certainly no Democrat has done that. The Democratic leadership sees no need to submit a budget proposal at all. They just demand tax increases.

Related articles

• Senate Shoots Down Paul Ryan Budget (blogs.abcnews.com)
• Paul Ryan Hits Back While Gaining An Unlikely Ally (virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com)

At UN, Obama Impresses and Receives Praise and Concern from His Mentors

Ah, Hugo Chavez. He just can’t resist picking at George W. Bush. Chavez appears to be proud of his protégé Barack Obama. Obama received high marks for his UN speech from Chavez, Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi, among other tyrants and thugs whom Obama seems to admire.



At the United Nations General Assembly, Obama said, “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” For plain arrogance, Obama is hard to beat. And as far as I can tell, Barack Obama is the champion at blaming the previous administration(s) for not only his own troubles, but the world’s.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog, commented, “Does Obama believe that anything positive will come of this stomach-turning spectacle. Or does he just like to bask in the glow of applause for the proposition that the U.S. was a pretty rotten place until he assumed control, without worrying about who it is that’s applauding?” [1]

Again he apologized for America, as is his custom, and also, as is his custom, he declared that America is now the good guy in the world since he has taken charge. He has shown little respect for America’s true allies, such as Great Britain, Australia, Colombia, and especially Israel. No, he wants to cultivate the world’s dictators at the expense of allies who have actually supported American interests.

U.K. Telegraph commentator Nile Gardiner wrote, “It’s always a bad sign when a US president gets several rounds of heavy applause at the UN General Assembly, as Barack Obama did this morning in New York. Needless to say, the loudest cheers from the gathering of world leaders came when he condemned the actions of a close US ally, Israel, in continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. You can always rely on attacks on the Israelis to generate the biggest roars of approval at any meeting of the United Nations, and Obama dutifully obliged.” [2]

He’s the one who’s stopping America from torturing people. But the techniques used to interrogate detainees were not torture. Again, he has to get in a dig at the Bush Administration, which, by the way, managed to help America avoid another 9/11-type attack by using these methods.

He’s going to get the world on board with dealing with “climate change” when he can’t get the American people on board with his ridiculous cap and trade plan. His promotion of this plan is proof, if any more were needed, that he won’t help the U.S. economy, and, in keeping with his grand plan, he cannot.

Yes, Obama seems to be popular at the UN and probably thinks he’s enhancing America’s standing in the world. But in reality, he’s pandering to a bunch of dictators. Whatever respect he has earned will become evident in future developments.


[1] Paul Mirengoff, “Obama Takes the Supplication of America to a Disgusting New Level,” Powerline Blog 09/23/09 at http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024578.php

[2] Nile Gardiner, “Barack at the UN: Was this Obama’s most naïve speech ever?,” Telegraph.co.uk, 09/23/09 at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100011129/barack-at-the-un-was-this-obama’s-most-naive-speech-ever/, quoted at Stop the ACLU.com http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/09/24/obama-at-united-nations-anti-israeli-sentiment-gets-biggest-applause/