“America is Ready for Socialism!” believes that the United States is “ready for socialism” and Bernie Sanders is “speaking to America’s soul.”

In an article published today, titled “America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump,” Salon made the case that most Americans want socialist policies in place.

“Sanders speaks to America’s soul — and our values,” the article’s author, Paul Rosenberg, claims. Rosenberg also writes for Al Jazeera.

It continues, “Sanders is right to think that Scandanavian socialism would be popular here in the U.S., if only people knew more about it. And he’s right to make spreading that awareness a goal of his campaign. In fact, on a wide range of issue specifics Sanders lines up with strong majorities of public opinion—and has for decades.”
Mr. Sanders
Rosenberg then references a poll produced by “the Progressive Change Institute” in January that claims to show that Americans want socialism. He also casually mentions that he’s written with the co-founder of a Progressive Change Institute-affiliate. Despite these clear biases, the author then talks about Americans’ support for Sanders’s policies.

He also claims that, based on another poll, “Americans preferred Sweden over the U.S. by 92-8%” based on wealth distribution.

“Sanders is not simply cherry-picking a few popular ideas here and there. He’s tapping into a broadly shared set of inter-related attitudes and ideas about closely related issues,” Rosenberg writes.

Further, Sanders “ought to be taken a lot more seriously than he has been so far.”

In the end, however, Rosenberg is not sure that Sanders will be elected. That said, he writes, “the question is not “Will Bernie Sanders be elected president?” …The real question is, “Will the Sanders campaign change the course of American history?” And that question is one that every citizen can help answer, by how they engage in the months ahead.”


Founder and editor of the Social Memo

  • Facebook
  • Image
    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment


  1. Scandanavian socialism is built on tiny populations and a wealth of north sea crude oil (read huge carbon footprint you hippies out there) that will some day run out and end the socialist experiments there. Talk about a lack of sustainability.

  2. Illegal aliens murder an average of 12 americans a day. (As per 2006 Statistics).

    Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. For the rest of the story see w

    And Obama freed a bunch of them during the sequester fight……Pure Genius.


    Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each.
    Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
    She found that while the offenders were located in 36 states, most were in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California had the most offenders, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Florida.
    Schurman-Kauflin concluded that, based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegals make up a higher percentage than offenders in the general population.
    She arrives at the figure of 240,000 offenders – a conservative estimate, she says – through public records showing about 2 percent of illegals apprehended are sex offenders.
    “This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day,” she says.
    She points out the 1,500 offenders in her study had a total of 5,999 victims, and each sex offender averaged four victims.
    “This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study,” she declares.
    Schurman-Kauflin breaks down the 1,500 cases reviewed this way:
    • 525, or 35 percent, were child molestations
    • 358, or 24 percent, were rapes
    • 617, or 41 percent, were sexual homicides and serial murders
    Of the child molestations, 47 percent of the victims were Hispanic, 36 percent Caucasian, 8 percent Asian, 6 percent African American and 3 percent other nationalities.
    For the Rest of the story see w ww.wnd. com/2006/05/36410/

  4. Editorial: Poorly vetted policies enabled border crisis
    Thousands of children are refugees on the U.S. border because Obama's executive order sent a misleading message
    The recent surge of foreign children trying to cross the southern U.S. border is becoming a humanitarian crisis. Thousands of kids are flooding into the country without family, food or shelter.

    And while President Barack Obama’s efforts to remedy the situation — with the help of $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars — are essential, his own actions have contributed to the emergency.

    When the president ignores established policies and bypasses Congress and the deliberative process to make law with his pen and phone, he shouldn’t be surprised when chaos follows.

    The president has made immigration reform a priority, and there’s no question it’s needed. But he’s put much of his agenda in place without the debate and compromise that should accompany sound lawmaking, and the result has been policies that weren’t thoroughly thought out.

    The president issued the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival Act by executive order in 2012, allowing undocumented children who were brought here by their parents to stay in the U.S. for two years or more, if they meet certain requirements.

    An unintended consequence is that parents now believe that if they send their children alone across the U.S. border, they will receive a permit to stay even if apprehended by Border Patrol. It’s a heartbreaking situation, particularly since some of these children are trying to escape violence and danger, in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

    The policy was never intended to invite a wave of children to enter the country without their parents, but that’s been the result.

    Another well-intentioned policy, a 2008 law — adopted before Obama took office — requires U.S. officials to investigate whether children who cross the border have been abused or are the victims of sex trafficking. But the necessary resources weren’t attached to the law, which has caused a severe backlog in the border patrol system.

    “The bureaucracy hasn’t adapted,” says Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. “They should have fixed that law to streamline processes and made it quicker to get kids to their families.”

    Prior to 2012, the Office of Refugee Resettlement cared for 7,000 to 8,000 unaccompanied children. In 2012 the number rose to 13,625, then almost doubled to 24,668 in 2013.

    This year, there’s been a 92 percent increase child refugees, to 47,000, a number that is projected to reach up to 90,000.

    The U.S. spends about $20 billion annually on immigration-related services, so a $1.4 billion increase in spending is no small amount. More will likely be needed.

    The federal government must do everything within its power to get these children out of government detention centers and either returned to their families or placed under the care of organizations equipped to care for them.

    Obama’s intention has been to not punish children who are in the U.S. because their families brought them here, or left them behind, and that’s right.

    But he failed to weigh the full consequences of enacting such broad allowances without the backing of Congress, and now thousands of children remain alone on a border in increasingly desperate conditions

    Detoit News
    Our Editorial
    June 20, 2014 at 1:00 am
    From The Detroit News:

  5. Grieving Father to Obama – “Illegal Immigration is Not a Victimless Crime”
    September 3, 2014 Breaking News, Freedom News
    Drew Rosenberg was riding his motorcycle in November of 2010, making his way through the streets of San Francisco. Only 25 years old, the last thing on Drew’s mind was that he was living out the last minutes of his life. As he crossed an intersection that fateful night, however, he was struck by a car and killed. The driver turned out to be an unlicensed, undocumented man named Robert Galo. Drew, a law student, had met his fate at the hands of an illegal immigrant.

    Now Drew’s father, Don Rosenberg, wants President Obama to visit his son’s grave before making any decisions about immigration. Last month the grieving father sent the president a letter, reasoning that his son might still be alive today if the federal government deported illegal aliens who ran afoul of the law. “Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime,” Rosenberg wrote.

    The letter comes at a time when Obama is weighing his political options when it comes to the subject. He is expected to once again make an executive decision regarding the thousands of underage illegal immigrants who have come across the border in the past year. That decision is widely expected to be in their favor, halting deportations in favor of assimilating the immigrants into American society. He is on record saying that it is more important to keep families together than it is to unburden ourselves of the strain illegal immigrants put on the system.

    In his rebuttal, Rosenberg thinks it’s time to start thinking about American families for a change. The actions of these illegal immigrants – many of them with criminal pasts – can tear apart innocent bystanders. Americans have enough to worry about when it comes to crime from their fellow citizens.

    “Before you illegally say, ‘Welcome to America’ to those who have caused so much pain and suffering, on your next trip to California let me take you to Drew’s grave, and you tell him this is the right thing to do,” Rosenberg said in the letter.

    What’s amazing is that all of this comes from a man who has described himself as a “lifelong, very liberal Democrat.” As many liberals learn when they have to face the real world, that Democrat fantasy of everyone getting along in harmony simply doesn’t hold up. Once liberals get a taste of real-world violence and misery, it’s very hard to go back in to the voting booth and pull the lever for the same pie-in-the-sky politicians.

    There’s no indication that the president has read Rosenberg’s letter or that he is even familiar with the story. Right now, Obama is trying to delay his decisions regarding immigration until after the midterm elections. But for people like Rosenberg who have been directly hurt by America’s failure to protect the borders, it’s not about politics. It’s about what’s right.

  6. Polio-like illness claims fifth life in U.S. (Enterovirus D68 aka The Honduran Flu)
    • by sattkisson
    • on October 4, 2014
    • in Medical & Vaccines, News
    At least five children infected with the respiratory illness known enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) have died in the U.S. in the past month.
    The lastest confirmed victim was a four-year-old New Jersey boy, Eli Waller. He died at home on September 25. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed the cause of death Friday night. But health officials say they have no idea how he contracted the virus. A health official says Eli was “asymptomatic and fine” when he went to bed but died overnight. He had no known preexisting immune weakness.
    A 10-year girl Rhode Island girl infected with EV-D68, Emily Otrando, died less than 24 hours after being rushed to the hospital with breathing problems. Three other patients with EV-D68 also died in September.
    The CDC reports that in the past month and a half, at least 538 people in 43 states and the District of Columbia have become ill with EV-D68. Most of them are children and some developed limb paralysis. Polio, which can cause paralysis and death, is a type of enterovirus. EV-D68 is one of more than a hundred “non-polio” enteroviruses.
    The actual number of EV-D68 infections is likely significantly higher than reported since some state health officials are not testing every suspected case.
    Link to Illegal Immigrant Children?
    Enteroviruses commonly circulate in the U.S. during summer and fall. EV-D68 was first identified in California in 1962. Over the past thirty years, only small numbers were reported in the U.S.
    The CDC hasn’t suggested reasons for the current uptick or its origin. Without that answer, some question whether the disease is being spread by the presence of tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children from Central America admitted to the U.S. in the past year.
    The origin could be entirely unrelated.
    However, a study published in Virology Journal, found EV-D68 among some of the 3,375 young, ill people tested in eight Latin American countries, including the Central American nations of El Salvador and Nicaragua, in 2013.
    Though the U.S. government is keeping secret the locations of the illegal immigrant children, there are significant numbers of them in both cities in which the current outbreak was first identified, Kansas City, Missouri and Chicago, Illinois, according to local advocates and press reports.
    The EV-D68 outbreak was first recognized after Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri notified CDC on August 19 of an increase in severe respiratory illnesses. Four days later, on August 23, the University of Chicago Medicine Comer Children’s Hospital notified CDC of a similar increase.
    What is an enterovirus?
    An enterovirus is a positive-sense (“plus-strand”) RNA (ribonucleic acid) virus. Other diseases caused by RNA viruses include Ebola, SARS, polio and measles.
    According to CDC, there are no available vaccines, antiviral medications or specific treatments for EV-D68. Most cases are mild.

    Here’s an underreported scandal brought to my attention by Bill Otis. CBS News reports:

    The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 36,007 convicted criminal aliens last year who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings, according to a report issued Monday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

    The group of released criminals includes those convicted of homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping and aggravated assault, according to the report, which cites a document prepared by the ICE. . . .

    According to the report, the 36,007 individuals released represented nearly 88,000 convictions, including:

    •193 homicide convictions
    •426 sexual assault convictions
    •303 kidnapping convictions
    •1,075 aggravated assault convictions
    •1,160 stolen vehicle convictions
    •9,187 dangerous drug convictions
    •16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions

    In effect, the administration has, as Bill Otis puts it, “unleashed its own crime wave.” But who within the administration was responsible for this for wanton indifference to public safety?

    One responsible party is Hillary Clinton. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies explains why:

    The Supreme Court [has] held that the federal government can detain aliens for deportation up to six months but generally must release the alien into the United States after that point if there is “no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” One of the main reasons such a situation arises is that a criminal alien’s home country will refuse to take its nationals back.

    Why would a criminal alien’s home country take the criminal back? Because federal law requires the secretary of state to stop issuing visas to the citizens of any country that refuses to take back its nationals.

    Refusing to issue visas to citizens of a foreign country would provide a powerful incentive for that country to take back its nationals and thus create a significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future. This, in turn, would enable the U.S. to avoid releasing criminal aliens onto our streets.

    But according to Krikorian, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have ignored the law and continued issuing visas to citizens of countries that refuse to take back their citizens. Apparently, they don’t wish to risk alienating these countries. They would rather see dangerous criminals on the loose in the United States.

    It’s a strange and irresponsible preference. More than that, it’s an illegal one. 8 U.S.C. Section 1253(d) commands that:

    On being notified by the [DHS Secretary] that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the [DHS Secretary] asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the [DHS Secretary] notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.

    (emphasis added)

    In sum, the lawless behavior of the State Department, beginning under Hillary Clinton, has created a threat to public safety in America. That will be worth remembering when criminal aliens released because of the State Department’s unwillingness to follow the law commit grisly crimes in the future.

    Hillary Clinton might be a shoe-in for the presidency if only she had done no harm as Secretary of State. Having failed in multiple ways to meet this low standard, she is not a shoe-in.


    For the last week, I have intended to write about Donald Trump’s observation that some illegal immigrants are rapists-or, rather, about the crazed over-reaction to Trump’s undeniably true observation. We have written many times about outrages committed by illegals who should have been deported long before they finally committed crimes so horrific as to attract nationwide notice. Darron Wint and Francisco Sanchez are two recent instances of immigrants who would have been deported under any sane immigration system, but who, left undisturbed by the powers that be, eventually committed appalling murders. Many more such instances could be cited.
    Open borders enthusiasts argue that these examples are irrelevant because illegal immigrants don’t commit more murders, rapes, or other crimes, per capita, than anyone else. But that argument misses the point: worthless bums like Wint and Sanchez are not in any respect random. They demonstrated years ago that they were incorrigible criminals. They should have been deported, but weren’t. Why? Because the Democratic Party believes it is a good thing for criminals who turned out to be cold-blooded murderers, like Wint and Sanchez, to live among us for the sake of diversity.
    But let’s examine the assertion that illegal immigrants are no more prone to criminality than anyone else. Is that claim true? If we assume there are 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S.-that is a commonly cited number, but no one really knows-those illegals represent a little over 3% of our population and should commit around 3% of all crimes.
    Data on convictions for federal offenses are available at the U.S. Sentencing Commission’sweb site. Senate committee staff have analyzed those data, and found that “38 percent of federal convictions in FY 2013 were of illegal immigrants, and nearly 43 percent were legal or illegal immigrants.” That is more than ten times the number that would be expected if illegal immigrants were, on the average, as law-abiding as the rest of us. This is a more detailed breakdown:
    Illegal immigrant convictions in FY13 represented:
    * 18 percent of drug trafficking convictions
    * 25 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking convictions
    * 56 percent of drug possession convictions
    * 15 percent of money laundering convictions
    * 20 percent of national security convictions
    * 7 percent of murder convictions
    So illegals are overrepresented with regard to these crimes by anywhere from two to 17 times.
    The Obama administration stopped enforcing our immigration laws, in violation of the president’s oath of office, because Obama believes it is a good thing for millions of illegals to flood across our borders. Even when illegals like Wint and Sanchez have demonstrated by their behavior that they are inveterate criminals, the Obama administration, aided and abetted by Democratic office-holders in “sanctuary” cities, will not lift a finger to deport them. As a result, the Obama administration and other Democrats who have supported the administration in its malfeasance are responsible for millions of crimes, including, as Donald Trump said, an unknown number of rapes. (Rape, like the overwhelming majority of murders, is a state law crime and is not reflected in the federal data.)
    Immigration will be the biggest issue in the 2016 presidential race. Donald Trump won’t be the Republican candidate, but at least he understands why Americans are so angry at their government. And the Left’s effort to shut Trump up, aided by big business, should be a teachable moment.

  9. ATF Gun Running Sting Blows Up – Thousands Of Guns End Up In Hands Of Mexican Drug Gangs.
    Big surprise –
    "For months, a mystery has engulfed the U.S. southern border and Mexico—what suddenly caused federal agents to abandon years of practice and knowingly let suspected straw buyers for Mexican drug gangs walk off with semiautomatic weapons from American gun shops?
    The answer leads to previously undisclosed instructions given by higher-ups inside the Obama Justice Department, which originally denied any role in the burgeoning controversy,"
    Over 2000 guns were provided to Mexican drug thugs, over the protests of ATF officials. No GPS or human tracking was planned for or done.
    As of 8-4-11 the obama Justice department continues to stonewall Congressional investigations, at least 1 government agent has been proven to have been killed by one of the guns (ballistics matched to one of the guns)
    The Mexican government, who’s nation has suffered over 40,000 deaths in the recent years fighting their drug war are furious that AK47’s sniper rifles and other such weapons were put in the hands of drug lords by the Obama administration. No word yet on how many Mexicans have died because of this fiasco.
    Obama, Holder, The Gang That Can’t “Shoot” Straight On Criminals Or Terrorists.
    –Obama has a long time friend (Bill Ayres) who is a US born terrorist bomber pardoned by Jimmy C.
    –Obama appointed a supreme court justice who wrote a letter to congress voicing concern that the "us constitutional rights" of foreign born enemy terrorists might be violated.
    –Obamas Attorney General is chiefly famous for working diligently to free Puerto Rican terrorist bombers who struck against America.
    –The Obama Administration has our soldiers in Afghanistan / Iraq, who are being shot at, calling in to get permission to shoot back as well as then reading miranda rights to enemy terrorists they capture.

  10. 'The Lady's not for turning' – Margaret Thatcher On Socialism And Deficit Spending.
    Margaret Thatcher, dead Monday at the age of 87, was Britain's greatest post-war prime minister, and one of the great leaders of the world. She pulled her nation back from socialism, had the courage to stand on her convictions, and placed principle ahead of popularity. These excerpts from a 1980 speech to the Conservative Party help explain why she earned the nickname "The Iron Lady" and are particularly applicable to America today.
    If spending money like water was the answer to our country's problems, we would have no problems now. If ever a nation has spent, spent, spent and spent again, ours has. Today that dream is over. All of that money has got us nowhere, but it still has to come from somewhere. Those who urge us to relax the squeeze, to spend yet more money indiscriminately in the belief that it will help the unemployed and the small businessman, are not being kind or compassionate or caring. They are not the friends of the unemployed or the small business. They are asking us to do again the very thing that caused the problems in the first place. We have made this point repeatedly.
    I am accused of lecturing or preaching about this. I suppose it is a critic's way of saying, "Well, we know it is true, but we have to carp at something." I do not care about that. But I do care about the future of free enterprise, the jobs and exports it provides and the independence it brings to our people. Independence? Yes, but let us be clear what we mean by that. Independence does not mean contracting out of all relationships with others.
    A nation can be free but it will not stay free for long if it has no friends and no alliances. Above all, it will not stay free if it cannot pay its own way in the world. By the same token, an individual needs to be part of a community and to feel that he is part of it. There is more to this than the chance to earn a living for himself and his family, essential though that is.
    Of course, our vision and our aims go far beyond the complex arguments of economics, but unless we get the economy right we shall deny our people the opportunity to share that vision and to see beyond the narrow horizons of economic necessity. Without a healthy economy we cannot have a healthy society. Without a healthy society the economy will not stay healthy for long.
    But it is not the state that creates a healthy society. When the state grows too powerful, people feel that they count for less and less. The state drains society, not only of its wealth but of initiative, of energy, the will to improve and innovate as well as to preserve what is best. Our aim is to let people feel that they count for more and more. If we cannot trust the deepest instincts of our people, we should not be in politics at all. Some aspects of our present society really do offend those instincts. …
    If our people feel that they are part of a great nation and they are prepared to will the means to keep it great, a great nation we shall be, and shall remain. …
    To those waiting with bated breath for that favorite media catchphrase, the "U" turn, I have only one thing to say.
    "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning."

    From The Detroit News:
    Someone should read this speech to Obama, Reid and Pelosi every night before bed.

  11. Obama’s Third Party
    by Stanley Kurtz June 7, 2012 10:11 AM
    Although his campaign vehemently denied it in 2008, newly obtained documentary evidence now establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Barack Obama joined the New Party, a leftist third party controlled in Chicago by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), during his first run for office in 1996. I give details in a piece on today’s homepage, concentrating on the new “smoking gun” documentation, and on the attempt by Obama, his campaign, and his old political colleagues to cover up the story in 2008. In the next issue of National Review, I’ll have a piece that explores the ideology of the New Party, as well as the newly discovered details of Obama’s ties to the group.

    The New Party’s aim was to transform the United States into a European-style welfare state, with the program of Scandinavia’s social democratic parties serving as a model. Mitt Romney has already identified this as the goal of Obama’s presidency, and the story of Obama’s New Party days lends credence to Romney’s claim.

    So while Romney was running Bain Capital, Obama joined a leftist third party controlled by ACORN and dedicated to turning the United States into a massive, European-style welfare state. If Romney’s background at Bain is a fit topic for discussion, so is Obama’s New Party tie. It is now proven that, despite his campaign’s vehement denials in 2008, President Obama gave his allegiance to a party standing far toward the left of the American political spectrum. That is news. Will the press report it?

  12. Newly Released Documents Indicate Key Hillary Clinton Claim on Emails Was Not True
    May. 18, 2015 6:57pm Oliver Darcy
    Emails published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the Democratic presidential contender’s office.
    Multiple emails show Clinton used account “[email protected]” while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.

    Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, had previously told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) that that particular address had not “existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”
    Another statement from Clinton’s office said she only used one address during her time at the State Department.
    “Secretary Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her first weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used),” it said. “In March 2013, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.”
    Clinton served as secretary of state from January 2009 to February 2013. The emails she sent through “[email protected]” were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times.
    A representative for Clinton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze.
    Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted Monday evening that the news proved Clinton “misled public about the use of only one secret email address.”
    Earlier this year, it was reported that Clinton may have violated federal rules by exclusively using a personal email address to conduct all official government business while serving as secretary of state.

    Follow Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) on Twitter

    Go to for images of the emails

  13. Hillary: Smart power means empathizing with your enemies
    It’s difficult to know where to start with this nonsense from a recent speech given by Hillary Clinton, in which the presumed Democratic front-runner finally defines what she sees as “smart power,” and what she claims is a 21st-century approach to diplomacy. In large part, the former Secretary of State says it means psychoanalyzing enemies to understand them better, which … is exactly what nations have been doing for centuries, if not millenia. That’s why, for instance, our nations turned out experts in Sovietology like Condoleezza Rice, so that they could rise to positions of policymaking importance and apply their insights into the internal culture of our enemies for our best strategic advantage.
    Hillary goes one step farther by claiming that we must empathize with our enemies in order to “define the problems”:
    This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change — change the prospects for peace.
    Empathize? It was empathy that produced the notorious “reset button” Hillary presented to Sergei Lavrov, and the Russian point of view with which she and the Obama administration empathized was that everything was George Bush’s fault. The flat-footed response to Russian aggression ever since shows exactly why analysis and empathy are two very different things, and why one’s necessary and the other results in naive and feckless policies. The Obama administration utterly failed to define the problems that were already clear by the time Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 because it was too busy trying to woo Vladimir Putin rather than put policies in place that would discourage him from adventurism.
    Besides, with which enemies are we called to empathize now? Iran? Well, the mullahs are still murdering gays and lesbians, oppressing their people, rigging elections, calling for the extermination of Israel, and building a nuclear weapon with which to accomplish it. Also, they are sponsoring terrorist networks like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad while helping fuel the war in Iraq with its backing of Nouri al-Maliki’s purges prior to his ejection as Prime Minister. It’ll be mighty difficult to find points of empathy with the government that still refers to the US as The Great Satan, but Hillary sure tried — and John Kerry is still trying, too.
    John Hinderaker found another laughable point in the supposed deep thoughts of the former Secretary of State:
    Of the hundreds of peace treaties signed since the early 1990s, between or within nations, she said fewer than 10 percent had any female negotiators and fewer than 3 percent had women as signatories.
    “Is it any wonder that many of these agreements fail between [sic] a few years?” Clinton asked.
    It’s enough to give non sequiturs a bad name! But beyond the easy ridicule, there is a serious point: liberalism of the Clinton variety is utterly out of ammo. Hillary has no ideas of any intellectual or strategic significance. All she can do is utter platitudes and pander to 1970s-style feminism. And for this she gets $300,000 a pop?
    It’s an especially rich zinger coming from a Secretary of State who cannot point to any major agreement or treaty signed during her watch. What about that “reset button,” Mrs. Clinton? How well did that work out after “a few years”?
    Smart power, indeed.
    posted at 3:21 pm on December 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

  14. Bill Clinton Signed Law Honoring ‘the Confederate States of America’
    06.22.2015 | Alicia Powe | 2

    Controversy over the Confederate Flag, which still flies from South Carolina’s capitol grounds, has heated up after the terrorist attack on the Emanuel AME Church that saw nine people slaughtered because of the color of their skin.
    Pictures have emerged of the suspected killer, Dylan Roof Dylan Roof, burning the American flag and holding the Confederate flag.
    Republican Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina called for the removal of the Confederate battle flag on Monday. Mitt Romney went as far as saying take it down. Jeb Bush pointed to his removal of the flag from the Florida capitol when he was governor as a sign of his disapproval of it. President Barack Obama’s spokesman said the flag belongs in a museum.
    Nearly all 2016 contenders have been barraged with media questions about the flag, except the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton. Clinton keeps calling for increased gun control, but has remained silent on the flag controversy.
    Clinton did, however, call for the flag to be removed from the South Carolina capitol in 2007 during her first presidential campaign. Yet, her husband, former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, signed a law which designated a portion of the state flag to commemorate the Confederate States of America.
    “The blue star above the word “ARKANSAS” is to commemorate the Confederate States of America,” Clinton’s law reads.
    The Clintons presided over the annual celebration of “Confederate Flag Day” while they occupied the governor’s mansion, which continues to this day. This year the event will be celebrated on April 7th.
    Hillary must have forgotten about celebrating Confederate Flag Day each year.
    Two buttons offering support for one of Bill Clinton’s presidential runs were prominent on social media over the weekend.
    The first shows the Confederate battle flag with the words “Clinton-Gore” superimposed. See image at image: ://

    The second goes a bit further, portraying Clinton and Gore in the gray uniforms of the Confederacy. It’s currently for sale on eBay. Go to image: at //

    It’s unclear if the Clinton-Gore Confederate flag campaign button was an official part of their 1992 presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton isn’t clarifying, nor is her team responding to questions about her husband honoring the flag as Arkansas governor in 1987.
    Gee, what would the media’s response be if campaign paraphernalia was discovered that featured the names Romney and Ryan atop the Dixie flag?

    Read more at ://

  15. Bill Clinton Does 'Jim Crow'
    Democrats play the race card over voter ID laws.
    August 3, 2011
    The last time Bill Clinton tried to play the race card, it blew up his wife's primary campaign in South Carolina. Well, the Voice is back, this time portraying the nationwide movement to pass voter ID laws as the return of Jim Crow.
    "There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the other Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today," the former President warned a student group last month.
    Mr. Clinton is talking about states like Kansas, Wisconsin, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and the notoriously Confederate state of Rhode Island that have instituted or tightened voter laws this year.
    These states are trying to reduce the incidence of voter fraud, which if not epidemic is hardly unknown in America. The liberal group Acorn's widespread voter-registration fraud in recent years drew national attention to the problem and criminal actions. The 2008 Minnesota Senatorial race, where a legal challenge over the validity of absentee ballots decided the outcome by 312 votes, was another warning sign. Kansas received 221 reports of voter fraud between 1997 and 2010, according to a recent op-ed by Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
    Voter ID laws can't fix every problem, but they are a start. As the Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky points out, these laws prevent voters from impersonating someone else, make it harder for a person to vote at multiple locations and block illegal aliens from voting. Some states, like Kansas, are also reforming voting-registration laws and absentee-ballot rules to ensure up-to-date voter rolls.
    Mr. Clinton claims Republicans are trying to "make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate," presumably by reducing Democratic turnout. But Democratic voters have no harder time getting a driver's license than do Republicans.
    The federal courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of voter ID laws. In 2008, John Paul Stevens—no conservative—wrote for a six-vote Supreme Court majority that voter ID laws don't constitute an undue burden on citizens attempting to vote. States typically let voters cast a provisional ballot if they can't prove citizenship on polling day, and they provide IDs for free if needed.
    No wonder voters of every age, race and income consistently support these reforms. A Rasmussen poll in June showed 75% of likely voters favor voter ID laws, as did 63% of Democrats. In Rhode Island, where Democrats control both state legislative houses, a Democratic speaker co-sponsored the new voter ID law. "I think that party leaders have tried to make this a Republican versus Democrat issue," state Rep. Jon Brien told the Pew Center on the States's Stateline news service. "It's not. It's simply a good government issue."
    None of that is deterring Democrats from using voter ID to drum up racial fears. Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the "Jim Crow" line earlier this year, adding "photo I.D. laws, we think, are very similar to a poll tax." Democratic Senators and House members have asked the Justice Department to take action. Look for this to be a consistent Democratic theme as the election approaches, amid party fears that declining real incomes will dampen enthusiasm about re-electing President Obama.
    Perhaps these naysayers could take a page from one of the Rhode Island law's supporters, Democratic state senator and co-sponsor Harold Metts, who told a local newspaper, "I'm all for party loyalty, but God gave me a brain and I use it."


  16. CNN Reporter Who Scored First Hillary Interview Attended Clinton Aide's Wedding Two Weeks Ago
    Published July 6, 2015
    By Al Weaver, The Daily Caller

    CNN’s Brianna Keilar just nabbed one of the biggest interviews of the year: the first national interview with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton since her campaign launch.

    However (perhaps coincidentally), Keilar was spotted two weeks ago at the wedding of a prominent member of the Clinton campaign.

    (Smokedsalmoned comment – Brianna is also scheduled to be CNN’s field reporter following Hillary around during the campaign. Look forward to more softball buddy questions on the campaign trail. )

  17. Reagan Versus Obama. Since Obama has compared himself to Reagan, how have their first three years stacked up?
    —Obama instituted changes that have frightened small and large businesses, raising unemployment and after 5 trillion in spending we are moving along at a +1.8 or so GDP.
    —Reagan increased government spending due to a Democrat congress, instituted changes aimed at deregulation & tax cuts which were pro business and by year three the US economy was racing along at +8%.
    Obama, I remember Reagan and you are no Reagan!
    Obama could have chosen the Reagan path to an economic fix and likely would have succeeded. Instead he chose the John Maynard Keynes socialist approach and failed.

  18. Case closed: The Reagan Recovery vs. the Obama Recovery in two charts ( Article by James Pethokoukis | June 27, 2012, 9:49 am ) (This story and the eye popping simple charts says it all about the impact of free markets versus big government Read On:)
    In a new book on the economic performance of the twelve U.S. presidents since World War Two, the author ranks Ronald Reagan 8th and Barack Obama 9th.
    Now, I wrote yesterday why I think the book’s rating system is flawed overall, and specifically why Reagan deserves a much higher ranking — if not the top ranking.
    But it is also extremely weird that Reagan and Obama are right next to each other. And I think these next two charts demonstrate why it is so strange.
    First, here is cumulative GDP growth during the first three years of the Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery, using the dating system of the National Bureau of Economic Research and optimistically assuming 2% growth for the second quarter of this year:

    (..In the link to the article you will find the first chart showing % CUMULATIVE GDP GROWTH ADJUSTED OFR INFLATION, 12 QUARTERS. 18.5% FOR REAGAN AND 8.9% FOR OBAMA…)
    Big advantage to Reagan. Second, here is a comparison of net new nonfarm payrolls created over the first 35 months of the two recoveries, adjusted for the growth in population since the 1980s:
    (..In the link to the article you next find a chart showing NET NEW JOBS, ADJUSTED FOR POPULATION, 35 MONTHS. The Reagan recovery generated 12,561,000 and Obama generated 2,508,000)

    Massive advantage to Reagan.
    Now the book looks at the entire presidencies of the twelve, and perhaps Obama’s next four years, if he gets a second term, would be better than his first four. But Reagan’s second term saw average GDP growth of 3.6% and the unemployment rate fall to 5.3%. That’s a high hurdle for Obama to clear.
    James Pethokoukis | June 27, 2012, 9:49 am
    To see the full story and the charts go to:

  19. “Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace-and you can have it in the next second-surrender.
    Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face-that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand-the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he would rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin-just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it’s a simple answer after all.
    You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals.” And he said, “There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”
    You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” –
    Ronald Reagan
    Commonly known as the 100 years of darkness speech.

  20. Exclusive Reagan Changed America 25 Years Ago
    Thursday Jan 19, 2006 1:03 PM
    Twenty-five years ago today was a critical turning point in our nation’s history. On that day, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president of the United States. He inherited an economy that was in shambles. Inflation was running rampant, penalizing work, savings, and investment. The top marginal income tax rate stood at 70 percent, punishing our most productive Americans and discouraging them from working. Our confidence as a nation was fragile.
    In Reagan’s first inaugural address he said: "The economic ills we suffer will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom."
    I admired his words at the time, but I was skeptical. Politicians always make grandiose speeches, but true policy changes are difficult to accomplish. Reagan cut through all of the rhetoric and actually did something. He succeeded in restoring economic growth, prosperity, and American greatness, and he did so spectacularly.
    Reagan’s core policy agenda has been implemented fairly consistently for the past 25 years. With a few notable setbacks, he created a foundation for prosperity based on sound money, low marginal tax rates, and efficient, minimal regulation that has remained in place to this day.
    The results have been stunning. When Reagan took office, payroll employment stood at below 90 million; it’s now over 135 million — that’s 45 million more working Americans. Gross domestic product, the size of the U.S. economy, stood at about $5.2 trillion (in chained 2000 dollars); it has since more than doubled, after adjusting for inflation, to well over $10 trillion. The stock market in 1981 has been stagnant for decades, the Dow Jones was under 1000 and still buried on the business pages; the market has since skyrocketed, with the Dow topping 11,000 last week, as stock ownership has become an engine of prosperity for well more than 50 percent of American families.
    I could go on all day trying to quantify the economic miracle of the Reagan Revolution, but it really goes beyond numbers. At its root was the restoration of the American dream, the belief that, given the economic freedom created by sound money and limited government, each of us has boundless potential to achieve based on hard work, ingenuity, and entrepreneurial risk-taking.
    In 1981 I was in the process of growing my business as many Americans were. Ronald Reagan gave the business community confidence that we could grow our businesses in a prospering economy. He created the environment of lower taxes, smaller government, and less regulation in which we could excel.
    We sometimes have a tendency to take our prosperity for granted. We have a sense that because we’re America, any economic setback is temporary and we’ll always come out on top. This optimism comes from Reagan himself, but sometimes I worry that since he’s left office it may no longer be valid. It’s important to remember that things could have been otherwise. We must not take the continuation of Reagan’s legacy for granted.
    Government is once again growing, encroaching on the private sphere and limiting economic freedom and opportunity. Our anachronistic corporate tax system combines with a thicket of regulations to drive some of our best businesses offshore. The personal income tax has grown nearly as convoluted as it was before Reagan’s landmark tax reform, and the top rate still stands 25 percent higher than his top rate. Worse yet, there is a now a series of large tax hikes scheduled to occur automatically over the next several as the temporary provisions of recent laws expire. As Reagan himself said, the American people have the capacity to meet all of the economic challenges in front of us — I hope that our political leaders have the will to put and keep in place policies that will let them.

  21. Was the 1990s Clinton economy really that good?

    Clinton speaks before signing the last budget legislation of his administration, in Washington, December 21, 2000. Reuters
    I was on Bill Bennett’s always-excellent “Morning in America” radio program today, and a caller asked me — basically — to provide talking points on why the 1990s Clinton economic boom “wasn’t really that good.” (The caller probably wanted ammo against liberal coworkers or relatives when they used Bill Clinton’s economic record as reason to support Hillary Clinton.) My response was, “Well, the Clinton years really were pretty good!”
    How could I say otherwise? Why would I say otherwise? The economy grew by nearly 4% annually during the Clinton years, creating 24 million jobs and driving the unemployment rate to a superlow 3.9%. Incomes and stocks were way up, inflation and interest rates were way down. Budget deficit? What budget deficit?
    Perhaps the most common criticism of the Clinton boom, at least on the right, is that it was “bubble economy” inflated by easy money and irrational enthusiasm for technology stocks. Even as Clinton was leaving office, the bubble was popping. Clinton inherited an expansion from Bush I, and bequeathed a recession to Bush II. The problem with that line of criticism is that despite bear market and recession, the productivity boom kept booming from 1996 through 2005. And the tech craze left us some pretty important companies including Google and Amazon. Beneath the froth, some really lasting and important stuff was happening.
    But there is more to the story, of course. A few things comes to mind: First, income inequality soared, and the”financial industry exploded,” as the Washington Post puts it. Two WaPo charts:
    (Too see charts go to )
    Chart 1 shows “The Clinton years saw the top 1 percent and top 0.1% pull away from the rest of the country more aggressively than they had before. Here’s how the richest Americans share of income grew during Clintons term using the Piketty/Saez dataset:
    Chart 2 shows “The trend of finance taking up a greater and greater share of the economy continued apace during the Clinton years, as Bureau of Economic Analysis data shows:”
    Kind of ironic given the emerging themes of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Certainly there is an argument that some seeds of the financial crisis were sown during the Clinton years.
    Second, Bill Clinton’s “bond market strategy” to boost growth didn’t really seem to click until the GOP took over Congress.
    Third, Reaganomics arguable deserves some share of the credit for Clintonomics. Economist Michael Mandel has written that “the impact of the policies Reagan set out in the 1980s, which slowly worked their way through the economy, helped lay the groundwork for the Information Revolution of the 1990s.” And a Brookings study recently noted that “income progress was broad and robust through the Reagan and Clinton years.”
    Fourth, Bill Clinton had policies — NAFTA, welfare reform, financial deregulation, capital gains tax cuts, the idea of investing Social Security surpluses into the stock market — that might seem a misfit for the Obama-era Democratic Party.
    Now I don’t know if any of that stuff works as anti-Hillary talking points. Don’t really care. But it does provide a more nuanced view of Bill Clinton’s economic record, a record sure to be discussed and examined as the 2016 presidential campaign heats up.

    James Pethokoukis @JimPethokoukis
    June 17, 2015 11:14 am | AEIdeas

    Further reading:
    The real lessons of Reaganomics, at least as I see them
    Explaining the 1990s economic boom — before Hillary does
    We love the ’90s! Why doesn’t the left?
    Why the 1990s boom happened despite the Clinton tax hikes
    President Obama keeps forgetting about the Reagan-Clinton boom

  22. Socialism didn't make America rich, Capitalism did.

  23. Socialism Vs. Economics
    Some politicians and activists mistake Socialist policy for economic policy. Governmental decisions based on socialist principles are geared toward populist voter approval, big hearted & soft headed ideas that are not financially sustainable or grounded in economic principle but instead in some perceived right. Economics on the other hand are grounded on theories proven in the marketplace as well as past real world cause and effect of governmental or other such marketplace decisions.
    Corporations and people will change their spending and saving habits based on governmental action, economists understand that but socialist politicians do not.
    The next time your politician wants to do something just because its "right", ask yourself what the impact on the economy, the marketplace, your job, your taxes and your kids taxes will be. If the action / goal of your politician is fuzzy & nice but the cost far outweighs your perceived benefits or the cost is put off for future generations to pay for, then your politician is probably a socialist.

  24. "Bread" & Socialism
    – With frightening rhetoric and fear mongering, geared toward pushing for rushed passage of stimulus packages, bank bailouts and talk of universal health care, Obama is pandering to the masses and offering money (checks) and socialism.
    – In an apparently calculated effort to accomplish his socialist agenda, in the shadow of an economic downturn, he may succeed in burdening and transforming the American economy to an extent that would make F.D.R. blush. The fact that his programs will rival the confiscatory and irresponsible S.S.I, Medicare, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac programs that his predecessor and his fellows achieved seems to not even phase the masses.
    – In its waning days of power and purpose the Roman emperor could offer only bread and circuses to his masses. The leaders of the time cowed to One leader and ruined a mighty albeit evil empire. My friends, Obama and the Democrats are offering you Bread & Socialism with a side order of the end of American greatness.

  25. The path toward National Socialism leads to socialized medicine, social security, anti smoking campaigns, anti gun campaigns, increased support of trade unions, the promotion of vegetarianism, euthanasia, financially unsustainable budgeting, massive tax increases, pitting groups against one another, scape goating, political prisons, mass graves and then national suicide.

  26. WSJ’s Moore: Obama’s Key Supporters Worse Off Under his Presidency
    The demographic groups that provided President Barack Obama with his 2012 election victory have fared worse economically than others during his presidency, according to The Wall Street Journals’ Stephen Moore.
    “According to a new report on median household incomes by Sentier Research, in 2012 millions of American voters apparently cast ballots contrary to their economic self-interest,” the editor wrote Wednesday.
    Sentier found that real median household income for Americans dropped 4.4 percent during the four years beginning in June 2009, when the economic recovery started.
    “Those who were most likely to vote for Barack Obama in 2012 were members of demographic groups most likely to have suffered the steepest income declines,” Moore observed, noting that the president’s re-election victory stemmed largely from his support among young voters, single women, voters with a high-school diploma or less, blacks, and Hispanics.

    Black Teen Unemployment Rate around 43%
    According to the Sentier Research report, households headed by single women experienced an income drop of about 7 percent, while the decline was 9.6 percent for those younger than 25, 10.9 percent for black heads of households, 4.5 percent for Hispanic heads of households, and 8 percent for workers with a high-school diploma or less.
    “This is a stunning reversal of the progress for these groups during the expansions of the 1980s and 1990s, and even through the start of the 2008 recession,” Moore said, referring to Census reports showing that from 1981 to 2008 the biggest income gains came for black women, followed by white women, black men, and white men.
    “Mr. Obama has often contemptuously, and wrongly, branded the quarter-century period of prosperity beginning with the presidency of Ronald Reagan as a ‘trickle down’ era,” Moore continued.
    “For many in the groups that Mr. Obama set out to help, a return to the prosperity of that era would be a vast improvement.”
    Moore also noted that Census income figures included cash government benefits, such as unemployment insurance, disability payments, and the earned-income tax credit. The costs for most of these cash programs have jumped during Obama’s presidency, he wrote, but incomes have still decreased for the lowest-income eligible groups.
    “This suggests that wages and salaries from employment have shrunk at an even faster pace than the Census data show,” Moore said.
    “What all of this means is that the stimulus-led economic revival that began officially in June 2009 . . . has only resulted in lower incomes for at least half of Americans, the very ones who were instrumental in electing Mr. Obama twice.”
    Wednesday, 04 Sep 2013 01:48 PM