Friday, February 28, 2020

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY: Serving Banksters, Billioniares and Bribsters.... The rest of us get the tax bills to cover their crimes and bailouts


The Balkanized Democrats

The contentious Democrat primaries are exposing the fraud of “diversity.”
 
Bruce Thornton

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
The slogan of “diversity” has always contained a fundamental incoherence. On the surface, the variety of identities expressed mainly in cosmetic differences hides deeper, more contentious variations ignored by diversicrats and their media champions. Chanting “diversity is our strength,” the purveyors of “rainbow coalitions” forget that diversity can also be a weakness despite the conformity of their public “woke” political aims. The contentious Democrat presidential primaries have exposed these fissures that are threatening the Left’s aim of retaking presidency.
Start with the obvious division within the party: That between Bernie Sanders and a DNC establishment that believes, probably correctly, that a cranky socialist village explainer is electorally radioactive. Bernie and his passionate Bros have already been primed by the 2016 primary to suspect the party establishment of “moderate” squishes, who are plotting to promote plutocrat Michael Bloomberg and his billions as the candidate, or to rig the convention once again. Whether Bernie is the candidate or not, this conflict will leave a lot of bad blood that will weaken the party in the general election.
The permanent threat to “rainbow” diversity, however, is social and economic class. All the Democrat primary front-runners are rich one-percenters, with the exception of Mayor Pete, who languishes among the top ten percent of earners.  And all the candidates this cycle have been political insiders, senators mostly, and are festooned with gilt-edged university and professional credentials. Especially during televised debates, this graphic privilege is an embarrassment to a party that touts diversity and its strengths, and styles itself as the party of the working class and dispossessed. And what’s so “transformational” about rich and university credentialed people wielding power? Since the days of Julius Caesar, ambitious elites have championed the plebeians in order to aggrandize their own power and privilege.
Moreover, the fact that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden are all multimillionaires makes it difficult for them to wage class warfare against newcomer multibillionaire Mike Bloomberg, not to mention the Republicans. For normal people with average incomes, Sanders et al. appear to be indulging in class envy when they attack Bloomberg’s wealth. After all, nobody hates a billionaire as much as a millionaire. So they complain that he’s trying to “buy the election.” But as many have pointed out, what do all their multi-trillion-dollar policies like Medicare For All, the Green New Deal, free college tuition, forgiving student loans, and creating more government benefits amount to other than “buying” the election? At least Bloomberg is using his own money rather than the taxpayers’.
Next there is the internal divisions within the various identity groups. One obvious divide is economic class. Over the decades, as more blacks entered the middle class, the old division between the mass of blacks and the “talented tenth” of educated professional blacks has narrowed considerably, but not disappeared. One fifth of blacks live below the poverty line, twice the rate of whites. Many of them are confined to urban ghettos rife with crime and plagued by failing schools and lack of economic opportunity. As for working class blacks, prior to Trump, they were subject to the same forces weakening the white working class, such as globalization, outsourcing, and cheap immigrant labor both legal and illegal.
For decades the elite black intelligentsia, activists, and politicians have exploited this misery for their own ideological, political, and financial gain. But Donald Trump’s economic policies, which have lowered black unemployment to historically low levels, and raised black workforce participation and wages, are discrediting the old Democrat racialist appeals for the black vote. Coming after the two terms of the country’s first black president who did little to improve the lot of ordinary blacks, Trump’s improvement  of their lives is likely to peel off black support from the Democrats. Just a five-point increase in blacks voting for Trump could make the difference in November.
Another internal division among blacks is Christianity. The progressive secularist media play down this fact, but it represents a dividing line within the black community that separates black public intellectuals, pundits, and newscasters from many ordinary blacks. For example, large numbers of blacks consistently oppose same-sex marriage and unrestricted abortion. They also disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds. The same division exists among many Latinos, in part a consequence of faith, but also a reflection of the culture of machismo evident among southern Mediterranean cultures as well as among blacks. This factor is the most consequential for Mayor Pete’s campaign, and explains his inability to appeal to any black voters outside the professional bicoastal and university-town elites.
The same divisions apply among women: Not just between minority and white women, but between Christian and secularist, college educated and the rest, professional and working class, urban and suburban, married and unmarried, mothers and the childless, all of whom disagree with “woke” women on issues such as school-choice and unrestricted abortion. Women who were put off by Trump’s “mean” vulgarity and braggadocio have benefited as well from his policies: Female unemployment is at 3.6%, one of the lowest in history. As mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters, many women have been turned off by the unjust demonization of men and the excesses of the MeToo# movement embraced by the Democrats and on display during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. These divisions could also raise the number of women supporting Trump in November.
Then there are the conflicts between the various ethnicities comprising the “rainbow coalition.” Another that the progressive media ignore is the division between blacks and Latinos, a divide obvious in every American penitentiary, or in regions like the San Joaquin Valley, where we had been living with real diversity and its conflicts decades before “diversity” was invented by Justice Lewis Powell in the 1979 Bakke decision. In the case of Mexico and many South American cultures, dislike of blacks is a residue of the large number of African slaves, 95% of the ten million transported to the Americas. In Mexico, the large numbers of mestizos complicate further these interracial divisions. For much of Mexico’s history there were 50 social castas, “breeds,” categories predicated on variations of  skin-color ranging from white to black, the lowest of the castas. A graphic indication of Mexican dislike of blacks can be found in the Spanish dehumanizing slur for blacks, miate, which is also the word for a black beetle.
All these inter- and intra-group divisions have been ignored by the media and much of popular culture, because they complicate the narrative of a “rainbow coalition” unified by progressive ideology. But real-life diversity creates zero-sum conflicts that will emerge eventually, just as the centuries-old ethnic and religious conflicts in the Balkans erupted into widespread violence once the totalitarian power that had kept them in check dissolved with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its communist satrapy Yugoslavia.
And now the election of Trump, and his unexpected success in revitalizing the economy, especially for minorities and women, has further stressed the “rainbow coalition” and laid bare its contradictions and its duplicity. As the current Democrat primary campaign and debates are being unveiled, the “diversity” touted by progressives is a fiction that camouflages their rigid ideological conformity. Just ask Pete Buttigieg. Many “queer” activists have attacked him for being “heteronormative and assimilationist,” insufficiently radical, and a “sell-out.” In other words, like Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, he’s not a pure socialist like the “woke” champion Bernie Sanders.
As of now, this internecine quarrel is benefiting Sanders by dividing the “moderate,” and increasing Trump’s chance for reelection. But it also is exposing the fraud of “diversity.” If it leads, as it seems to be doing right now, to a Trump victory in November, it could spark a culture-wide loosening of the long-held grip of this illiberal and irrational ideology on our politics and culture. One consequence of its dominance has been the advancement of the progressives’ relentless dismantling of the Constitutional order that was designed to minimize the damage wrought by inter-factional rivalries and conflicts. Without those safeguards that balance and check factions and their disruptive passions and interests, sheer power becomes the umpire of conflicting claims. And once that happens, tyranny follows.

THEY ASSAULT OUR BORDERS, JOBS, WELFARE LINES AND INSTITUTIONS.
He added, “Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead.” PAUL BEDARD

Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $6.5K a year each: Report

VIDEO:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-6-500-a-year-each?utm_source=Washington%20Secrets_02/06/2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Washington%20Secrets&rid=117930

Illegal immigrants in growing numbers are flooding into so-called sanctuary cities and states where they are consuming up to $6,500 in taxpayer-funded services, according to a new review of costs in 10 small states.
The surge is having an outsized effect on smaller states and is cutting funds for services to veterans, children, and disabled Americans, according to the report provided exclusively to Secrets from the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
The report said illegal immigration costs the 10 states $454 million. “To put that figure into context, that $454 million expenditure is more than 200 times what the state of Montana budgets for its entire Veterans Affairs program, and it is 2.5 times the total sum that West Virginia invests in its state university,” said the report.
And, it added, illegal immigrants cost between $4,000 and $6,500 annually above any tax benefit they provide.
“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban areas,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence.”
The 10 states analyzed in the study, Small Migrant Populations, Huge Impacts, were New Hampshire, Mississippi, Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont, Montana, and Wyoming.
“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” said Stein.
He added, “Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead.”
The report comes on the heels of a key U.S. Supreme Court decision to let the Trump administration block entry to immigrants who are likely to burden taxpayers.
FAIR’s report also showed that sanctuary cities are a growing attraction for illegal immigrants, especially in smaller states where the costs of living can be lower.
The key findings from the report to Secrets:
  • In each of these states, each illegal immigrant resident carried a net tax deficit of between $4,000 and $6,500 annually.
  • Some 415,000 foreign-born reside in these 10 states, of whom about 88,000 (or 21%) are illegal immigrants. Additionally, there are about 35,000 U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants in these states.
  • Collectively, these illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children cost taxpayers in the 10 states about $454 million each year for the provision of essential services such as education and healthcare.
  • Local schools struggle to provide educators and cover the costs of instruction for 50,000 K-12 students classified as Limited English Proficient.
  • A growing number of sanctuary jurisdictions (29 and counting, including the entire state of Vermont), and lower living costs are a magnet for illegal immigrants.
  • The growing immigrant population competes with legal residents for jobs in economically depressed areas.
“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of the country. Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” said Stein.

Report: Taxpayers Forking Over Up to $6,500 per Illegal Alien

By Rob Shimshock | February 6, 2020 | 12:24pm EST



(CNSNews.com) -- Much of the media attention garnered by the border crisis typically revolves around states that border Mexico like Arizona and Texas. Yet a February report reveals the devastating economic consequences of illegal aliens on taxpayers as far north as Montana.
Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in the ten states with the fewest immigrants around $454 million per year, which works out to a net tax deficit of $4,000 to $6,500 per illegal, according to a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban areas,” FAIR President Dan Stein said in the report's news release. “These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence.”


 
FAIR examined migration to Alaska, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming in its study and found that 88,000 out of the 415,000 foreign-born residents in these states are illegal aliens, or 21 percent. Around 35,000 others are citizen children of illegal aliens.
“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” Stein continued. “Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead.”
FAIR notes that 29 sanctuary jurisdictions exist in these 10 states, including the whole state of Vermont. 
The report also examined the financial implications of immigrants more generally, noting that more than 50,000 K-12 students in the ten states examined are categorized as having limited English proficiency (LEP). FAIR estimated that taxpayers spend $96 million on the education of these students. 
Nationwide, the immigration nonprofit calculated that taxpayers spent $59.8 billion educating LEP students in 2016, up from $51.2 billion in 2010.
Matt O’Brien, director of research at FAIR, expanded on the impact of immigration on Lewiston, Maine, a city the nonprofit honed in on in its analysis, while speaking with CNSNews.com.
Lewiston, which has a population under 40,000, has taken in more than 7,500 migrants during the past decade-and-a-half. Between 2004 and 2017, the percentage of LEP students in the town went from five to 30 percent.
“You’re putting all of the kids that have to go through that school system at a deficit that they have to recover from after they get out of the public school system," O’Brien told CNSNews.com. “Now they have to compete with the massive amount of immigrants...as they’re trying to get entry-level jobs.”
The FAIR report highlighted employers’ preference for hiring foreign-born workers, who demand lower wages, over American citizens.
“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of the country. Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” Stein concluded in the release.
Rob Shimshock is the Commentary Editor at CNSNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @ShimshockAndAwe.



Real socialists don't want fake socialist, real communist Bernie Sanders

Fake Democrat Bernie Sanders (a fake independent from Vermont who caucuses with whoever or whatever will have him) is also a fake socialist.  Democrats in Florida have awakened to this basic understanding and are suing to keep him off the ballot there using this sensible and clear reasoning: "because he's not a member of the party."
The lawsuit, which was filed this week in Leon County, argues that Mr. Sanders of Vermont is an independent and thus ineligible for the March 17 primary.
"Florida is a closed primary state, yet here we have someone who is an independent on the Democratic ballot," Karen Gievers, attorney for the two plaintiffs, told Politico for a report filed Tuesday.  "You can't be an independent and be a member of the party."
Of course Sanders is no independent, either; he's a proud communist — go Cuba! go Venezuela! and of course yay USSR for honeymooning! which for him were nice places to visit but (alas! for us) he doesn't want to live there.  Because the U.S. of A. — boo! — is the only place he could thrive, let alone survive.  
While he self-labels, or identifies, to use a woke term, as a "Democratic Socialist," even the socialists — democratic or not — don't want him.  According to an article in the Washington Free Beacon published four years ago, prior to his first attempt at winning the Democratic presidential nomination:
Bernie Sanders was asked to leave a hippie commune in 1971 for "sitting around and talking" about politics instead of working, according to a forthcoming book ... We Are As Gods by Kate Daloz[.]
Yes, that certainly sums up the current Democratic presidential frontrunner — even the socialists don't want him because even socialism demands work instead of climate change hot air theorizing.  And he hasn't changed in the nearly 50 years since he first visited the commune, Myrtle Hill, in Vermont as a 30-year-old who had never collected a paycheck.  (And you think today's Millennials are bad!)
Sanders spent his time at Myrtle Hill in "endless political discussion," according to Deloz.
Sanders' idle chatter did not endear him with some of the commune's residents, who did the backbreaking labor of running the place.  Daloz writes that one resident, Craig, "resented feeling like he had to pull others out of Bernie's orbit if any work was going to get accomplished that day."
Sanders was eventually asked to leave.  "When Bernie had stayed for Myrtle's allotted three days, Craig politely requested that he move on," Daloz writes.
Like other idealistic, unrealistic ventures of this kind, the commune itself eventually disintegrated and broke up as real life intruded and members more or less matured.  More or less.  Sanders, who never matured, never learned from reality, remained in Vermont where he continues to live off the labor of others with his talk — amazingly, with their permission.  He was elected mayor of Burlington, then senator from Vermont. 
And now, although he is not a Democrat,  he is once again trying to win the Democratic nomination for president.  Once again with their permission.  It tells you a lot about the state of the Democratic Party.  Even years ago, the kiddie socialists knew better.
Image: Phil Roeder via Flickr.


That baggage in Bernie's closet is bulging the closet door


Bernie Sanders, who demonstrated his appeal to Latino voters in Nevada by winning 53% of their votes, seems impervious to any critical examination of his actual record.
But it turns out his political closet is bulging with anti-Latino secrets — not the Castro kind, but the kind that might just vaporize his support as word gets out.
Here's Tucker Carlson with just a whiff of what's brewing:
Carlson points out that Sanders was against illegal immigration before he was for it and essentially understood that helping the working class here might just mean not importing competition from abroad to drive their wages down.  An illegal alien from Honduras, for instance, often consents to earning starvation wages and living in a room with 12 other people in some place like Lancaster, Calif., simply because his dollars earned can be converted to a princely living when sent back home.  The effect on the American workers?  Wages driven downward to compete with the illegally present new entrants.  Too bad about those guys.
Sanders knew this, until he didn't. Carlson points out that this is a major flipflop in Sanders' position, given that he now supports open borders, and not just open borders, but free health care, free college, and free everything else to all comers who manage to sneak past the border guards he incidentally wishes to abolish.  And sure enough, now that he's the Democratic frontrunner, riding in on his wave of Latino support.
Fine and dandy, maybe they forgive him that or, at least as likely, don't know and don't care.  Maybe they don't believe that this would drive their own wages to Guatemalan levels, not realizing that they're now in an argument with math.
But there's more to it than just a Sanders flip-flop to an open-borders position as a pander to the Latino vote.
Sanders, according to Townhall's Guy Benson, who found some interesting opposition research dug up by an anti-Sanders #NeverTrump, has a mean streak when it comes to Latinos.
In one of the very few things he ever did legislatively (and he did very little, indeed), Sanders co-sponsored a bill to dump Vermont's and Maine's toxic nuclear waste onto a little Latino Texas town against the locals' wishes, giving them the stiff arm when they protested and turning a tidy profit for his wife, who's still drawing checks.  Benson writes:
Out of pure curiosity, I clicked the link in one of his tweets, and...wow:
(1) In 1998, then-Rep. Sanders cosponsored a bill that would allow Vermont and Maine to dump their nuclear waste in a poor and largely Latino town in Texas called Sierra Blanca.
(2) A Texas Observer article in 1998 covered protestors from Sierra Blanca confronting Rep. Sanders and being given the stiff arm. The story's headline was "Sanders to Sierra Blanca: Drop Dead." Sanders even rebuffed an offer to visit Sierra Blanca, telling its residents, "Absolutely not. I'm gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont."
(3) Liberal hero Paul Wellstone—an actual progressive Democrat—gave a speech on the Senate floor calling this dump "environmental racism." Former Texas Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes called Sanders actions "insanely callous."
(4) After Congress approved the proposal, environmental regulators rejected the Sierra Blanca site. But a different site in Andrews County, Texas gained approval a few years later and Vermont/Texas maintain an interstate waste agreement.
(5) In 2016, Sanders' tax returns revealed that as of 2014 Jane Sanders was still drawing a small salary as an alternate commissioner for the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission as part of the agreement with Vermont that her husband pushed.
He hasn't made any amends or flip-flops on that one, and his wife is still drawing checks, maybe hoping no one notices.
It goes to show the essential heartlessness of socialism in action, as checks and balances are erased in a system of all power going to the government, and people, in the name of "the people," count for nothing, particularly if they get in the way with protests.
That's a pretty good skeleton from Sanders's closet for anyone, but it ought to end Latino support for Sanders in particular, unless these Sanders Latinos actually like it.  Since establishment Democrats now say they will do anything to stop Sanders from becoming the Democratic nominee, even if it means destroying their own party, one can be fairly sure that these kinds of stories are going to be getting out, courtesy of their mainstream media allies, pretty soon.
Good. 

PHONY “POPULIST” BERNIE SANDERS

For all of  Bernie Sanders talk about leading “political revolution” against the “billionaire class,” Sanders backed Clinton, a shill of Wall Street and the Pentagon, who has nothing but contempt for the tens of millions of workers devastated by the 2008 financial crash and Obama’s pro-corporate policies.

MILLIONAIRE PHONY SOCIALISM BERNIE’S LA RAZA SOCIALISM to keep the “cheap” labor flowing into our jobs

Bernie supports immigration reform that will address the legal status of the 11 million undocumented people  (EXCEPT THERE ARE 40 MILLION ILLEGALS HERE ALREADY) in our country, protect American jobs by way of visa reform, secure the border, and protect undocumented workers from labor exploitation.

The website states that Sanders supports a pathway to citizenship for all people who are in the United States illegally, the Dream Act, “Visa reform” and border security “without building a fence.”
Sanders also voted for the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill in 2013 that would have given amnesty to all of the people in the United States illegally.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s 2017 report, illegal immigrants, and their children, cost American taxpayers a net $116 billion annually -- roughly $7,000 per alien annually. While high, this number is not an outlier: a recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that low-skilled immigrants (including those here illegally) cost Americans trillions over the course of their lifetimes, and a study from the National Economics Editorial found that illegal immigration costs America over $140 billion annually. As it stands, illegal immigrants are a massive burden on American taxpayers.

BERNIE SANDERS MAKES DIRECT APPEAL TO RUST BELT MIDDLE-AMERICA… but fails to tell them he wants amnesty for 40 million looting Mexicans so they can bring up the rest of their families and vote Democrat for more.

Bernie Sanders thunders about 'corruption' ... and gives Joe Biden a pass



Bernie Sanders is famous for railing about billionaires as corrupt. He thunders about corruption, positioning himself as the austere but honest socialist, the guy who sets no store on having tons of money the way those notorious billionaires do.

You don't need that many choices of deodorant, see. His socialism of yeoman simplicity is what makes him supposedly honest and fair.
Or at least that's the message he's got all over his website as he tries to downplay his socialism and up-play his probity. See, he may be socialist and all, but he's Mr. Clean:
"The corruption is out there," his video headline thunders, attempting to halt the Republican tax cut a couple years ago, calling it "corrupt." He even ran photos of Red Chinese soldiers and Vladimir Putin in his video to argue that the tax cut that has since lifted the entire American economy is actually corruption.
This corruption is so blatant, it's no longer seen as remarkable. Just the other day, the lead sentence in a New York Times story about Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson was this: 'The return on investment for many of the Republican Party's biggest political patrons has been less than impressive this year.' The idea that political donors expect a specific policy result in exchange for their contribution is the very definition of corruption. It is right now, absolutely out there in the open. It is no longer even seen as scandalous. This sort of corruption is common among authoritarian regimes...
So in light of his Mister Clean persona, what's he been up to lately? Breitbart has the answer:
During a portion of an interview with CBS News released on Monday, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pushed back on an op-ed from Sanders supporter and Fordham Law Associate Professor Zephyr Teachout that said 2020 Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden “has a big corruption problem and it makes him a weak candidate.” Sanders stated that it is “absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way.”
Sanders said, “Joe Biden is a friend of mine. I’ve known him for many, many years. He’s a very decent guy. Joe and I have strong disagreements on a number of issues, and we’ll argue those disagreements out. But it is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way.”
Which is extremely bizarre stuff, given that the average Joe on the street can see that Biden's son Hunter turning up in country after country that he knows nothing about on the heels of Joe's vice presidential visits, somehow managed to end up with $80,000 a month paychecks from corrupt energy companies and more, just by following old dad with his satchel out wherever he went.
His remarks come on the heels of the release of Peter Schweizer's new book which showcases Biden family corruption in spades. Biden didn't just benefit ne'er-do-well Hunter during his political terms, Schweizer unveils and airtight case showing that Biden benefitted five family members, using his political office.
There's a reason Democrats don't want any Biden witnesses called during the upcoming Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, which in fact was premised on Trump's investigation of House Biden corruption.
Now Bernie's denying it? One can probably conclude a couple of things from this ridiculous barefaced lie about Biden's probity. One, Sanders was also named as a pocket-liner in Schweizer's book, and he's just as dirty as Biden.
Two, Sanders is essentially unserious when he talks about ending corruption. He's got no intention of ending the kind of corruption that made Hunter Biden's life such a partyfest. If anything, he wants more of it. And he's probably protecting himself.
This paints one heck of a hypocritical picture and it's about time some enterprising reporter called him on it.

A new Gilded Age has emerged in America — a 21st century version.
The wealth of the top 1% of Americans has grown dramatically in the past four decades, squeezing both the middle class and the poor. This is in sharp contrast to Europe and Asia, where the wealth of the 1% has grown at a more constrained pace.

No comments: