Tag: Bernie Sanders

free trade & free markets political economy

Unconscionable Greed!

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, price gouging, inflation

It’s easy to blame others for greed. And when prices rise, I suppose I can imagine being so upset that . . . well, if not my mind, Bernie Sanders’ mind . . . would become unhinged:

“Greed. Greed. Greed. While Americans are struggling at the pump,” the senator tweeted on Friday the 13th, “in the first three months of this year, oil and gas companies made over $41 billion in profits, more than double their profits from last year. The problem is not inflation. The problem is corporate greed.”

That’s Bernie Sanders for you. It’s not government profligacy or Federal Reserve monetary policy or the Biden Administration’s anti-fossil fuels agenda . . . or supply-line problems, persisting COVID-lockdown effects, or anything else.

Just greed.

But is greed somehow cyclical? Why were greedy corporations providing cheap gas a year ago and then able to raise it only under Democrats’ rule?

Alas, Bernie isn’t the only low-brow demagogue in the Senate. There’s Senator Elizabeth Warren pushing a new “price gouging” bill.

So, just as Bernie never answers “why is greed so successful at gouging now?,” how does Liz answer the burning question “how can we objectively define ‘price-gouging’?”

As journalist Catherine Rampell observes on Twitter, the senator’s definition in the bill is less than enlightening: “price-gouging” is “just pricing that is ‘unconscionably excessive.’”

Now that, Senator Warren, is unconscionably vague.

And incidentally, aren’t both senators on the record as demanding higher gas prices to usher in “green energy” to “save the planet”? This all seems unconscionably . . . deceptive.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo credits: Warren/Bernie/money

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, inflation, price controls, price gouging

ideological culture media and media people

News, Bias & Winning

To Tell The Truth, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, socialism,

In late February, ABC News suspended a veteran correspondent, David Wright, after Project Veritas released video in which the reporter acknowledged he was a socialist and criticized his network’s political coverage.

“Oh yeah,” Wright responded, when asked if he were a democratic socialist. “More than that I would consider myself a socialist.”

He also critiqued his network: “We don’t hold [Trump] to account. We also don’t give him credit for what things he does do.”

“David Wright has been suspended,” ABC said in a statement, “and to avoid any possible appearance of bias, he will be reassigned away from political coverage when he returns.”

But what if ABC’s removal of the reporter were more about hiding bias than combating it?

That story came to mind while considering Sen. Bernie Sanders’ suspension of his presidential campaign. I was amazed at how — just when it seemed the Vermont senator might have an actual shot at capturing the Democratic nomination — a whirlwind of harsh media coverage was unleashed. Simultaneously, other candidates rushed to end their campaigns in a coordinated coronation of former Vice-President Joe Biden.

“Many of Sanders’ allies believe he was inundated with unfair attacks after his Nevada win,” The Boston Globe reported, with “some Democrats and pundits warning he would lose to Trump because he’s too far to the left.”

Meanwhile: “The Biden campaign is expected,” noted The New York Times, “to highlight a series of policy positions that show how he has moved closer to Mr. Sanders on health care and other issues.”

For Democrats and uber-progressive major media outlets, was Bernie’s problem that he’s a socialist? Or his openness and honesty about it?

Seems winning trumps everything. Pun intended.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, socialism, To Tell The Truth

political challengers

Running Interference

foreign interference, Canada, Bernie Sanders, elections,

When rumor of “Russian interference” in the 2016 presidential election hit the news, my first thought was: electronic/computerized voting machines — they are known to be insecure, easy to rig.

But when it turned out that folks at CNN and MSNBC were hyperventilating about a very clumsy ad campaign on social media, designed to seed discord more than secure an election for any particular candidate, I rolled my eyes.

I also remembered that the Steele Dossier underpinning the whole bizarre “Russia hacked our elections!” investigation was itself an example of foreign state and private actors seeking to “hack our elections.”

Long story short: when we talk about “hacking elections,” we should worry about compromised vote-counting systems, not Facebook ads.

Maybe that’s why when I read “These Canadians can’t vote in U.S. elections, but they’re campaigning for Bernie Sanders” I didn’t panic, I chuckled.

And maybe raised an eyebrow.

My generally ho-hum reaction is the result of my trust in the American people. The voters are in charge, in the end. Sure, young Canadian communists and communitarians and the like cannot vote here, but they sure wish to influence the election.

Interference?

No. Even if they are unwise, and not citizens, let them express their values.

Hey: maybe one reason I am “soft” on “foreign interference in our elections” is that “interfering” in elections is just a nasty way of describing what I do when I petition in Oklahoma or Colorado to help enable citizens to decide an issue, or join a march against totalitarianism in Hong Kong.

The struggle for freedom is worldwide.

Dare to interfere.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, Canada, elections, foreign interference

ideological culture political challengers too much government

The C-Word Emerges

“We’re not going to throw out capitalism,” declared Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York City mayor now seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for president.

“Other countries tried that. It was called communism and it just didn’t work.”

Bloomberg was responding to a question by MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson at Wednesday night’s Las Vegas debate regarding his thoughts on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal to “require all large companies to turn over up to 20 percent of their ownership to employees over time.”

“Let’s talk about democratic socialism, Mr. Bloomberg,” countered Sanders. “Not communism — that’s a cheap shot!”

But is it?

The Vermont Senator has a long history of offering effusive praise for repressive socialist and communist regimes, including the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Nicaragua. After lauding the late Fidel Castro for providing healthcare and education and “totally transform[ing] the society” — while ignoring Castro’s complete disregard for human rights — Bernie judiciously added, “Not to say that Fidel Castro or Cuba are perfect, they are certainly not.”

Sanders has also called for “public ownership of the major means of production.” Unlike Karl Marx, I guess Bernie doesn’t sweat the small stuff.

“What a wonderful country we have. The best-known socialist in the country,” offered Bloomberg, referring to Sanders, “happens to be a millionaire with three houses!

“What did I miss?”

Asserting a need for a second residence, the Vermont senator replied, “Well, you missed that I work in Washington.”

“That’s the first problem,” Bloomberg interjected.

The first of many.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo by Gage Skidmore

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, Communism, socialism

national politics & policies political challengers

Reality TV 2020

It shocked some, surprised virtually all — save Scott Adams — when mega-branding braggart, businessman, and reality TV star Donald “You’re Fired!” Trump slapped his way to a trifecta, winning in decades-long bastions of blue — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin — en route to his “landslide” Electoral College win.

How could a candidate viewed negatively by 61 percent of voters mere days before the election possibly win?

Well, consider the alternative: Hillary Clinton’s negatives were 52 percent in that same poll. Moreover, two-thirds of voters harbored “doubts about her trustworthiness.”

Entering Trump Year IV, the president’s approval rating remains under water, and, following the House impeachment, he’s being tried in absentia in the Senate. Plus, the Democrats get to choose a low-negatives/high-positives candidate to run against him.

What could go wrong?

Everything.

Except for promising to give away free stuff to everyone, it’s all very unsettled. Even The New York Times, “in a break with convention,” if not reality, has endorsed two candidates: Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

Klobuchar? She’s stuck in seventh place in New Hampshire.

Four candidates vie for the lead two weeks before Iowa and three weeks before New Hampshire: former Vice-President Joe Biden, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senators Sanders and Warren. “Sleepy Joe” tops the latest Iowa poll while self-declared socialist Bernie leads in New Hampshire — and pushes ahead of Biden nationally.

And to meet Sanders’ surge?

Mrs. Clinton.

Being lovable.

As always.

Of the current Democratic front-runner, “Nobody likes him,” Hillary sniped, channeling her inner Mean Girl. “Nobody wants to work with him, he’s got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

Cluster-yuck 2020 is Reality TV at its best.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, cat, Hillary Clinton, reality TV

ideological culture

Revolutionaries for Bernie

Post author By Redactor
Post date January 16, 2020
2 Comments on Revolutionaries for Bernie

Jurek, Bernie Sanders, gulags, USSR, Soviet Union, socialism,

It seems like just last week we were arguing about how it is not OK to go around “punching Nazis.”

Now we have a Bernie Sanders campaign employee fuming about putting people he disagrees with into “re-education camps.”

“The only thing that fascists understand is violence,” said a Field Manager in the campaign’s Iowa office, as caught on all-too-candid camera by Project Veritas. “So, the only way you can confront them is with violence.”

It is one thing to get called a “fascist!” or “Nazi!” by a leftist for disagreeing with a leftist, it is another thing to be sucker-punched by a leftist for disagreeing with a leftist — and something far, far worse to be put into a concentration camp for expressing non-leftist-approved views.

His name is Kyle Jurek. Project Veritas has certainly not dubbed him a typical Bernie voter. His views are described as “extreme left-wing fringe,” and the utility of the clandestine recordings, taken over months, said to lie in the insight they provide “into the mentality of many Sanders staffers and what they truly believe.”

Jurek’s beliefs include extra-legal violence and Soviet Gulag revisionism, expressed with f-bombs and mf-barrages. “You want to fight against the revolution, you’re going to die for it, mother—” Jurek lashes out at “fellow” Democrats . . . and MSNBC . . . and Trump voters. He talks about setting Milwaukee afire. And not rhetorically.

We’ve long worried about the Vermont senator, who has defended horrific Soviet and Cuban rule throughout his long history of communist apologia.

I guess the real test is how Jurek’s comrades — er, fellow Sanders supporters — react to the revelations.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. As this commentary posts, the only official response has come from the Iowa state director for the Sanders campaign, Misty Rebik, who dismissed the video, saying, “The hundreds of thousands of Iowans we’ve talked to this caucus season don’t care about political gossip . . .” Jurek has not been dismissed. A search of the Washington Post and New York Times websites show neither paper has reported on the story.

The Babylon Bee made the obvious “democratic gulag” joke.

PDF for printing