wnd--2020-12-31--France had its Dreyfus, America its Flynn

Unsurprisingly , President Donald Trump 's pardon of Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn triggered the verbal wrath of House of Representatives ' senior Democratic leaders and a liberal media .
Concerning Flynn , Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , called the pardon a `` brazen abuse of power . ''
Rep. Jerrold Nadler , D-N.Y. , mind-melding with Pelosi , echoed the same sentiment .
Joining this chorus after Roger Stone and others were added was `` Morning Joe '' host Joe Scarborough whose vile contribution follows : '' The Trump administration … turned the sleaze factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sleaziest gang of just scum – just political scum .
And this is what the Republican Party now is , '' going on to criticize Republican silence concerning the pardons .
All three malcontents represent hypocrisy at its worst , viewed from a precedent they irresponsibly helped establish by never questioning it at the time it occurred .
Understanding it necessitates going back to January 2001 .
Waiting until his last day in office to minimize criticism , President Bill Clinton pardoned a rich Democrat Party donor named , appropriately , Marc Rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loaded with money gained by violating U.S. sanctions against Iraq , Rich was charged in 1983 with tax evasion and violating sanctions against buying and selling oil .
He fled the country , leaving his ex-wife to pitch a Clinton pardon for him .
Clinton granted it , later receiving a hefty donation for his presidential library from Rich – one that continued paying off even after Rich died .
What is appalling , however , is all three of the above critics – Pelosi , Nadler and Scarborough – were serving in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing , despite other Democrats doing so .
Clinton 's pardon ultimately triggered an FBI investigation , closed out in 2005 with no charges recommended .
This was unsurprising as the FBI investigator was James Comey .
But it is outrageous now for these three to act so indignant over Trump 's pardons after their silence over Rich 's .
Meanwhile , the three liberal whiners turn a blind eye to the prosecutorial misconduct the pardoned victims endured .
As for Flynn , the Deep State struggled to find evidence supporting a false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originated by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton 's Steele report muckraking effort – it hoped quickly to find someone within Trump 's inner circle to turn against him .
By virtue of its illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign continued after the 2016 election but before he took office , the FBI determined Flynn , as Trump 's national security adviser-designate , was talking to Russia 's ambassador to the U.S. concerning sanctions President Barack Obama imposed for Russian interference in the presidential election .
Hearing this , then-Vice President Joe Biden suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The 1799 Logan Act was implemented making it a federal crime for private citizens to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the U.S. and on its behalf without authorization to do so .
While the Act 's language arguably encompasses almost any communication involving U.S. citizens and a foreign government seeking to influence negotiations between that country and the U.S. , to date it has yielded no convictions and only one indictment .
This suggests the overly broad Act may be unconstitutional , but it still comes in handy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The FBI `` grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow '' and began questioning Flynn , eventually threatening both him and his son with prosecution .
To protect his son , despite doing nothing wrong , Flynn copped a guilty plea of lying to FBI agents .
Ironically , while Flynn had committed no crime , evidence later indicated the FBI had by altering information helpful to Flynn 's defense .
Biden 's suggestion Flynn be threatened with prosecution under the Logan Act is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussions with foreign leaders while still a private citizen in the same manner as Flynn .
But Democrats , silent about Clinton 's actions above , remained silent about Biden 's too .
Stone 's conviction on seven counts ( obstruction , witness tampering and lying to Congress ) became questionable after learning the jury foreperson had failed to disclose her anti-Trump social media rants and Democratic Party activism , thus denying Stone an unbiased jury .
French history informs us pardons become necessary to reverse prosecutorial misconduct .
For 12 years ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fate of Army Capt .
Alfred Dreyfus , convicted of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment , allegedly for conveying military secrets to the German embassy in Paris .
What convicted Dreyfus , however , was not a treasonous act – but a need for a sacrificial lamb .
Dreyfus , resented for his Jewish ancestry , fit the bill .
Despite discovering exculpatory evidence in 1896 indicating someone else was guilty , the French military suppressed it , later adding even more charges against Dreyfus .
The dogged efforts of civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reopen the case after Dreyfus endured five brutal years on Devil 's Island in French Guiana .
Re-convicted in a retrial , he was finally pardoned and later completely exonerated , going on to serve his country in World War I .
The Dreyfus affair today remains one of the most notable examples in French history of a complex miscarriage of justice – one in which the media played an influential role to set him free .
Similarly suffering a miscarriage of justice , both Flynn and Stone fought for their freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media .
Trump was well justified to grant them pardons .
The Flynn and Stone cases have become notable examples in America of the complex miscarriage of justice based on political ideology .
Like Dreyfus , Flynn and Stone were victimized by those placing a higher value on politics than virtue .
Stone is still determined to show , just like the underlying facts in the Russia collusion case were false , so too were those underlying his case .
In recently filing a $ 25 million lawsuit against the U.S. Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see his prosecutorial misconduct claim `` chiseled in stone , '' justifying a pardon due to a tainted justice system .
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email protected ] .

Unsurprisingly, President Donald Trump's pardon of Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn triggered the verbal wrath of House of Representatives' senior Democratic leaders and a liberal media.
Concerning Flynn, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the pardon a "brazen abuse of power." Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., mind-melding with Pelosi, echoed the same sentiment. Joining this chorus after Roger Stone and others were added was "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough whose vile contribution follows:
"The Trump administration … turned the sleaze factor up to 11 … pardoning like the sleaziest gang of just scum – just political scum. And this is what the Republican Party now is," going on to criticize Republican silence concerning the pardons.
All three malcontents represent hypocrisy at its worst, viewed from a precedent they irresponsibly helped establish by never questioning it at the time it occurred. Understanding it necessitates going back to January 2001.
Waiting until his last day in office to minimize criticism, President Bill Clinton pardoned a rich Democrat Party donor named, appropriately, Marc Rich. Devoid of socially redeeming value but loaded with money gained by violating U.S. sanctions against Iraq, Rich was charged in 1983 with tax evasion and violating sanctions against buying and selling oil. He fled the country, leaving his ex-wife to pitch a Clinton pardon for him. Clinton granted it, later receiving a hefty donation for his presidential library from Rich – one that continued paying off even after Rich died.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
What is appalling, however, is all three of the above critics – Pelosi, Nadler and Scarborough – were serving in Congress at the time, but said nothing, despite other Democrats doing so. Clinton's pardon ultimately triggered an FBI investigation, closed out in 2005 with no charges recommended. This was unsurprising as the FBI investigator was James Comey. But it is outrageous now for these three to act so indignant over Trump's pardons after their silence over Rich's.
Meanwhile, the three liberal whiners turn a blind eye to the prosecutorial misconduct the pardoned victims endured.
As for Flynn, the Deep State struggled to find evidence supporting a false charge of Trump/Russia collusion – a claim originated by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's Steele report muckraking effort – it hoped quickly to find someone within Trump's inner circle to turn against him. By virtue of its illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign continued after the 2016 election but before he took office, the FBI determined Flynn, as Trump's national security adviser-designate, was talking to Russia's ambassador to the U.S. concerning sanctions President Barack Obama imposed for Russian interference in the presidential election. Hearing this, then-Vice President Joe Biden suggested Flynn be prosecuted under the Logan Act.
The 1799 Logan Act was implemented making it a federal crime for private citizens to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the U.S. and on its behalf without authorization to do so. While the Act's language arguably encompasses almost any communication involving U.S. citizens and a foreign government seeking to influence negotiations between that country and the U.S., to date it has yielded no convictions and only one indictment. This suggests the overly broad Act may be unconstitutional, but it still comes in handy to threaten U.S. citizens with criminal prosecution.
The FBI "grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow" and began questioning Flynn, eventually threatening both him and his son with prosecution. To protect his son, despite doing nothing wrong, Flynn copped a guilty plea of lying to FBI agents. Ironically, while Flynn had committed no crime, evidence later indicated the FBI had by altering information helpful to Flynn's defense.
Biden's suggestion Flynn be threatened with prosecution under the Logan Act is intriguing. After all Biden had held discussions with foreign leaders while still a private citizen in the same manner as Flynn. But Democrats, silent about Clinton's actions above, remained silent about Biden's too.
Stone's conviction on seven counts (obstruction, witness tampering and lying to Congress) became questionable after learning the jury foreperson had failed to disclose her anti-Trump social media rants and Democratic Party activism, thus denying Stone an unbiased jury.
French history informs us pardons become necessary to reverse prosecutorial misconduct.
For 12 years (1894-1906), France was divided over the fate of Army Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, convicted of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment, allegedly for conveying military secrets to the German embassy in Paris. What convicted Dreyfus, however, was not a treasonous act – but a need for a sacrificial lamb. Dreyfus, resented for his Jewish ancestry, fit the bill. Despite discovering exculpatory evidence in 1896 indicating someone else was guilty, the French military suppressed it, later adding even more charges against Dreyfus. The dogged efforts of civil rights activists triggered media and public support to reopen the case after Dreyfus endured five brutal years on Devil's Island in French Guiana. Re-convicted in a retrial, he was finally pardoned and later completely exonerated, going on to serve his country in World War I.
The Dreyfus affair today remains one of the most notable examples in French history of a complex miscarriage of justice – one in which the media played an influential role to set him free. Similarly suffering a miscarriage of justice, both Flynn and Stone fought for their freedom, unaided by a liberal and disinterested media. Trump was well justified to grant them pardons.
The Flynn and Stone cases have become notable examples in America of the complex miscarriage of justice based on political ideology. Like Dreyfus, Flynn and Stone were victimized by those placing a higher value on politics than virtue.
Stone is still determined to show, just like the underlying facts in the Russia collusion case were false, so too were those underlying his case. In recently filing a $25 million lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, he has an opportunity to see his prosecutorial misconduct claim "chiseled in stone," justifying a pardon due to a tainted justice system.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-12-30--2020: A crisis of trust and a crisis of truth

If there is any one thing that strikes me looking back at this calamitous and difficult year it is that we are experiencing a deep crisis of trust .
Who can we believe ?
Who is telling the truth ?
On whom we can rely for accurate information ?
It is into this void that a flood of conspiracy theories has rushed .
And it is this crisis of trust that opens the door wide for all kinds of deception .
After all , if we completely write off certain sources of information and we immediately prejudge those who differ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable .
Is n't that what cult members do ?
On the one hand , the mainstream , left-leaning media have earned our scorn , not simply for presenting a biased view of the news but for actually censoring news for partisan political purposes .
This is not just bad reporting , this is misreporting .
And what about the anonymous stories with unprovable accusations , which then spread like a plague online ?
How can we trust what these news sources say ?
`` Fake news ! ''
we shout dismissively , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is fake .
Yet not everything the left-leaning media say is false , and not everything the right-leaning media say is true .
Far from it .
But rather than make an honest attempt to determine what the truth actually is , most of us find it easier to live in our own echo chamber , demonizing those who differ with us and applauding those who stand with us .
Where is the objectivity ?
Where is the `` searching out '' of a matter that is so prized in the book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Proverbs 25:2 ) ?
Where is the wisdom that is quick to hear , slow to anger , and slow to speak ( James 1:19 ) ?
I was interacting with a colleague recently regarding the question of election fraud , telling him that I saw a lot of evidence that pointed to widespread fraud , but I did not have the expertise to analyze it proficiently .
I also suggested he read some articles presenting the evidence against fraud , sending him one link I found very reasonable .
He replied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the article , and he 's a Never Trumper .
Why should I listen to him ? ''
With all respect to my colleague , that is a dangerous attitude to espouse .
When I ca n't even take the time to objectively evaluate the position of someone with whom I differ , I virtually guarantee that I will have serious blind spots in my life .
Do we not have the security to get out of our own bubble ?
Even when you present factual , video or audio evidence , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flags ! ''
`` Doctored videos ! ''
( Perhaps even , `` Shapeshifters ! ''
) Is n't this terribly dangerous ?
But it gets worse .
I recently wrote an article critiquing QAnon , beginning the article by referencing an exchange between President Trump and a reporter that took place on NBC during a town hall event .
The most-liked response to my article on Facebook , far and away , said this : `` I honestly stopped reading when I got to 'Interviewed at length by NBC ' … If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything that they spew , they have lost my respect .
Simple as that . ''
Seriously ?
These were words 7-9 in the first line of the article , the whole purpose of which was to reference what the president said about QAnon .
Yet because I referenced what he said on NBC ( which was the channel in which the interview took place , with the full consent of Trump ) , the reader stopped reading the article .
Worse still , he was applauded for doing so .
How do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
How can we avoid being deceived when we do n't even make an attempt to think rationally ?
This is closemindedness at its very worst .
It would be one thing if I made a controversial point and said , `` I 'm stating this on the authority of NBC . ''
It 's another thing when the mere reference to the letters NBC – again , while quoting President Trump – causes someone to shut the door on important and helpful information .
Others chimed in with comments like this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still believes the corporate media .
Not aware of the devil 's scheme .
Too academic minded . ''
I repeat : People who `` think '' like this leave themselves wide open to deception .
But 2020 has been the perfect storm for producing a crisis in trust , especially because of the pandemic .
Do we trust the medical profession , or are all the doctors sold out to Big Pharma ?
Is the WHO part of a dangerous one world order ?
Is the vaccine the mark of the antichrist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a saint ?
Who does China have in its pocket ?
The fact is , when it comes to COVID-19 , we have every reason to wonder who we can trust at this time , even if we believed everyone had the best intentions .
Does anyone really know what is best ?
As for the president , I have heard Christian leaders say that he is the only one they trust right now .
I have seen posts saying that `` all pastors '' have been bought out by `` the elites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump , for his part , has made clear that we can not trust the Supreme Court .
Or the DOJ .
Or the FBI .
Or Congress .
Or the media .
Or the voting system ( he 's been saying that for years , for the record ) .
Or those who used to work in his administration .
`` Believe me , '' he says repeatedly , and many of us do , hook , line and sinker .
He alone can be trusted .
This too is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crisis taking place right now in the charismatic church , where a substantial chorus of prophetic voices , in absolute one accord , has proclaimed that Trump will serve a second consecutive term .
They prophesied this for many months before the election , and now , most of them have reaffirmed their prophecies , `` Joe Biden will not serve in the White House .
President Trump will be inaugurated .
The tables will turn . ''
Can you imagine the fallout if this does not happen ?
Does it simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Or is this an indictment on the entire charismatic movement ( of which I am a part ) ?
Or is this an indictment on the very idea of God and the Bible ?
If we are to be lovers of truth , we must follow that truth wherever it takes us , regardless of cost or consequence .
And we must be open to correction , learning to listen , to investigate , to search out all sides of a matter , and to walk in humility toward those with whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I encourage you to welcome challenges to your own points of view .
To become a student of the truth , researching both sides of the debate .
And to lean hard on the Lord , asking Him to guide you into all truth .
As Ambrose once said , `` Before God can deliver us , we must undeceive ourselves . ''
To cite Proverbs again , `` Do not be wise in your own eyes ; fear the LORD and shun evil .
This will bring health to your body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Proverbs 3:7-8 ) .
May 2021 be the year when the sword of truth emerges to cut through the lies .
And may we have the courage to follow the truth , come what may .
It will deliver us from a pandemic even more deadly than COVID – the pandemic of deception .

If there is any one thing that strikes me looking back at this calamitous and difficult year it is that we are experiencing a deep crisis of trust. Who can we believe? Who is telling the truth? On whom we can rely for accurate information?
It is into this void that a flood of conspiracy theories has rushed. And it is this crisis of trust that opens the door wide for all kinds of deception.
After all, if we completely write off certain sources of information and we immediately prejudge those who differ with us, we make ourselves totally vulnerable. Isn't that what cult members do?
On the one hand, the mainstream, left-leaning media have earned our scorn, not simply for presenting a biased view of the news but for actually censoring news for partisan political purposes. This is not just bad reporting, this is misreporting.
And what about the anonymous stories with unprovable accusations, which then spread like a plague online? How can we trust what these news sources say?
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"Fake news!" we shout dismissively, and for good reason. Much of it is fake.
Yet not everything the left-leaning media say is false, and not everything the right-leaning media say is true. Far from it.
But rather than make an honest attempt to determine what the truth actually is, most of us find it easier to live in our own echo chamber, demonizing those who differ with us and applauding those who stand with us.
Where is the objectivity? Where is the "searching out" of a matter that is so prized in the book of Proverbs (see, for example, Proverbs 25:2)? Where is the wisdom that is quick to hear, slow to anger, and slow to speak (James 1:19)?
I was interacting with a colleague recently regarding the question of election fraud, telling him that I saw a lot of evidence that pointed to widespread fraud, but I did not have the expertise to analyze it proficiently.
I also suggested he read some articles presenting the evidence against fraud, sending him one link I found very reasonable.
He replied, "I researched the author of the article, and he's a Never Trumper. Why should I listen to him?"
With all respect to my colleague, that is a dangerous attitude to espouse.
When I can't even take the time to objectively evaluate the position of someone with whom I differ, I virtually guarantee that I will have serious blind spots in my life. Do we not have the security to get out of our own bubble?
Even when you present factual, video or audio evidence, that too can be dismissed. "False flags!" "Doctored videos!" (Perhaps even, "Shapeshifters!") Isn't this terribly dangerous?
But it gets worse.
I recently wrote an article critiquing QAnon, beginning the article by referencing an exchange between President Trump and a reporter that took place on NBC during a town hall event.
The most-liked response to my article on Facebook, far and away, said this: "I honestly stopped reading when I got to 'Interviewed at length by NBC' … If anyone follows any mainstream media and regurgitates anything that they spew, they have lost my respect. Simple as that."
Seriously? These were words 7-9 in the first line of the article, the whole purpose of which was to reference what the president said about QAnon. Yet because I referenced what he said on NBC (which was the channel in which the interview took place, with the full consent of Trump), the reader stopped reading the article. Worse still, he was applauded for doing so.
How do we even describe an attitude like this? How can we avoid being deceived when we don't even make an attempt to think rationally? This is closemindedness at its very worst.
It would be one thing if I made a controversial point and said, "I'm stating this on the authority of NBC." It's another thing when the mere reference to the letters NBC – again, while quoting President Trump – causes someone to shut the door on important and helpful information.
Others chimed in with comments like this: "Sad to say that Dr. Brown still believes the corporate media. Not aware of the devil's scheme. Too academic minded."
I repeat: People who "think" like this leave themselves wide open to deception.
But 2020 has been the perfect storm for producing a crisis in trust, especially because of the pandemic.
Do we trust the medical profession, or are all the doctors sold out to Big Pharma? Is the WHO part of a dangerous one world order? Is the vaccine the mark of the antichrist? Is Dr. Fauci a sinner or a saint? Who does China have in its pocket?
The fact is, when it comes to COVID-19, we have every reason to wonder who we can trust at this time, even if we believed everyone had the best intentions. Does anyone really know what is best?
As for the president, I have heard Christian leaders say that he is the only one they trust right now. I have seen posts saying that "all pastors" have been bought out by "the elites." And on and it goes.
Trump, for his part, has made clear that we cannot trust the Supreme Court. Or the DOJ. Or the FBI. Or Congress. Or the media. Or the voting system (he's been saying that for years, for the record). Or those who used to work in his administration. "Believe me," he says repeatedly, and many of us do, hook, line and sinker. He alone can be trusted. This too is very dangerous.
Added to all this is the crisis taking place right now in the charismatic church, where a substantial chorus of prophetic voices, in absolute one accord, has proclaimed that Trump will serve a second consecutive term. They prophesied this for many months before the election, and now, most of them have reaffirmed their prophecies, "Joe Biden will not serve in the White House. President Trump will be inaugurated. The tables will turn."
Can you imagine the fallout if this does not happen?
Does it simply mean these individuals cannot be trusted? Or is this an indictment on the entire charismatic movement (of which I am a part)? Or is this an indictment on the very idea of God and the Bible?
If we are to be lovers of truth, we must follow that truth wherever it takes us, regardless of cost or consequence. And we must be open to correction, learning to listen, to investigate, to search out all sides of a matter, and to walk in humility toward those with whom we differ.
In this new year, I encourage you to welcome challenges to your own points of view. To become a student of the truth, researching both sides of the debate. And to lean hard on the Lord, asking Him to guide you into all truth. As Ambrose once said, "Before God can deliver us, we must undeceive ourselves."
To cite Proverbs again, "Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil. This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones" (Proverbs 3:7-8).
May 2021 be the year when the sword of truth emerges to cut through the lies. And may we have the courage to follow the truth, come what may. It will deliver us from a pandemic even more deadly than COVID – the pandemic of deception.


Whistleblower or traitor?

Pennsylvania lawmakers find there were more votes than voters

* Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required.
Thank you for contacting us. Please check your email inbox to confirm your message and send it to our editorial team.


wnd--2020-12-31--New member of Congress will provide her own security

( JUST THE NEWS ) -- Colorado Republican Congresswoman-elect Lauren Boebert plans to carry a gun with her while she @ @ @ @ @ capital , citing Washington , D.C. 's violent crime danger .
A restaurant owner and @ @ @ @ @ Amendment , Boebert plans to protect herself by providing her own security .
Even in @ @ @ @ @ shutdowns in the city , homicides have risen roughly 20 % over 2019 , and @ @ @ @ @ 158 % higher than the national average , Boebert said in an interview on `` @ @ @ @ @ ''

(JUST THE NEWS) -- Colorado Republican Congresswoman-elect Lauren Boebert plans to carry a gun with her while she works in the nation's capital, citing Washington, D.C.'s violent crime danger.
A restaurant owner and staunch defender of the Second Amendment, Boebert plans to protect herself by providing her own security.
Even in a year with widespread pandemic-related shutdowns in the city, homicides have risen roughly 20% over 2019, and the violent crime rate is 158% higher than the national average, Boebert said in an interview on "Just the News AM."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-01-01--20 years: A syndication anniversary reflection

The close of 2019 marks two full decades since I entered national newspaper syndication .
You are reading the 1,571st column I 've filed with Creators Syndicate .
The years have flown and so have the words : More than 1 million of them carefully marshaled each week for the past 1,043 weeks to enlighten , entertain and enrage .
Thank you , Creators Syndicate founder Rick Newcombe , for your steadfast support and friendship .
Thank you to the hundreds of newspaper op-ed and website editors who publish my work .
Thank you to the thousands of readers over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warm encouragement , sharp criticism , typo corrections , whistleblower tips , crochet patterns , favorite poems and prayers .
I am especially heartened by positive feedback from high school students assigned by their English teachers to expose themselves to views different from their own .
Though the past few months have been filled with slanderous accusations that I am a purveyor of `` hate , '' longtime readers of this column know that these weekly pieces are undergirded by love of language , love of family , love of freedom and love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed from across the heartland and around the world , from our southern border to the Pacific Northwest , from Washington , D.C. , to Iraq .
I root for underdogs , watchdogs and sheepdogs .
I oppose elites , control freaks , race hustlers , con artists , ingrates , liars , reality deniers , bullies and incompetents .
No topic is off-limits .
I 've shared dissenting views on the Japanese internment , rethought my former support for the death penalty and challenged the Big Pharma/Big Government orthodoxy on vaccines since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us out of her practice for requesting that a Hep B jab simply be delayed .
While every major American media outlet cowered as Muslims worldwide rioted against free speech in 2006 , my columns vigorously defending the Danish newspaper cartoonists who dared to draw Muhammad earned death threats , distributed denial of service attacks on my website and Shariah warnings that continue to this day .
I 've exposed the cronyism and corruption of the Bushes , McCains , Clintons , Obamas and Bidens .
I 've offended Muslims , Catholics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting .
I 've been an equal-opportunity hate crime hoax debunker and crapweasel hunter .
Politics and policy have been a central focus , of course , but I 've also shared the joys and pains of my personal life : the birth of my children , the still-unsolved disappearance of my cousin from the University of Washington campus in 2011 , my late mother-in-law 's experience with medical marijuana to relieve stage 4 melanoma-related pain in 2014 , my daughter 's struggles with chronic illness and pain in 2015 , and my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So many of the stories of suffering , perseverance , patriotism , faith and sacrifice I 've shared with you remain inscribed on the hard drive of my soul , including Guadalcanal war hero and U.S. Coast Guard Signalman Douglas A. Munro and his dedicated friend Mike Cooley ; the children who died on 9/11 ; Rick Rescorla ; Jahi McMath ; Haleigh Poutre ; Justina Pelletier and Marty and Dana Gottesfeld ; Daniel Holtzclaw ; Valentino Dixon ; Jeff Deskovic ; and Brian Franklin .
Along the way , I 've enjoyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backgrounds and political stripes .
In 2002 , I wrote a tribute column to my friend and veteran crime journalist Jack Olsen , who died unexpectedly of a heart attack .
We had carried on phone and email conversations for years since my days as a columnist at the Seattle Times .
I recounted him jokingly calling himself my `` one lefty friend . ''
We traded notes berating and cajoling each other .
`` O for Chrisakes , Michelle , lighten up , '' Jack wrote in response to a column I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public schools .
`` You are incorrigible , '' he ribbed when I told him that was my idea of lightening up .
From the very start of my journalism career , I 've fought the scourge of identity politics and fetishizing of false `` diversity . ''
One of my very first syndicated columns in 1999 called out a `` journalists of color '' conference in Seattle for `` treating minority journalists as trinkets to be tallied . ''
A `` newsroom that looks like America is worthless if it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its readers , '' I wrote at the time .
`` Journalism does n't need more like-minded foot soldiers who march in political unity .
It needs straight shooters who think fearlessly for themselves . ''
With free speech and free thought under intense fire from all quarters , those words mean more to me now than they did when I wrote them 20 years ago .
My New Year 's resolution is to forge ahead and put the roar in the `` Roaring Twenties . ''
There is so much truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more stories yet to tell , and miles to go before I sleep .

I live to write. I write to live.
The close of 2019 marks two full decades since I entered national newspaper syndication. You are reading the 1,571st column I've filed with Creators Syndicate. The years have flown and so have the words: More than 1 million of them carefully marshaled each week for the past 1,043 weeks to enlighten, entertain and enrage.
Thank you, Creators Syndicate founder Rick Newcombe, for your steadfast support and friendship.
Thank you to the hundreds of newspaper op-ed and website editors who publish my work.
Thank you to the thousands of readers over the past 20 years who've provided warm encouragement, sharp criticism, typo corrections, whistleblower tips, crochet patterns, favorite poems and prayers. I am especially heartened by positive feedback from high school students assigned by their English teachers to expose themselves to views different from their own.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Though the past few months have been filled with slanderous accusations that I am a purveyor of "hate," longtime readers of this column know that these weekly pieces are undergirded by love of language, love of family, love of freedom and love of country.
My columns have been filed from across the heartland and around the world, from our southern border to the Pacific Northwest, from Washington, D.C., to Iraq. I root for underdogs, watchdogs and sheepdogs. I oppose elites, control freaks, race hustlers, con artists, ingrates, liars, reality deniers, bullies and incompetents.
No topic is off-limits. I've shared dissenting views on the Japanese internment, rethought my former support for the death penalty and challenged the Big Pharma/Big Government orthodoxy on vaccines since 2004, when our family pediatrician kicked us out of her practice for requesting that a Hep B jab simply be delayed. While every major American media outlet cowered as Muslims worldwide rioted against free speech in 2006, my columns vigorously defending the Danish newspaper cartoonists who dared to draw Muhammad earned death threats, distributed denial of service attacks on my website and Shariah warnings that continue to this day.
I've exposed the cronyism and corruption of the Bushes, McCains, Clintons, Obamas and Bidens. I've offended Muslims, Catholics, Lutherans and Jews with my opinions and reporting. I've been an equal-opportunity hate crime hoax debunker and crapweasel hunter.
Politics and policy have been a central focus, of course, but I've also shared the joys and pains of my personal life: the birth of my children, the still-unsolved disappearance of my cousin from the University of Washington campus in 2011, my late mother-in-law's experience with medical marijuana to relieve stage 4 melanoma-related pain in 2014, my daughter's struggles with chronic illness and pain in 2015, and my 25th wedding anniversary celebration last year.
So many of the stories of suffering, perseverance, patriotism, faith and sacrifice I've shared with you remain inscribed on the hard drive of my soul, including Guadalcanal war hero and U.S. Coast Guard Signalman Douglas A. Munro and his dedicated friend Mike Cooley; the children who died on 9/11; Rick Rescorla; Jahi McMath; Haleigh Poutre; Justina Pelletier and Marty and Dana Gottesfeld; Daniel Holtzclaw; Valentino Dixon; Jeff Deskovic; and Brian Franklin.
Along the way, I've enjoyed connecting with remarkable human beings of all backgrounds and political stripes. In 2002, I wrote a tribute column to my friend and veteran crime journalist Jack Olsen, who died unexpectedly of a heart attack. We had carried on phone and email conversations for years since my days as a columnist at the Seattle Times. I recounted him jokingly calling himself my "one lefty friend." We traded notes berating and cajoling each other.
"O for Chrisakes, Michelle, lighten up," Jack wrote in response to a column I did on touchy-feely conflict resolution seminars in the public schools.
"You are incorrigible," he ribbed when I told him that was my idea of lightening up.
From the very start of my journalism career, I've fought the scourge of identity politics and fetishizing of false "diversity." One of my very first syndicated columns in 1999 called out a "journalists of color" conference in Seattle for "treating minority journalists as trinkets to be tallied."
A "newsroom that looks like America is worthless if it doesn't reflect the diverse and discordant beliefs of its readers," I wrote at the time. "Journalism doesn't need more like-minded foot soldiers who march in political unity. It needs straight shooters who think fearlessly for themselves."
With free speech and free thought under intense fire from all quarters, those words mean more to me now than they did when I wrote them 20 years ago. My New Year's resolution is to forge ahead and put the roar in the "Roaring Twenties." There is so much truth yet to be exposed, so many more stories yet to tell, and miles to go before I sleep.


wnd--2020-01-31--Is revealing identity of impeachment 'whistleblower' illegal?

During House impeachment hearings last fall , House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff repeatedly cut off questioning by Republican lawmakers to protect the identity of the whistleblower who filed the complaint that led to the impeachment of President Trump .
Schiff , who now is the lead House manager in the Senate trial , insisted the whistleblower has `` a statutory right to anonymity , '' citing the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 .
But that law requires only that the inspector general not disclose the whistleblower 's name .
It does not stop a member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from identifying a whistleblower .
Some point to President Obama 's directive in 2012 requiring the intelligence community agencies to protect whistleblowers from retaliation .
But the guidelines protect whistleblowers from work-related retaliation , including `` an appointment , promotion , or performance evaluation , or any other significant change in duties , responsibilities or working conditions . ''
TRENDING : 'Dog the Bounty Hunter ' proposes to son 's reported ex-girlfriend 7 months after wife Beth 's death Revealing the whistleblower 's name does not fall under one of these categories .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under Obama , has argued that outing the whistleblower could be considered retaliatory if the person revealing the name is also a member of the intelligence community .
He says `` revealing the name could lead to the claim that you 've created a hostile work environment and that 's a form of retaliation . ''
Investigative reporter Paul Sperry has reported it 's an open secret in Washington that the whistleblower is CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella .
Lawyers for the whistleblower have not made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ciaramella .
At a Trump rally in November , Sen. Rand Paul urged establishment media to name the whistleblower and later threatened to do so himself .
Paul later explained on CNN that `` the whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general '' but that `` no one else is under any legal obligation . ''
The president 's eldest son , Donald Trump Jr. , said on ABC 's `` The View '' that `` it 's only a federal crime for the IG '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Senate impeachment trial on Thursday , Schiff chastised Republicans asking questions about the whistleblower , saying `` members of this body used to care about the protection of whistleblower identities . ''
`` When you jeopardize a whistleblower by trying to out them this way , then you are threatening not just this whistleblower but the entire system , '' he said .
`` And the president would like nothing better than that , '' Schiff continued .
`` I 'm sure the president is applauding this question .
Because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wants to punish anyone who has the courage to stand up to him . ''
Schiff , insisting once again that he does n't know the whistleblower 's identity , said that if `` it were n't for this whistleblower , we would n't know about this misconduct '' of the president .
Chief Justice John Roberts has blocked questions he deems are related to the identity of the whistleblower .
His blocking of a question by Sen. Paul on Wednesday prompted Paul on to post his question on Twitter the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not necessarily about a `` whistleblower , '' explaining he has no independent information on his identity .
`` My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun , '' he wrote on Twitter .
Paul 's exact question was : `` Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together , and are you aware and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings ? ''
Roll Call reporter Niels Lesniewski said Paul was fuming during a break in the trial Wednesday .
`` I do n't want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition , '' Paul shouted , according to Lesniewski .
`` If I have to fight for recognition , I will . ''
Schiff initially said the whistleblower would testify in the Senate trial .
But the House Intelligence Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught falsely stating his office had no interaction with the whistleblower before the complaint was filed .
And since Sperry reported the whistleblower is Ciaramella , the CIA analyst 's political bias and connections have been scrutinized .
Sperry reported last week that just two weeks after Trump took office , Ciaramella was overheard in the White House discussing with Misko how to remove Trump , according to former colleagues .
Ciaramella and Misko -- who later joined Schiff 's staff -- were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both , Sperry reported , expressed anger over Trump 's new `` America First '' foreign policy , a dramatic change from President Obama 's approach to international affairs .
Meanwhile , whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid wrote on Twitter in 2017 that a `` coup '' had begun against the president .
At that time he also called for intelligence community members to help impeach and `` get rid '' of Trump .
Zaid also acknowledged the whistleblower had contact with a prominent Democratic presidential contender , which has been reported to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment against Trump center on the claim that Trump withheld aid to pressure Ukraine to help dig up dirt on Biden , a political rival .
The White House argues the aid was delivered and there was a legitimate public interest in Ukraine assisting with an investigation of the conflict of interest in Hunter Biden -- with no relevant experience -- receiving $ 1 million a year from a Ukrainian firm under investigation for corruption while his father was Obama 's point man for Ukraine policy .

During House impeachment hearings last fall, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff repeatedly cut off questioning by Republican lawmakers to protect the identity of the whistleblower who filed the complaint that led to the impeachment of President Trump.
Schiff, who now is the lead House manager in the Senate trial, insisted the whistleblower has "a statutory right to anonymity," citing the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
But that law requires only that the inspector general not disclose the whistleblower's name. It does not stop a member of Congress, the president or anyone else from identifying a whistleblower.
Some point to President Obama's directive in 2012 requiring the intelligence community agencies to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. But the guidelines protect whistleblowers from work-related retaliation, including "an appointment, promotion, or performance evaluation, or any other significant change in duties, responsibilities or working conditions."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Revealing the whistleblower's name does not fall under one of these categories.
Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under Obama, has argued that outing the whistleblower could be considered retaliatory if the person revealing the name is also a member of the intelligence community. He says "revealing the name could lead to the claim that you've created a hostile work environment and that's a form of retaliation."
Investigative reporter Paul Sperry has reported it's an open secret in Washington that the whistleblower is CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. Lawyers for the whistleblower have not made an outright denial that their client is Ciaramella.
No legal obligation
At a Trump rally in November, Sen. Rand Paul urged establishment media to name the whistleblower and later threatened to do so himself. Paul later explained on CNN that "the whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general" but that "no one else is under any legal obligation."
The president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., said on ABC's "The View" that "it's only a federal crime for the IG" to out the whistleblower.
Nevertheless, at the Senate impeachment trial on Thursday, Schiff chastised Republicans asking questions about the whistleblower, saying "members of this body used to care about the protection of whistleblower identities."
"When you jeopardize a whistleblower by trying to out them this way, then you are threatening not just this whistleblower but the entire system," he said.
"And the president would like nothing better than that," Schiff continued. "I'm sure the president is applauding this question. Because he wants his pound of flesh, and he wants to punish anyone who has the courage to stand up to him."
Schiff, insisting once again that he doesn't know the whistleblower's identity, said that if "it weren't for this whistleblower, we wouldn't know about this misconduct" of the president.
Rand Paul's question
Chief Justice John Roberts has blocked questions he deems are related to the identity of the whistleblower.
His blocking of a question by Sen. Paul on Wednesday prompted Paul on to post his question on Twitter the next day. Paul said his question was not necessarily about a "whistleblower," explaining he has no independent information on his identity.
"My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun," he wrote on Twitter.
Paul's exact question was: "Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings?"
Roll Call reporter Niels Lesniewski said Paul was fuming during a break in the trial Wednesday.
"I don't want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition," Paul shouted, according to Lesniewski. "If I have to fight for recognition, I will."
Ciaramella, Misko angered by 'America First'
Schiff initially said the whistleblower would testify in the Senate trial. But the House Intelligence Committee chairman changed his mind after he was caught falsely stating his office had no interaction with the whistleblower before the complaint was filed. And since Sperry reported the whistleblower is Ciaramella, the CIA analyst's political bias and connections have been scrutinized.
Sperry reported last week that just two weeks after Trump took office, Ciaramella was overheard in the White House discussing with Misko how to remove Trump, according to former colleagues.
Ciaramella and Misko -- who later joined Schiff's staff -- were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. Both, Sperry reported, expressed anger over Trump's new "America First" foreign policy, a dramatic change from President Obama's approach to international affairs.
Meanwhile, whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid wrote on Twitter in 2017 that a "coup" had begun against the president. At that time he also called for intelligence community members to help impeach and "get rid" of Trump.
Zaid also acknowledged the whistleblower had contact with a prominent Democratic presidential contender, which has been reported to be Joe Biden.
The Democrats' articles of impeachment against Trump center on the claim that Trump withheld aid to pressure Ukraine to help dig up dirt on Biden, a political rival.
The White House argues the aid was delivered and there was a legitimate public interest in Ukraine assisting with an investigation of the conflict of interest in Hunter Biden -- with no relevant experience -- receiving $1 million a year from a Ukrainian firm under investigation for corruption while his father was Obama's point man for Ukraine policy.


wnd--2020-01-31--D'oh! Looks like democracy dies in diversity

`` Dissatisfaction with democracy within developed countries is at its highest level in almost 25 years , '' say researchers at the University of Cambridge .
`` The U.K. and the United States had particularly high levels of discontent . ''
No wonder .
Certainly , America is a severely divided country .
`` Severely divided societies are short on community , '' and `` community is a prerequisite for majority rule , '' argues Donald L. Horowitz , a scholar of democracy , at Duke University .
Having studied `` constitutional engineering '' in divided societies like South Africa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In societies severely divided by ethnicity , race , religion , language , or any other form of ascriptive affiliation , ethnic divisions make democracy difficult , because they tend to produce ethnic parties and ethnic voting .
An ethnic party with a majority of votes and seats can dominate minority groups , seemingly in perpetuity . ''
( Journal of Democracy , April 2014 . )
The Democratic Party has morphed into such a political organ .
It 's responding to the fact that minorities in the U.S. will soon form a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling trends indicate , will speak in one political voice , for most immigrants to the United States are not from Europe and Canada , but from Latin America and Asia , south and east .
And this cohort of immigrants is reliably progressive : It votes Democratic .
Likewise , the poor and the unskilled are well-represented among our country 's immigrant intake .
It 's the way we roll .
Poor immigrants favor the rearranging of the income curve in their new home .
TRENDING : 'Dog the Bounty Hunter ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months after wife Beth 's death The policy establishment preaches well-meaning pieties .
All these energetically imported , fractious minorities , claims our ruling Idiocracy , will relinquish race and tribe as unifying principles and adopt our U.S. constitutional design and `` our values . ''
Democrats know better .
Oh , the founding population , they expect , will naively hitch its existential survival to a political dispensation called liberal democracy .
The duped , historic majority of the U.S. will willingly cede political and institutional dominance in return for the constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by democracy .
This , Democrats know only too well .
Moreover , being pushover-passive on matters domestic , Caucasian America is generally pro-immigration , the more exotic and culturally incongruent , the better .
It makes for a warm and fuzzy feeling about The Self .
But while Americans do n't see race ; the people they 're importing see nothing but race .
Take Indian Americans .
They 're a relatively new addition to the United States ' top-down , state-planned , multicultural mess of pottage .
Most Indian Americans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two decades . ''
But they are highly aggressive politically and reliably Democrat .
By the Economist 's telling , `` Capitol Hill , for example , is crammed with staff and interns of Indian American heritage .
They also appear to be 'over-represented ' in academia , the media and other influential posts . ''
And , it is their indisputable habit to deploy and grow `` informal networks , as well-connected Indian Americans find jobs for each other 's offspring . ''
Cast and ethnicity : It 's what the scrupulously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ever so genteelly .
As many in the corporate world know all too well – once an individual of South-Asian descent gets into a position of power , he is inclined to hire others of the same persuasion , talent be damned .
Meek Anglo-Americans , on the other hand , hire by talent , not by tribe .
Honky just does n't have that screw-or-be-screwed DNA to do battle with the Other 's flinty duplicity .
This mercenary , extractive approach to politics prevails among the immigrants being imported at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asians , aforementioned , are especially primed to seek , and aggressively extract , advantage from positions of power .
Take Sen. Kamala Harris .
Although she `` rarely mentioned the Indian side of her family while campaigning , '' the erstwhile presidential candidate 's mother migrated to California from Chennai , in southern India .
Angry , anti-white and highly receptive to theories that blacken the West and porcelainize the undeveloped world – Kamala and her kind can not be trusted to relinquish race as an organizing principle , in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the America she and her progeny hope to inherit .
What about that seething Somali , Ilhan Omar , the representative from Minnesota ?
Who will be the loser in her brave , new , tribal America ?
In the context of democracy and its discontents , Anglo-American elites and policymakers have courted and engineered their own demise .
No other group expresses such incontinent exhilaration at the prospects of turning their historic populations into minorities .
`` The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Immigrants and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 89.4 million people , or 28 percent of the overall U.S. population , '' says the American Community Survey ( ACS ) .
According to the Migration Policy Institute , `` One in seven U.S. residents is foreign born . ''
As stated , the foreign-born are , for the most , from alien , often-hostile cultures .
`` A century ago , more than 80 percent of [ America 's ] foreign-born population came from Europe ; now the figure is only 10 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' bewailed the Economist in one issue , inexplicably .
`` Inexplicably , '' because this ( superb ) news magazine usually glorifies the ethnic transformation of European societies through exotic immigration .
Confusion born of contradictions peaks in the next issue , where Robert Guest , of the same open-borders Economist , lectures and laments that , `` The simplest way to make the world richer is to allow more people to move .
Yet the politics of migration has never been more toxic . ''
D'oh !
While extolling endless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same , Nov. 16-22 issue of the magazine depicts a world beset by unrest : '' It is hard to keep up with the protest movements under way around the world .
… only the global unrest of the late 1960s was similar in scope . ''
After much dissembling , it is eventually conceded that the global unrest is engulfing `` well-functioning democracies '' big time , too .
In fact , `` a related phenomenon [ in the unrest equation ] is the weakening of the bargain at the heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may represent a majority of the popular vote , will accept rule by the winners until the next election .
The millions on the streets do not accept the patience that trade-off demands . ''
[ Emphasis added . ]
`` A weakening of the bargain at the heart of Western-style democracy '' ?
I wonder why ?
Because flooding Western democracies with non-Western people has created societies without social capital , societies that share no enduring bonds other than the quest to extract as much power and possessions possible from the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entities .
Their central authorities have worked to erode delicate sectarian and ethnic balance within , and thus hope for lasting comity among disparate communities .
By using their police powers to swamp their already fructuous populations with alien nations – where are the referenda on mass immigration ?
– governments have undermined ethnic balance in Western democracies and , with it , the fellow feeling so essential to democracy 's endurance .
Consider : Before Comrade Ted Kennedy 's coup of 1965 , America was , by and large , a biracial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` From 1620 to 1970 , the U.S. was demographically stable .
… The country was about 85 percent to 90 percent white , almost entirely British , German , French and Dutch , and 10 percent to 15 percent African American . ''
In other words , America was largely a biracial compact ; never a multicultural `` nation of immigrants . ''
Blacks and whites were only just beginning to come to terms with each other and with a shared , painful past .
Arguably , by opening the floodgates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government of the day forever upset the teetering biracial balance within America .

"Dissatisfaction with democracy within developed countries is at its highest level in almost 25 years," say researchers at the University of Cambridge. "The U.K. and the United States had particularly high levels of discontent."
No wonder. Certainly, America is a severely divided country. "Severely divided societies are short on community," and "community is a prerequisite for majority rule," argues Donald L. Horowitz, a scholar of democracy, at Duke University.
Having studied "constitutional engineering" in divided societies like South Africa, Horowitz has concluded that, "In societies severely divided by ethnicity, race, religion, language, or any other form of ascriptive affiliation, ethnic divisions make democracy difficult, because they tend to produce ethnic parties and ethnic voting. An ethnic party with a majority of votes and seats can dominate minority groups, seemingly in perpetuity." (Journal of Democracy, April 2014.)
The Democratic Party has morphed into such a political organ. It's responding to the fact that minorities in the U.S. will soon form a majority. This rising majority, as polling trends indicate, will speak in one political voice, for most immigrants to the United States are not from Europe and Canada, but from Latin America and Asia, south and east. And this cohort of immigrants is reliably progressive: It votes Democratic.
Likewise, the poor and the unskilled are well-represented among our country's immigrant intake. It's the way we roll. Poor immigrants favor the rearranging of the income curve in their new home.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The policy establishment preaches well-meaning pieties. All these energetically imported, fractious minorities, claims our ruling Idiocracy, will relinquish race and tribe as unifying principles and adopt our U.S. constitutional design and "our values."
Democrats know better. Oh, the founding population, they expect, will naively hitch its existential survival to a political dispensation called liberal democracy.
The duped, historic majority of the U.S. will willingly cede political and institutional dominance in return for the constitutional safeguards – for the abstractions – offered by democracy. This, Democrats know only too well.
Moreover, being pushover-passive on matters domestic, Caucasian America is generally pro-immigration, the more exotic and culturally incongruent, the better. It makes for a warm and fuzzy feeling about The Self. But while Americans don't see race; the people they're importing see nothing but race.
Take Indian Americans. They're a relatively new addition to the United States' top-down, state-planned, multicultural mess of pottage. Most Indian Americans have "arrived in America over the past two decades." But they are highly aggressive politically and reliably Democrat.
By the Economist's telling, "Capitol Hill, for example, is crammed with staff and interns of Indian American heritage. They also appear to be 'over-represented' in academia, the media and other influential posts." And, it is their indisputable habit to deploy and grow "informal networks, as well-connected Indian Americans find jobs for each other's offspring."
Cast and ethnicity: It's what the scrupulously candid British magazine is here hinting at, ever so genteelly. As many in the corporate world know all too well – once an individual of South-Asian descent gets into a position of power, he is inclined to hire others of the same persuasion, talent be damned. Meek Anglo-Americans, on the other hand, hire by talent, not by tribe. Honky just doesn't have that screw-or-be-screwed DNA to do battle with the Other's flinty duplicity.
This mercenary, extractive approach to politics prevails among the immigrants being imported at a furious rate by the immigration-industrial complex. Asians, aforementioned, are especially primed to seek, and aggressively extract, advantage from positions of power.
Take Sen. Kamala Harris. Although she "rarely mentioned the Indian side of her family while campaigning," the erstwhile presidential candidate's mother migrated to California from Chennai, in southern India. Angry, anti-white and highly receptive to theories that blacken the West and porcelainize the undeveloped world – Kamala and her kind cannot be trusted to relinquish race as an organizing principle, in favor of a complete commitment to a constitutional design, in the America she and her progeny hope to inherit.
What about that seething Somali, Ilhan Omar, the representative from Minnesota? Who will be the loser in her brave, new, tribal America?
In the context of democracy and its discontents, Anglo-American elites and policymakers have courted and engineered their own demise. No other group expresses such incontinent exhilaration at the prospects of turning their historic populations into minorities.
"The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world," states Pew Research. "Immigrants and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 89.4 million people, or 28 percent of the overall U.S. population," says the American Community Survey (ACS). According to the Migration Policy Institute, "One in seven U.S. residents is foreign born."
As stated, the foreign-born are, for the most, from alien, often-hostile cultures.
"A century ago, more than 80 percent of [America's] foreign-born population came from Europe; now the figure is only 10 percent. … America is becoming less European," bewailed the Economist in one issue, inexplicably.
"Inexplicably," because this (superb) news magazine usually glorifies the ethnic transformation of European societies through exotic immigration.
Confusion born of contradiction peaks in the next issue, where Robert Guest, of the same open-borders Economist, lectures and laments that, "The simplest way to make the world richer is to allow more people to move. Yet the politics of migration has never been more toxic."
D'oh! While extolling endless migration to the West, the very same, Nov. 16-22 issue of the magazine depicts a world beset by unrest:
"It is hard to keep up with the protest movements under way around the world. … only the global unrest of the late 1960s was similar in scope."
After much dissembling, it is eventually conceded that the global unrest is engulfing "well-functioning democracies" big time, too.
In fact, "a related phenomenon [in the unrest equation] is the weakening of the bargain at the heart of Western-style democracy – that losers, who may represent a majority of the popular vote, will accept rule by the winners until the next election. The millions on the streets do not accept the patience that trade-off demands." [Emphasis added.]
"A weakening of the bargain at the heart of Western-style democracy"? I wonder why?
Because flooding Western democracies with non-Western people has created societies without social capital, societies that share no enduring bonds other than the quest to extract as much power and possessions possible from the political process.
Western nation-states are now imperiled entities. Their central authorities have worked to erode delicate sectarian and ethnic balance within, and thus hope for lasting comity among disparate communities.
By using their police powers to swamp their already fructuous populations with alien nations – where are the referenda on mass immigration? – governments have undermined ethnic balance in Western democracies and, with it, the fellow feeling so essential to democracy's endurance.
Consider: Before Comrade Ted Kennedy's coup of 1965, America was, by and large, a biracial nation. To quote author Ann Coulter, "From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically stable. … The country was about 85 percent to 90 percent white, almost entirely British, German, French and Dutch, and 10 percent to 15 percent African American." In other words, America was largely a biracial compact; never a multicultural "nation of immigrants."
Blacks and whites were only just beginning to come to terms with each other and with a shared, painful past.
Arguably, by opening the floodgates to mass, Third World immigrants, the government of the day forever upset the teetering biracial balance within America.


wnd--2020-01-31--Trump's peace plan: Palestinians' last chance for a future

`` This is not a peace plan , '' said Rep. Ilhan Omar , D-Minn. , in rejecting President Donald Trump 's proposal to create a Palestinian state and give that state $ 50 billion over 10 years to secure its economic viability .
Mr. Trump 's plan `` is theft .
It is erasure , '' said Ms. Omar – the most virulent of a crop of young anti-Semitic lawmakers in the Democratic Party .
`` This is an annexation plan , not a plan for peace . ''
The official Palestinian Authority newspaper , Al-Hayat Al-Jadida ( `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for jihad against President Trump 's plan , which Palestinian officials refused to help shape over the past three years .
Al-Hayat called on the Palestine Liberation Organization ( PLO ) to `` take all the necessary steps to encourage and escalate the resistance and the struggle against the [ Israeli ] occupation .
… Islamic states should counter [ Trump 's ] plan .
Muslims worldwide '' should work to thwart it .
`` Jerusalem belongs to Islam , '' said the Al-Hayat editorial , using this slogan that appeared simultaneously on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinians should escalate their `` jihad . ''
TRENDING : 'Dog the Bounty Hunter ' proposes to son 's reported ex-girlfriend 7 months after wife Beth 's death American presidents have been trying to make peace in this region for seven decades of Israel 's existence , and Palestinians all that time have opposed Israel 's right to exist .
In 2000 , for example , President Bill Clinton brought Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and leftist Labor Party Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak together to hammer out a peace agreement at Camp David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard that Israel 's leader offered 95 percent of everything the terrorist Arafat demanded .
What happened then ?
Arafat turned the peace agreement down flat .
Arafat refused to take `` yes '' for an answer , even to a peace plan that would have given Palestinians a de facto state covering 90 % of the West Bank , 100 % of the Gaza Strip with beaches on the Mediterranean , and three out of four Old City quarters of Jerusalem .
`` The Arab leader who would surrender Jerusalem is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton .
What Arafat , reputed to be a master at assassinating opponents , likely meant was that no Palestinian leader could make peace with Israel and survive the wrath of fellow radical Islamists .
[ My wife and I were in Cairo days before Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat was assassinated for reaching a peace agreement with Israel . ]
Arafat also knew that peacemaking was unprofitable for hate-promoting demagogues .
Constant hostility toward Israel impoverished ordinary Palestinians , but investigators found that Arafat had raked off at least $ 1.3 billion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Arafat died , his widow Suha – in 1990 a Christian then like 25 percent of Palestinians , but who converted to Islam to marry him – reportedly lived in Paris with bank accounts as high as $ 10 billion .
Arafat had his own selfish reasons not to make peace with the Jewish State .
Today , the Gaza Strip is a gangland dictatorship run by Hamas terrorists who frequently fire Iran-funded rockets into Israel .
West Bank Palestinian leaders provide European Union aid-funded pensions for families whose sons and brothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anti-Semitism is growing again in Europe and probably caused the defeat of the British Labour Party and its Jew-hating leader , Jeremy Corbyn , in last year 's election .
Leftist Rabbi Michael Lerner of the journal Tikkun admits in his book `` The Socialism of Fools : Anti-Semitism on the Left '' that anti-Semitic politicians are toxic weeds that poison socialism 's man-made Eden .
Leftist movements such as BDS , the Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-loved Boycott , Divest , and Sanction scheme to bankrupt Israel , are too late to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Iran 's effort to build a Shiite Crescent around the Middle East are turning the Sunni oil kingdoms like Saudi Arabia into Israel 's allies against Tehran .
The Palestinian cause , writes New York Times pundit Thomas Friedman , is now `` beyond its sell-by date . ''
The Palestinians are too small , corrupt and servile to Iran for others to risk alienating Israel by helping .
They can either accept Mr. Trump 's proposed disarmed-state status or become a stateless people like the Kurds .
Palestinians need to understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sea and regain the land they lost in war .
Israel probably has more than 1,000 nuclear weapons and the ability , like a modern Sampson , to destroy Tehran , Mecca , the Persian Gulf oil fields , Damascus , Baghdad , Beirut , Istanbul , the Aswan Dam , Moscow and virtually any other target on Earth .
This is why President Trump 's peace plan , despite being tilted in Israel 's favor , has a real chance of being accepted by Palestinians as their last train ticket to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Reader 's Digest Roving Editor .
His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal , the New York Times and other major publications .
His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith , `` China 's Top Secret War , '' shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings against the little-known economic threats the People 's Republic of China poses .
For a free , postpaid copy , call toll-free 800-630-1492 .

"This is not a peace plan," said Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in rejecting President Donald Trump's proposal to create a Palestinian state and give that state $50 billion over 10 years to secure its economic viability.
Mr. Trump's plan "is theft. It is erasure," said Ms. Omar – the most virulent of a crop of young anti-Semitic lawmakers in the Democratic Party. "This is an annexation plan, not a plan for peace."
The official Palestinian Authority newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida ("The New Life"), called for jihad against President Trump's plan, which Palestinian officials refused to help shape over the past three years.
Al-Hayat called on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to "take all the necessary steps to encourage and escalate the resistance and the struggle against the [Israeli] occupation. … Islamic states should counter [Trump's] plan. Muslims worldwide" should work to thwart it.
"Jerusalem belongs to Islam," said the Al-Hayat editorial, using this slogan that appeared simultaneously on protester banners in Turkish cities, and Palestinians should escalate their "jihad."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
American presidents have been trying to make peace in this region for seven decades of Israel's existence, and Palestinians all that time have opposed Israel's right to exist.
In 2000, for example, President Bill Clinton brought Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and leftist Labor Party Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak together to hammer out a peace agreement at Camp David. Clinton twisted Barak's arm so hard that Israel's leader offered 95 percent of everything the terrorist Arafat demanded.
What happened then? Arafat turned the peace agreement down flat. Arafat refused to take "yes" for an answer, even to a peace plan that would have given Palestinians a de facto state covering 90% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip with beaches on the Mediterranean, and three out of four Old City quarters of Jerusalem.
"The Arab leader who would surrender Jerusalem is not born yet," Arafat told President Clinton. What Arafat, reputed to be a master at assassinating opponents, likely meant was that no Palestinian leader could make peace with Israel and survive the wrath of fellow radical Islamists. [My wife and I were in Cairo days before Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat was assassinated for reaching a peace agreement with Israel.]
Arafat also knew that peacemaking was unprofitable for hate-promoting demagogues. Constant hostility toward Israel impoverished ordinary Palestinians, but investigators found that Arafat had raked off at least $1.3 billion to enrich himself from European aid packages. When Arafat died, his widow Suha – in 1990 a Christian then like 25 percent of Palestinians, but who converted to Islam to marry him – reportedly lived in Paris with bank accounts as high as $10 billion. Arafat had his own selfish reasons not to make peace with the Jewish State.
Today, the Gaza Strip is a gangland dictatorship run by Hamas terrorists who frequently fire Iran-funded rockets into Israel. West Bank Palestinian leaders provide European Union aid-funded pensions for families whose sons and brothers died as terrorists attempting to murder Israelis.
Anti-Semitism is growing again in Europe and probably caused the defeat of the British Labour Party and its Jew-hating leader, Jeremy Corbyn, in last year's election. Leftist Rabbi Michael Lerner of the journal Tikkun admits in his book "The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left" that anti-Semitic politicians are toxic weeds that poison socialism's man-made Eden.
Leftist movements such as BDS, the Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-loved Boycott, Divest, and Sanction scheme to bankrupt Israel, are too late to help the Palestinians.
Larger forces such as Iran's effort to build a Shiite Crescent around the Middle East are turning the Sunni oil kingdoms like Saudi Arabia into Israel's allies against Tehran.
The Palestinian cause, writes New York Times pundit Thomas Friedman, is now "beyond its sell-by date." The Palestinians are too small, corrupt and servile to Iran for others to risk alienating Israel by helping. They can either accept Mr. Trump's proposed disarmed-state status or become a stateless people like the Kurds.
Palestinians need to understand that they can never push Israel into the sea and regain the land they lost in war. Israel probably has more than 1,000 nuclear weapons and the ability, like a modern Sampson, to destroy Tehran, Mecca, the Persian Gulf oil fields, Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut, Istanbul, the Aswan Dam, Moscow and virtually any other target on Earth.
This is why President Trump's peace plan, despite being tilted in Israel's favor, has a real chance of being accepted by Palestinians as their last train ticket to a future.
Lowell Ponte is a former Reader's Digest Roving Editor. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other major publications. His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith, "China's Top Secret War," shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings against the little-known economic threats the People's Republic of China poses. For a free, postpaid copy, call toll-free 800-630-1492.


wnd--2020-01-31--The national debt crisis is just around the corner

Ten to 20 years from now , we will not be talking about impeachment , and believe it or not , we wo n't still be talking about Donald Trump either .
We will be talking about our debt crisis .
For all the good that came from this era , the Bush , Obama and Trump administrations will all be remembered as the ones that caused the crisis that will hammer our children and grandchildren .
To understand where we are , it 's helpful to review the past few years of this issue 's development .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for eight years , we knew we had a long-term entitlement program spending problem coming down the track , but we thought of it as far off in the future .
Unfortunately , the Bush administration was horrible about spending .
For an administration that campaigned on limited government , we increased non-defense discretionary spending 8 % a year during our first term .
We also added even bigger increases to the defense side .
We introduced a new entitlement for prescription drugs for all Americans instead of targeting it for the needy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget hawks were trying to put on the brakes , but with war spending and then Hurricane Katrina , we never really got discretionary spending under control .
Finally , with the financial crisis , we stopped even trying .
Throw in the booming entitlements , and we left a really bad legacy .
To George Bush 's credit , he did expend a lot of political capital on Social Security reform .
He jumped on this issue before the country was ready – and nothing got done .
In 2008 , federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 28,388 per American household – the highest level since World War II – up from $ 21,891 per household in 2001 .
Sixty percent of all that new spending was in areas unrelated to defense and homeland security .
During the Obama years , with all the talk of stimulus , the spending just got worse .
President Barack Obama ran historically massive trillion-dollar-plus deficits his first few years , when he had a Democratic congressional majority .
Republicans in Congress tried to fight this massive spending with limited success .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue , again with no real success .
The Obama years were notable as a time when most Republican voters and politicians seemed to really care about our spending and debt problem .
TRENDING : 'Dog the Bounty Hunter ' proposes to son 's reported ex-girlfriend 7 months after wife Beth 's death After screaming about spending for eight years of Obama , Republicans have been pretty silent about it during the Trump years .
There has been no Republican discussion of entitlement reform , which makes things look more than a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending under Obama .
Trump has taken the entitlement issue off the table completely , which makes sense politically , because voters are not open to it , but from a policy perspective , we are getting closer and closer to the tipping point into a debt crisis .
The presumption in Washington has always been that as we get closer to an entitlement-driven budget crisis , both parties would finally be motivated to tackle the problem .
But we are now close .
We are over 100 % on our debt-to-GDP ratio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ territory .
This is when we always expected to make a deal .
Do you see a deal on the horizon ?
The two parties ca n't even get the most simple bills passed .
Do you see any chance of fundamental entitlement and spending reform passing in the environment we have ?
This year , we have strong economic growth , low unemployment and low interest rates – and we are still going to run a $ 1 trillion deficit .
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that we will add over $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next 10 years .
This is all presuming a good economy .
A recession would push it all up – maybe by a lot .
So would a war .
We are already at $ 15 billion to $ 20 billion of total federal debt , depending on whether we count intergovernmental debt .
This comes out to $ 67,000 just in federal debt per person in America .
We are on pace for persistent trillion-dollar deficits going forward .
If interest rates keep going up as widely as expected , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other parts of our spending , or , more likely , just add to the deficit .
That can result in a potential debt spiral as we have to pay higher rates to attract bondholders .
Most Democrats want to pretend our debt problem does n't exist or is easily fixable with minor entitlement-program tweaks .
None of that is true .
Many Republican voters are equally uninterested in our debt , and they do n't want their benefits cut any more than Democrats do .
Republican politicians have lost all credibility on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush and Trump and then screaming about spending under Obama .
This means that when the debt crisis comes in 10 to 20 years , there will be plenty of blame to go around .
This period from Bush to Trump will not be remembered for the Iraq War or impeachment ; it will be remembered as the period where we sold our kids and grandkids down the river .

Ten to 20 years from now, we will not be talking about impeachment, and believe it or not, we won't still be talking about Donald Trump either. We will be talking about our debt crisis. For all the good that came from this era, the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations will all be remembered as the ones that caused the crisis that will hammer our children and grandchildren. To understand where we are, it's helpful to review the past few years of this issue's development.
At the Bush White House, where I worked for eight years, we knew we had a long-term entitlement program spending problem coming down the track, but we thought of it as far off in the future. Unfortunately, the Bush administration was horrible about spending. For an administration that campaigned on limited government, we increased non-defense discretionary spending 8% a year during our first term. We also added even bigger increases to the defense side. We introduced a new entitlement for prescription drugs for all Americans instead of targeting it for the needy.
By the second term, the budget hawks were trying to put on the brakes, but with war spending and then Hurricane Katrina, we never really got discretionary spending under control. Finally, with the financial crisis, we stopped even trying. Throw in the booming entitlements, and we left a really bad legacy. To George Bush's credit, he did expend a lot of political capital on Social Security reform. He jumped on this issue before the country was ready – and nothing got done.
In 2008, federal government spending neared an inflation-adjusted record of $28,388 per American household – the highest level since World War II – up from $21,891 per household in 2001. Sixty percent of all that new spending was in areas unrelated to defense and homeland security.
During the Obama years, with all the talk of stimulus, the spending just got worse. President Barack Obama ran historically massive trillion-dollar-plus deficits his first few years, when he had a Democratic congressional majority. Republicans in Congress tried to fight this massive spending with limited success. Some Republicans also tried to raise the entitlement issue, again with no real success. The Obama years were notable as a time when most Republican voters and politicians seemed to really care about our spending and debt problem.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
After screaming about spending for eight years of Obama, Republicans have been pretty silent about it during the Trump years. There has been no Republican discussion of entitlement reform, which makes things look more than a little partisan after all the shutdown fights over spending under Obama. Trump has taken the entitlement issue off the table completely, which makes sense politically, because voters are not open to it, but from a policy perspective, we are getting closer and closer to the tipping point into a debt crisis.
The presumption in Washington has always been that as we get closer to an entitlement-driven budget crisis, both parties would finally be motivated to tackle the problem. But we are now close. We are over 100% on our debt-to-GDP ratio, which is widely viewed as problem territory. This is when we always expected to make a deal. Do you see a deal on the horizon? The two parties can't even get the most simple bills passed. Do you see any chance of fundamental entitlement and spending reform passing in the environment we have?
This year, we have strong economic growth, low unemployment and low interest rates – and we are still going to run a $1 trillion deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that we will add over $12 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years. This is all presuming a good economy. A recession would push it all up – maybe by a lot. So would a war. We are already at $15 billion to $20 billion of total federal debt, depending on whether we count intergovernmental debt. This comes out to $67,000 just in federal debt per person in America.
We are on pace for persistent trillion-dollar deficits going forward. If interest rates keep going up as widely as expected, our interest payments alone will balloon and displace other parts of our spending, or, more likely, just add to the deficit. That can result in a potential debt spiral as we have to pay higher rates to attract bondholders.
Most Democrats want to pretend our debt problem doesn't exist or is easily fixable with minor entitlement-program tweaks. None of that is true. Many Republican voters are equally uninterested in our debt, and they don't want their benefits cut any more than Democrats do. Republican politicians have lost all credibility on spending discipline after spending like crazy under Bush and Trump and then screaming about spending under Obama. This means that when the debt crisis comes in 10 to 20 years, there will be plenty of blame to go around. This period from Bush to Trump will not be remembered for the Iraq War or impeachment; it will be remembered as the period where we sold our kids and grandkids down the river.


wnd--2020-01-31--Is Bernie's hour of power at hand?

Is Bernie's hour of power at hand?

Can a septuagenarian socialist who just survived a heart attack and would be 80 years old in his first year in office be elected president of the United States ?
It 's hard to believe but not impossible .
As of today , Bernie Sanders looks like one of the better , if not best , bets for the nomination .
Polls have him running first or second in the first three contests : Iowa on Monday , and then New Hampshire and Nevada .
If Bernie can best main rival Joe Biden in Iowa , he will likely thump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , built around `` electability , '' could suffer a credibility collapse before he reaches South Carolina , where Joe is banking on his African American base to rescue him if necessary and give him a send-off victory straight into Super Tuesday .
If Sanders can beat Biden two or three times in the first four primaries in February , the last remaining roadblock on Sanders ' path to the nomination could be Mike Bloomberg 's billions .
Hillary Clinton may sneer , `` Nobody likes him , '' but Bernie has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially among millennials , and tens of thousands more small-dollar donors than any other Democratic candidate .
TRENDING : 'Dog the Bounty Hunter ' proposes to son 's reported ex-girlfriend 7 months after wife Beth 's death He is flush with cash .
He has a radical agenda that appeals to the ideological left and the idealistic young .
The rising star of the party , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , is campaigning alongside him .
And , say what you will , Sanders is no trimmer or time-server .
He has consistently voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no to Bush 41 's Gulf War , no to Bush 43 's Iraq War , no to NAFTA , no to GATT .
In the '80s , when President Reagan battled the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua , Sanders was on the other side .
But what makes Sanders an appealing candidate for the Democratic nomination may prove poisonous to him as a party nominee in the fall .
For what does Bernie promise ?
Free tuition at public colleges and forgiveness of all student debt .
`` Medicare for All , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would require a huge hike in middle-class taxes and abolish private health insurance for the 160 million Americans currently enrolled .
He would break up the big banks , go after Wall Street , add $ 60 trillion of federal spending in the next decade , and raise income , corporate , capital gains , estate and inheritance taxes .
He would expand the government 's share of the U.S. economy to levels rivaling that of France , the highest in the free world .
Bernie was first to back the Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neutrality in 10 years in energy and transportation .
As for our oil , gas and coal producers , says Sanders , they `` have evaded taxes , desecrated tribal lands , exploited workers and poisoned communities . ''
How would Sanders deal with the millions of illegal migrants now within the country ?
He 'd welcome them all in .
Bernie has proposed the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection and wants to provide a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million to 22 million illegal migrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and give health and welfare benefits to the invaders .
He would decriminalize the breaching of America 's borders .
`` My first executive orders , '' tweeted Bernie last week , `` will be to reverse every single thing President Trump has done to demonize and harm immigrants , including his racist and disgusting Muslim ban . ''
Leaders of the center-left think tank Third Way warn that a Sanders nomination risks a Democratic rout of the magnitude of the 49-state losses of George McGovern in 1972 and of Walter Mondale in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing districts would have to jump ship , abandoning the ticket to survive the slaughter .
Fearful of such an outcome to a Sanders-Trump race , super PACs run by moderate Democrats have begun to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into attack ads to blunt his momentum in Iowa .
What Socialist Jeremy Corbyn did to Britain 's Labour Party – leading it to the worst defeat since the 1930s – Sanders could do to the Democratic Party , write Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler of Third Way .
In 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination , and it was later learned that a supposedly neutral DNC had been in the tank for Hillary Clinton .
The Democratic establishment , the party elite , had collaborated to put the fix in against Bernie .
Yet Sanders supported Clinton that fall .
If , however , Bernie 's last chance at the nomination is aborted by an establishment piling on , party super PACs running attack ads against him , and major media taking time out from trashing Trump to break Sanders , the Democratic Party will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie 's backers home in the fall .
Bernie 's believers might just conclude that the real obstacle to their dream of remaking America is neither the radical right nor Donald Trump , but the elites within their own party .

Can a septuagenarian socialist who just survived a heart attack and would be 80 years old in his first year in office be elected president of the United States? It's hard to believe but not impossible.
As of today, Bernie Sanders looks like one of the better, if not best, bets for the nomination. Polls have him running first or second in the first three contests: Iowa on Monday, and then New Hampshire and Nevada.
If Bernie can best main rival Joe Biden in Iowa, he will likely thump Joe in New Hampshire. Biden's campaign, built around "electability," could suffer a credibility collapse before he reaches South Carolina, where Joe is banking on his African American base to rescue him if necessary and give him a send-off victory straight into Super Tuesday.
If Sanders can beat Biden two or three times in the first four primaries in February, the last remaining roadblock on Sanders' path to the nomination could be Mike Bloomberg's billions.
Hillary Clinton may sneer, "Nobody likes him," but Bernie has a large, dedicated, loyal following, especially among millennials, and tens of thousands more small-dollar donors than any other Democratic candidate.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
He is flush with cash. He has a radical agenda that appeals to the ideological left and the idealistic young. The rising star of the party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is campaigning alongside him.
And, say what you will, Sanders is no trimmer or time-server. He has consistently voted his values and views. He voted no to Bush 41's Gulf War, no to Bush 43's Iraq War, no to NAFTA, no to GATT. In the '80s, when President Reagan battled the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Sanders was on the other side.
But what makes Sanders an appealing candidate for the Democratic nomination may prove poisonous to him as a party nominee in the fall.
For what does Bernie promise?
Free tuition at public colleges and forgiveness of all student debt. "Medicare for All," a single-payer, government-run health care system that would require a huge hike in middle-class taxes and abolish private health insurance for the 160 million Americans currently enrolled.
He would break up the big banks, go after Wall Street, add $60 trillion of federal spending in the next decade, and raise income, corporate, capital gains, estate and inheritance taxes.
He would expand the government's share of the U.S. economy to levels rivaling that of France, the highest in the free world.
Bernie was first to back the Green New Deal and pledges to reach carbon neutrality in 10 years in energy and transportation. As for our oil, gas and coal producers, says Sanders, they "have evaded taxes, desecrated tribal lands, exploited workers and poisoned communities."
How would Sanders deal with the millions of illegal migrants now within the country? He'd welcome them all in.
Bernie has proposed the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection and wants to provide a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million to 22 million illegal migrants already here. He would decriminalize border-jumping and give health and welfare benefits to the invaders.
He would decriminalize the breaching of America's borders.
"My first executive orders," tweeted Bernie last week, "will be to reverse every single thing President Trump has done to demonize and harm immigrants, including his racist and disgusting Muslim ban."
Leaders of the center-left think tank Third Way warn that a Sanders nomination risks a Democratic rout of the magnitude of the 49-state losses of George McGovern in 1972 and of Walter Mondale in 1984.
Vulnerable Democrats in moderate and swing districts would have to jump ship, abandoning the ticket to survive the slaughter.
Fearful of such an outcome to a Sanders-Trump race, super PACs run by moderate Democrats have begun to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into attack ads to blunt his momentum in Iowa.
What Socialist Jeremy Corbyn did to Britain's Labour Party – leading it to the worst defeat since the 1930s – Sanders could do to the Democratic Party, write Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler of Third Way.
In 2016, Sanders ran a surprisingly strong race for the nomination, and it was later learned that a supposedly neutral DNC had been in the tank for Hillary Clinton. The Democratic establishment, the party elite, had collaborated to put the fix in against Bernie.
Yet Sanders supported Clinton that fall. If, however, Bernie's last chance at the nomination is aborted by an establishment piling on, party super PACs running attack ads against him, and major media taking time out from trashing Trump to break Sanders, the Democratic Party will have the devil's time of it bringing Bernie's backers home in the fall.
Bernie's believers might just conclude that the real obstacle to their dream of remaking America is neither the radical right nor Donald Trump, but the elites within their own party.