Hillary and Bernie, Politics Oddest of Odd Couples – by Amanda S. Green

Hillary and Bernie, Politics Oddest of Odd Couples – by Amanda S. Green

Hillary almost told the truth.

Or, as someone commented on social media, this is probably the closest she’s come to it in a long time. At least that’s the case when you talk HRC and politics.

No, this isn’t the opening to a new review of a book about the last presidential election. Nor am I returning to Clinton’s book What Happened. In fact, I’d planned on starting a new review today. I wanted to find something to snark. I wanted to have fun with a review. I spent time looking at possibilities. I wasn’t going to pay almost $15 for Amy Chozick’s book, Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling. I sure as hell wasn’t going to try to wade through Dear Madam President: An Open Letter to the Women Who Will Run the World by Jennifer Palmieri. Instead, I thought I would live up to the nickname Sarah has hung on me and be the masochistic reader by picking up Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In by Bernie Sanders. Yes, you can all point and laugh. I swear I haven’t lost my mind and I’ll prove it.

I sat down this afternoon to start reading the book. By the end of the first page, I didn’t know whether to laugh hysterically or run to the bathroom to throw up. The laughter was because Bernie tries to hard to be serious and project concerned leadership while, at the same time, proving himself to be nothing but a bitter, spoiled old man.

Then there was the irony of someone who calls himself a democratic socialist referring to himself with the royal “we”. There are numerous references in the first two introductions – yes, two. One written at the time he first wrote the book and one added after his 2016 campaign for the Democratic nomination. Time after time, he wrote about how “we “ ran for president or how “our” campaign did this or that. No, he wasn’t referring to all the people taking part in his campaign. The context proves he wasn’t worried about them. It was all about him. It was and always will be the cult of Bernie.

The only thing that surprised me, other than the royal we crap, was that the intro added after he lost the nomination to Clinton dealt only with Trump and how evil he is and what a liar he is and how will be the downfall of our nation if we don’t raise a political revolution against him NOW! If he were a true socialist, or even a true champion of the people and more interested in exposing injustices than promoting his own agenda, he would have at least mentioned how the DNC and Clinton conspired to keep the nomination away from him. But no, he barely – if ever – mentions it.

Which means, in my mind, that he is still hoping to play the game and make nice with the DNC in the hope of getting the nomination in the next presidential election. If he truly was committed to his socialist roots, he wouldn’t be trying to keep in the DNC’s good graces. Hell, he wouldn’t keep all the millions he and his wife have accumulated over the years. He’d be redistributing his wealth, just as he claims the 1% should be doing now.

What happened by the time I got to the first chapter of the book is simple. I felt dirty. The slime fairly oozed off the pages of the book. Don’t get me wrong. Bernie – or his ghost writer – writes eloquently. If you aren’t familiar with the traps of socialism, it would be easy to fall for much of what he says, especially if you haven’t been a student of history. Fortunately, I can’t and won’t fall for his line of bull. Instead, I felt dirty. I wanted a figurative, if not literal, bath. There was no way I could get through more of the book, even for snarking reasons.

At least not this week.

So, I wondered what I should do. I didn’t want to leave Sarah high and dry for a post today. I had just about decided to go ahead and buy one of the books about HRC when I came across this article. It was as if the gods of snark had suddenly decided to smile down upon me. I had my topic.

According to the article, HRC is finally admitting she might have done something wrong in her campaign, something that might have cost her votes. Is it her actions as SecState regarding Benghazi? Nope. How about using her own private server? Nope, not that either. So what does she see as her mistake? Identifying as a capitalist.

Yes, you read that right. HRC, she of the Clinton Foundation, she who, along with her husband, have earned an estimated $240 million in the last 15 years. Of that, HRC is estimated to have earned $51 million. But she made a mistake saying she was a capitalist.

What that really means is she thinks she could have said she was a democratic socialist like Bernie and everyone would have forgotten her wealth, the huge speaking fees she demanded after leaving the State Department and the monies funneled into the Clinton Foundation. Yes, she really things the American public is that stupid. Not that it should surprise any of us. After all, she has insulted Middle America for supporting Trump. She has insulted women who voted against her, saying they only did so because voting as their husbands told them to.

“It’s hard to know, but I mean if you’re in the Iowa caucuses and 41 percent of Democrats are socialists or self-described socialists, and I’m asked ‘Are you a capitalist?’ and I say, ‘Yes, but with appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability.’ You know, that probably gets lost in the ‘Oh my gosh, she’s a capitalist!’ ” Clinton said.

Take a moment and think about what she said. Despite all the protestations of the DNC that their party isn’t just socialist leaning but racing hard toward full socialism, she just admitted that’s the truth. At least, it seems, for some states. If that doesn’t turn your blood cold and make you stop and think, it should, especially since these are the same politicians who want to put severe limitations on the Second Amendment.

According to Clinton, “reputation of capitalism is pretty much in tatters”, especially for young people. Not really, but not for want of trying on the part of liberals. Just as they want to destroy the Second Amendment, they have worked to destroy capitalism in this country for decades. Yet, even as they talk about income inequalities and the need for universal healthcare, among other pet projects, do you see them practicing what they preach? Hell no.

Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist and people’s champion, has a net worth of more than $1 million (in conjunction with his wife), according to The American Thinker. At the time the article was written, he and his wife owned two homes, one in Vermont and one in the D. C. area where the median home valuation was in the range of $700,000 plus. He might not be the richest member of Congress but, for a man who preaches about income inequality and such, he sure has a hell of a lot of money he could be sharing with the less fortunate.

Nancy Pelosi’s net worth is reportedly in the $140 million range. As a member of Congress and Minority Leader in 2017, she made $193,000. Is it any wonder she disparaged the tax breaks we’ve gotten under the Trump Administration? That $1,000 or so is nothing but crumbs to her. Gee, I wonder if you look up Pelosi or Clinton or Sanders in a thesaurus you find the word “hypocrite” as a synonym?

So pardon me if I laugh hysterically when Clinton blames losing votes on admitting she’s a capitalist. At least she was honest about one thing during her campaign. When Sanders writes about the “grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in this country”, (Our Revolution, pg. 2) I want to curse. How dare he? How dare any of them sitting on Capital Hill and proclaiming to be Democratic-Socialists or Socialists and who accept their paychecks? As of December 2014, members of Congress earn $174,000 a year. This doesn’t count all the benefits they receive, benefits that include, iirc, medical insurance. They don’t have to worry about finding affordable insurance after passing the atrocity that was the Affordable (or should I say Unaffordable) Care Act. That salary increases substantially if they are in a leadership position, such as Speaker of the House, President Pro Tem of the Senate or Majority or Miniorty Leader of either House.

Maybe Clinton did lose a few votes because she said she was a capitalist. But that isn’t the reason she lost the election. She lost because the American people didn’t trust her to sit in the Oval Office as our leader. They saw her double-standard for women. We remember how she condemned the women who spoke out about their relationships with Bill. How different her tune was when the man accused of sexually harassing – or assaulting – a woman was Donald Trump. We remembered Benghazi. We didn’t believe her excuses about her private server. She was also part of the political establishment, something many voters were tired of.

As for Sanders, he was seen as someone outside the establishment. He had a message younger voters hadn’t heard before. Well, they would have if they were taught history and not simply indoctrinated into liberal ideology in all too many schools. In some ways, he was the Democrats’ Donald Trump. But the fix was in. The DNC had no intention of letting anyone but HRC have the nomination.

When will she admit the truth about that? Or about any of the rest of it? I don’t know about you, but I’m not holding my breath to find out.

282 thoughts on “Hillary and Bernie, Politics Oddest of Odd Couples – by Amanda S. Green

  1. > Hillary almost told the truth.

    Right. The microwave hasn’t beeped yet, but that’s *not* an impossible thing I could believe before breakfast…

    1. The key word here is almost.

      I even believe that she might someday accidentally tell the truth.

      All snark aside, the real argument is to what extent what she thinks is the truth and what is the truth coincide.

      1. CACS, you said what I’ve long wondered. Has she so deluded herself that she now believes her own rhetoric or is she knowingly and willfully continuing to hedge and sidestep and lie when necessary in an attempt to save face?

        1. She’s been surrounded by sycophants and yes-men since 1992. Better people than her have had their wordlviews warped by that.

          She moved past the “moving phantom divisions from inside the Fuhrerbunker” long, long ago.

        2. Of course she’s thoroughly deluded herself; she’s the very model of a modern liberal lawyer. As such she entirely agree with Pilate on the unknowability of Truth. In her reality Truth is what you make it.

    2. As CACS said, the key word is “almost”. If I’d said she did “tell the truth”, I fully expect at least a few of you to suggest I get some help and soon. Hell, I’d even agree with you. 😉

      1. Before we know whether she spoke truthfully when declaring herself a capitalist we would have to closely examine her definition of capitalist. I rather suspect it is not “a person who invests capital in an enterprise” and more nearly “one who taps friends and cronies for funds, favors and insider deals.”

    3. There’s a “horseshoes and hand grenades” joke in there somewhere.

  2. > I wasn’t going to pay almost $15 for Amy Chozick’s book

    “Trekonomics” wouldn’t cost you a cent; my offer to have the Zon drop a copy at your your still stands. Though you might get some eyeball-sprain and minor damage to your snarkulator.

    Trust me, it’s snarkage of the “low-hanging fruit” variety…

    1. I’ma always in for some good snarking. I really wanted to snark this morning. Truly.

      Seriously, as I told Sarah earlier, when I started reading Bernie’s book, it was as if I could feel a slime or an ooze reaching out to cover me. I haven’t ever had that from a book before. As much as I detest the ideology behind Marx or Lenin or even Stalin — and yes, I’ve read his work in the original Russian — this was different. It was enough to have me closing the book and walking away wanting a shower, literal and figurative, to wash away the ooze.

      1. The offer holds into the indefinite future. I simply don’t have the chops to adequately fisk that book.

        1. If you are serious, email me at amandagreen followed by the number 1957 and it is through that gmail place. (I know, but I hate getting spam email)

      2. It’s not just his self admittence that he is a national socialist. Who prides himself as a representative of the workers. But the cult following and ability to string together half truths is reminiscent of another representative of a national socialist workers party

        1. I suspect Bernie’s more the leader of a national socialist shirkers party.

    2. “low-hanging fruit”?? Is that some kind of anti-homosexual comment?? FIE upon thee!! Fo and Fum, too!!

  3. I sat down this afternoon to start reading the book. By the end of the first page, I didn’t know whether to laugh hysterically or run to the bathroom to throw up.

    The Spouse has often observed that there is much in this world to which the only appropriate response is a horse laugh.

    As laughing is good for you on o so many levels, and throwing up is not, I suggest you choose to laugh.

    1. I did but there was a touch of hysteria and even fear in it. Truly, there is skill in the writing, in the tone of it. I can see how the way he says things appeal to those who aren’t familiar with history or economics. It is frightening because that lack of knowledge, combined with the skill in this book and in some of his speeches, has the potential to lead this country down a path that would have our forefathers spinning in their graves.

      1. I’m pretty sure they’re already spinning in their graves. I’m shocked that it hasn’t registered as a seismic event.

        1. Are they buried under Yellowstone? Or off the PNW coast? Been some reports of seismic events there lately …

      2. OH DEAR. I have made the grave mistake of listening to part of Bernie’s reading of Bernie’s book.

        Poor little boy, his family watched their pennies. (Paying attention to how you spend does not mean you lived in poverty.) Then his mother took him comparison shopping when she agreed to buy him a leather jacket’ like all the other boys had’. (Had he paid better attention he might have noticed that all the other boys did not have a leather jacket.) And now he hates shopping … maybe that’s why he thinks we don’t need more than one kind of deodorant / antiperspirant.

      3. What is the name of the book. Saunders was clearly speaking as leader, and on the same page clearly uses I when referring to himself. I have no interest in reading this book, but please don’t read as a leftist reading Reagan or Rush or any other normal American and believe you are giving a fair reading. of course if that is your purpose, okay.

        1. Wow, you haven’t read the book and don’t want to and yet you can tell me what Sanders said and why he said it. I am impressed. Can you tell me what I’m thinking right now?

          As for reading as a leftist, thanks so much for assuming what I was doing and insulting me along the way. I honestly do find it ironic that someone who claims to be “one of the people”, refers to himself with the royal “we”. I would also suggest most leaders don’t refer to themselves as “we” today, at least not here in the States. They might refer to their administration and then use “we” but they make it very clear in what they are saying and how they are saying it that is what they are doing. Bernie doesn’t in the bit I read and discussed here. But then, since you seem to know what he meant without actually reading the book, you know best.

          Or not.

            1. Actually, I read the first page on the expansion of the book that Amazon offers.
              The title of the book is “Our Revolution”, and Sanders was clearly writing in that vein. Again, with some sentence with him using “I” when taking about himself. I sure as hell wasn’t interested in buying book, and did not even consider the certainty that the local library probably purchased millions of copies. Ever notice how few conservative best sellers are purchased in libraries. I have certainly noticed.
              Again read the first pages with reference to the title of the book and who bernie was writing to. He was intentionally including readers in THEIR revolution. And the point I was making, Sarah, is that Amanda was the psychic troll in this instance, reading something into Sanders statement that a progressive would read into anything a more conservative would say. “dog whistles” anyone.
              My world view started with my sixth grade teacher (a nun”) telling me she would not vote for Kennedy because of his policies. This, with my having read every Heinlein book in any local library including the local catholic high school made it easy to see the fallacy of voting for social group rather than as an individual.

              1. I so love it when folks come in and don’t take the time to read the source material — and a page or two doesn’t count — and then assign motive and such. I love how I can be called a psychic troll and yet you have no problem assigning intent to Bernie based on only a few pages read.

                Now, let’s look at the rest of your comment. sure as hell wasn’t interested in buying book, and did not even consider the certainty that the local library probably purchased millions of copies. Wow, your local library has enough money to buy millions of copies of a book? Your local tax rate must be through the roof then — or the library really has some great donors. Or, let me put my psychic troll powers to use and see if I can figure out what you really meant…hmm, could you have been saying that maybe local libraries (embrace the power of plurals) bought millions of copies? If so, other than your own personal certainty, what proof do you have for that comment? Or are you tolling as well?

                As for your comment about how few conservative written books are bought by libraries, again, proof? Our local library systems down here purchase books based on what their patrons want to read. If there is a demand for a book, they get it. If not, they don’t. So, if your local library isn’t stocking the books you want to see, have you talked with them about it? Or do you just assume that because it wasn’t there, no one will try to get it for you?

                Finally, I love how you say I shouldn’t assume to know what Bernie meant when he used certain pronouns and yet you have no problem proclaiming to know EXACTLY what he meant. Hmmm, is your name Bernie Sanders? If not, and if you haven’t had a direct conversation with him about it, you don’t know. You can infer, you can guess and you can draw your own conclusions but you don’t know for certain. Now run along, find someone else to try to browbeat into agreeing with you.

            2. What happened by the time I got to the first chapter of the book is simple. I felt dirty. The slime fairly oozed off the pages of the book. Don’t get me wrong. Bernie – or his ghost writer – writes eloquently. If you aren’t familiar with the traps of socialism, it would be easy to fall for much of what he says, especially if you haven’t been a student of history. Fortunately, I can’t and won’t fall for his line of bull. Instead, I felt dirty. I wanted a figurative, if not literal, bath. There was no way I could get through more of the book, even for snarking reasons.
              At least not this week.

    2. The Spouse has often observed that there is much in this world to which the only appropriate response is a horse laugh.

      Your Spouse sounds like an idiot. Strong drink, that’s the only therapy for cleansing the system of such swill.

  4. > members of Congress earn $174,000 a year

    And they’re paid with Federal money, not by their constituents. Such a deal!

    Frankly, I’m astonished they don’t add at least an extra zero; after all, it’s not like their constituents can hold them accountable.

    1. Yep. But then the Bernie bots and Shrillary’s followers never seem to grasp the economics behind federal money and where it does from.They clamor for free college or government paid medical care and never once think about where the money for such programs are supposed to come from. It is like Bernie condemning the fact there are fewer factory jobs now and blaming automation for part of that. He would, I guess, rather we stagnate technologically than update processes to make them more streamlined and, btw, safer.

      1. Bernie is a Luddite? Great, just great.

        Cost efficiency were what, for a long time, kept this country competitive in the world market while paying workers higher wages than in the rest of the world. With a number of factors, including government regulations, high corporate taxes and other country’s modernizing their own manufacturing (while keeping wages down), it is no wonder that American business is having trouble competing.

        1. He is a Luddite at least when it comes to technology and big business taking jobs away from “the little people”.

          1. I suspect when he thinks of manufacturing, he assumes that “the dark Satanic mills” provided full employment and were the best time for Workers*, since that’s what Marx and Engels described.

            *Workers as in IWW and the AFL-CIO.

            1. More than likely, TXRed. He spouts some of the same language you find in the original source material about farms as well. Big business and technology are to blame for the loss of small family farms, the closing of factories and for young ‘uns leaving town and not coming home again. All those danged fancy wimmin and bright lights of the evil city owned by them darned capitalists, you know.

            2. I suspect what’s left of the Dark Satanic Mills (oh Jerusalem!) in Vermont are now high end loft space, or museums. IIRC, Boston was famous for shoe manufacturing; not sure what industry Vermont had. Vermont Castings (the wood stove people) are headquartered in Minnesota. Hmm.

        2. Hayul yayus!

          You need actual living people to lord it over. Stupid machines don’t cringe when you crack the whip. What’s the point in being a privileged snob if you can’t get your boots licked?

      2. Sure they think about where the money comes from. They positively gloat about where the money will come from. They’re going to tax “the rich.”

        Exactly who “the rich” are is likely to be a moving target. Hell, so is “poor”. I was with my Dad in a doctor’s waiting room when the Blaring TV took a break from savaging Sarah Palin’s clothing choices and played a campaign clip from Obama (the Holy, the Anointed) where he was talking about the “poverty line” being something like $127,000.

        “Did you hear that?”

        “Sounded like $127,000.”

        “That’s what I thought he said, too.”

        We got to hear the clip a dozen more times in the next hour’s wait, and then we both noticed the claim dropped with each news cycle. Last one I remember was $45,000, I think.

        Outside of the state and the medical industry, the only jobs in my state that pay anywhere near that are “management.”

        “It’s reality, Jim, but not as we know it…”

        1. Taxing the rich is difficult as they are best able to flee. In yesterday’s news were reports of a manufacturing plant giving up after almost a century in California and moving from Sonoma to Boise, Idaho. There was also a NY investment bank that decided to up stakes for the bright lights of Nashville and taking some thousand jobs with them. And millionaires are fleeing New Jersey for any place with lower taxes, which is to say: most of the United States.

          Now, if only those movers leave their liberal notions behind rather than pissing in their new ponds only to soon wonder why they taste so similar to what they fled.

        2. On the other side of the galaxy, when Jesse Jackson was running for President (’90s, I guess), he declared that the boundary line for Rich SOBs was $10,000 per year. I’m pretty sure that was below the minimum wage, assuming it was full time. SMH.

      3. You increase the market for automation whenever you artificially inflate the cost of labor.

        Don’t want automation, don’t support job destroying labor laws.

        Don’t want illegals employed, don’t support legal job destroying labor laws.

        1. It’s amazing how many people the local McD’s had on hand when the entry level wage was $1.35 and hour. (Summer of ’69; listened to Apollo 11’s moonwalk on the radio.)

          Rough guess, we had 9-11 people on the late shift. (more at lunch time; I rotated between cashier, fries, and cleanup. Day’s would dedicate a chip monk to mechanically peel, cut and blanch the potatoes, and the fish friar was pretty much dedicated to that.)

          The last time I was in one, they maybe had 6-8 people near lunch time. No ordering kiosks yet; subtract 2 when they do.

          1. I work at a cafe that doesn’t have a lot of menu items, but here’s the staff numbers:

            5 total people.

            1 (sometimes 2) prep person in the morning. Unloads truck, makes all pizzas, makes other items, stocks, cleans. Cooks and sells food once the store opens.

            1 (sometimes 2) midday workers. Cook, sell food, stock, clean.

            1 (sometimes 2) closers in the evening/night. Cook, sell food, stock everything, clean everything.

            The problem is that you’re supposed to have five or six people working every day, but it’s usually four and sometimes three.

            When I was young and worked fast food, I went home with some energy left. There were always many hands to make light work, and you could take your breaks when needed without interrupting the flow. Today’s fast food workers are pooped, because they’re all there is. Even four hours can wear at you, and an eight hour shift is really tiring. Breaks and lunch require a lot of thought (and outside coverage from managers from other departments). Every day is a race, and that’s on days that aren’t busy.

    2. Possibly member of congress could be provided with suites in residence halls, thereby eliminating the need for two residences — one in their home district/state and another in Washington, D.C. — thereby lowering one of the excuses for such a generous salary. Not that this would really serve, for the problem lies in the fact that it would be they themselves who designated the taxpayer’s the money for building such residence halls.

      1. Why do I see gilded halls and harem chambers? Not to mention opium dens, or something similar? All the vices and very little of the virtues.

        1. Opium dens for Congresscritters? That has positive possibilities. After all, if they’re unconscious 99% of the time in Lotus Land, they can’t be screwing things up.

        2. I have long thought dormitories would be good for Congress. Something along the lines of Cabrini Green, with amenities set to a level pegged at the US median income, so that as they increase per capita wealth they get upgrades to their accommodations.

          Oh, and put the hallway security camera feeds on the internet for live monitoring.

          1. Just have the Navy pull an old berthing barge up the river, it’s more then they deserve.

            1. Jests about being handy for target practice come to mind.

              More seriously, I have in the past entertained providing the equivalent of BOQ housing for our elected representatives, with the proviso that they can only upgrade their housing by raising the standard for all officers of that grade and above. The concept breaks down, of course, when determining what grade level equivalency to employ. Members of the House getting captain-grade accommodation while Senators receive major equivalencies? Major and Colonel grade housing? The heart wants to put them three to a tent on the Mall but that is probably not appropriate.

          2. Cabrini-Green (I’ll pass on my father’s term for it; a bit rough, though accurate) might just be an 8th amendment violation. Motel 6 has/had a motel in Salt Lake City that might suit. Coffee maker not provided. Working bathroom fan optional.

        3. Have it built, keep an eye out for nonsensical stuff, and then, when the doors open, give all the rooms to those living in projects/section 8 apartments in D.C. (via lottery of those with no police records, priority to those with special medical needs) and the congresscritters are to move into the projects/sect8, and they cannot do any improvements, nor have armed security, and if they whine, we remove the locks from their doors and windows. All those calling for no borders and/or amnesty, there will be no doors on their allotted apartments to begin with.

      2. This is much of the justification for the building of the Palace of Versailles – collect the ruling class one or two notches below the ruler all in one place and keep them occupied with constant distractions so they can be watched and prevented from getting up to real trouble.

        1. Actually, better if the nobles are dispersed, and spend more time improving their estates and fiefs. It was noted that the English Nobility rarely, if ever visited the House of Lords while the French were clustered around their king. In the former case, the government stayed stable, while in the other it collapsed and fell to revolution.

          So, a modest proposal. DC should be turned into a museum, and Congress should be held in an old summer camp in the swamps of Louisiana- no A/C, lobbyist, or structural improvements allowed.

            1. While cold is deadlier, you can at least bundle up and build a fire, and bundling up at night is comfortable.
              Heat and humidity are more miserable, especially if fans and air conditioning are banned. And there’s nothing like sweltering in a hot, still, humid night for misery.
              I should know- I’ve lived in both Wisconsin and Papua New Guinea.

              1. While cold is deadlier you can at least bundle up with a warm friend. In hot humid climate you can’t even stand your own skin.

              2. That’s just until the “global warming”/”climate change” goes on. When it’s “the coming ice age” again, some southern swamp would be the better location for things.

              3. in my younger days, I was demented enough to live for several years in the New Orleans area without AC in my room.
                Now I’m in the U.P. and got central.

              4. Heat and humidity – yes! Prior to the introduction of air conditioning we fared much better with having the government in Washington, D.C..

          1. Story I heard was, keeping the nobles away from their fiefs was the idea. Louis XIV was an Autocrat with a capital “A,” and didn’t want any of the nobility out where they could think without his permission.

      3. Victory Girls had a bit on the Congresscritters whining the other day, and I commented they should put them in open bay, co-ed housing (including the bathrooms – inflict on them what they desire to inflict on the rest of us), and prohibit all firearms (even bodyguards), alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, non-congresscritters, fatty foods, sugar, or gluten, and no loud music. Only one type of deodorant. Require them to listen to lectures by constitutionalists at all hours except during lights-out (strictly kept). And rouse them with reveille at 05:30 every morning except Saturday and Sunday – when they’re roused at 7am.

        The alternative would be to reduce the national gov’t to its Constitutional scope and size, and they could spend 2/3 of the year at home schmoozing.

    3. Do keep in mind that those Congressional salaries are really just pocket money. The real cash is funneled into their campaign fund coffers, which of course are not to be used for any personal reasons whatsoever. Much in the same fashion as all those many millions in the Clinton Foundation are never used to benefit the Clinton family in any way shape or form. (cough, Chelsea’s wedding, first class plane tickets, five star accommodations on “business” trips.)

      1. (snark warning)

        Ah well, we have come a long way in understanding the polite political necessities from the time when our diplomatic representatives shockingly refused to pay bribes to lower level officials just to get an audience with Talleyrand. Now we understand that we have to be able to entertain in the style demanded by other nations.

      2. Oh, campaign funds are never diverted to personal expenses. They go to vital campaign expenses, like paying salaries to the candidate’s relatives and hiring consultants who hire the candidate’s relatives, who then spend that money on personal expenses, gifts, and so on.

        When they crack down on hiring one’s spouse for one’s campaign staff, that just requires adding more layers of obfuscation.

        But most notably, the big money actually comes through mysteriously successful side deals and investment opportunities. There’s a reason the U.S. Senate is a millionaire’s club: If you’re not one when you get there, you will be one when you leave.

        1. It may be somewhat relevant that members of congress have exempted themselves from charges of insider trading by the Securities Exchange Commission. Charges that for any normal citizen if proven would result in a felony conviction.

    4. Please TRX. I object to the notion that they’re paid with Federal money, and not by their constituents. Those moneys were extracted from their constituents by the Feds.

      1. I didn’t figure I had to explain that to this group…

        On the other hand, they likely do see the General Fund as a magic cornucopia. I’ve worked for too many people and companies who never could quite make the connection between payroll and “where the money comes from.”

      2. One niggle, some of those constituencies are paying more taxes than other constituencies. It is quiet possible that those taxpayers who can afford to live in NYC may be underwriting the cost of Congress Critters from a place like New Mexico or Mississippi.

        1. Not so much really. Federal taxes are remarkably even handed. The vast difference in taxes based on location is almost exclusively due to state income, property, and sales taxes. And the disparity can for the most part be tied to social welfare and public service union contracts common to the political philosophies in certain states.

          1. The reason federal taxes between different localities for the same job would be different are typically due to cost of living. And that is in an incestuous relationship with local and state politics and culture.

          2. You may be right. 

            In looking up the concentrations of wealth in America I did come across one study that identified the wealthiest neighborhoods — not necessarily where the super-wealthy live, the households have mean annual incomes that are all better than half a million a year. Three of the top ten are in Maryland in the Washington, D.C. area, one in Bethesda, two in Potomac.  There is yet another near D.C., in McLean, Virginia.   

    5. While I dislike to quibble I do believe a proper respect for nuance is critical in discussing such matters as Congressional salaries. I do not believe any congresscritter earns more than about $25,000 a year — and that by only the most charitable definition of earning.

      While it might prove tedious to delve too deeply into that definition, a rule of thumb might deem it to be “retaining a portion of the wealth created through one’s activities” — in which case the majority of Congress’ members earn negative amounts.

    6. And the truly disgusting part is that the constituency did try. It’s the whole reason for the last amendment. But they simply vote themselves raises in perpetuity. Even as they strip mine the populace

  5. I wonder if I can find a copy of “Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In” by Bernie Sanders.on the B&N trash book table? Those are the kind of books I prefer to fish out of the dumpster with the covers ripped off. I consider those ‘books’ to be advertising and propaganda; not true literary works deserving of financial compensation.

    1. Most definitely propaganda. But, as I’ve said before, we need to know what the other side is selling in order to fight against it. This time, however, not even I am masochistic enough to continue reading that dreck.

    2. I can answer that for you: No. At best, you will be able to find it on the “new release 20% off” display one year after its release, but a book of that particular political stripe won’t get trashed or even clearanced out by BN unless they absolutely have to. Not even if a single unit doesn’t move.

      1. A quick check at Amazon reveals it can be had in HB used (hardly opened!) for as little as a buck and a half:
        Hardcover $9.35
        215 Used from $1.51
        89 New from $3.25
        22 Collectible from $5.90

        Interestingly, it costs more in PPB:
        Paperback $10.59
        39 Used from $4.50
        54 New from $6.59

        If you’ve an Audible membership you can get it for one of your credits which while not free is only at the cost of some other choice but with the added benefit of hearing it read by not only Bernie himself (presumably the new preface or some such) but also by Mark Ruffalo! Such a Bargain! 18 hours and 35 minutes that will change your life!

        A five minute sample is available at https://www.audible.com/pd/Bios-Memoirs/Our-Revolution-Audiobook/B01LXTPZAW?ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1&pf_rd_p=e81b7c27-6880-467a-b5a7-13cef5d729fe&pf_rd_r=X99B7W1HA3VG6Y51GMG2&
        Sorry, no Mark Ruffalo in this sample.

        1. My goodness, with prices like that online, no wonder units aren’t moving in the brick and mortar stores! It certainly wouldn’t have to do with the book just having a very narrow target demographic despite protestations otherwise! /s

    3. I’ll have to check out the book section at Costco. The book is a good fit to some of the customers. (my favorite, The Food Police.)

      1. Got a look at the books. Three titles roll left, one right. I saw one copy of Comey’s book go out the door, and the Finding Chasing Hillary and a book on fascism from M. Albright.

        The remaining one is Secret Empires from Peter Schweizer.

        Interesting cover on Comey’s book. Gloss black lettering on mat black background. For someone who claims to be dedicated to throwing the light of justice on his victims subjects, it’s an ironic choice. I wonder if the cover designer was clueless or was making a subtle comment on the author.

        It hadn’t struck me before, but on seeing the Hillary book, I immediately flashed on Finding Nemo. OTOH, one eye was dilated beyond belief (Doctor’s followup went very well), and I get in a weird mood there, but something was unusual.

  6. In other Shrillary news, it seems that since 1992 the media hasn’t felt it important to mention that there exists evidence that she drinks like a flounder. Then there’s Nexivm and the curious absence of the name “Bronfman” from the news, with various tendrils pointing off toward the Shrillary camp.

    All things considered, the Republic appears to have left some red, white and blue paint on the Great Karmic Telephone Pole of Life, in the narrowest escape you’ve had in generations. Shrillary would be treating the US government as her personal enforcers and piggy bank. Still fishtailing, but at least not sliding broadside into the pole.

    1. Yep. It is scary to think how close we did come to a Shrillary presidency. Fortunately, the DNC and her camp all thought she was a shoe-in and didn’t take into account just how dissatisfied the nation had become with the People’s Party.

      1. While I was worried about a HRC Presidency, I wasn’t too concerned as I knew it would be a very short one.

        1. Yes. Her medical problems alone would probably see to that. MomRed got an ear-full from someone who had to spend an evening with HRC at a formal dinner in 2015 (long story). Based on what the dinner guest described, HRC was showing serious problems then.

          1. Ah, I was thinking she’d be dying of acute lead poisoning. The only question being whether the poisoner was Russian Government, American Government, or some patriotic-minded American citizen.

              1. Considering stories I’ve heard about the lack of “love” the Secret Service had for her when she was First Lady, they might have had a difficult time finding folks willing to take a bullet for her.

                  1. IIRC, 08-16 wasn’t really saying much. Didn’t they have some bad security screw-ups during that time period?

                    1. After hearing that providing security for HRC was a punishment detail, I suspect the security screw ups might have been, er, somewhat more intentional.

                    2. Posted in a hurry; I the ‘security screwups’ would have been on the Presidential protection details if Her Majesty became president. “Oops, I forgot to put a magazine in my pistol”

            1. If she chose her running mate carefully it might have given some people cause to think twice about that option.

  7. He might not be the richest member of Congress but, for a man who preaches about income inequality and such, he sure has a hell of a lot of money he could be sharing with the less fortunate.

    It has occurred to me that Bernie Sanders is not comparing his financial situation to that of the general population of the U.S., he is looking at those around him.  (As a Senator his salary is over three times that of the median American household.)  In the Senate he is just an average guy, certainly not a Warner or a Feinstein.  

    According to MoneyNation:

    In 2007 the typical senator or representative had a net worth of $803,000. By 2010 that number had grown to $1 million. At the same time, the net worth of U.S. families dropped from $126,000 to $77,000.


    How does Bernie Sanders’ net worth stack up against the U.S. Congress as a whole?  Sanders’ net worth is $528,014. That’s about half the net worth of the median member of the U.S. Congress. Compared to the U.S. Senate, Sanders’ net worth ranks 83 out of 100.

    1. Like so many good socialists — is there such a thing? — Bernie always stands on the inside looking out. He mustn’t get his hands or clothes dirty mingling with, much less becoming, one of e little people. As I said in the post, I will start taking him and those like him seriously when they move to the front of the line for income redistribution and give away most of their money to those less fortunate than they are. With regard to his financial status, if you combine his holdings with his wife, they have much more than the MoneyNation post says.

      1. Yup, Bernie with his wife is part of a household whose net worth is over a million. Still by himself is far better off than the median American household. I don’t ever expect to see him put his money where his mouth is, but he could divest himself of all his earning, and live on just what his wife has and still be better off than most.

        1. Here’s a question I wish the media would ask all those screaming for income equality? Why aren’t they giving up their federal salaries then? Trump has, iirc, said he won’t accept a salary as president. There is at least one Republican congress critter who is doing the same thing. Where are all the Dems and why aren’t they following that example?

          1. …and after so many of them got pwned by ABSCAM and its ilk, they dealt with the problem by making laws restricting the power of the FBI to investigage their affairs.

            “Nothing to see here, move along…”

          1. I wish I could translate that into my fencing. I still spend too much time feeling out my opponent before attacking. A bit more aggressiveness would generate more successes.

      2. > He mustn’t get his hands or clothes dirty mingling with, much less becoming, one of e little people.

        As someone else remarked, you have to remember this is a guy who got kicked out of a 1970s Vermont hippie commune for being too lazy.

        Also note that he’s been in Congress 26 years and only managed to get two bills passed, both of which were “gimme” bills related to the naming of post offices in Vermont.

        He’s not really a roll-up-your-sleeves type, that’s for sure.

        1. He’s more of a “Thinking Deep Thoughts” kind of guy. The kind of Deep Thoughts most Americans wouldn’t attempt without waders but which he can handle because he can walk on the water and never goes below the surface.

        2. Iirc the first job he had long term was Burlington mayor. And sank his fangs into the rapidly dessicating country soon after

      3. I’m assuming they at least have cleaning staff. Are the cleaning staff being paid as much per hour as Mr. Sanders? If not, why not?

        1. Considering the comparative utility of what each does, the cleaning staff ought be paid more.

  8. Any time a representative considers him or herself to be a member of a peer group other than the one he or she was elected to represent, they should be removed from office.

  9. “If he truly was committed to his socialist roots … Hell, he wouldn’t keep all the millions he and his wife have accumulated over the years.”
    Ralph W Emerson – The louder he spoke of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.

    1. I dunno, the Party members of the USSR didn’t seem to have any trouble justifying their dachas and privileges. After all, they represented the People; to live frugally would be to insult their constituency, wouldn’t it?

  10. At least with Bernie it’s probably only the spoons at risk. With Bill, the spoons, your daughters/wife, and probably the family dog would all be at risk.

  11. “especially since these are the same politicians who want to put severe limitations on the Second Amendment.”

    And the First.

      1. When you get right down to it, they’d be happier getting rid of the whole thing altogether.

        1. No, although being in Canada you might not have noticed: they’re extremely fond of the Fifth.

      2. To the entire Democratic Party and much of the judicial branch, the Constitution seems to be “just a piece of paper,” to quote an oddly-moustached Austrian.

      3. There is no respect for the Fourth. Fully body scanners at airports and the FBI/NSA demanding the ability to break encryption. A Presidential Candidate being bugged? Reporters having trojans installed on their systems?

        If that’s respect for the Fourth I’d really hate to see what lack of respect looks like.

          1. I really hate it when stuff that would get you accused of wearing a tinfoil helmet a decade ago are not only plausible, but actually happen.

            On the bright side, Government hiring practices seem to have insured that we have the most incompetent and stupid plotters in the history of the world.

            1. They haven’t *quite* made it down to Guy Fawkes levels of incompetence yet, but I figure they’ll get there soon.

              1. We haven’t disproved the hypothesis is that some of this ‘incompetence’ is deliberate sabotage by wreckers and breakers.

          2. This has been retracted. Apparently what they meant to say was that they had obtained Cohen’s call log – i.e. a list of who he was having phone conversations with.

            Though the fact that they raided Trump’s personal attorney (for reasons that are redacted) is bad enough.

            1. I sure am glad that NBC, who broke this story, has layers and layers of editors and fact checkers and would never go off half-cocked and report a story that hasn’t been thoroughly corroborated.

        1. The full body scanner thing started in 2007 during the Shrub’s watch. Although admittedly they’ve been kept and expanded ever since. It isn’t JUST the Democrats who are less than happy with the Bill of Rights.

          Sorry, I spent the Bush Jr years holding my nose and defending the man from a couple progressives on a weekly podcast even though I’m not a Republican (which was totally lost on the progs since they assumed I was a Republican because I didn’t agree with them.)

            1. 2006 – and immediately passed bloated budgets (well, okay, Congress never passes any other kind, no matter which party is in charge) and denouncing Bush ’41 for the resulting deficits.

              I’m not sure when they managed to force through legislation allowing TSA to unionize.

          1. Agreed. The Patriot Act started under him as well.

            Republicans don’t seem to support limited Government, financial responsibility, or any of the other things that are supposed to be part of the party platform. The only thing they do seem to support is the 2nd and I think that’s more because they are deathly afraid of what would happen if they stabbed voters in the back on that when they went home.

            1. Republicans support more limited* Government than the Dems, more financial responsibility than the Dems. As for the other things that are supposed to be part of the party platform, they support stronger defense, more realistic engagement with foreign powers and greater respect for religious values.

              This is not to say the Republicans are ideal, merely better than the Democrats. Sadly, we don’t get to go to war with the party we would want, we have to go to war with the party we have.

              *And limited in different areas. Both have gotten pretty out of control in regard to police powers but they are out of control in different ways, as Elián González might attest.

              1. “Sadly, we don’t get to go to war with the party we would want, we have to go to war with the party we have.”

                Yea… Every election it’s like “Baby, it’s going to be different this time.” and “Who else you gonna vote for? The Democrat?!?” and we suck it up and vote R… knowing the abuse will continue but in politics there is no such thing as a “beaten voter shelter.” Sorry, I don’t play that game anymore. To get my vote, a Republican has to EARN it, or I simply don’t vote (or throw it away on a third party). If that means the Democrat wins and the US goes to s#!t, then I no longer accept the blame. That wouldn’t have happened if the Republicans lived up to their rhetoric.

            2. That’s the veriest bullshit Adam. It takes only seeing the enemy’s victories, not ours. Reagan put an end to price and wage controls. Trump is shredding through onerous regulations, including most of the environmental ones.
              SERIOUSLY, yeah, they don’t do everything at once. But who does? Even Obama didn’t get guns forbidden, as he intended to and tried to.
              Seriously. Now, W wasn’t much of a Republican, granted. What with being a Christian Socialist, apparently. But he was the best we could do that year.

              1. Sorry, just been frustrated that it seems that has been pulling the wagon himself with limited support from what should be his allies.

                I’d just like to see a little more progress in case we only get Trump until 2020. The more things we can get fixed and do to throw a monkey wrench into the Progressives plans the more time the rest of the country will have to start paying attention and wake-up.

                1. Yeah, I do understand that, but you know, the deep state IS letting the masks drop. Even I didn’t believe things like the FBI were pits of corruption.
                  This won’t be forgotten. You can’t put humpty dumpty together again.
                  We’ll get ‘er done.

                  1. I know, patience is a virtue and all that. It’s just that the more of this stuff that comes to light the more pissed off I get. This kind of stuff is for Russia, not the USA.

                    I think my biggest frustration is that we need someone with a big shovel to come clean-up the mess that our Federal Agencies and Government have become and I’m not exactly sure who’s going to be pushing the shovel.

                    It’s Friday and it looks like it’s going to be a beautiful day and weekend. Time to detox a little and not worry about things that I can’t do much about and enjoy the things I can. 🙂

              2. I respectfully disagree. I don’t see the Patriot Act as the enemy’s victory. In my opinion Bush Jr OWNS that one (although I admit that I could be wrong, I just haven’t seen anything that makes me think so).

                I do agree about Reagan. He wasn’t perfect, but nobody is. He is also the first President that I remember being actively aware of.

                Strangely enough, I very much disliked the idea of Trump as President, but I have to admit that I really like some of what he’s been doing (tax cut, Gorsuch, reducing regulations.) Who knew?

                1. If you haven’t done it already look up abuses of the Patriot Act. They started pretty much right after it was passed. Agents were looking up their spouses and everything else. While I don’t see it as an ‘enemy’ victory, I do see it as a tool that the Government will continue to abuse and I’ve seen little evidence that it’s actually being used for the reasons it was passed. In fact, if you look at several cases, our Government decided to ignore information out of concerns to what amounted to political correctness.

                  Republicans will never kill it because it deals with ‘National Security’. Obama actually had killing the Patriot Act as part of his platform in 2008 then mysteriously renewed it every year he was elected. So it doesn’t appear that the Dems will kill it either.

                  I do agree with you on Trump. I thought his running was a joke and now. . .well, I’m happy he’s in office and I really hope he’s there until 2024. His Twittering is annoying but since it spins the Progs up into hyper-insanity I can live with it.

                  1. I agree with you about the Patriot act. Bad stuff that.

                    “Obama actually had killing the Patriot Act as part of his platform in 2008 then mysteriously renewed it every year he was elected.”

                    You made the mistake of not noticing his lips were moving. Obama also ran HEAVILY on stopping the “domestic” spying/phone tapping etc. acting like it was the very worst form of tyranny ever ever ever in the history of asshole tyrants. Then shortly after he entered office a bill was passed and quietly signed into law codifying ALL OF THAT SHIT DIRECTLY INTO LAW AS PERFECTLY LEGAL. None of the supposedly illegal stuff that Obama ran against STOPPED, the law was just changed to make it legal so it could continue all with the blessing of the big “0”.

                    1. Thanks for the laugh 🙂 In 2008 I wasn’t actually familiar with Obama’s fundamental dishonesty. It was strongly suspected but, since he was going to be our President whether I liked it or not, I figured I’d try and find some sort of silver lining. We all know how well that worked.

                      At least the ‘Scandal free Obama Presidency’ thing seems to have died a quick death.

                2. IIRC, the Patriot Act was basically Janet Reno’s longterm wishlist, buffed up and turned into a bipartisan screwup.

            3. If you go back and look up what actually went on, you’ll find that the people who were threatening a filibuster over actually fighting back if TSA wasn’t government employees (“To professionalize, you must federalize”) were the Democrats in the Disloyal Opposition.

              1. And they held our breath until they got their way. Just as John “F America” Kerry is conspiring with foreign powers to preserve the Iran Deal — and it doesn’t violate the Logan Act because reasons.

                Does it sometimes seem this nation is a dysfunctional single parent family, with the Dems playing the role of whiny brat kid sister, always demanding her way and over-indulged by Momma Media? With conservatives the put upon older brother, tasked to cede our interests to sissy while also having to constantly pull her chestnuts out of the fire?

                1. Can anyone explain to me why foreign leaders are even taking meetings with Kerry? He has no position, represents no one, and doesn’t even have a backchannel to policymakers.

                    1. Yeah,, they don’t realize he is currently *nobody* and has about the same say as 319,999,999 other people on matters.

                    2. Well, except as a representative for the Disloyal Opposition, which has actual de facto control of the bureaucracy / judiciary that will have to enforce any sanctions.

                      After the last 10 years, the notion that we still have the rule of law is…. optimistic.

            1. and you hate those evil brown latino people, remember? because you don’t like illegals?

              1. yeah. As my younger son walks to school (living close enough to college, in an apartment) and he tans under a lightbulb, he’s approaching “Indian Tan Levels” (Dot not feather.) So I guess now I have to hate him?

                1. according to some sources, you already do. Nevermind that they don’t have demonstrable proof thereof, apparently their saying it is conclusive.

                2. That’s funny, Many years ago, I was threatened by 3 a-holes in a convenience store in the Tennessee hills for being “a “N” lover” because my first wife (we were still married at the time) is Mexican and did a LOT of tanning that year. They left me alone when I couldn’t stop laughing. I wanted to wave my hand and say “This is not the minority you are looking for” but couldn’t get it out. (When she found out, she was pissed. “You could have gotten killed!”… She never understood Marines. 3 guys? Pfuey.)

                  But, of course, I must hate all minorities since I believe that people should enter the US using legitimate channels and follow the law (like my first wife and her family did).

          2. Ah yes, the full body scanner. Another reason why I refuse to fly if at all avoidable. After all, those machines are SO well maintained, and SO well calibrated, have SUCH EXCELLENT programming, and such HIGHLY SKILLED operators that they would NEVER possibly cause anyone the slightest bit of harm.

      1. Do your due diligence first, young lady! Does it have mold issues? What would commuting costs be? Does Amazon deliver to your door or would running to the store for milk cost you $100 in fuel and an hour and a half of your time? How often do hurricanes cross that area and does the internet stay on during such storms?

        1. Mold would be a minor thing next to structural rust problems but cost of repair and upkeep is probably more than the cost of buying it. As for milk, plan ahead and shop twice a month.

          There was a video after the first one that had some of the B&B guys. Guys. And fish guts. And all guys. It’s like a guy’s dream B&B. Fish all day, watch the sun set in blissful silence and then set off “mortars” that go boom and make pretty lights.

          If it were me, I’d keep the B&B part, just to keep the stir crazy at bay. Also the fish and fireworks.

          1. But that one has no aesthetic appeal! It’s a spindly modern tower, thirty miles from land. Just a single floor of probably featureless rooms, with a helicopter landing-pad on the roof!
            As a lair, you could do so much better.
            One of those island properties, which are always being promoted on the Daily Mail. One with a small castle, or ruinous stately manor, with a couple of attached cottages for the sons … or the resident minions. So much closer to the shops, you see.
            Something like this – depressingly modern, but you get the idea

            1. While the views from the depressingly modern house are rather nice, there simply does not seem to be anywhere near enough space for books. And it is depressingly modern. On the other hand, the forty room castle shows real potential. I’d get rid of that Royal Stewart plaid rug, it won’t do as it is not in the family.

          2. i thought that was ‘missile silo’… or was that ‘volcano lair’?

    1. Some years ago the Fed auctioned off an old aircraft carrier. The USS Cabot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cabot_(CVL-28)

      It went for… $80,000. In boating terms, that’s usually something you could tow behind a minivan. Two football fields long, room for 1500 of your closest friends, and steam catapults for entertainment…

      Sure, everything of value had been salvaged and it was just the hull, but I would have towed it out past the three-mile limit, raised the flag of the Autarchate of TRX, and declared my own country…

  12. Hillary telling the truth and Bernie having any realistic political proposals is the most unrealistic of ideas. Will not be holding my breath.

  13. > passing the atrocity that was the Affordable
    > (or should I say Unaffordable) Care Act.

    “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”

    Every politician that voted for that bill should be charged with malfeasance in office, given a fair trial, and impaled on a stake on the White House lawn.

    1. I so have to agree with you — as long as Pelosi is front and center. She is the one who really pushed that vote and who, iirc, told everyone they could read the bill AFTER they passed it. Bitch.

      1. In full fairness, what she said (or was clearly trying to say) was that it was impossible to get at the content of the bill until after the political Sturm und Drang had subsided.

        “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. ” Nancy Pelosi, addressing the National Association of Counties’ annual Legislative Conference

        She was addressing legislators who would be tasked to implement the bill and to promote its benefits, so this is a fairly mundane point to make.

        Of course, the Dems would never generate such fog around any Republican initiative. Nor would they ever quote a Republican Speaker out of context for political purpose (Speaker Gingrich*, please do not hold your breath awaiting apologies about Medicare “going to wither on the vine [because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it — voluntarily.]”)

        But your final word remains a valid description.

        *Snopes is very quick to defend the Pelosi quote but has nothing about Gingrich’s

  14. And Mrs. Bernie seems to have miscalculated horrifically, as the head of a tiny private college: Burlington College, under her leadership, made big plans for expansion (which plans may have a whisper of fraud about them) – plans which fell through and bankrupted the school. But Mrs. Bernie bailed, with a generous severance package. Nice work, if you can get it, I guess. http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/26/exclusive-bernie-sanders-wife-may-have-defrauded-state-agency-bank/

    1. Sounds like more than a whisper. OTOH, it’s the FBI doing the investigation, so I expect nuttin’.

    2. Makes you want to sneak into their lakeside house, turn off the sump pump, and run a siphon hose from the lake into the basement; doesn’t it?

  15. If he truly was committed to his socialist roots … He’d be redistributing his wealth

    Come now, we all know that socialism isn’t about redistributing my wealth, it is about redistributing your wealth.

    That’s why the Royal Wee is taken, to promulgate pronoun confusion.

    1. No one likes to be the one who works (or gives) while everyone else sits on their butts (or hoards). This is true no matter the system or context… like being the one who ends up cleaning the house.

      And when it comes to charity it all comes down to if you’ve got a individualist point of view or a globalist/groupist point of view. The firs sort can “do good” in their immediate world. They can clean their own house, or support their own family, or help a little here and there and know that they’ve made a difference in the life of an individual. They can even encourage others to do the same and believe that if more people did, then the world would be a better place. But if you’re not an individualist you can’t just take care of your family or do your bit of good in your corner of the world or help that one child you send money to in Africa (at least not only) because it leaves all the rest of it undone. You have BIG dreams of helping BigPeople. (Like BigOil or BigBusiness or something… BigPeople.)

      That can only be done by taking control of everyone elses money and resources in addition to your own.

      1. “Fixing the world’s problems” is a great way to get money and power, because you’ll never work yourself out of a job. You always need more money and more power to get it done.

  16. Hillary called herself a capitalist. The correct term is “running dog capitalist” (per communist/socialist standard usage). So, one more lie to the people of the US.

    1. I am SO glad Hillary isn’t into jogging. Mothers would be shielding their children from the sight; and any man unfortunate enough to see her would be instantly stricken with a horrible case of ED.

  17. I seem to recall that on at least one occasion Bernie did not self-identify as a “democratic socialist” but as a National Socialist. Those do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

    1. Yes. And an incredulous reporter asked him if he was certain, and he repeated emphatically that he was a Nationalist Socialist.

      And a whooooole lot of us face-pawed. And some of us used it as a teaching moment in class.

    2. I thought I remembered that as well but couldn’t, in a very quick search, find a good source for it.

      1. It’s been memory holed. Dad, who remembers nothing, remembers that. (Dad thinks Pres. Obama was okay for a right winger-was still appalled that Sanders said that, and that it didn’t kill his career.)

        But find a source on the internet now? I spent a couple hours with Duck Duck Go a month or so ago and couldn’t do it.

          1. Scary read; but right on the money from what I evaluated Sanders as back during the election campaign. His only grace, if you could call it that, was his weakening of the Clinton campaign, and of course, the revelation that the Clinton campaign had corrupted and suborned the DNC such that there was no fair Democratic primary.

    3. I still remember thinking “Did I just really hear that?” But I did hear it. “Jewish Man Labels Self Nationalist Socialist” sounds more like an Onion headline than real news from an American presidential campaign. [shakes head, sighing]

      1. I still remember thinking “Did I just really hear that?” But I did hear it. “Jewish Man Labels Self Nationalist Socialist”…


        1. Not that far fetched. If you look back over his career, it’s pretty evident that Bernie hates Israelis, and most other Jews.

          1. I had heard that he was not a particular favorite with his fellow kibbutzniks during the time he was living at kibbutz Sha’sr HaAmakim.  He was far more interested in talking political theory than doing any actual work.

  18. So pardon me if I laugh hysterically when Clinton blames losing votes on admitting she’s a capitalist.

    In fairness, I think what Hillary meant was that she lost votes in the primaries to Bernie for “confessing” to being a capitalist, lost votes which kept Bernie’s campaign afloat and making it more difficult for her pets in the MSM to disguise what a loathsome person she is. Her goal was a coronation in the primaries: a low key, low appearance campaign in which she merely had to show up and wave her royal hand from time to time. Having to actually campaign for the office brought all of her personality flaws front and center and prevented the campaign from presenting her soft focus “see what you want to see” content-free candidacy.

    1. Machiavelli, she ain’t. The first time, there was that one token minority dude that was supposed to lose and take his spot as VP- but he won instead.
      Then, she went the other direction and got some crackpot old white guy, and that really didn’t work.
      And then she got her choice of opponent to run against, a brash and vulgar rich guy with a big deplorability factor (including tons of October surprises in reserve)- and that didn’t work.

  19. If you’re looking for something else to read and want to continue on the “snark HRC and the DNC” train, would you consider “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer? Schweizer is taking her and her ilk to task in this one, but after all you’ve put your sanity and liver through, you deserve to at least read one book that calls out her BS.

  20. their housing allowance for DC is ridiculous. I’ve always thought that some old barracks converted into apartments on Andrews or something is what they should be living in, and their families should stay with their constituents.

    1. Aren’t there any old “Cool Hand Luke” style roadgang prisons in Louisiana we could use?

      1. We still have them in Arkansas. For a while it was just us and Florida.

        While foreigners from New York and California are horrified, the road gangs are not just voluntary, but perqs for good behavior. For long term inmates, picking up trash is well worth being Outside for a few hours. Mess up and you drop to the bottom of the list.

        1. Local County has road side trash clean-up. Don’t think they do any weed wack, just trash. Not sure about state wide or what level of “crime” other than DUI offenses, with no accident/injuries, or used-to-be hit & run even if someone is killed*. Latter changed when Katie’s Law passed. Now if hit & run & someone is killed or seriously injured, with an uptick if injured/death is pedestrian, not in protected vehicle (like car), it is classified as if DUI with death/serious injury, even if not provable when actually caught.

          Full disclosure: Katie’s Law was a drive by her parents, & family. Katie, a cousin, was my son’s playmate (same age). If the hit & run driver had killed more of the 4 that were walking on the rural road shoulder that early dusk evening (June) he would have gone to prison. Since he only killed one (clipped 2 others, Katie he threw 40′ across a ditch), he spent 36 months on the County Road Crew, in county lockup, plus 10 years loss of Drivers License, after release (any bets on whether he didn’t drive anyway?)

          1. No bets. We had a huge number of habitual offenders driving without licenses, and driving other people’s cars the year I was on the grand jury. The only way to stop them would be to execute them.

            1. Before he killed Katie, he already had his license suspended once (not for DUI, other things). Got it back because someone went to bat for him so he could be a driver with a local company that made deliveries. Whose vehicle he was driving when he killed her … yes, parents sued, & won.

  21. “have earned an estimated $240 million in the last 15 years. Of that, HRC is estimated to have earned $51 million”

    I object to the use of the word ‘earned’. ‘Been paid’ is more fitting.

    1. The dangerous bit is that if crock had run or been picked as vp we probably would have president crook.

  22. Having been defeated by an -enthusiastic- “capitalist” advocate, who was elected in a veritable wave of renewed rightward-moving thought, HRC determined that her best move would have been

    Run -further- to the -Left-.

    “Delusional” just is so inadequate a word….

      1. Not especially smart? But all of her staffers – and they’ve got degrees from really first-rank schools – assure her she’s a genius!

          1. My mind now hears : ‘I am Hillary Rodham Clinton, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht’

            1. Hillary Clinton is the only person who could sail through the Bermuda Triangle her entire life and never worry about being abducted by aliens.

  23. Oh, I’d believe the Democrats are full on socialist in the rank and file, not just the leadership.

    Heidi Heitkamp is up for re-election in the Senate this fall. She was pretty supportive of Obama, about the only thing she went against him on were 2A issues (and she seems a little wishy washy on those) and her support for Keystone XL. But to the Dems in this state, she’s too far to the right. Too supportive of Trump. They basically want a full-on out-of-the-closet Communist. Oh, did I mention she’s the only Democrat to win a state wide election within the last decade here? And that race was so close it can’t even be verified.

    They keep losing more and more seats in the state legislature the farther to the left they lean, but they seem to think they’ll surely win more this next time if they just lean harder to the left. I would wait for the day when they have zero representation in one of the state houses (it’s close now) but they can still get votes from the college campuses and the Indian Reservations, and I don’t expect those to give up their support any time soon.

    1. One of the more interesting things in HST’s book about the ’72 campaign is that many Democrats truly believed that there were tons and tons of votes just waiting for them on the Left side. Because all dem yoots were all Liberals- all of them, and they must all hate Nixion too!
      So, McGovern was pushed forward, and lost super really big.
      I suspect that 2020 will be similar.

    2. If we just raised the voting age back to 21, the Democrats would be in real trouble in so many more places. If you look at the the presidential results map that shows the individual counties, one of the things that stands out are the isles of blue where a major university sits in a relatively rural county. Ohio University in Athens, Indiana University in Bloomington, and the University of Kansas in Lawrence, are good examples. Heck, Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory in Hamilton County, Ohio was roughly equivalent to the undergraduate enrollment in Cincinnati’s universities – not that 100% of them voted, or voted for her, of course.

      1. “If we just raised the voting age back to 21, ”
        Works for me.
        In college, voting for the first time actually voted for McGovern — because I knew nothing at the time and it was him or Nixon.
        Haven’t voted for a Democrat since then.

        1. My first vote was in ’72, also. I voted for McGovern (wised up in ’82; largely over gun seizure reasonable gun control), though I voted for the incumbent R governor in Illinois. OTOH, he was not forgiven for his role in instituting the state income tax. On the gripping hand, he was one of the few former governors in Illinois not to end up in federal prison. (Yes, the winner did end up there.)

          1. On the other side of the coin, my father was a born and bred OK democrat. He’d walk into the voting booth and vote straight ticket. It didn’t matter who was running as long as they had the (D) beside their name. And then along came McGovern. That was the one year my father voted for a Republican for president. Of course, it had to be Nixon. Dad never let us forget it and he never again voted (R) for president. But, he did start looking more closely at who a candidate was and what they stood for on the other races and no longer voted straight party tickets.

            1. 1989, turned 18 on Saturday, voted in the local election on Tuesday. Didn’t get to vote for Pres until ’92

      2. Well since 18-21 yos can’t be trusted with rifles why trust them with an army.

      3. Which may be a large part of the impetus behind the movement to lower the voting age to 16.

      1. I keep checking to make sure I haven’t awakened in an alternate reality. When Kanye says something sensible, what other explanation is there?

        1. Hollywood Big Pederasty systemically discriminates against entertainers that present as anything other than vapid?

  24. To be fair, the (might-have-been) Wicked Witch of the West Wing tells the truth routinely. After all, how many times per day does she state a desire/want/need/desperate craving for more Chardonnay? Every instance is unalloyed truth….

  25. For ridiculousness, look at what Bernie has been telling us about Latin America for the last half century. Yes, Bernie has been spouting nonsense for that long.

  26. A couple of recent cartoons that fit into the discussion (separated for evading the hall monitor)
    Kanye West

    1. That works. Tommy Lee Jones has such an expressive face … and in my mind I can hear his no nonsense deliverance of that statement.

  27. I never thought I would agree with Malcolm X.
    (see the Map in Bill Whittle’s video)

  28. Black lives don’t matter to Hillary and Bernie either.
    Go, Candace Owen!

  29. My fear is that when we meet the new boss he’ll be the same as the old boss. I won’t get fooled again!

    You Say You Want a Revolution
    By Sarah Hoyt
    I keep getting accused of being an optimist. It is definitely accused, in that tone. I get accused of ignoring what grave times we are living in, and how we should already be at war if we’re ever going to be.

    I’m very aware of the grave times we’re living in, but some of it, I’m also aware, is not that the times are worse than ever, but that they are more openly so.

    People who accuse me of optimism often point at the oligarchic moves of the Deep State and the meretricious behavior of the press. Don’t I see that times are dire? Don’t I see Rome is burning? Don’t I see we need a revolution—now? That it should have happened long ago — when sedition took hold in the sixties; when it deepened under Clinton; or when it blossomed fully under Obama.

    I’m a depressive, so of course, yes, I see all that, and I have my dark moments.

    The scene that comes to mind, very often, is a scene from Don Camillo and His Flock, by Giovanni Guareschi. The main character, Don Camillo is the village priest, and in this scene, the village has been swallowed by water from the river Po and the entire village is submerged.

    On Sunday, the priest sets out a little portable altar in the tower and starts saying mass, looking out at the blind water and feeling alone and desolate, the last believer at the end of the world.

    Most lovers of liberty feel that way. We feel that way when we hear half the country happily mouth that they belong to the government, or our young people say things that don’t even make any sense, having been disqualified by their education and entertainment for rationality and made incapable of individual thought.

    But being a depressive by nature, I’ve learned to reality check my feelings that these are the worst of times and we should, in fact, have already had a revolution if we are to save liberty.

    And I know history. Let’s suppose that outrages against liberty started at the beginning of the twentieth century (they didn’t. They started with the Republic.) Why haven’t we had a revolution yet, gosh darn it?

    Well, the people expecting us to are suffering from movie history. Movies are very fond of portraying “and then the whole people rose up and their just cause was vindicated.”

    It wasn’t like that. It’s never been like that, in the whole history of mankind, much less in the history of this country. …

  30. They don’t have to worry about finding affordable insurance after passing the atrocity that was the Affordable (or should I say Unaffordable) Care Act.
    Yep, they specifically exempted themselves, while slashing and burning all those other “Cadillac plans”.

Comments are closed.