Posted on

Chuck Todd Lets Socialist Redefine the Ideology to ‘Sell’ It to ‘Older Americans’

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rocked the Democratic Party on last Tuesday after she toppled New York Congressman Joe Crowley. The millennial identifies as a Democratic Socialist and, as would be expected, she became an overnight media darling. Since socialism has led to the poverty and suffering of millions of people around the world, there’s no wonder many people fear its horrific effects. But on Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC, moderator Chuck Todd let the young Congresswoman-elect define the ideology on her terms.

“Let me talk about some of your policy positions but generally. First, explain this to me. You were endorsed by a group, the Democratic Socialists,” Todd prefaced in the middle of the interview. “What is your definition of democratic socialist?” He also boasted to her about how The New York Times had a headline touting millennials turning to socialism.

As what often happens when a Democrat is asked to define socialism in non-scary and untruthful terms, she stumbled out of the gate:

Well, for me, again, and – and – there’s so much focus on this endorsement, but I also think it’s important — an important part of my strategy in winning was building a broad-based coalition of people. So while there is a focus on this one aspect of the coalition, and to me, you know, to answer your question, the definition of democratic socialism, to me, again, is the fact that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no American should be too poor to live.

 

 

“Some Democrats are afraid of the ‘S’ word,” Todd explained to her. “Older Americans hear socialism and they tie it to, sort of, ugly governments from Europe and the past. (…) How do you sell this to an older generation,” he wondered.

Ocasio-Cortez parroted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who suggested the Democratic Party was a “big tent.” “I do think that, once again, it’s not about selling an ism, or an ideology, or a label, or a color, this is about selling our values,” she told Todd. While Todd was letting her redefine the ideology, there was no pushback or questions from him about the New York City Democratic Socialists pushing to “abolish profit” and to “abolish borders”. Todd also failed to question her about a Page Six report that found a former co-worker who accused her of unfairly splitting tips just a few months ago. 

It’s easy for Todd to overlook the horrors of socialism here because his network hardly covers them. As the Media Research Center noted in early 2017, NBC barely noticed Venezuela’s economic crisis. In the summer of that year, they couldn’t be bothered to note how the country became a dictatorship. And in the middle of it all, NBC couldn’t find it in themselves to label the culprit: socialism.

Ocasio-Cortez’s victory over Crowley had been likened to Virginia Congressman David Brat unseating House GOP whip Eric Cantor in a shocking upset in 2014. At that time, soothsayer Todd proclaimed Brats win meant “immigration will absolutely tear the Republican Party apart”. Yet immigration was a major reason why President Trump won the 2016 election. This time around, there was obviously no doom and gloom for the future of the Democratic Party from him.

The transcript is below, click “expand” to read:

 

Sign Up for MRC Newsletters!

 

NBC
Meet the Press
July 1, 2018
11:10:33 AM Eastern [2 minutes 4 seconds]

CHUCK TODD: Let me talk about some of your policy positions but generally. First, explain this to me. You were endorsed by a group, the Democratic Socialists. You have embraced this label. I think The New York Times has a headline this morning, this sort of, “Millennials Have Embrace Socialism.” What is your definition of democratic socialist?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, for me, again, and – and – there’s so much focus on this endorsement, but I also think it’s important — an important part of my strategy in winning was building a broad-based coalition of people. So while there is a focus on this one aspect of the coalition, and to me, you know, to answer your question, the definition of democratic socialism, to me, again, is the fact that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no American should be too poor to live. And to me, that means every working class American in this country should have access to dignified health care. Should actually be able to go see a doctor without going broke. It means you should be able to send your kids to college and trade school if they so choose. And no person should feel precarious or unstable in their access to housing as our economy develops.

TODD: Some Democrats are afraid of the “S” word.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah.

TODD: It has– Older Americans hear socialism and they tie it to, sort of, ugly governments from Europe and the past.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yeah.

TODD: Do you — how do you — how do you sell this to an older generation?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think, you know, as the clip from Schumer showed earlier, Democrats are a big tent party. I’m not trying to impose an ideology on all several hundred members of Congress, but I do think that, once again, it’s not about selling an ism, or an ideology, or a label, or a color, this is about selling our values.

TODD: Are you a democratic socialist? Is that what you call yourself or you don’t want that label?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Um. I mean, it’s part of what I am, it’s not all of what I am. And I think that’s a very important distinction. I’m an educator. I’m an organizer. And I believe that what we’re really seeing is just a movement for health care, housing, and education in the United States.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Posted on

Madeleine Albright Calls Trump ‘Undemocratic’ But Praises MS-13

A “compliment sandwich” is where you say something nice about a person, offer some constructive criticism, and then pay another compliment. It’s a technique to soften the blow of the critique so it doesn’t seem like an insult. Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright kind of did that with Donald Trump. First she said the President is not a fascist, which is a nice thing. Then she lowered the boom saying he is “undemocratic.” Finally she messed up the whole sandwich by heaping praise on MS-13. Democrats can’t do anything right and that includes sandwich making.

Albright did an interview with the BBC where they of course talked about Trump. Even the Brits have no interest in talking about Albright, so she was asked if the President is a fascist like all liberals say he is.

“I don’t think President Trump is a fascist,” said Albright.

See, I told you that was nice. She’ll probably get an angry memo from the Liberalism Council for countering the official platform that Trump is a fascist, but I doubt her membership card will be pulled. Then again, she did also offer this:

“Ultimately a fascist leader is somebody who uses violence to achieve what he wants, so I do not think that Trump is a fascist leader,” added Albright.

She’s definitely getting a stern talking to about this.

Maybe Albright saved a little credibility with this however:

“I do think he’s the most undemocratic president in modern American history. That troubles me,” she said of Trump.

Well duh. Obviously he’s undemocratic, he’s a Republican. She didn’t mean it like that. The left likes to accuse Trump of destroying democracy and generally being undemocratic, based on nothing. Our country is actually a Republic or a representative democracy, but not a direct democracy and Trump has done nothing to upset or destroy any of that.

Unlike most liberals, Albright actually tied to explain why she thinks Trump is undemocratic:

“I think his attitude towards freedom of speech, and the role of the media and his disregard for institutions, that worries me,” said Albright.

Has Trump actually done anything to curb or suppress the freedom of speech? A law? A proposed law? An executive order? No, he simply calls the liberal press “fake news” when they publish fake news. That’s not being undemocratic, that’s telling it like it is. Yes, telling the truth is not something associated with the Democratic Party, but again, she wasn’t talking about Trump’s undemocratic ways in those terms.

And speaking of lying…

“By the way, it’s not easy as a former diplomat to be in a foreign country and criticize one’s own president. But I am concerned,” Albright said.

Not true. Albright has been very critical of Trump and even wrote a book about how he’s a fascist. I’m not kidding, she wrote a book in which she compares Trump to Hitler and Mussolini.

Also, in reacting to Trump calling the violent street gang MS-13 “animals,” she tweeted out this:

When did Trump call MS-13 “insects”? I guess it doesn’t matter. The important point is that Albright looks at the dismembering murders and rapists of MS-13 as people who are trying to improve their lives. Talk about having a disregard for institutions. These scumbags are by and large in the country illegally and committing horrific crimes against Americans, yet Albright sees them a shining beacons of democracy, while calling President Trump undemocratic.

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

Posted on

Report: Seattle police flee city in ‘mass exodus’ over city’s liberal, anti-police politics

Nearly four dozen police officers have resigned from the Seattle Police Department this year in what is being described as a “mass exodus” over the city’s increasingly liberal and progressive policies.

What are the details?

Despite the population of the popular northwestern city skyrocketing, the city’s police force remains at levels seen during the 1970s. Rich O’Neill, vice president of the Seattle Police Guild, told KCPQ-TV the reason behind a large portion of the departures is concerning.

While many of those who have left this year retired, 20 or so left Seattle to work for other cities, states and law enforcement agencies. The reason for the “mass exodus?” O’Neill said officers are frustrated with the city’s liberal policies and a lack of support from local officials.

“It’s just depressing to serve in a place where many City Council members who are coming out at times with negative comments about the police,” O’Neill said, explaining many officers are leaving Seattle for neighboring jurisdictions.

A source who spoke to KCPQ under the condition of anonymity confirmed O’Neill’s explanation.

“Worker bees on the street, they don’t feel appreciated. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life,” the source said.

More from KCPQ:

The union says Councilmembers Mike O’Brien and Kshama Sawant have been very critical of the police department. They say Sawant calling two officers murderers quickly after an officer-involved shooting was inappropriate.

O’Neill also says there are not enough officers to respond to all the calls, especially for low-level offenses. But he also says politics is playing a role when it comes to going after those low-level crimes.

O’Neill says city leaders are sending the message that officers cannot be proactive about policing and that they are allowing certain crimes to go on without accountability.

Meanwhile, the police guild said Seattle officers have not seen a pay raise in more than three years. However, O’Neill reiterated the exodus has nothing to do with benefits and everything to do with politics.

“I’ve been here since 1980, I’ve never seen the city in the condition it is in. It’s because it’s been allowed on many levels,” O’Neill said.

What did Seattle PD say?

The police department told KCPQ it would not characterize the departures as a “mass exodus,” explaining they’ve been able to replace officers who leave with new recruits.

According to police data, 79 officers left the force in 2017, but the agency was able to recruit 102 new officers. In 2017, there were 1,444 sworn police officers working in Seattle.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

Posted on

Venezuelan inflation rate now at 40,000%

A researcher at John Hopkins who has been tracking prices in Venezuela for two decades, says that the inflation rate has topped 40,000% for the first time. 


No, that’s not a printing error. The annualized inflation rate for Venezuela is, according to Steve Hanke, 41,838%.



Business Insider:


Venezuela’s government has largely stopped reporting economic data, including internal measures of inflation. The Central Bank of Venezuela, which did not immediately respond to request for comment, has not independently released inflation figures in at least a year.


Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has passed blame for the roiled economy onto others, including opposition activists and officials in Washington. At a campaign rally in May, he blamed hyperinflation on “criminal mafias.”


But economists point out that Maduro runs the unorthodox policies they say have pushed the country into economic crisis. The socialist leader has repeatedly refused international aid to Venezuela.


“It’s internal,” Hanke said. “Government spending continues to accelerate and the sources of revenue start drying up.”


Can you imagine living in a country with an inflation rate of 40,000%? 


Try this:


But economists and activists say hyperinflation’s presence now is clear. A recent university study found that about 90% of civilians were living in poverty last year and most of those surveyed had lost an average of 25 pounds in body weight.


“The hyperinflation is devastating the economy,” said Andres Abadia, a senior economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. He expects the economy to contract in 2018, for a fifth consecutive year, and sees no turnaround in the near-term.


Abadia said Venezuela is a “disaster area” and that as long as Maduro is in power, the economy will “continue to collapse.” But Maduro reaffirmed a tight grip on power last month, as he easily won another six-year term in what was widely condemned as a fraudulent election.


I would like to feel pity for the Venezuelan people and on one level, I do. No one should have to suffer like this because of a crazy, incompetent government.


But Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, were both originally elected by a landslide in a more or less legitimate election. There was no doubt that Chavez and Maduro received a large majority of votes from Venezuelan citizens. So, in effect, the people have only themselves to blame for their dire predicament.


Changing that predicament has proved to be impossible. The opposition has been cowed into near submission and despite huge protests against the regime, the people have been unable to dislodge the tyrant Maduro who leans heavily on Cubans in his government for security and support.


So, for the present, the people of Venezuela must suffer. With the high command of the military staffed by Maduro loyalists, a military coup (at least from the very top) doesn’t appear to be in the cards.


 


Monica Showalter adds:


No, they weren’t more or less legitimate elections. The evidence has been heavy for electoral fraud since 2004, back when Jimmy Carter declared the recall referendum against Hugo Chavez’s awful regime ‘free and fair’ and assured that except for what went on in the totalization room, they could confirm it themselves. Such jackasses. When a leader is so bad he triggers gargantuan protests, a military coup d’etat attempt, and enough signatures for a full recall referendum, you know things have gotten bad, and that was back in 2004. Every election since then has been even more fraud-tainted than the last, with Smartmatic, the electronic voting machine company running these ‘elections,’ finally admitting there have been problems with how the votes were tallied and called its involvement in Venezuela’s elections its worst mistake around the time it pulled out. The “election” of Nicolas Maduro back in 2013 was the fraudiest one of them all, except for his reelection. He wasn’t even legally allowed to run. That he ‘won’ is utter rubbish and his re-election was so bad only a few rogue states recognize it. Not even Brazil or the European Union recognize this one as legitimate, let alone the U.S., because it utterly reeks of fraud. Commie regimes, from Cuba, to Nicaragua to Venezuela have always cheated on elections. Communist socialists have no alliance to any state or to any rule of law – their sole loyalty is to the ideological party. So, for them, it’s natural that they cheat in elections. You know, by any means necessary, as the Weathermen used to say. It’s what they do.


A researcher at John Hopkins who has been tracking prices in Venezuela for two decades, says that the inflation rate has topped 40,000% for the first time. 


No, that’s not a printing error. The annualized inflation rate for Venezuela is, according to Steve Hanke, 41,838%.


Business Insider:


Venezuela’s government has largely stopped reporting economic data, including internal measures of inflation. The Central Bank of Venezuela, which did not immediately respond to request for comment, has not independently released inflation figures in at least a year.


Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has passed blame for the roiled economy onto others, including opposition activists and officials in Washington. At a campaign rally in May, he blamed hyperinflation on “criminal mafias.”


But economists point out that Maduro runs the unorthodox policies they say have pushed the country into economic crisis. The socialist leader has repeatedly refused international aid to Venezuela.


“It’s internal,” Hanke said. “Government spending continues to accelerate and the sources of revenue start drying up.”


Can you imagine living in a country with an inflation rate of 40,000%? 


Try this:


But economists and activists say hyperinflation’s presence now is clear. A recent university study found that about 90% of civilians were living in poverty last year and most of those surveyed had lost an average of 25 pounds in body weight.


“The hyperinflation is devastating the economy,” said Andres Abadia, a senior economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. He expects the economy to contract in 2018, for a fifth consecutive year, and sees no turnaround in the near-term.


Abadia said Venezuela is a “disaster area” and that as long as Maduro is in power, the economy will “continue to collapse.” But Maduro reaffirmed a tight grip on power last month, as he easily won another six-year term in what was widely condemned as a fraudulent election.


I would like to feel pity for the Venezuelan people and on one level, I do. No one should have to suffer like this because of a crazy, incompetent government.


But Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, were both originally elected by a landslide in a more or less legitimate election. There was no doubt that Chavez and Maduro received a large majority of votes from Venezuelan citizens. So, in effect, the people have only themselves to blame for their dire predicament.


Changing that predicament has proved to be impossible. The opposition has been cowed into near submission and despite huge protests against the regime, the people have been unable to dislodge the tyrant Maduro who leans heavily on Cubans in his government for security and support.


So, for the present, the people of Venezuela must suffer. With the high command of the military staffed by Maduro loyalists, a military coup (at least from the very top) doesn’t appear to be in the cards.


 


Monica Showalter adds:


No, they weren’t more or less legitimate elections. The evidence has been heavy for electoral fraud since 2004, back when Jimmy Carter declared the recall referendum against Hugo Chavez’s awful regime ‘free and fair’ and assured that except for what went on in the totalization room, they could confirm it themselves. Such jackasses. When a leader is so bad he triggers gargantuan protests, a military coup d’etat attempt, and enough signatures for a full recall referendum, you know things have gotten bad, and that was back in 2004. Every election since then has been even more fraud-tainted than the last, with Smartmatic, the electronic voting machine company running these ‘elections,’ finally admitting there have been problems with how the votes were tallied and called its involvement in Venezuela’s elections its worst mistake around the time it pulled out. The “election” of Nicolas Maduro back in 2013 was the fraudiest one of them all, except for his reelection. He wasn’t even legally allowed to run. That he ‘won’ is utter rubbish and his re-election was so bad only a few rogue states recognize it. Not even Brazil or the European Union recognize this one as legitimate, let alone the U.S., because it utterly reeks of fraud. Commie regimes, from Cuba, to Nicaragua to Venezuela have always cheated on elections. Communist socialists have no alliance to any state or to any rule of law – their sole loyalty is to the ideological party. So, for them, it’s natural that they cheat in elections. You know, by any means necessary, as the Weathermen used to say. It’s what they do.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Nolte: Never-Trump Would’ve Handed Democrats 6-3 Supreme Court Majority

Had the National Review, the Weekly Standard, David Frum, Rick Wilson, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Joe Scarborough, and the rest of this morally bankrupt crew called Never Trump won the day, Democrats would be looking at a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

Had Never Trump got what they wanted in 2016 — a President Hillary Clinton — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would have already been replaced with another Ruth Bader Ginsberg, which ensured an immediate 5-4 left-wing majority. But thanks to the man Never Trump told us was not a real conservative, we got Neil Gorsuch.

If that is not enough of a real-life nightmare (as I’ll explain below), Wednesday’s retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy would have increased that already unthinkable majority to 6-3, ensuring a left-wing court rewriting the Constitution for decades to come.

Just look at the hell these Never Trumpers would have unleashed during the Supreme Court term that just ended.

  • Cake artists forced to participate in same-sex weddings.
  • Public employees forced to contribute to Democrat campaigns through forced union dues.
  • Pro-life clinics forced by the state to advertise for abortion clinics.
  • States not allowed to clean up their own outdated voter rolls.

And on and on…

Those were the stakes, and Never Trump knew those were the stakes, and still this elitist tribe of narcissistic preeners chose to campaign for Hillary, chose to fight alongside CNN, MSNBC, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats.

Had Never Trump won the day, the consequences to our way of life would have been very real, for we would not only would now live in a country where the government could force us to promote abortion (and God only knows where this precedent would have led), where the government could force artists to create art that violated their religious consciences (and put their very souls at risk), this would have only been a prelude to a parade of SCOTUS horrors Never Trump was willing to let loose in order to balm their neurotic egos.

Our Second Amendment civil rights would have vanished, illegal aliens would have won the right to vote, international law would have superseded the Constitution, and using the issue of gay marriage, our Church would have been effectively dismantled.

All of this was on the line — everyone knew it — and those of us who Never Trump smeared as racist, backwards, ignorant deplorables conned into voting for Trump knew this was on the line. And still, Never Trump sided with CNN and campaigned for Hillary Clinton.

What’s more, we now know that when Never Trump said it was driven by “muh principles,” by moral issues, that was also a big fat lie.

To begin with, Never Trump wanted Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt politician yet to be indicted, and her credibly accused-rapist husband back in the White House.

But these Never Trumpers truly exposed their dishonesty by vigorously backing Congressman Mark Sanford (R-SC) in his primary re-election bid against a pro-Trump Republican.

After months of attempting to shame Trump supporters and evangelicals over the possibility Trump might have had trysts with a porn star over a decade ago, Never Trump circled the wagons for Sanford, a man who just a few years ago disappeared from the governor’s office to have an extramarital affair in Buenos Aires.

And now that we might have a real chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is not only unconstitutional but the tacit approval of the cold-blooded murder of millions of unborn children, now that Trump has promised to put a “pro-life” justice on the court…

Oh, muh principles indeed.

Never Trump was never about morality, conservatism, individual liberty, and it certainly is not about America.

Never Trump is and was only about one thing — a bunch of spoiled, petty, small-minded, bigoted sore losers who desperately want to be on CNN and MSNBC.

These nihilistic peacocks all put their personal vanity above the fate of their own country,  and all but a few have shown the integrity and humility to admit just how horribly wrong they are.

Someday I might be able to forgive, but for right now these Vichy Republicans can slow cook in hell.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Reuters editor tells Trump ‘blood is on your hands’ for newsroom mass murder. Backlash follows.

A Reuters editor told President Donald Trump that “blood is on your hands” over Thursday’s mass murder at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Maryland — and then apologized and deleted his tweet after intense backlash, The Wrap said.

“This is what happens when @realDonaldTrump calls journalists the enemy of the people,” Rob Cox, global editor for Reuters Breakingviews, initially tweeted. “Blood is on your hands, Mr. President. Save your thoughts and prayers for your empty soul.”

At least five people were killed when a gunman stormed the offices of the Capital Gazette Thursday in Annapolis, Maryland.

What did Cox say next?

Cox later acknowledged, “Fair enough to call me out for jumping to a conclusion about the motives here. Vilifying any category of people — journalists, migrants, conservatives, liberals etc — can incite violence. This one hits close to home. Genuinely saddened.”

Then he issued a lengthy apology on Twitter, saying he “responded emotionally and inappropriately” to “news today that a mass shooter had targeted the employees of a newspaper in Maryland.”

Cox continued: “Though my comments were entirely personal, they were not in keeping with the Reuters Trust Principles and my own standards for letting facts, not snap judgments, guide my understanding.”

He also said he was “pushed into a state of emotional distress” given his “experience as a member of the community of Newtown, Connecticut in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, combined with the possibility that my colleagues in the press were being targeted.”

“I am sorry for my comments, which I quickly deleted and have disavowed,” Cox concluded, “and especially remorseful if they did anything to distract from the thoughts and love we must send to the community of Annapolis.”

Image source: YouTube screenshot

How did Reuters’ editor-in-chief react?

Reuters’ Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler issued a statement about Cox’s tweet Thursday night, saying the news outlet “will take appropriate action” in response to it.

“Earlier this evening, Reuters Breakingviews Editor Rob Cox tweeted about the shooting in Annapolis, Maryland. He has since deleted the tweet and apologized,” Adler said. “Mr. Cox’s actions were inconsistent with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles requiring journalists to maintain freedom from bias. We do not condone his behavior and will take appropriate action.”

Here’s the apology from Cox:

How did others react after Cox’s apology?

  • “You do realize that what you posted earlier came not from your fear for fellow journalists, but instead from an excitement for another reason to bash Trump,” one Twitter user responded to Cox’s apology. “Look in the mirror…you ARE part of the divisiveness that pervades our country.”
  • Another user wrote that “NOW you know why people don’t trust the media, thank you for proving our point.”
  • “I don’t see an apology for [Trump] which was whom your tweet originally targeted,” another user noted.
  • In regard to Cox’s reference to Sandy Hook, one user said, “He is using dead kids as a personal shield because he wrongly used dead journalists as a political weapon.”
  • Others, however, accepted Cox’s mea cupla: “Thanks for apologizing,” one Twitter user noted. “We should take your tweets at face value and grant you that. Hopefully next time you’ll start from a place that doesn’t necessarily blame Trump or his supporters for causes of illness in this world.”

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com