Red Faces At RedState

The publication Politico still won’t admit it, but evidence shows that it fabricated a story about Ben Carson and the West Point scholarship he was offered. Politico says it “stands by its reporting” when it changed the headline and content of the story. This is one of the most dishonest cases of media bias we have ever seen.

The Politico headline went from “Ben Carson Admits Fabricating West Point Scholarship,” which was false, to “Carson claimed West Point ‘scholarship’ but never applied,” which is true but not news. Carson never claimed he applied. For Politico, the incident will go down in media history as a classic case of a false report being redone in such a way as to attempt to conceal the falsity of the original piece.

A post at Free Republic called the reporter, Kyle Cheney of Politico, a “graduate cum laude of the Dan Rather school of journalism.” But perhaps some of Politico’s editors were in on the deception. Only an apology followed by a full investigation will determine this.

At the same time, it’s important to go back and see how conservatives at such outlets as RedState were duped.  “Certainly we all got burned by Politico on Friday,” said RedState writer Leon H. Wolf, a reference to the false Politico story about Carson “fabricating” the offer of a scholarship.

But only those people who accept Politico as Gospel got burned. One of them was RedState’s “Dear Leader” Erick Erickson, who thinks he is a mover and shaker in the Republican Party and is planning to create a multimedia empire with himself at its core.

RedState is the conservative media group which hosts the RedState Gathering, a forum that is supposed to determine who is and who is not a legitimate conservative candidate. Next year’s event is in Denver, Colorado.

Erickson, a Fox News contributor, disinvited Donald Trump to this year’s affair because he had said some nasty things about his colleague, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News. He didn’t invite Ben Carson at all.

For Erickson, the Politico story about the scholarship must have seemed like a perfect opportunity to destroy Carson. Lifting directly from the erroneous Politico headline and story, Erickson wrote that the Carson campaign was “admitting” a fabrication. Erickson predicted it was the beginning of the end of the Carson for president campaign.

Linking to the Politico story, he claimed “the media just drew serious blood.”

In the end, Erickson’s blood was all over the floor of RedState. It was a self-inflicted wound.

In much the same way that Politico rewrote the story and changed its headline, Erickson subsequently rewrote his story, putting lines through inaccurate statements he had made in his previous comments.

RedState managing editor Leon H. Wolf admitted as much in a story under the RedState headline, “Politico Outright Lies about Ben Carson.” But RedState had accepted and publicized the lies.

In his clarification, Erickson conceded, “The Politico’s representation of that [the scholarship] is demonstrably false and is not something Carson claimed.” It’s too bad Erickson didn’t read the Politico story before accepting its headline as true. As we noted, the allegation that Carson “fabricated” the offer of a scholarship was not backed up by facts in the story itself.

So why did Erickson swallow the phony story in the first place? Either he didn’t read the story and didn’t understand the facts were not what Politico claimed, or he jumped to conclusions based on what he thought he had read or wanted to be true. The latter means that he was looking for a way to force Carson from the Republican field for president. Either way, Erickson comes out of this looking like a total buffoon. So does his sidekick, Leon H. Wolf.

In fairness, Erickson took the bait like many others. But Erickson is supposed to be more sophisticated than that.

Politico on October 5 had referred to Erickson as the “influential conservative radio host and RedState editor” who was announcing that he was leaving the RedState website by the end of the year to focus on his radio career.

Erickson apparently thinks he’s so great that he’s going to become another Rush Limbaugh. Indeed, he sometimes substitutes for Rush Limbaugh. He has announced that he has a “vision” of “blending radio, the internet, and conservative activism.”

The flattering press clippings must have gotten to him, such as the magazine cover story about “The uncompromising conservatism of Erick Erickson.” It would be nice for his brand of conservatism to include a commitment to reporting the facts.

Erickson seems to think of himself as a major power broker in the Republican Party. But his ambitions are in the gutter as he attempts to recover from his smears of Ben Carson, garnered from a fraudulent story in Politico.

Politico owes Carson an apology, and so does Erickson.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Selling Sanders, Socialism and Hypocrisy

Millionaire businessman Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream was on CNN last week talking about his presidential candidate, career politician and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a “social democrat,” not a socialist. For his part, Cohen said, “You know, I’m a capitalist, clearly, and I support the guy.”

Capitalism has certainly been very good to Ben & Jerry. Their Vermont-based ice cream business is an American success story. But in 2012, they sold out to the British-Dutch conglomerate Unilever for a purchase price of $326 million. The result was that Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield became members of the one-tenth of one percent that Sanders rallies against. Cohen and Greenfield each has a reported net worth of $150 million.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the top one-tenth of one percent consists of 160,000 families with net assets of at least $20 million.

Unilever is worth $129 billion, according to Forbes magazine. Sounds like one of the big corporations Bernie should rail against.

During the Democratic presidential debate, Sanders said, “We’re gonna win because first, we’re gonna explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of one percent in this country own almost 90 percent—almost—own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top one percent.”

He called for a tax on Wall Street but not ice cream to pay for the free college educations he’s proposing for students. But a Wall Street tax would affect the 55 percent of Americans who report having money invested in stocks.

A popular Bernie Sanders meme notes that while he claims to want to get money out of politics, he bribes people with the promise of government benefits in exchange for votes.

What is clear is that Sanders, a true socialist, believes Americans have too many choices, and that apparently the government must step in to regulate and determine what’s best for consumers. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,” he told CNBC. “I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.”

Unilever, which owns Ben & Jerry’s, produces many different kinds of deodorants. Labeled “The World’s No. 1 Antiperspirant” featuring “body-responsive antiperspirant technology,” Degree is available in a range of formats for men and women. They include:

  • Degree Men Dry Protection
  • Degree Men Fresh Deodorant
  • Degree Men Adrenaline Series
  • Degree Men Clinical Protection

Sanders hasn’t said anything about too many choices of ice cream. According to published reports, there are about 40 varieties of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream available in pint form. There are reportedly 159 ice cream brands available nationwide.

One could easily argue that underarm deodorants and sneakers are more important than ice cream. But CNN’s Carol Costello didn’t make that point.

In fact, Cohen said his company has produced another flavor, a Bernie Sanders ice cream called Bernie’s Yearning. He told Costello that the giant chip on the top represents all the wealth that’s gone to the top one percent of the population over the past 10 years. “And the way you eat it is that you whack it with your spoon, then you mix it around,” he said. “That’s the Bernie Yearning.”

We are all supposed to have a good laugh about all of this. Except that in socialist Venezuela, which Sanders once praised for shipping fuel to New England, there is a shortage of toilet paper.

That doesn’t bother the Hollywood super-rich. Blogger Steve Bartin notes that dozens of “artists and cultural leaders” have signed up as supporters of Sanders’ socialist program, including comedian Sarah Silverman, once quoted as saying unborn children are “just goo.” Bartin cites a piece by Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds in The Wall Street Journal which says that Hollywood gets about $1.5 billion in tax credits and exemptions, grants, waived fees and other financial inducements. His source was a liberal group, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which noted that the funds could otherwise have been spent “on public services like education, health care, public safety, and infrastructure.”

In other words, services that could benefit what Sanders calls “ordinary Americans,” if only the Hollywood elite weren’t taking advantage of the taxpayers.

The Bernie Sanders campaign is proud of the Hollywood support. It says the number of “major artists from all genres of music, comedy, acting, writing, and producing” in support of Sanders has reached 125. They have their own special section on the “Sanders for president” website. Dr. Cornel West, honorary co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), is listed under the category of “academic/philosopher.”

Sanders supporter and Hollywood director Adam McKay, who with Will Ferrell, co-wrote and directed the films “Anchorman” and “Step Brothers,” said, “As artists and citizens we believe it is time for government to once again represent the people and not just big money. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate speaking against the widespread legalized corruption that has handed our government to billionaires, large corporations and banks.”

Columnist Doug Powers commented, “I assume liberal celebs are pulling for Sanders’ style of socialism because he’s going to eliminate the tax credit programs for billion-dollar entertainment corporations? That story line would be too unbelievable even for Hollywood.”

Taking the personal hypocrisy one step further, leftist filmmaker Michael Moore has been quoted as saying that Sanders won the Democratic presidential debate because he questions “the core system” of wealth and power in the United States. Moore’s net worth has been estimated at $50 million and he just went through a messy divorce, revealing that he had a 10,000 square foot lakeside home in northern Michigan once valued at $2 million.

Meanwhile, sniffing a story here, The New York Times has run a piece, “Bernie Sanders Has Fund-Raiser at Fancy Hollywood Home,” noting that the socialist finished up the debate and then raised money at the home of wealthy real estate operator Syd Leibovitch. The paper reported that tickets for the event sold for a minimum of $250. Those who spent the maximum, $2,700, or who raised $10,000, were invited to a special “pre-event reception,” the paper said.

It sounds like a special benefit for the rich and powerful.

The names on the host list included Marianne Williamson, the famous New Age spiritual teacher who has called for repealing Columbus Day. One of Williamson’s other political objectives being promoted by her Peace Alliance group is a federal Department of Peacebuilding.

Perhaps Sanders will promote that idea in the next presidential debate, after he bashes the rich and announces which brands of sneakers, deodorant and ice cream will go out of business under his administration.

When will the rest of the media follow the lead of The New York Times and expose this “man of the people” and his Hollywood backers as the phonies they truly are?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

How the ‘Bern’ Burned the Vets

Will CNN use Tuesday’s Democratic Party presidential debate to challenge Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on his atrocious handling of the Veterans Affairs (VA) scandal?

Hillary Clinton has big problems that include blood on her hands over Benghazi, a Russia “reset” that has resulted in Russian aggression in Europe and the Middle East, and the mishandling of national security information through a private server.

By contrast, Sanders has been portrayed as a Washington outsider, even though his political career spans 25 years as a member of Congress, first as a U.S. representative and now as a senator. He is a socialist but a “democratic” socialist, whatever that may mean.

Sanders portrays himself as a friend of veterans who tends to their needs but opposes the wars that leave them needing medical help and treatment.

The problem for Sanders is that his pitiful performance as chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee has come under serious scrutiny by CNN and other media for defending the VA bureaucrats and putting their interests above the veterans they are supposed to serve.

An observer might conclude that Sanders’ preference for big government programs and government-run health care had blinded him to flaws in the VA system.

The Washington Free Beacon noted that his performance got so bizarre at one point that, as the scandals were coming to light, the socialist Sanders tried to divert attention away from the flaws in the bureaucratic system and proceeded to accuse the Koch brothers of launching “a concerted effort to undermine the VA” and discredit government programs.

Sanders said the Koch brothers were picking on these “large, governmental institutions” because they “want to radically change the nature of society, and either make major cuts in all of these institutions, or maybe do away with them entirely.”

John McClaughry of Vermont’s Ethan Allen Institute commented, “Bernie Sanders has become totally demented about the Satanic Koch brothers, to the point that he thinks they are responsible for anything that goes wrong anywhere. This man needs professional treatment.”

But Sanders has his supporters in the press. In the face of these crazy remarks, one of the senator’s most prominent media defenders wrote, “From the moment the long-gathering [VA] scandal broke into public view in April 2014, it took Congress less than four months to produce a new law—a split second by Capitol Hill standards.” Columnist Jill Lawrence noted that Sanders, who had become chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee in 2013, had worked with Republicans to craft a bill designed to fix the serious problems.

“It speaks volumes in particular about Sanders, who pushes for a single-payer government health system in every speech, that the law introduced a private-care option for veterans,” she wrote.

It actually speaks volumes about the failures of socialized medicine. At that point, after playing down the serious nature of the scandal, Sanders was forced to recognize that the government-run VA health care system could only be saved by giving patients a private health care option. He came to this “realization” because House Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller (R-FL) had pressed for letting veterans seek health care outside the VA system.

A poll from Concerned Veterans for America that was reported by Military Times showed that about 88 percent of respondents wanted to increase health care choices for VA patients, including access to private care physicians.

The Sanders campaign website ignores the senator’s failure in this important area, proclaiming, “As the former Chairman and a current member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, one of Sen. Sanders’ highest priorities in Congress has been ensuring that our veterans receive the care and benefits they have earned.” It goes on, “Amid reports of unacceptable wait times at many VA medical facilities last year, Sen. Sanders spearheaded a bipartisan effort to pass the most comprehensive veterans’ legislation in decades. The landmark Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act increases accountability within the VA and ensures that all veterans have access to timely health care.”

Notice the failure to mention that “timely health care” now includes access to private medical care. That was an initiative from Republicans.

Running for president as an avowed socialist, Sanders now promises “Medicare for All” rather than “VA Health Care for All” on a national basis. It’s a clever reformulation that ignores what Sanders did not do to get to the root of the VA health care scandal, and whether he has learned any lessons from those failures.

As noted by Bruce Parker of the Vermont Watchdog, an independent journalist group associated with the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, Sanders had made a “series of puzzling public statements” when the scandal broke that appeared to defend the government hospital bureaucracy. Sanders went on C-SPAN and CNN and urged the media “to remain neutral over claims that 40 U.S. veterans died at the Phoenix VA while waiting to receive care.” Sanders said, “The allegation is not that the delay in care caused that; only that that is what is now being investigated.”

As pressure grew on Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki to resign or be fired, Sanders defended him, saying, “The truth is that the VA is a huge institution. It does a whole lot of very important work. In many ways Shinseki has done a very good job.”

Sanders explained that Shinseki “has done a good job” but has been weak in terms of “communicating with the Congress or certainly with the American people and the media.”

Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, was quoted as saying that Sanders had been “ineffective” as head of the Senate panel. He said, “It seems to have to do with his worldview. He seems to think that any kind of demand for accountability or criticism of the VA is an attack to dismantle the entire system. Nobody is saying that. We’re saying if you want VA to be supported, then make VA work.”

During an appearance on MSNBC in May of 2014, Rieckhoff said that Sanders had “basically been an apologist for the VA over the past few weeks.”

CNN Host Chris Cuomo interviewed Sanders, telling him “…you sound like a lawyer defending the hospital, as opposed to a senator trying to make sure the right thing is done.”

To its credit, CNN, which is sponsoring Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, has done some excellent reporting on the scandal. The CNN Investigations unit reported on September 3 that a VA inspector general report found that 307,000 veterans may have died awaiting health care.

“Access to health care is a human right,” says Sanders. But his work as chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee doesn’t back up the campaign rhetoric.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Sanders Adviser Calls for Repeal of Columbus Day

Near the end of Mel Gibson’s film “Apocalypto,” we see Christian missionaries arriving in the New World to save the natives from a culture of death that celebrates beheadings and human sacrifices to pagan Gods. Gibson has said he based the dramatic landing scene on the fourth expedition of the great Italian explorer Christopher Columbus. But celebrating the spread of Christianity has become so politically incorrect that a New Age adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has called for repealing Columbus Day.

Marianne Williamson, a prominent supporter of Sanders and his “political revolution,” writes in her book, The Healing of America, that Columbus was “a murderer of indigenous peoples,” and says his life “was a model for the standard of enslavement and killings that came to characterize much of European settlement in the New World…”

She insists that Columbus Day, which was declared a federal holiday in 1937 by President Franklin Roosevelt, must be repealed.

“When it comes to celebrating Columbus or Columbus Day we should just say no,” she writes. She proposes that Columbus Day be replaced by “Immigrants’ Day.”

Williamson, founder of The Peace Alliance and the campaign to establish a U.S. Department of Peace, has been doing much in the political realm other than promoting Sanders and writing about his “revolutionary” vision on the Sanders campaign website. She is sponsoring a conference in Washington, D.C. this month featuring such luminaries as Phil Donahue and promoting “personal peace” and the teaching of “peace in schools.”

In this context, a former teacher who is the curriculum editor of a group called Rethinking Schools and the co-director of the Zinn Education Project has proposed the abolition of Columbus Day and creation of what amounts to an “Indigenous Peoples Lives Matter” movement. The name “Zinn” refers to Howard Zinn, the Communist Party member who rewrote American history in favor of a “people’s struggle” against evil elites.

While Sanders has embraced Williamson, even speaking at one of her “Sister Giant” feminist conferences, it’s not clear if Sanders favors the tearing down of the Columbus Memorial Fountain, which is located at Union Station in Washington, D.C., just a few blocks from Sanders’ Senate office.

What’s more, there are images of Columbus throughout the U.S. Capitol complex. One shows Columbus examining a globe and chart, using an octant, mercury barometer, and magnetic compass to plan his voyages.

The attack on America’s history as a nation of European immigrants is not new, although the involvement of New Agers and Bernie Sanders supporters like Williamson in this assault doesn’t get any attention in the press. Sanders is usually portrayed as a nice man who believes in a “democratic” version of socialism, unlike the Soviet approach.

However, many Americans are tired of the trashing of their nation’s European roots and are now pushing back against the attempt to smear the reputations of those like Columbus who brought Christian civilization to natives who practiced savagery and barbarism.

An interesting historical fact is that the Columbus voyages were designed to counter the influence of global Islam. “By sailing west, Columbus was aiming to outflank Islam, gaining access to the riches of the East so as to finance the retaking of Jerusalem,” writes Ben Broussard. “Since the fall of Constantinople in 1453 [to Muslim armies], while Columbus was still a child, calls had come from all corners of Europe to renew the Crusade. Columbus saw himself as the instrument to fulfill the longed-for end.”

While the politically correct major media avoid the truth about the reasons for the voyages and what motivated the discovery of the New World, bloggers are stepping forward to answer the question, “Why was Columbus looking for a trade route to the East?” The Citizen Warrior blog notes that “during its second great jihad, Islam had invaded Central Asia and defeated Constantinople in 1453, cutting off the overland route for Europeans. Islamic armies continued their jihad northward, and conquered much of what is now Eastern Europe, until they were finally stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683 (on September 11th).”

In his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), Robert Spencer confirms this, noting that the march of Islam had closed the existing trade routes to the East and that Columbus was trying to “bypass the Muslims” and make it possible for Europeans to reach India by sea.

The Order Sons of Italy in America (OSIA), an organization of  men and women of Italian heritage in the United States, has vigorously defended Columbus in a report entitled “Columbus: Fact Vs. Fiction.” However, the report notes that since 1992 “special interest groups” have “used this 15th century Renaissance navigator to further their 21st century political and social agendas.”

Of course, we know these “special interest groups” are the anti-American and Marxist-oriented organizations whose agendas include denigrating America’s Founding Fathers as white racists who oppressed the natives.

There was a time when Democrats and Republicans honored Columbus and didn’t bow to political correctness. In a statement on Columbus Day issued in 1940, President Roosevelt declared, “The courage and the faith and the vision of the Genoese navigator glorify and enrich the drama of the early movement of European people to America. Columbus and his fellow voyagers were the harbingers of later mighty movements of people from Spain, from Columbus’s native Italy and from every country in Europe. And out of the fusion of all these national strains was created the America to which the Old World contributed so magnificently.”

The OSIA report notes that while left-wing activists portray the New World at the time of the arrival of Columbus as an earthly paradise, the natives “practiced cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice and slavery and suffered from syphilis, hepatitis, addictive cocaine use and cancer, caused by smoking.”

The Gibson film “Apocalypto” depicts the human sacrifices in dramatic and graphic scenes, as human hearts are literally cut out of victims and offered up to their sun god. A Mayan priest then chops off a victim’s head, holding it high and then rolling it down a stairway.

In a review, Dr. Peter Hammond, Director of Frontline Fellowship, writes, “By the time the Christians arrive, we have a far greater understanding of what life was like in Central America before the blessings of European civilization brought an end to the incessant genocidal tribal warfare, rampant slavery and human sacrifices of idolatrous paganism.”

The bloody pre-Christian paganism that preceded the arrival of the Christian missionaries is what is now being sold as a Garden of Eden that America should be celebrating instead of Columbus.

With abortions being performed in the U.S. at the rate of over 3,000 per day, and baby parts being harvested for profit, as documented by the Center for Medical Progress, one can only conclude America is already well on its way back to barbarism.

But Marianne Williamson, who ran for Congress on a “pro-choice” platform, thinks honoring Columbus gives America a bad name. That Bernie Sanders embraces her and gladly accepts her advice says a lot about the nature of the Sanders socialist “revolution.” Williamson calls it a “Revolution of Love” against a “sociopathic economy” that requires meditation. “Ignite the change,” she concludes.

Who will defend Christian civilization and Columbus against this New Age socialist gibberish?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Socialist Journalism Is Mainstream

Univision’s Jorge Ramos, whose daughter works for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign, doesn’t care about fair and balanced journalism. He is only concerned about representing his people. This is what journalism has become—news coverage that casts ethnic groups and special interests as victims of the white racist capitalist power structure.

Thanks to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the socialist running for president, we are learning that one of the latest examples of victim groups are students, who freely decide to go to college and in many cases take on student debt to pay for it.

Of this victim group, black and Hispanic college students are suffering tremendously, according to a story appearing last Wednesday in The Washington Post. It claimed that blacks and Hispanics are “at a higher risk of financial instability based on their college majors…” The paper trumpeted the news in a headline, “Racial disparity in degree selection.” The news was this: “African American and Hispanic students disproportionately earn more bachelor’s degrees in low-paying majors, putting them at higher risk for financial instability after graduation, according to a new study from Young Invincibles, an advocacy group.”

This “advocacy group” has decided that representatives of certain minority groups are somehow entitled to be awarded certain jobs with certain pay grades. In the Post story touting this so-called study, blacks and Hispanics are considered victims of racism, creating wealth ‘inequality,” because of the college degrees and majors they have freely decided to pursue.

But wait: didn’t these blacks and Hispanics freely choose those majors and fields of study? Wasn’t freedom of choice involved?

In the eyes of the liberal media, such freedom does not exist. People are being forced into their choices in life by the forces of capitalism and white supremacy.

Here’s what the paper said: “There is no singular reason for the racial disparities within majors, but centuries of racial discrimination, uneven budgetary support for K-12 education and poor academic advising and student support contribute to the problem, said Tom Allison, deputy director of policy and research at Young Invincibles, and one of the authors of the study.”

In other words, the heavy hand of racism and the capitalist system somehow forced these students to choose these majors, in order to put them at a disadvantage.

Still, the story by Danielle Douglas-Gabriel left me in the dark about how these factors may determine the selection of majors. The explanation was offered in the next paragraph: “At the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, chemistry professor William LaCourse has seen his share of students of color with a lot of potential lose interest in science fields when they struggle in a course.”

Those science fields paid better than the majors and careers they ended up pursuing. The students gave up their “potential,” a subjective measurement, to go for the easier courses of study.

The phrase “when they struggle in a course” could mean they were goofing off, not smart enough, or just not interested. In any case, it seems hard to argue that this is because of some racist plot or budget axe. But that is indeed what the Post was implying.

The purpose is to depict minority groups as somehow victims of their own choices.

Could it be that blacks and Hispanics are giving up on the harder fields of study because they either require more work or because they have decided to pick a different major for some other reason? This fact of life has been transformed from a “study” into a Washington Post story attempting to blame everything and everyone else for this “problem” except the students themselves.

The whole point of the story is that the students can’t be blamed for their own decisions. They are victims of the system, by virtue of the fact that they are black or Hispanic. That’s why “centuries of racial discrimination, uneven budgetary support for K-12 education and poor academic advising and student support” have to be blamed.

This is socialist “journalism,” if you can call it journalism, based on the idea that people are members of groups victimized by the capitalist system, trapped into lower incomes and denied their right to make more money. This evil system forced them to “struggle” for higher grades.

It is this kind of “journalism” that also depicts students taking out college loans and going into debt as somehow being victims of capitalism. They are given an opportunity to go to college but they have to pay for it. What an injustice! The Young Invincibles says student debt has “exploded,” as if it has been inflicted on these young people through no choice of their own.

Since these students have been brainwashed into believing that taking on debt is not their fault, it is no wonder they are suckers for the Bernie Sanders brand of socialism which says that their burden must be lifted and a college education should be made available for “free.”

It is a sad commentary on what colleges are teaching that such a scheme is attracting thousands of students to the Sanders campaign.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by