Bernie Sanders Wants To Tax Americans At 90%. His Reasoning Is Priceless…

Yes, this is a real thing. No, Bernie Sanders didn’t have a public meltdown of epic, Charlie Sheen proportions. This is what he believes. It’s what he’s always believed.

Remember this when your leftist friends talk about how “radical” the “far right” has become in this country. Please, remember this.

In an interview with NBC News, Sanders stated:

[When] radical, socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.

The interviewer followed up by asking, “When you think about 90 percent, you don’t think that’s obviously too high?”

Sanders replied:

No. What I think is obscene…when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90.
What I find particularly hilarious is that Bernie Sanders goes on to say that conservatives are “so greedy, they’re so out of touch with reality”… as he dines in what appears to be an expensive restaurant in the most expensive city in the country. What’s okay for him is not okay for you!
Also, it’s important to note that the rich not only pay the most taxes in this country, they pay all the taxes, according to one of NBC’s own (albeit buried) reports. When it comes to individual income taxes, “the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent…pay negative 9 percent.”
And I’m no economist, but if I knew that I’d be working for 90 percent of the year for free… I might consider retirement. Which would result in forced retirement for all of my employees as well. Again, just little ol’ dumb Crowder using his thinky-think ability.

Again, remember that media narrative that conservatives are becoming “too radical?” Well, allow me to compare the two factions through this scientifically calibrated internet meme below.

BernieCruz Insert

Can you spot the “extremist?”

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Bernie Sanders’ Foul Socialist Odor

Socialist genius Bernie Sanders has figured out what’s really ailing America.

Our store shelves have too many different brands of deodorant and sneakers. Just look at all those horrible, fully stocked aisles at Target and Walgreens and Wal-Mart and Payless and DSW and Dick’s Sporting Goods. It’s a national nightmare! If only consumers had fewer choices in the free market, fewer entrepreneurs offering a wide variety of products, and fewer workers manufacturing goods people wanted, Sanders believes, we could end childhood hunger.

Nobody parodies the far left better than far-leftists themselves.

In an interview with financial journalist John Harwood on Tuesday, Sanders detailed his grievances with an overabundance of antiperspirants and footwear. “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. I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.”

Try to suppress a snicker: Sanders, Decider of Your Sanitary and Footwear Needs, is casting himself as the Everyman in touch with “ordinary Americans” to contrast his campaign with Hillary “my Beltway lobbyist and foreign agent operator Sid Blumenthal is just a friend I talk to for advice” Clinton.

Blech. By the looks of the 2016 Democratic presidential field, liberals really do practice the anti-choice principles they preach.

At Caracas-on-the-Green Mountains, every business owner’s success robs starving babies of vital nutrition. Because some tummies may be grumbling somewhere across the fruited plains, all must suffer. In Sanders’ world, it’s the “greedy”– America’s real makers, builders, and wealth creators — who must be punished and shamed, specifically with a personal income tax rate hiked to a whopping 90 percent for top earners.

Of course, the wealth redistributors in Washington never bear any of the blame for misspending the billions they confiscate. Nearly 100 million Americans participated in dozens of federal food assistance programs in 2014. The General Accounting Office reported last year that $74.6 billion went to food stamps, $11.3 billion went to the national school lunch program, and $7.1 billion went to the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program, along with $1.9 billion for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and $10.7 million for a federal milk program.

But no, it’s not the fault of command-and-control bureaucrats and their overseers on Capitol Hill that the War on Poverty and the War on Hunger have failed.

In Sanders’ bubble, childhood hunger is the fault of selfish consumers, self-serving entrepreneurs, and rapacious retailers who engage in voluntary transactions in a free-market economy. Just as Sanders believes there are “too many” products on the shelves, President Obama recently opined that families of America’s top earners in the financial industry “pretty much have more than you’ll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use.”

We need not speculate about whether the wealth-shamers’ recipe of less capitalist consumption, fewer private businesses, stifling of entrepreneurship, and more government control over goods and services would result in happier citizens and fuller stomachs. In Venezuela, the shelves are unburdened by “too many” deodorants and shoes and too much soap, milk, or coffee. Food distribution is under military control. The currency of the socialist paradise just collapsed on the black market by 30 percent.

Here in America, dozens of private household goods companies make billions of dollars selling scented, unscented, quilted, two-ply, white, and colored toilet paper that people want and need. In Sanders’ utopia in South America, the government imposed price controls in the name of redistributing basic goods to the poor and seized a toilet paper factory to cure the inevitable shortages. The lines are long. The shelves are empty. The daily battle for subsistence is brutal.

Take it from those who suffer most under the unbridled fulfillment of “you didn’t build that” and “you don’t need that” radicalism: It stinks.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Reporter Asks This 2016 Dem Candidate If 90% Tax Too High. Here’s His Response

In a recent interview, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a longshot candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, contended a 90 percent tax rate was not too high.

“People on Wall Street, people in business, some have even likened the progressive/Democratic crusade to Hitler’s Germany hunting down the Jews. What do you think when you hear stuff like that?” CNBC’s John Harwood asked Sanders.

“It’s sick,” Sanders replied.

And I think these people are so greedy, they’re so out of touch with reality, they think they own the world. And the idea that anybody like me or anybody else are challenging them and say, ‘Maybe, just maybe, there’s something wrong when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top one percent. Oh this is Hitlerism, you suggest that?’

“What a disgusting remark,” Sanders continued. “If you have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top one tenth of the one percent you say, ‘You know what, we gotta transfer that back.’ When radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.”

“It was 90,” Harwood confirmed, though it was as high as 92 percent during the Eisenhower administration until his successor, John F. Kennedy, slashed the highest rate to 70 percent.

“When you think about 90 percent, you don’t think that’s obviously too high?” Harwood asked.

“No,” Sanders bluntly answered.

What I think is obscene and what frightens me is, again, when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90. Does anybody think this is the kind of economy we should have? Do we think it’s moral?

You’ve got people not working one job, they’re working two jobs, three jobs. People are scared to death about what happens tomorrow. Half the people in America have less than $10,000 in savings.

h/t: The Blaze

What should the tax rate in America be? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

A (Socialist) Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing–Part 2

In my previous article on “Social Justice”, I began to expose the “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.” I am referring to noble sounding, but ill-conceived, government initiatives that insidiously displace individual rights and freedoms with collectivist goals. This can be expected as evidenced by the fact the insignia for the Fabian Socialists is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Certainly, everyone wants “justice”. Our Pledge of Allegiance ends with the words “with liberty and justice for all.” However, the mischief begins when the word “SOCIAL” is inserted in front of the word “JUSTICE”.

America was founded on the concept of liberty and justice for each and every individual, and our declaration begins with the premise that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Although we are created equal, there are no guarantees of equal economic outcomes under our free enterprise form of economy and government.  Find a country where everyone is economically “equal”, and I’ll show you a government where nobody has any freedom.

The Social Justice movement works from the basic premise that global free-market capitalism is “unsustainable” and is the source of all evil because it does not lead to equal outcomes.

I know what you’re thinking–“whoa commissioner, you had me until then…  but it sounds a little over the top to me.”  You want evidence.

Okay, let’s start with the various definitions of social justice that seek a form of egalitarianism, i.e. equal, outcomes for all.

Next, we have Mr. Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America.  Transform into what?

Have you ever seen the Common Core Transformative Matrix?  Of course, you should be asking the question… transform our students from what into what? Well, it looks somewhat like a four leaf clover. The topmost leaf has the destination.

Want to know what it says? I’ll give you some hints. It doesn’t say “God”. It doesn’t say “The Constitution.” It doesn’t say, “America.”

It says “Global Citizen.”

So what’s a Global Citizen? It is a euphemism for ‘godless government-state citizen’ that places the collective above liberty, above free-enterprise, and above God.  It targets vulnerable children who do not yet subscribe to the principles of individual liberty and unalienable God-given rights.

Don’t laugh. It’s happening as we speak. I know as a fact that an exercise called the “Privilege Walk” is being taught throughout our colleges, and within local public schools. Students are lined-up side by side and asked a series of 25 race-baiting and subtle but anti-Judeo/Christian questions that go something like this:

If you are a white male, take one step forward.

If schools are closed during holidays that align with your religion, step forward.

If you are a minority, take a step backward.

If your parents do not have a college degree, take a step backward.

In the rotting carcass of failed progressive-left federal education doctrine, class envy, anti-white bias, and anti-achievement exercises are presented as a means of promoting Social Justice. In reality, the Privilege walk is little more than a classic anti-white male, anti-capitalist exercise, designed to evoke negative emotions against those who have enjoyed individual success. As Obama said, “If you own a business, you didn’t build that.”  If you own a successful business, you should bend the knee and pay homage to the collective and your government.

It is classic Marxist class warfare… subtle but effective.

Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, perfectly indicts this mentality: “The smallest minority on earth is the individual.  Those that deny individual rights cannot claim to be defender of minorities.”  Yet, that is exactly what the Social justice movement does.  It strips individuals of self-identity and treats them as members of a victim-class. This is called “Identity Politics.”

If you’re lucky enough to belong to a group that is in political vogue with politicians, you may reap government benefits, or even a college admission.

If you belong to the wrong group, which usually consists of either Caucasian males, or business owners, you’re in trouble. Supporters of free-market capitalism are “unsustainable.”

So go ahead… take the Privilege Walk, and feel guilty.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

‘Social Justice’–The Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing

The buzzword in government these days is “Social Justice.”

At a recent government event, a new caucus was established, proudly proclaiming their goal is to promote Social Justice. A real estate agent recently set me a letter requesting contributions for a new group she established for purposes of promoting Social Justice.

Seems like all you have to do these days is proclaim you are advocating Social Justice; and magically, everyone in the room applauds. Isn’t this politician wonderful? She’s for social justice.

The question nobody is asking is, “Exactly what is Social Justice?”

Depending on who you ask, you’ll get different answers. On the surface, it sounds good; but you’ll soon see that ain’t necessarily so.

Social Justice isn’t just a goal. It is a deceptive political movement based on socialism. It starts from a premise that individual rights should take a back seat to the collective in order to ensure some groups receive more equal treatment than others. Think of it as affirmative action on steroids. As a practical matter, it is a means of cultivating class envy.

In the newest government realm of Social Justice, your individual constitutional rights of life, liberty, and property ownership are trumped by politicians’ agendas to ensure equal outcomes regardless of ability. This is known as egalitarianism. It means what you earn doesn’t belong to you.

Before you scoff, consider the Iowa State University A to Z sustainability dictionary that defined Social Justice as “based on the concept of human rights and equality and involves… economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.” Unfortunately, this was subsequently removed from the net. I suppose it was too much of a smoking gun.

Consider an article posted by the New Economics Foundation, which claims to be the UK’s leading think-tank, promoting social justice. What do they say? “Promoting social justice and environmental sustainability calls for collective action through the state, locally and nationally, and through transnational institutions.”

Let’s translate: Social justice requires collectivist action via widespread government and globalist organizations. For our students, this means the following: Your individual rights of life, liberty, and property ownership will be trumped, and subject to some government bureaucrat’s notion of what is fair and sustainable in order to promote equal outcomes for all. Those of you who studied political philosophy will of course immediately recognize this as a tenant of Marxism–“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

“Isn’t justice a good thing?” (I hear you ask.)

Yes it is. I personally subscribe to the notion of individual justice as stated in our Pledge of Allegiance that states, “Liberty and Justice for all.” You see, as Americans, we are endowed with a guarantee of liberty and justice as individuals. The problem develops when we place the word “social” in front of the word “justice.” The Oxford dictionary defines “Social” as “Relating to society or its organization.” Social Justice means justice for groups rather than individuals. Anyone who prefers to characterize this as socialism should remember the actual insignia for Fabian Socialists is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

So, Commissioner, what are you trying to tell us?

In reality, 21st century “Social Justice” as promulgated by government is an attempt to empower government to supplant your individual freedoms with collectivist goals.

Everywhere, “progressives” claim we need a new “sustainable” economic system that will holistically integrate the needs of the environment, economy, and social justice. It also has a nice ring to it, until you realize it comes at the expense of your individual freedoms. Government loves it because it means power shifts from the individual to the government. And, it means your rights are no longer unalienable. Rather, you only receive rights your government deems sustainable.

If anyone asks you if you’re for social justice, I recommend the following answer: “No, I’m for preserving our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property as described in the Declaration of Independence, and guaranteed under our Constitution.”

In the new politic of “Social Justice”, the only justice you’ll receive will be limited to what some political bureaucrat thinks you need.

Social Justice? No thanks Comrade, I choose freedom.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth