Posted by Tina
A recent Chris Mathews interview with Hillary Clinton, in which he attempts to get Hillary to tell him the difference between a socialist and a Democrat, yielded not a clue. She could not, or would not, answer the simple question, “What’s the difference between a socialist and a democrat?” The Daily Caller has the story and the video. One of Hillary’s responses was interesting:
“I can tell you what I am, I am a progressive Democrat,” Clinton responded.
“How is that different than a socialist?” Matthews asked a third time.
“I am a progressive Democrat who likes to get things done,” Clinton continued. “And who believes we’re better off in this country when we’re trying to solve problems together. Getting people to work together. There will always be strong feelings and I respect that, from, you know, the far right, the far left, libertarians, whoever it might be, but we need to get people working together. We’ve got to get the economy fixed, get all of our problems, you know, really tackled and that’s what I want to do.”
She never did answer the question. Why does she hesitate to distinguish between Democrat and socialist?. Why does she insist on the word progressive Democrat? What is the difference between a progressive and a socialist? Hasn’t the modern Democrat party proven to be both progressive and socialist? Is your head swimming yet?
Let’s see if we can sort this out. We’ll start with definitions:
Democrat: a member of the Democratic political party or someone who believes in equality for all people and ruling by the majority.
Socialist: someone who believes in a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
There isn’t much difference in these definitions. Both involve control by the federal government to manage conditions. A Socialist will come right out and say that the federal government, acting as the strong-arm for “the whole community” must “own or regulate the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” A Democrat wants the same thing to one degree or another depending on how radically he sits in the hard left camp. Which brings us to the word Progressive…
What makes a progressive different from a socialist or democrat? Not much, really. A progressive is simply an activist. A progressive in the left camp is after the same ends as a socialist and sees himself as someone in the lead, who “gets things done.” A Progressive: is defined as a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
Social reform is about moving toward equality of outcome (fairness, sharing). The tool a progressive Democrat uses most often is redistribution of wealth.
I stumbled upon a page in my research that I have to share. It reveals what some teachers are telling the kids in K-12 about progressives. See here. A few key words offer some insight: utilized the Government…rather than relying on private actions; Coalitions…pressured the government; demanded the Government take action to force changes in politics, economics, and society; government regulation. (Basically, lots and lots of federal government control.)
Another website attempts to deny the truth about socialism in a rebuttal to right wing criticisms, here. Introduction:
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. (Not true. They already have and seek to increase it even more!) But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
A grand deception that sounds reasonable. However, it takes a truth, that people can be greedy, and ascribes that quality to all CEOs of corporations. This is attitude and prejudice not truth! In fact it’s an absurdity deserving of scorn!
Yes, CEO’s of companies make money for themselves and their stockholders. They also make money to keep their companies going and this literally puts wealth into the economy. But the “economic decisions they make” also produce products that people need or want and are willingly buy. They contribute in the community by creating jobs, paying taxes, and supporting causes and charities. They have “control” over federal economic decisions only to the degree that politicians compromise their principles and allow themselves to be purchased. Socialists are a natural fit in this regard because the arrangement places the federal government in a controlling position with the business. The politician carries carrots and sticks in his briefcase and using one or the other, demands something of the business in the deal. We can easily see an example of this in the Obamacare “deal.” The biggest health insurers were told this legislation was going to pass and if they would get on board and promote Obamacare the reward would be an abundance of new customers…if they didn’t cooperate? Let’s just say the government has a lot of sticks. (Tax Audit, a visit from OSHA, regulations that favor the competition) Not surprisingly, after Obamacare passed, a lot of insurance companies did fail. Both the politicians and the CEOs knew the legislation would put some companies out of business. They knew the deal would create big insurance monopolies. The CEOs chose survival…for themselves, their shareholders, their workers, and their customers. This type of arrangement is called corporatism or crony capitalism…and its inferior and debilitating.
Socialist have been pressing our republican nation toward the extremes of socialism for seventy or more years. They have done it by creating social programs and by creating massive amounts of regulations along with the government departments to administer them. In the process they have taken both freedom and our responsibility from all of us. Some just pay more than others for the privilege. Republicans are not without responsibility in this, they’ve allowed their principles to be compromised, they’ve forgotten why they were sent to Washington. Democrats are in a different position. They’ve had control of Congress for much of the last century when most of the social programs were created and they’ve been very good progressive democrats in the socialist cause.
Our government doesn’t own the oil or coal companies (yet) but through the use of regulations they have controlled or eliminated production in these important enterprises and their tactics have recently been based on the demands of special interests rather than the best interest of the American people. The same can be said for banks, healthcare, and many other businesses. These are not examples of production “owned or regulated by the community as a whole” as the socialists aver, but rather examples of the elite ruling class favoring one group at the expense of another. Social programs, including the citizen paid-into-programs of SS and Medicare, also favor one group at the expense of another.
Hillary Clinton distances herself from the word socialist but she is a socialist. She’s simply playing word games. (Bernie Sanders is the only honest person on the Democrat ticket because he is willing to be up front about it.)
Our founders deliberately chose to give us a republican form of government to ensure that our nation would not be run by mob rule, or concentrated power at the federal level, or the power of special interests, including CEO’s. But these are the very things that the Democrat Party gives us in their activism. The founders set up a system of checks and balances that includes our representatives as well as the three branches of government. They set up a government that acknowledges every citizen as a valuable individual person rather than simply a member of a group or community. In the past seven years our government has shut out American citizens represented by Republicans in the House and Senate in favor of government by socialist control. Obamacare was not designed or passed with Republican agreement. The legislation was passed behind closed doors with only Democrat support. Even a few Democrats were coerced into voting yes. Obamacare was created and passed in collusion with the largest health care insurers. And it was signed by a socialist Democrat president. Representative government, the American form of government, does not work this way. But it is how progressive Democrat socialists “get things done.”
Hillary cannot admit to being a socialist because she wants to be perceived as every persons personal crusader. But the truth is she crusades for power and control for herself and she uses various groups as a means to acquiring that power and control.
An addendum to this piece is necessary due to news that broke today regarding Hillary’s emails. Soon we will discover whether our justice system works or not. Newly released emails reveal, once again, that Hillary Clinton did send secret information on her private server. An expanded FBI inquiry is expected to complete it’s investigation within 60 to 90 days. The words “serious” and “felony” have been used to describe the seriousness of the charges she could face. Guy Benson of TownHall states the cynical opinion we’ve come to expect, and often share, given the Obama administration’s justice department:
If the FBI recommends charges against Hillary Clinton, and that recommendation is promptly quashed by the hopelessly politicized Obama administration, expect whistleblowers to leak like a sieve. Democrats have likely concluded that even though the resulting news coverage could get ugly — replete with cries of cover-ups and the partisan manipulation of justice — that burst of negativity would still be preferable to a nominee saddled with a federal indictment.
Socialists need power to control and manipulate from the top. (Think far reaching executive orders and secret deals behind doors, coercion and bribery to pass laws). A socialist will do anything to get elected or advance socialism…and they never eat their own. This government is replete with socialist policy. This administration is scandal ridden and corrupt…nobody ever faces the music. Lois Lerner’s behavior was reprehensible and criminal; she retired with full benefits. And Benghazi/private email Hillary? She’s the front runner on the Democrat ticket in the race for president of the United States. (Her husband got off light as well) How does that happen? Only if the people remain ignorant and dependent, and willingly give up the freedom that is their birthright.
Socialist nations around the world have grown weak or have failed. Many fall into dictatorship. We can’t let that happen here…not without a fight!
Final word: A progressive Democrat is a socialist activist who won’t admit it but will bring harm to you.
Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz was asked to define the difference several weeks ago and she couldn’t come up with an answer either!
Maggie Thatcher said it best: The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
Today’s Demwits are Socialists, regardless of how they define themselves.
First, let me commend you for using the true name of the “Democrat” party in your article instead of the now much used “Democratic” party that has become it’s common replacement. I noticed a while ago the subliminal usage in print and in the news until of late it’s become the standard. Even the DNC debates all have switched to using Democratic signs.
Images:
http://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CNN_Democrats_debate_ap_img.jpg
https://www.google.com/search?q=dnc+debate+democratic&biw=1524&bih=746&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig_7XnkJjKAhVJyWMKHRBWB4AQ_AUICCgD#imgrc=Kyf0x39Ar-gOSM%3A
Article Titles:
“Who Won the Democratic Debate?”
“The CNN Democratic debate transcript, annotated”
Now, my thoughts on the Progressive movement. I have heard and read that the movement was born out of the Communist movement when it was forced to go underground during the McCarthy era. Much like the 60’s radicals that too went underground and became members of our educational and political communities who over time have transformed the minds of our young and the laws of our land. So, Progressives are nothing more than patient communists.
Denish D’Souza in his book “Stealing America” has done an excellent job of explaining the Progressive movement and today’s Progressives; Obama and Hillary. Today’s Progressive use the same tactics as the Mafia of the past and gangs ruling our communities and streets today. The con game must have a master con artist and enforcers to pull off their tactics and takeovers. Saul Alinsky was a master con artist right up there with the Mafia godfathers like Al Capone. All of them needed enforcers and followers and that’s where Hillary and Obama fit right in.
Dinesh D’Souza: What politics has in common with organized crime:
“The confinement center was a privately-run facility near the Mexican border. The inmates were not white-collar guys but mostly drug smugglers, coyotes, armed robbers, even rapists and murderers. A rough crowd! At first, fearing for my safety, I kept to myself. But over time I got to know these people and understand the perspective of the criminal underclass.
I went in there with the “Shawshank Redemption” idea that virtually all criminals purport to be innocent. What I discovered is that the hoodlums admit they are guilty, but at the same time they insist they are the small fry. The big criminals, they insist, are out there. They run bigger scams than anyone else, yet they are never pursued by the system because they run the system.
We can explore the validity of this insight by considering two scams, the first one perpetrated by violent criminal gangs, and the second one by the Obama administration. Both scams involve health care.
ObamaCare was a conspiracy not between Obama and the American people against the insurance companies, but rather, between Obama and the insurance companies against the American people.
I learned about the first scam from a Hispanic guy who used to be in the Mexican mafia. Working with gangs in Los Angeles, the Mexican mafia came up with the idea of urban gang members approaching homeless people and asking them to sign up for life insurance. The gang promised to pay the premiums, and also front the homeless guys a few thousand dollars in exchange for the homeless people listing a gang-run “charity” as the beneficiary.
It sounded like a good deal for homeless guys, a way to get some upfront cash. Besides, most of them no longer had families they were in touch with so they had no qualms about listing some noble-sounding group to benefit from the payout when they died.
Little did these poor homeless guys know that, by signing up for insurance, they were also signing their death warrants. A few months after luring them in, the Mexican mafia would send its thugs to kill the homeless people so that the gang could collect on the insurance payout. The loot was then shared between the Mexican mafia and the gangs who were the “pitch men” for the criminal scheme.
ObamaCare was sold through a similar pitch. Obama approached the American people much in the manner of a seasoned con man. He said, in effect, I’m going to conspire with you against the health insurance companies. I’m going to make them insure you even for your pre-existing conditions. Let’s stick it to those dirty, rotten scoundrels.
In reality, ObamaCare was a conspiracy not between Obama and the American people against the insurance companies, but rather, between Obama and the insurance companies against the American people. Basically, Obama approached the insurance companies and said, I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse. Then he advanced a proposition worthy of Don Corleone himself.
Obama knew the insurance companies didn’t want a federal takeover of health care, and this is exactly what ObamaCare amounted to. So the insurance industry was gearing up to fight ObamaCare. In the end, however, the insurance industry ended up supporting it and even paying for ads helping to sell it to the American people.
How did Obama pull this off? He assured the insurance companies that a key component of ObamaCare was to force millions of Americans who didn’t want to buy health insurance, to buy health insurance. Obama said, in effect, we’ll use the power of the state to force them. And this, the insurance industry recognized, meant millions of new (if unwilling) customers which translated into hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/24/dinesh-dsouza-what-politics-has-in-common-with-organized-crime.html
D’Souza: Profiteering Off The Social Justice Scam:
“As a penniless student at the University of Chicago, Saul Alinsky hit upon a clever way to eat meals without having to pay for them. Alinsky – viewed by many progressives as the father of the social justice movement – described this technique in an interview given to Playboy magazine just before his death in 1972.
In those days customers in the university cafeteria system didn’t pay the waitress; rather, they went up to the cashier and paid. Alinsky first went to the cashier and ordered a cup of coffee; at that time it cost a nickel. The cashier would write him a ticket listing that price. Then he would go to another cafeteria and order a full meal. The waitress would give him the check for the meal. Alinsky would then pocket the bill for his meal and submit his nickel ticket to the cashier. By switching checks, he was eating full meals and paying just for his cup of coffee.
This is the kind of scam one can see a clever, impoverished slum kid like Alinsky pulling off. What made Alinsky original is that he shared this knowledge with his fellow students and turned it into an organized scam. Alinsky put up signs on the university bulletin board and invited students to attend a presentation, complete with maps of the cafeteria system. Pretty soon he had a large horde of students signed up for his scam. “We got the system down to a science, and for six months all of us were eating free.”
Asked by Playboy if he had any qualms about ripping of the university, Alinsky said, “Are you kidding? The right to eat takes precedence over the right to make a profit.”
Saul Alinsky is viewed by progressives as a champion of social justice. He fought for unions, he fought for racial minorities, and he inspired the social justice crusades of Obama and Hillary. In fact he is the author of the “social justice scam” that is at the heart of the Obama presidency and the Hillary presidential campaign.
Here we see in retrospect the founding moment of today’s progressive movement. The young thief displays all the organizational zeal that would later characterize a whole generation of progressives. We also see in him a familiar sense of entitlement. Alinsky has a “right” to steal because stealing is, from his perverse point of view, a form of social justice. Alinsky and his freeloading buddies were just getting their “fair share.”
Continued…
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/wnd-profiteering-off-the-social-justice-scam/
Progressives and Their Dangerous View of America:
“Is U.S. wealth based on theft?
Is the wealth of America based on theft? This allegation lies at the heart of modern progressivism, and provides the justification for government seizure and government redistribution, not only within America but also from America to the rest of the world.
In my film 2016 I showed how Obama’s anti-colonialism presumes that the West grew rich by conquering other countries and stealing their resources. This theft critique has now been incorporated and expanded into a systematic, progressive critique of America.
According to this critique, America was founded in an original act of piracy: the early settlers stole the country from the native Americans. Then America was built by theft: white Americans stole the labor of African-Americans by enslaving them for 250 years. The borders of America were also extended by theft: America stole half of Mexico in the Mexican War.
Moreover, American foreign policy is, from the progressive point of view, based on theft, because America only invades countries like Iraq which have oil, while it never invades resource-poor countries like Haiti or Rwanda.
Finally, capitalism is theft because it confers unjust profits on the few while depriving the majority of Americans of what Obama calls their “fair share.”
This is a powerful critique, which seemingly rests on premises that cannot be disputed. It can’t be ignored, because it is routinely taught in schools and colleges, it is widely disseminated in Hollywood and the media, and it has now migrated into the highest corridors of government.
Finally, if the critique is valid, something must be done about it. If America’s wealth is based on stolen goods, those stolen goods must be returned. Obama’s “remaking” of America, to the extent that it constitutes theft recovery, would then be fully justified.
So, is America guilty as charged?”
Continued..
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/progressives-dangerous-view-america/
Peggy, why are you trusting Dinesh D’Souza–a known criminal–to tell you about “con men?”
Dinesh D’Souza is an honest man who made a mistake that rose to the level of a crime. He admitted his error when he realized this was the case and accepted the consequences gracefully. Calling him a criminal is over the top.
Bill Clinton made a bunch of mistakes, many of them “criminal.” it doesn’t change the fact that his choice to work with Republicans to lower taxes and bring reforms to welfare wrong. Nor does it erase the fantastic economic result of his decision.
why would you make such a totalitarian judgement about a person based on one mistake rather than looking at his entire biography?
I hardly think baseless accusations of being made the target of a political agenda–thus dodging responsibility for his crime and placing it on the Obama administration–is a sign of “accepting the consequences gracefully.”
Also, while I have not looked at D’Souza’s “entire biography,” I’ve read enough of his writing to know that he is not an honest man, and is in fact a pathological liar. His infamous “Kenyan anti-colonialist” charge against Obama is signature significance of either dishonesty or stupidity or both (as if being “anti-colonialist” is un-American? What were the founders if not anti-colonialist?)
This and other absurd charges from D’Souza’s film are fact checked here:
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/fact-check-anti-colonial-obama-not-plausible-175336789.html
He’s also a giant hypocrite, attacking gay marriage as an assault on “traditional values” while at the same time betraying his own marriage:
“It was the Evangelical World magazine that first reported D’Souza’s misstep with morality. The magazine pointed out that the adultery was committed on September 28 and that D’Souza filed for divorce on October 4. D’Souza told Warren Cole Smith, writing for World, that he had done nothing wrong. On Wednesday, D’Souza gave an exclusive to Christianity Today, denying infidelity.
Smith pointed out that “D’Souza now receives speaking fees sometimes in excess of $10,000 from Christian groups, putting him in the top tier of Christian speakers. ”
The top tier of Christian hypocrites as well.
The delicious part of this whole scandal is that the 51-year-old D’Souza was still married when he took his 29-year-old fiancé to a hotel for a tryst and spent the night together. No, that’s not the delicious part. The delicious part is that they were attending a conference on Christian Values called Truth for a New Generation.
On top of committing adultery at an event about Christian Values, D’Souza subsequently lied about the tryst that took place at the event which had proclaimed Truth for a New Generation.
But no, there is something still more delicious about this scandal and it is this: Right Wing Watch revealed that D’Souza’s mistress/fiancée, Denise Odie Joseph II, was also married. The young woman said in April – and you will love this – that she was casting her vote for Mitt Romney, “because [her] husband told her to.”
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/19/dinish-dsouza-championed-family-values-adulterous-tryst.html
Tina, Bill Clinton’s actions in the WH were my first thoughts as well, especially when you start to wag fingers.
I would ask why do the progressives trust people like Clinton or even a Harry Reid, who is a blatant political obstructionist in so many way, and yet the Democrats want them to tell the country you how to ruin, oops run their life.
And the Frog cartoon is classic for this discussion!
Yep, that frog cartoon fits. I love the way apologists for social democracies yammer on about how it couldn’t happen here. it’s incredible how willing they are to settle for mediocre, but then most of them have government sponsored jobs. As far as they’re concerned their jobs are secure and so are their futures with all of the “free” benefits they get. None of them has a clue, and I include many republican representatives in this, about how wealth is created. The day does come when we “run out of other people’s money.” Greece is the perfect example. Too many riding in the cart, not enough pulling the cart, and a USA that’s decided to trek down the same path. America’s economy is important to the entire world…freedom has been abandoned.
Oh well…we fight on.
Why? Because the same laws and punishment aren’t applied equally to members and supporters of both parties.
D’Souza served 8 months for giving $20,000 to an old college friend that he did NOT benefit from in any way. Yet, their are Democrat supporters who are walking the streets free men and women today who did the same with millions.
Remember Sant Chatwal?!!
Breaking: Major Clinton Donor Pleads Guilty To Campaign Finance Violations:
“Remember when Jeffrey Thompson pled guilty to campaign finance violations after secretly spending more than a half-million on a secret get-out-vote effort for Hillary in 2008? Well it looks like another person intimately connected to her failed Presidential campaign has got himself in trouble.
Earlier today, major Democratic fundraiser Sant Chatwal pled guilty to witness tampering and conspiracy to evade campaign finance laws in a Manhattan Federal Court. The candidates he broke laws for have not been identified yet. However, Chatwal was a bundler for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and planned to raise $5 million for her through a group he created called Indian Americans for Hillary 2008.
What we do know is that this is hardly the first time Chatwal has been charged with a crime. In fact, it’s the fourth. Let’s recap:
•In 1990, the SEC charged Chatwal with falsifying his company’s books.
•In 1997, the FDIC sued Chatwal over $14 million in unpaid loans.
•In 2000, Indian authorities charged Chatwal with $9 million in bank fraud.
When questions about Chatwal’s involvement in Hillary’s Presidential campaign arose, a Clinton spokesman said that nothing in Chatwal’s background raised concerns about his involvement in the campaign.
There certainly should’ve been.
UPDATE: POLITICO reports that Chatwal’s campaign finance violations include illegal straw contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign.
https://www.americarisingpac.org/breaking-major-clinton-donor-pleads-guilty-campaign-finance-violations/
AND HE’S FREE AS A BIRD FOR DOING THE SAME, BUT WITH SO MUCH MORE, THAT HE ADMITTED TO. $180,000 TO BE EXACT!
Hotelier Avoids Prison for Violating Campaign Finance Laws:
“A Democratic fund-raiser and high-profile hotelier, Sant Singh Chatwal, who had pleaded guilty to skirting federal campaign-finance laws and witness tampering, avoided being sent to prison on Thursday, despite facing a possible sentence of more than five years.
Judge I. Leo Glasser, of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, sentenced Mr. Chatwal to three years of probation. The judge described Mr. Chatwal’s crimes as an “aberrance,” and seemed swayed by the 272 letters written on his behalf; by the argument that his grown sons needed Mr. Chatwal’s help at home; and by the fact that Mr. Chatwal did not seem to personally benefit from his campaign contributions.
Mr. Chatwal, 70, is the president of Hampshire Hotels and Resorts, and his business consists of 12 hotels and 36 restaurants and bars. He leads a lively social life, as seen in the New York magazine feature on his son Vikram’s wedding and in state dinners at the White House.
Sant Singh Chatwal, left, and Bill Clinton in 2006.Mr. Chatwal pleaded guilty on Thursday to federal campaign financing violations.
Clinton Backer Pleads Guilty in a Straw Donor SchemeAPRIL 17, 2014
He pleaded guilty in April to sending more than $180,000 in campaign contributions from 2007 to 2011 to three federal candidates, identified as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Kendrick B. Meek of Florida. There is a limit on how much individuals can contribute to campaigns, so Mr. Chatwal devised an illegal straw donor scheme, prosecutors said, asking acquaintances to give, then reimbursing them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/nyregion/hotelier-avoids-prison-for-violating-campaign-finance-laws.html?_r=0
Read his book Chris, like I did, before you go condemning one person and giving a pass to another.
He also sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation with the other crooks.
The government charges against him were more extensive
extensive:
Better take a look at sentencing, Chief Weber, cause the government has failed badly in that regard.
Peggy, you do realize D’Souza didn’t serve any prison time either, right? Those eight months were in a community confinement center. Other than that his sentence wasn’t that different from Chatwal as far as I can see. Both have five years probation. If the charge is that D’Souza was politically targeted, then Chatwal isn’t good evidence of that. You’d also have to prove the judges in each case were political operatives, which seems hard to do. It’s likely Chatwal got off a bit easier because of his advanced age. But I’m not seeing any evidence of D’Souza being treated more harshly for being an outspoken Republican.
I wouldn’t trust Chatwal to warn me about “con men” either. Both he and D’Souza are, themselves, con men.
I’ve heard enough lies from D’Souza to know not to waste time reading his entire book.
Chris, I really didn’t expect you’d read D’Souza’s book because his views don’t match yours. Just maybe you’ll be interested in reading what liberal law professor Jonathan Turley has to say about the judge’s sentencing of D’Souza. I wonder how liberals would feel if D’Souza was a gay man instead of a political conservative who was ordered to attend psychological counseling for his beliefs or life-style. This judge overreached his authority and attempted to reprogram him with forced “reeducation.”
Jonathan Turley, “However, while judges often bring their experience and knowledge to cases, it is a bit more problematic when the court effectively places his own experience as a type of third expert witness on an issue like psychological counseling. It is akin to a former police officer invoking his own forensic analysis to overrule or amplify the conclusions of an expert witness. I also simply do not see the record for continuing this element of the order. The original sentence for D’Souza was quite harsh and he has fulfilled those conditions without incident from what I can see. He has also continued as a successful writer and speaker. Even if the court believes that community service must continue, I do not see the basis for compelled psychological counseling. The court is not in the business of making “better people” in this way. The court acknowledged that this is not part of the punishment and that he was only ordering the counseling on his hunch that D’Souza could benefit from such counseling. At this point however I think that decision should rest with D’Souza. I do not know D’Souza and I have not read his work. However, I fail to see a record to support this part of the order.”
D’Souza was denied his livelihood when he was forced into confinement for eight months denied to work on specific projects or even leave the county of the confinement facility. He couldn’t even go into LA because it was in another county. All interviews had to be approved. Non were. Now, compare his punishment for $20,000 to Chatwal’s for $180,000 and millions more that were suspect, plus the bribery. Chatwal walked out the court house door after paying his fine, went back to work and to sleep in his posh hotels or luxary bed at home. He spent no time in confinement with a bunch of thieves, drug pushers, rapist and wife beaters.
Their punishment wasn’t equal justice under the law it was as biased as possible beginning with the Obama administration’s Justice Department demanding the highest level of charges.
Federal Judge Orders Dinesh D’Souza To Continue Psychological Counseling Despite Contrary Expert Recommendation: by Jonathan Turley
“I am rather perplexed by a ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman to order not just four more years of community service for filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza but continuation of psychological counseling despite the countervailing findings of two experts in the case. Judge Berman was on solid ground in much of his opinion on the conditions of the prior sentencing order. While tough, the defense was trying to curtail key aspects of the order. However, the counseling component does concern me.
D’Souza’s pleaded guilty to a single count of making illegal contributions in the name of others as part of the campaign of Wendy Long for New York Senate. He made $20,000 in illegal contributions. That is no minor infraction, but many questioned the decision of the Justice Department to seek multiple felonies and jail time. His case was denounced by various people as reflecting a selective prosecution of a conservative write and critic of the Obama Administration. Berman rejected the demand for jail time but did impose five years probation, eight months in a halfway house and a $30,000 fine as well as requiring that D’Souza perform eight hours of community service each week during his probation and must undergo therapy on a weekly basis.
This hearing was meant to clarify aspects of his sentence last year and much of the order would not be viewed as particularly controversial. D’Souza was seeking to limit the time of the community service by reference to his home confinement period. Berman balked and said that he said the two periods as distinct — a position that courts would likely take in similar cases.
Berman not surprisingly continued the community service for four more years. However, it is the counseling that most surprised me. While some sites have clearly relished the denial of relief, even referring to D’Souza as a “conservative clown.” His political views should not factor into these cases.
D’Souza’s counsel submitted evidence that the court-ordered psychiatrist found no indication of depression or reason for medication. His own retained psychologist provided a written statement concluding there was no need to continue the consultation. However, Judge Berman simply disagreed and said that he thinks more counseling will help while noting that this is not punishment: “I only insisted on psychological counseling as part of Mr. D’Souza’s sentence because I wanted to be helpful. I am requiring Mr. D’Souza to see a new psychological counselor and to continue the weekly psychological consultation not as part of his punishment or to be retributive.” I am concerned with a judge exercising such power “to be helpful” when there is not an independent recommendation for such counseling or a desire by the individual for such counseling.
Resources-1809-Berman_Richard_20141011115535Moreover, I am not comfortable with Judge Berman’s reference to his own expertise in the area. The court insisted “I’m not singling out Mr. D’Souza to pick on him. A requirement for psychological counseling often comes up in my hearings in cases where I find it hard to understand why someone did what they did.” I fail to see why this conduct is so mystifying. Stupid, yes, but the motivation was obvious. He sought to circumvent limitations on campaign financing laws. That was justifiably punished but it is not like he was found with severed heads in a duffle bag. Judge Berman noted that the court-appointed psychologist called D’Souza “arrogant” and “intolerant of others’ feelings.” However, that description would fit many successful people, including many in Washington and even a few on the bench.
Judge Berman then added: “You have to understand, I have a background in social work with a psychology major. I’m sensitive to mental health issues in the criminal cases I hear, and I do not want to end psychological counseling at this time in Mr. D’Souza’s case.” I have little question that Judge Berman has such a background. Indeed, he has a remarkable background and proven intellectual prowess. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 1964 and his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1967. He also received a Master of Social Work from Fordham University in 1996. He had a successful legal career and served as an executive assistant to United States Senator Jacob Javits in 1974. He was later named Executive Director of the New York State Alliance to Save Energy and was then appointed General Counsel and Executive Vice President of the Warner Cable Corporation. He has been a judge on various levels and is distinguished in the depth and scope of his published opinions.
However, while judges often bring their experience and knowledge to cases, it is a bit more problematic when the court effectively places his own experience as a type of third expert witness on an issue like psychological counseling. It is akin to a former police officer invoking his own forensic analysis to overrule or amplify the conclusions of an expert witness. I also simply do not see the record for continuing this element of the order. The original sentence for D’Souza was quite harsh and he has fulfilled those conditions without incident from what I can see. He has also continued as a successful writer and speaker. Even if the court believes that community service must continue, I do not see the basis for compelled psychological counseling. The court is not in the business of making “better people” in this way. The court acknowledged that this is not part of the punishment and that he was only ordering the counseling on his hunch that D’Souza could benefit from such counseling. At this point however I think that decision should rest with D’Souza. I do not know D’Souza and I have not read his work. However, I fail to see a record to support this part of the order.”
(Most of the comments are very interesting.)
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/15/federal-judge-orders-dinesh-dsouza-to-continue-psychological-counseling-despite-contrary-recommendations-from-experts/
Peggy D’Souza has a handle on the corrupt foundation that now acts as the support for the Democrat Party. Slowly it is being exposed as a destructive force in America. Thanks for sharing.
The history of progressive politics is fascinating and dates back to the 1800’s with both Democrat and Republican support. Republican Teddy Roosevelt, in his last two years in office, opened the door when he veered leftward:
The Democrats sealed leftist progressive power when they got Wilson elected in 2012. The push leftward then began in earnest and has not been held in check to any great degree since. The Marxist sixties radicals made progressive politics and social reform a vehicle in the extreme. Justice transformed to pay back and a goal to become a permanent singular political force. Today we are “ruled” by a man unwilling to work within our system of checks and balances and prepared to pervert the justice system. We are “ruled” by a man who uses “czars” to intimidate and regulate against people who oppose socialist policies. We are “ruled” by a man that has insulted our allies and allied with out enemies. His is the face and power of the Democrat Party today. His devices are the same as those used by dictators. The determination to corrupt and dismantle our republican foundation has never been more apparent.
Is it any wonder true Americans of both parties are anxious and determined to rid ourselves of these rats. (I heard yesterday that the majority of Trumps base are Democrats!)
“I heard yesterday that the majority of Trumps base are Democrats!”
And you believe everything you hear, as long as you want to.
Tina, I’ve been hearing the same thing. The NY Times explains who those Dems are. Looks like a choice between a “Democratic Socialist” and a “Progressive Democrat” are too extreme for them.
Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html
Peggy is always such a wealth of information. A true gem. Fascinating link.
That NYT article drips with partisan spin too, Peggy, so who knows how many Dems might go rogue and vote for trump. I understand NY state voters have given him strong support.
Democrats for Trump
donald Trump Democrats
I keep remembering the first Reagan election when all of the liberal pundits and republican elites said he didn’t have a chance to win. In 1980 he won the popular vote 43,903,230 to 35,480,115 and the electoral vote 489 to 49.
That article does not state that “the majority of Trump’s base are Democrats,” as Tina said. It says that 43% of registered Democrats who typically vote Republican–surely a very small percentage of Democrats in total–support Trump. These are likely people who now consider themselves Republican but for some reason never changed their registration. Trump still has about 30 percent support from Republicans, and that certainly makes up a larger actual number than the 43% of “Democrats who typically vote for Republicans,” a much smaller group. So no, the majority of Trump’s supporters aren’t Democrats.
DEFINITELY a difference between democratic and Democrat!!!!
A bit off-topic, but well worth the read: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/6/monica-crowley-the-real-reason-voters-are-on-a-ram/
Chris the Times article was not my original source. I said I had heard that more of Trump’s supporters are (registered) Democrats, “I heard yesterday that the majority of Trumps base are Democrats!”
I did not in any way suggest that the majority of Democrats backed Trump as you seem to be saying.
Comparing this election to the 1980 election (Also the 1984 election) brings forth this kind of speculation.
Reagan Democrats were southern whites and northern blue collar workers. They voted for Reagan because of his economic message after the malaise of the Carter years and his strong national security stance. Democrats who voted for Reagan also saw their party policy as supporting the poor at the expense of the middle class. The same types of situations that motivated them then are occurring today. The American people have little faith in government and both parties have high unfavorable ratings. In the last election many blue state Democrats didn’t even identify party affiliation in their ads.
August 2014 Redstate:
I noticed this here in California.
Democrats have been hurt by this economy and are personally threatened on jobs and security by the economic, immigration, and border policies of the past seven years. this is just reality. I’m not sure why you have your shorts in such a bunch over a casual remark.
Americans will take a lot, but they will not tolerate the continuing destruction of their nation by elites in both parties who believe they are untouchable. – Monica Crowley (See J.Soden’s Washington Times link)
Saw Monica on TV this AM, on fire as usual!
“I did not in any way suggest that the majority of Democrats backed Trump as you seem to be saying.”
That’s not what I said. But the polls clearly show that Trump is more favored among Republicans than Democrats; therefore, the claim that “the majority of Trump’s base are Democrats” doesn’t seem to hold up.
Comparing Trump to Reagan is insulting to Reagan, who had an actual record as Governor of California, and wasn’t a brazen jerk who behaved like a schoolyard bully.
Wasn’t comparing Trump to Reagan.
Was comparing the times and circumstances.
An excellent read. Thanks J.Soden.
Whining about Dinesh D’Souza? What does that gain you Chris? I know what, Post Scripts has again been suckered by you going off on an irrelevant tangent. Hillary is a socialist, a serial liar, a sexual predator rapist enabler. Dinesh D’Souza is not running for office, wanker.
LOL…….. I just heard Hillary and Obama referred to as “Caviar left” aka “Champaign Socialist” and that the terms have been around for a very long time. Since I’d never heard of Caviar Left I decided to look it up and sure enough it fits them to a tee. And now I’m going to use it every chance I get.
“Gauche caviar (Caviar left) is a pejorative French term to describe someone who claims to be a socialist while living in a way that contradicts socialist values. The expression is a political neologism dating from the 1980s and implies a degree of hypocrisy.[citation needed]
It is broadly similar to the English champagne socialist, the American Limousine liberal, the German “Salonkommunist” the Italian “Radical Chic”, the Portuguese “esquerda caviar”, and the Danish “Kystbanesocialist”, referring to well-off coastal neighborhoods north of Copenhagen. Other similar terms in English include Hampstead liberal, liberal elite, chardonnay socialist and Bollinger Bolshevik.
The dictionary Petit Larousse defines “left caviar” as a pejorative expression for a “Progressivism combined with a taste for society life and its accoutrements”.[1][clarification needed]
The term was once prevalent in Parisian circles, applied deprecatingly to those who professed allegiance to the Socialist Party, but who maintained a far from proletarian lifestyle that distinguished them from the working-class base of the French Socialist Party.
It was often employed by detractors of François Mitterrand.[2][3]
In early 2007, Ségolène Royal was identified with the “gauche caviar” when it was revealed that she had been avoiding paying taxes. The description damaged her campaign for the French presidency.[4] Similarly French politician Bernard Kouchner and his wife Christine Ockrent have been labelled with the term. However, his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs was not hampered by the label.[5] Other supposed members of this “gauche caviar” include Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former IMF managing director, and his wife, the journalist Anne Sinclair, heiress to much of the fortune of her maternal grandfather, the art dealer Paul Rosenberg.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauche_caviar
Perfectly describes many of the left greenies too! They talk “cutting back” on oil and going for alternatives while gobbling up petroleum on jet-setting, lavish homes, swimming pools, golf courses, SUV’s and what not.
The Castro’s in Cuba and their little elite group lived like kings while the people slugged along as best they could.
Same in the USSR…remember when Gorbachev first came to America with a big expensive watch on his arm and Reagan had a Timex! Laughed my butt off.
And that pip squeak in North Korea…the proletariat is eating grass (and maybe each other) while he plays war games and entertains Dennis Rodman.
Progressives (commies, socialists, liberals…) are such phonies.
It is sad to see what progressives like Hillary and Obama will do to the poorest amongst us so they can have the luxurious life-style they want at the poor’s expense.
Hope the Obama’s a BO enjoyed their vacations while the homeless slept on the streets and a large portion of our soldiers were paid only $30,000 a year.
New Obama vacation costs uncovered; They now exceed $70 million:
“As Barack, Michelle, Malia and Sasha Obama, family, friends, pets and staff enjoy their half-month-long Hawaiian vacation, the Secret Service finally complied with a court order to release some Obama vacation expenses from two years ago.
That’s how eager the Obama administration is about being transparent when it comes to spending large sums of taxpayers’ money on itself.
As with the slow-motion releases of Hillary Clinton’s emails, the idea of bureaucratic stalling, of course, is that the details become “old” news more likely to be ignored by media. Fortunately, we’re not on vacation this week, so we can help the president out. Here goes:
The new expense reports, heavily-redacted allegedly for security reasons, push the total known costs for vacations during Obama’s reign to nearly $71 million — with another full year to go. That’s about $10.1 million per year in known expenses.”
http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/123015-787012-obama-vacation-expenses-already-exceed-70-million-dollars.htm#ixzz3wdPwqj56
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Hmmm…SEIU leader “fears Trump because so many of her 2.1 million union members…She added that she thinks Trump appeals to some of her members because of the ‘terrible anxiety’ some people in the working class are experiencing…Henry went on to say that 64% of the SEIU members are conservative —
Yet the union spends all of their taxpayer dollars to support radical liberal Democrats!”
Dang…the above should read, “fears Trump because so many of her 2.1 million union members support Trump“…