2016: I will vote to protect the unborn

In the interest of full disclosure, I did not support Mr. Trump.

I was hoping that we’d nominate one of our extremely successful governors, from Bush to Kasich to Walker to Perry.  In Texas, I eventually voted for Rubio because all of those others were out and he was the most electable.

Let me say this.   My first vote was in 1976 when I proudly voted for President Ford.   Since that first vote, I have proudly supported each one of our nominees even when they were not my first choice such as Mr. Dole in 1996.

Since early summer, I have been struggling with a real dilemma.  However, we must think of the larger picture and voting for Donald Trump makes a lot more sense than electing Hillary Clinton by supporting another option.

In other words, someone will nominate Justices to the Supreme Court and I’d rather have Mr. Trump do that.

No one has dissected Mrs. Clinton better than Dr. Charles Krauthammer this week:

The soullessness of this campaign — all ambition and entitlement — emerges almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign is about.

In one largely overlooked passage, Clinton complains that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or rationale. Isn’t that the candidate’s job?

Asked one of her aides, Joel Benenson: “Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?”

It’s that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and position negotiable and politically calculable.

Hence the embarrassing about-face on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the popular winds swung decisively against free trade.

A Trump presidency, with VP Pence, a GOP Senate and House, could actually produce some important domestic results.

They could repeal Obama Care and actually replace it with something that puts the patient and doctor in control.

They could finally tackle tax reform, something that most of us have been calling for.

Last, but not least, a President Trump could be persuaded by Speaker Ryan to take a serious look at entitlements.

On free trade, I am not expecting much because tearing up trade agreements is a lot more complicated than everyone realizes.  I just hope that Trump’s supporters understand that.

On immigration, I do not really believe that a President Trump will get Mexico to pay for the wall or deport millions.  However, they may do something about sanctuary cities and respecting our immigration laws.

On foreign policy, it will be hell no matter who walks into the Oval Office.  President Obama is leaving such a mess in the Middle East that it won’t be pretty, from Syria to Iran.

My point is that there is hope with a Trump presidency to get some things done.

On the other side, there is no hope for governing if Mrs. Clinton wins.  There are also going to be some huge battles in the Democrat aisle because the left and Mrs. Clinton are not going to enjoy each other at all. The left is not a happy bunch these days as Politico wrote.

Yes I am voting for Mr. Trump, the lesser of the two evils this time around.

In the end, I will sleep comfortably knowing that I voted to protect the unborn this time around.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

A nice birthday gift if you can get it



And the hits just keep on coming, as those Top 40 jingles used to tell us.

We learned that President Clinton was given a wonderful birthday gift years ago:

According to the newly released WikiLeaks emails, Bill Clinton, the husband of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, received a birthday present from the Islamic country of Qatar in 2011 of $1 million.

“[Qatar] Would like to see WJC ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011,” Ami Desai, director of foreign policy for the Clinton Foundation, wrote in 2012.

Let’s assume that Qatar was just giving the former president a birthday gift. In other words, let’s assume further that the wonderful people of Qatar just wanted to show their support for the former president and all of the wonderful things that he did for the world.

Or maybe his assistance in bringing the World Cup?

My question is this: do we want former presidents getting birthday gifts of this size? More importantly, do we want an ex-president, married to the current Secretary of State and future candidate for president, to be getting a gift like this? And shouldn’t gifts like these be made public? Did President Obama know that such a gift was made? Did that check go into a joint account or some account that benefits Mrs. Clinton as well?

As with everything Clinton, it raises ethical questions and transparency issues. It reminds us again that the Clintons love to navigate in secret until they are caught.

It also raises the question of what Qatar was expecting from Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. Maybe nothing, but the secrecy of this gift makes me wonder.

For the record, I am not opposed to countries honoring our ex presidents by naming schools or airports after them. I don’t even mind if they make a contribution to a charity of the president’s choice, such as to recognize the wonderful work that President and Mrs. Carter have done with Habitat for Humanity.

Again, this gift was made in secret and that’s wrong because we are talking about a former president married to the Secretary of State.

It stinks, like everything Clinton!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Unprecedented “media coup d’etat” against Trump

As the readers of Babalu may remember, I was not a fan of Donald Trump in the primaries.   I was hoping for a governor, from Gov Bush of Florida to Gov Walker of Wisconsin to Gov Kasich of Ohio to our own Gov Perry of Texas.    Later, I voted for Senator Rubio in Texas because I saw him as the one most electable candidate after so many had dropped out.

My point is that I am not a Trump fan.    Nevertheless, Mr Trump is correct about the way that the media is treating his campaign.

Some of you may have heard about Barry Casselman’s post: A Media Coup D’Etat?

It was mentioned by Newt Gingrich at Fox News and ABC News

It is something that we should all read and here it is:

What we are now witnessing in the 2016 U.S. presidentialelection is an unprecedented media coup d’etat as many ofthe combined media forces (but not all of its members) are attempting to determine the next president before the voting takes place.

I want to make clear that I have not endorsed either HillaryClinton or Donald Trump, and that I have criticized each ofthem on occasions when I thought it was fair and appropriate.I found Mr. Trump’s  recently released video tape comments to be crude and unacceptable, and I found some of Mrs. Clinton’s comments in the release of texts from her speeches to be inappropriate and seriously wrong-headed.

Those are only my opinions, and I know they are not shared in many cases by partisans of each candidate. Nonetheless, I don’t feel it is my job or prerogative to tell my readers how to vote in this election.

Unfortunately, many newspapers, magazines, major and cableTV and radio networks are  choosing to take part in an attemptto influence the outcome of the election way beyond what Ithink are the acceptable standards of the media’s role in apresidential election. To be fair, it is not only the liberal media,but some in the conservative media as well who have joinedinto this endeavor.

This has taken the forms of days and weeks of one-sidedpress coverage (I distinguish that from editorial opinion), hoursof relentless and repetitious broadcasts of the most salacious material about Mr. Trump while downplaying equally serious material from Mrs, Clinton’s hitherto unpublished speeches and e-mails, obviously biased moderators of the TV debates so far, and generally one-sided coverage of the campaign itselfonce the primary/caucus season was concluded, Before that,the media clearly overplayed its coverage of Mr. Trump, and did so mostly uncritically, giving him an unfair advantage against his Republican nomination opponents.

I make a distinction between opinion writing and reportingjournalism. It is understood that some are writing with a partisan point of view. My attention here is directed to thosewho presume to be addressing their readers and audienceswithout unfair bias.

Media bias is nothing new. Polling of reporters show that anoverwhelming majority of them are liberals and Democrats. (Decades ago, it should be noted, most in the media were conservatives and Republicans.) Balanced coverage is perhaps an unrealistic expectation, but the behavior of so many mediainstitutions in 2016 goes beyond mere bias. The front page is not the editorial page. No wonder all polls of public attitudes show trust in the media to be so low.

It is understandable that much of Donald Trump’s manner, andmany of his words, turn off media and establishment elites inboth parties. It is fair to criticize him for his lapses. But HillaryClinton also speaks controversially and has made egregiousmistakes. To try to pretend that she does not have equally lowcredibility is unjustifiable.
Fortunately, the final say in an election rests with the voters.Donald Trump might well lose on November 8 because he wasnot able to persuade enough voters that he should be president.Perhaps he will make a comeback. It is not up to the media, however, to try to predetermine that result by bullying the public into their own way of thinking.
For whatever reason history has presented the Americanelectorate with two such flawed nominees, it is up to the votersto sort this dilemma out on their own.

In the interest of full disclosure, Barry has been on my show often.   He joined me last week to discuss the presidential race and this post.    Listen here!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Why Trade With China And Not With Communist Cuba?


Daniel Ruth of the Tampa Bay Times is puzzled with the fact that Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn is enjoying mai tais on a goodwill/economic development trip with China, while turning his back on Communist Cuba where he could be raising Mojitos and smoking Cohiba cigars. (See http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/ruth-tampa-mayor-courts-china-stiff-arms-cuba/2295156). While the argument seems logical at first glance, it is more complicated when delving deep into the facts.

Every politician is worried about one thing only – getting elected and re-elected. Mayor Buckhorn must be looking at the number of Cubans and Chinese in the Tampa area before taking a stand on the foreign policy that he will embrace. According to data from the 2000 Census, there were 14,674 (4.8%) Cubans versus 724 (0.24%) Chinese in Tampa. Moreover, Florida has a U.S. Senator in Marco Rubio who supports taking a hard-line in the U.S. relations with Communist Cuba. Thus, it seems a safer bet for Mayor Buckhorn to side with the conservative, Cuban community in Tampa.

There are good reasons to trade more openly with China than with Communist Cuba. For starters, it comes down to dollars and cents. The Cuban economy cannot be compared with the Chinese economy where China has become the U.S.’s second-biggest trading partner. China’s market economy has been growing since the mid-1980s – promoting faster market growth and expanding the personal freedom of millions of Chinese. In comparison, the Castro regime has not been willing to liberalize the economy and create a free market economy. Free enterprise continues to be highly restricted, while foreign investors are forced to conduct business with the Castro’s regime.

There are other valid reasons for the U.S. policy on Cuba. Cuban officials have granted “political asylum” to several U.S. criminals like Joanne Chesimard who was convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper. Moreover, the Cuban Government still has not compensated the $7 billion in today’s dollars it owes to U.S. companies and U.S. citizens for confiscating their properties.

I would hope that the U.S. Government looks after the well-being of its citizens first.

How To Tell The Difference Between The Donald and Crooked Hillary


I’m sure that you are overwhelmed lately with messages from friends regarding their inability of picking a candidate to vote for in the 2016 presidential election. Even the past suggestion of picking the lesser of the two evils does not seem to work in 2016.

Well, no more! It is not enough to wait until the Sept. 26th debate to make up one’s mind. The best way to tell the two candidates apart is by clicking on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEQuDyuQFKE

9-11-2001: Thank God for President Bush and VP Cheney


Most of us remember 9-11 down to the last minute.  It was one of those life experiences that will stay with us as long as we live.

Back then, I remember how fortunate we were that we had men like Bush and Cheney in positions of responsibility.

Things got political as they always do.  However, President Bush and his team deserve a lot of credit for defending and protecting the country.

Raul’s amigo in North Korea said ‘si se puede’


(My new American Thinker post)

During the Bush-Cheney years, we were constantly reminded that the bad guys were on a mission to destroy us.  President Bush would often speak of the threat and remind us that it was long-term and very dangerous.

President Obama changed the tone.  He lowered the volume and did not constantly speak of the threats.  I’m not saying he does not care, but the intensity is missing.

It’s 9-11 plus 15, and I feel very unsafe.  Put a map of the world on the wall, and there are red lights everywhere.

The latest is North Korea.  It’s nice for President Obama to call the test dangerous, but that’s not going to do much to stop the next test.

The Washington Post has a good message for President Obama:

Western analysts used to dismiss North Korea’s tests as political stunts, meant to impress the domestic audience, capture international attention and leverage aid. Though the latest detonation came on a national holiday, that explanation is looking implausible. As it has frequently said publicly, the regime now aims to be recognized as a nuclear power and to acquire the ability to deter not just South Korea and Japan, but also the United States.

President Obama reiterated Friday that “the United States does not, and never will, accept North Korea as a nuclear state.”

But Mr. Obama has failed to take the North Korean buildup seriously enough. For years, his administration pursued a policy of “strategic patience,” which mostly consisted of ignoring North Korea while mildly cajoling China to put more pressure on the regime.

In February, Mr. Obama signed into law a bill pushed by congressional Republicans that gave him broad new powers to sanction North Korea and cut off its economic lifelines. The next month, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution imposing new sanctions on the regime, including limits on its trade.

However, China has not aggressively implemented the U.N. sanctions — and Mr. Obama has not used the powers Congress gave him. As The Post’s Anna Fifield recently reported, customs data shows that China’s trade with North Korea in June was almost 10 percent higher than the previous year, in spite of the sanctions. Though the White House has issued executive orders sanctioning Mr. Kim and other senior leaders, congressional leaders point out that it has yet to penalize any Chinese companies or banks for continuing to do business with the regime.

Quick translation: Get serious, Mr. President.  It may be that young Kim is crazy, but a head case with nuclear weapons is beyond dangerous.

My guess is that President Obama will punt on this one and leave another problem for his successor.

On this one, Mr. Trump has a point about bringing China into the mix.  The Chinese can stop Kim in a heartbeat.  They could take him out or just squeeze him to death.  We need more from China than a statement like this:

China, Pyongyang’s only major ally, has said it will lodge a diplomatic protest with North Korea’s embassy over the nuclear test.

State news agency Xinhua released a commentary on the explosion on Friday, saying North Korea had “dealt yet another heavy blow to the foundation of regional security, its own security included”.

China had earlier said it was “strongly opposed” to the test.

Am I the only one who finds the Chinese statement silly?

Imagine that your neighbor’s dog comes over and bites your kid.  Your neighbor calls you on the phone and says he is very disappointed and will take it up at the next neighborhood association meeting.

China can do better than that, and I hope a President Trump makes that very clear!

It is hard to believe that a small nation in the Korean peninsula can be this dangerous or take up so much of our time.

There are two lessons here for future presidents:

1) Take them out when you can, as we had the opportunity in 1994 when the country was desperately looking for food.  In other words, don’t throw a lifesaver to anti-American thugs.  They will only use it to regain strength and make your life more miserable later.

2) Attach North Korea to our China relationship.  Make it clear to China that an attack by North Korea on any of our allies – Japan or South Korea, for example – would be an attack on the U.S., requiring a full military retaliation against China.

Again, it is incredible to me that a country with starving people could pose such a threat to world peace.  Let’s learn our lesson and not allow the next Kim to get his hands on a weapon.

Thank you, President Bush, for understanding that much about Saddam Hussein.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Who respects President Obama? Raul Castro and the Chinese don’t



(My new American Thinker post)

President Obama’s trip to China and the “stairs” incident put the bow on two terms of trying to popular rather than respected. I just hope that #45 understands what he or she is walking into.

This is what happened in China, as explained by Dr. Krauthammer:

The president of the United States lands with all the majesty of Air Force One, waiting to exit the front door and stride down the rolling staircase to the red-carpeted tarmac.

Except that there is no rolling staircase.

He is forced to exit — as one China expert put it rather undiplomatically — through “the ass” of the plane.

We don’t know if the incident was planned or accidental. However, all of the leaders got the usual treatment and “hope and change” didn’t. And no one apologized for doing this to the president of the U.S. As they say, actions speak louder than words.

It started in Egypt in 2009 with a speech that blamed the U.S., followed by a revolution in Iran that he didn’t pay attention to, a withdrawal from Iraq that left a vacuum for ISIS to grow and expand in, to drawing a red line that he didn’t enforce, to making a deal with Cuba that benefited the Castros not the U.S., to an Iran nuclear deal that he was desperate to make no matter how much cash the other side demanded, to allowing Iran boats to bully the U.S. Navy to Russian MiGs flying feet over our ships.

Wonder what’s next on the long line of cheap shots at the U.S.?

We are living in extremely dangerous times and President Obama does not have a clue. Worse than that, no one in the U.S. media is bothering to ask him about it or hold him accountable for the disarray. The media is obsessed with Trump, Mrs. Clinton is promising not to send ground troops and our enemies are enjoying it a great deal.

The Chinese forgot the donkey to remind our president that he is a Democrat and something else that I’ll leave to your imagination.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Tres Patines on Hillary: “A la reja”


How can anyone still think Mrs. Clinton has judgment or any character after the latest “dump,” as discussed by Bre Payton:

Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “classified,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”

Her claims of ignorance – whether they’re true or not – violate an agreement she signed during her first day on the job in the State Department.

From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained classified information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.

She didn’t know that “C” meant classified?  Are you kidding me?  What else could it mean? Careful?  Candy?  Chicago Cubs?  And these are the same people who got all over Trump because he didn’t know about the nuclear triad?

At some point, you have to say Mrs. Clinton is either unfit for a responsible position or too much of a liar.

In my book, those are not good attributes for the person who will have to put the Middle East back together, tackle the collapse of Obamacare, and probably go on TV to announce that your son is headed to war again.

If she were an employee, she’d be fired.  If she stood before a jury, no one would buy her story that she did not know that “C” meant classified.

No serious person can believe this candidacy anymore.

Mrs. Clinton is unfit to lead, and I have a funny feeling that many Democrats are coming to the same conclusion.

Tres Patines got it right:   “A la reja”

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

What is the Clinton Foundation doing in Colombia?



(My new American Thinker post)

Our friend Fausta Rodriguez Wertz has been on this story for a week.   

It begs the question: What was The Clinton Foundation looking for in Colombia? 

Here is a bit of the very complicated story

Fondo Acceso was founded in 2010 by Bill Clinton, the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, and the Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra. The Clinton Foundation and the SLIM Foundation committed $10 million each to the fund.

The Clinton Foundation is a 50 percent shareholder in the company, according to its tax records. Numerous Clinton Foundation and Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership officials are listed as Fondo Acceso directors in Colombian corporate filings.

The fund has reportedly distributed $1.5 million to Alimentos SAS, a fruit-pulping company, and $250,000 to the telecommunications firm Fontel SA in exchange for shareholding agreements. The Clinton Foundation and CGEP have declined to release a full list of Fondo Acceso’s investments.

What exactly is the point of having President Clinton in business in Colombia with a Mexican telecommunications billionaire and a Canadian mining magnate? Why all the secrecy? Why was the website takend down?

I have a few other questions:

1) Did they do this to avoid regulations in Colombia or the U.S.? Or to create a fund to go around U.S. oversight or campaign laws?

2) Why didn’t President Clinton create the fund to boost business in the U.S.? For example, how about a fund to invest in our inner cities? Why promote investment in other places when our cities are desperately lacking in jobs?

3) Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have any role in this?

According to Fausta, Hillary Clinton’s timeline is interesting — or maybe Clintonian:

2008: Hillary Clinton campaigns for president, is against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

2009: Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State. She starts lobbying members of Congress for approval of the CFTA, as revealed on emails released on February 2016.

2010: Bill Clinton, Carlos Slim, and Frank Giustra (who pledged $100 million to the Foundation) open Fondo Acceso. Previously, in June 2005, Gold Service International, a South American business group, paid Bill Clinton $800,000 to deliver four speeches in South America. Gold Service was pushing for the free trade agreement, which would help boost Colombian exports to the United States, and Clinton was supportive of the policy.

The Clinton apologists will say that this is all coincidence, as they always do. My answer to the Clinton apologists is to remind them of Ian Fleming’s line about coincidence:  

“Once is happenstance. 
Twice is coincidence. 
Three times is enemy action” 

Finally, am I the only one who finds Mrs. Clinton’s change of heart about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement just a bit too cute?   

This is especially relevant because she was for the Trans Pacific Partnership until she was against it. Can we believe anything that this woman says? Will she flip as President Clinton to take care of some donation that someone gave to the Clinton Foundation?

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

They did not call Trump a racist when he contributed to Democrats


(My new American Thinker post)

During the primary season, Mr. Trump was often attacked by the others on the stage for having contributed to Democrats over the years.  We remember Senator Cruz for this:

Donald Trump has consistently financed the campaigns of some of the most liberal politicians in the country[.] … California is perhaps one of the more egregious examples. From supporting high taxes and heavy regulation to amnesty and sanctuary cities, the top three officials in California have been a disaster for the state. A number of qualified Republican candidates ran to fix California’s problems, but Trump decided to back liberal Democrats against them.

I am not trying to fight the primary all over again.  I am simply demonstrating the hypocrisy of those Democrats who have suddenly discovered that Mr. Trump is a racist.

The Clinton Foundation received at least $105,000 from Trump – money not returned!

Trump may have funded Planned Parenthood, too, although we won’t know for sure until tax returns are released.

And he gave to other Democrats, as Rolling Stone wrote last spring:

An examination of Trump’s donations since 1998 reveals that the bulk of Trump’s political largesse has gone to politicians in places where he does business — like Florida, where he long supported disgraced politico Mark Foley; Nevada, where he’s given $9,400 to Democratic Sen. Harry Reid over the years; and of course New York, where notables like Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand and Anthony Weiner have all received Trump dough.

Again, I understand Trump’s logic here.  He was donating to people in places where he did business.  Nothing shocking about that.

My problem is that none of these Democrats has returned the money, especially now that the Clinton campaign is targeting Trump for racism, sexism, and whatever other “ism” is out there.

Someone, especially Mrs. Clinton or President Obama, should call on Democrats to return and disassociate themselves from any Trump money.

As I said, no one called him a racist when he contributed to Democrats.  It proves once again that the word “racist” these days has nothing to do with race.

Calling someone a racist in our political landscape means two things:

1) He is a GOP candidate.

2) And more importantly, the Democrat using the word “racist” does not want to talk about serious issues, such as black unemployment (8.4%), Democrat leaders sending their kids to private schools or the state of the very weak U.S. economy (GDP 1.1%).

Memo to Democrats: return Trump’s money, or we will continue to call hypocrisy!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Is Obama closing Gitmo to prepare his post?presidency?



(My new American Thinker post)

Over the last couple of years, President Obama has made a nuclear deal with Iran, put a U.S. Embassy in Cuba and continues to release terrorists from Gitmo, as reported by USA Today:

Rep. Ed Royce, the California Republican who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the released detainees “hardened terrorists” who will be a threat for years.

“In its race to close Gitmo, the Obama administration is doubling down on policies that put American lives at risk,” Royce said in a statement. “Once again, hardened terrorists are being released to foreign countries where they will be a threat.”

The Pentagon, in a statement, said an inter-agency review board considered their potential threat to security and unanimously approved six of the 15 for release, A consensus was reached on release of the remaining nine.

There are 61 detainees remaining at Guantanamo.

Are we safer? How can you put terrorists back in the game and assume that they will pursue a peaceful path?

So why is President Obama doing this?

My theory is that he is planning his post presidency. He wants to be an American version of Nelson Mandela, a man who travels around the Third World and left-wing precincts.

How do you get a standing ovation in those corners? Mr. Obama can say that he ended wars, closed Gitmo, ended the isolation of Cuba and signed a nuclear deal with Iran. All of these positions are extremely popular in the anti-U.S. corners of the world!

I ask again: how are any of these actions good for the U.S.? They are not, from a nuclear deal with Iran to throwing dissidents under the bus in Cuba to releasing more terrorists that attack us around the world.

Sadly, there is no one in the Democratic Party willing to stand up and tell President Obama to stop it.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Sanders turned out to be a big fake


(My new American Thinker post)

Senator Sanders’ socialist nonsense was always followed with the footnote that Sanders was genuine and a true believer, i.e. the crazy leftist uncle in the attic who actually believes that Marxism works if you give it a true chance.

We’ve learned a couple of things about Mr. Sanders since he endorsed Mrs Clinton:

1) He threw his supporters under the bus by supporting a candidate who represents everything that he spoke about, from crony capitalism to connections to Wall Street; and,

2) Mr. Sanders likes expensive homes just like the rich folks do. Mr. Sanders just bought his third home and we don’t think that he will be turning any of them into shelters for the homeless or to accommodate refugees from the Middle East. My guess is that he will also take advantage of all of those tax breaks that he ran against during the campaign.

According to NPR, Sanders is turning off a lot of his supporters:

Bernie Sanders may have found a new place to take a break from the political arena after buying a vacation home last week. But some of his former supporters were questioning his socialist authenticity.

Sanders recently purchased a lake-front home in North Hero, Vt., his home state. The $575,000, four-bedroom home includes 500 feet of Lake Champlain beachfront on the east side of the island, according to the Vermont newspaper Seven Days.

The purchase makes this Sanders’ third home, and after the news broke of his recent purchase, the Internet became a breeding ground for complaints.

Socialist authenticity?

In fact, this is how a lot of socialists live, from Cuba to North Korea to the American left, who love public education but send their kids to rich private schools like the Obama, the Clintons, the Kerrys, the Gores and so on.

I am not surprised that Mr. Sanders would bash rich people in front of fickle students and then buy a huge home to relax. He is actually a lot more typical of rich socialists than his supporters realize. It’s a shame that his supporters had to learn that the whole message was a fraud this way.

As my late father once said after watching a Sanders rally: “At 18 you believe this trash, then you grow up….”

That’s right. Bernie’s home is a teachable moment for the thousands who bought into his distributionist nonsense!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.