Watching former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley in the first Democratic presidential debate felt unworldly and scared me more than any sci-fi flick.
The setting was perfect: the Wynn casino in Las Vegas, a city where people often lose their sense of reality. What is so scary is that so many millions of Americans are betting their future on a Democrat to be president.
Most telling during the debate was how out of touch the candidates are with regard to political and economic realities. This was on display when each was asked what they consider to be the greatest threat to America.
The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis.
And his website states:
The United States must lead the world in tackling climate change, if we are to make certain that this planet is habitable for our children and grandchildren.
Although the 74-year-old Sanders is a junior senator, he is the consummate political insider, having won a congressional seat in 1991. Sanders admits he was a radical while at the University of Chicago, where he earned a bachelor of arts degree in political science. None of this qualifies him as a scientist or an expert in global temperature trends. That doesn’t slow down Sanders, who declared: “This is a moral issue. … The future of the planet is at stake.”
O’Malley went so far as to say his first action if elected president would be to steer the country on a path toward 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. That is not possible.
Halfway into the debate, Clinton boasted of her role at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009.
Mother Jones gave its opinion on Clinton and the Copenhagen summit:
After years of anticipation, the meeting of world leaders ended in disarray, with (President) Obama and his aides famously wandering around the convention center, looking for the leaders of China, India, Brazil, and other key nations. The toothless deal struck at the last minute was called a “grudging accord” by the New York Times the next day. Yes, Obama — and Clinton, then his secretary of state — were instrumental to that deal, but it’s hardly something Hillary should be proud of.
But environmentalists seldom distinguish between fact and fiction. Point in case is the call for American cars to run on ethanol, which burns cleanly but not cheaply. Not only would a major conversion to ethanol be extremely expensive, but it would also use up farmland. Foods across the board would become prohibitively expensive. Then there is this fact: It costs 1.5 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.
The truth is that if Obama had been as adamant about global warming as the current Democratic contenders are, he would never have been considered for the presidency eight years ago. He has undergone a big change when you consider that Obama now believes in global warming. Last April, Obama said there is “no greater threat” than climate change. Yet just last year, the president’s advisers were saying that ISIS is the greatest threat ever to civilization.
ISIS (aka ISIL) was mentioned only five times during the Democratic debate. The candidates seemed to have more pressing issues to discuss. Clinton and Sanders focused on how all Americans will receive a free college education if they are elected. On the question of paying for illegal aliens getting a free college education, Clinton was vague but Sanders declared his full support. Not long ago, even progressive Democrats believed that the wave of illegal immigrants was a problem facing America. But if Sanders is elected president an illegal alien will get a free college education.
A decade ago, Democrats believed that a legitimate threat to America was the rising tide of Islam throughout the world and the longtime objective of bringing Sharia law to Europe and North America. With Muslim birth rates far higher than that of non-Muslims, Islam represents a serious threat. Of course, no general mention of Muslims was made or how tens of millions of Muslims support the growing number of radicals who rejoice at the execution of Christians.
Such talk is inconceivable to the Democratic contenders who want to lead a nation that is inclusive to all and sensitive to the needs of minority groups, particularly blacks, who have a disproportionate influence within the party.
In these politically correct times, Obama and his successor will put great effort not into the economy or overseas enemies but in paying for former sins of whites, especially white men. It’s all part of a mainstay of the Democratic Party: reverse discrimination, which is meant to atone for the sins of the father and all white forefathers.
Rather than recognizing true problems like the lethargy that has taken hold of the American economy, the Democrats focus on past and present black misfortunes; the black community is never, ever to be blamed. Democrats insist that we deserve white guilt while blacks are owed reparations.
I realized the extent of Democratic thinking when CNN took a question from a young black man who asked via satellite, “Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter?” During the discourse, Sanders said, “Black lives matter.”
O’Malley said: “(T)he point that the Black Lives Matter movement is making is a very, very legitimate and serious point, and that is that as a nation we have undervalued the lives of black lives, people of color.”
It was made clear by all the candidates that black lives do matter, a movement that has gained so much traction it has become a radical group not unlike the Black Panthers of the 1960s. You might have thought that at least one of the candidates would have pointed out that he or she was offended to be asked such an inane question. But each could hardly contain their affirmation of Black Lives Matter.
It was all sold on CNN, which covered the debate where anchors and progressive commentators discussed the debate’s merits ad nauseam. It’s the continuing mutation of a once-great news organization into the constant publicist for the Democratic Party and the election of a Democrat. And CNN may have the influence to do it. The science fiction of yesteryear has become all too real.
Remember, there is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. The network news channels are controlling transmission, and their goal is to control your thinking.
Yours in good times and bad,