Fierce Patriots

In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday night, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders doubled down on comments he made in the 1980s where he praised late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. When asked about his current stance on Castro, the Democratic front-runner said he continues supporting aspects of his totalitarian regime."We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba," Sanders told host Anderson Cooper before pivoting to defending Castro. "But it's unfair to say that everything is bad."He then began parroting talking points often cited by the country's communist government. "When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing even though Fidel Castro did it?" Sanders is parroting communist propagandaWhile it is true that Castro implemented a reading program on the island after seizing power in a bloody revolution in 1959, Cuba's literacy rate was already high for a Latin American nation at the time and its educational gains have been comparable to those of its peers in the years since.As attorney Hans Bader noted in an August 2016 article, nearly eight out of 10 Cubans already knew how to read by 1950. This figure was similar to that of Costa Rica, which also achieved 100 percent literacy over the following decades — except Costa Rica and other countries did so without the kind of authoritarian dictatorship that Cubans have endured under the Castro regime for over 61 years.According to UNESCO, Cuba had about the same literacy rate as Costa Rica and Chile in 1950 (close to 80%). And it has almost the same literacy rate as they do today (close to 100%). Meanwhile, Latin American countries that were largely illiterate in 1950 — like Peru, Brazil, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic — are largely literate today, closing much of the gap with Cuba. El Salvador had a less than 40% literacy rate in 1950, but has an 88% literacy rate today. Brazil and Peru had a less than 50% literacy rate in 1950, but today, Peru has a 94.5% literacy rate, and Brazil a 92.6% literacy rate. The Dominican Republic's rate rose from a little over 40% to 91.8%. While Cuba made substantial progress in reducing illiteracy in Castro's first years in power, its educational system has stagnated since, even as much of Latin America improved.The island's literacy program was part of a Marxist indoctrination effortReached by TheBlaze on Sunday evening, Dr. Andy Gomez, a retired University of Miami professor who led the school's Cuban Studies department for decades, said the democratic socialist presidential candidate is misinforming voters about the true motives behind Castro's literacy campaign."Contrary to what Senator Bernie Sanders said, the literacy campaign used by the Castro regime was part of their strategic plan to indoctrinate the Cuban people by using education at all levels in support of a Marxist ideology," Gomez said.Claims of Castro's health care, education, and social achievements have been a common talking point of the Castro regime for decades. As National Review's Jay Nordlinger noted, in 1986 former Cuban political prisoner Armando Valladares was asked at a Harvard forum about Cuba's literacy rate and other supposed accomplishments of the island's communist revolution. He responded by noting that not only are many of the regime's claims false, even if they were true, they came at the expense of basic human freedoms and dignity.Say all those things are true. They're not, but just say they are. Can't you have those things without torturing people? Can't you have them without wrongly imprisoning them? Can't you have them without killing them? Without denying them rights? Without forbidding them to speak freely, without forbidding them to worship, without forbidding them to vote and have a normal political life and pursue their own destinies, and so on? Why is material well-being — not that Cuba has it, or anything remotely like it — but why is material well-being incompatible with freedom? Or not even with freedom: with the absence of a stifling, horrid dictatorship? Why?

If there was ever any doubt as to the true intentions of democratic socialists, then look no further than a sobering article in Slate written by two of the movement's most prominent leaders. In their piece, which is an adaptation of a forthcoming book, writers Micah Uetricht and Meagan Day of Jacobin, a socialist publication, argue that Sen. Bernie Sanders is merely the first step in a broader strategy to push the United States to the far left. Uetricht and Day posit that the Vermont democratic socialist's presidential campaign is the tip of the spear of what they describe as "a new socialist movement." The two make a case for manipulating "democratic structures and processes" to march the country toward full-scale socialism. A new socialist movement is cohering in the US, thanks in large part to the popular class politics of Bernie Sanders. But as that movement grows and progresses, it is bound to run into dangerous obstacles and thorny contradictions. The new US socialist movement is without a single "line" or monolithic political position. That's a strength of the movement, since none of us has all the answers. Still, many people in the movement, ourselves included, feel strongly about certain approaches to strategy. One approach we feel strongly about is what we call "the democratic road to socialism," or the idea that we need to make good use of the democratic structures and processes available to us (and to improve and expand them) in order to advance our cause. While the two note that the American system is inherently designed to work against their cause, to achieve "revolutionary change," Uetricht and Day call for eroding "the power of the capitalist class." We can accomplish that by, for example, imposing capital controls—measures that stop the free movement of capital in response to changing social and economic conditions. In other words, they call for systemic changes and a "fundamental transformation of the political economy," through a series of economic reforms that would bring the economy under their control and the control of their ideological allies. "To replace capitalism with socialism," an author the pair cites wrote, socialists must achieve the following two goals: (a) socialists should fight to win a socialist universal suffrage electoral majority in government/parliament and (b) socialists must expect that serious anti-capitalist change will necessarily require extra-parliamentary mass action like a general strike and a revolution to defeat the inevitable sabotage and resistance of the ruling class."The two also warn that the type of "revolution" they call for could result in bloodshed, though they do not openly call for violence. "To pull off a revolution in our circumstances," Uetricht and Day write, "that popular support would need to be mobilized both inside and outside of government."Additionally, they caution that though they do not know "the precise sequence of events that will lead us to socialism," achieving "socialist governance" will require "both a mass movement of workers and the formal power to stop capitalists from undermining that movement as it engages in class struggle."To get there, Uetricht and Day insist on winning elections. "[I]t's not enough for socialists to be a tiny minority in the House of Representatives, or run inspiring but failed campaigns for president, or hold only 10 percent of seats in a city council," they write. Adding, "We don't want simply to fight against some other political majority—we want to become the majority." In other words, the two seem to caution fellow socialists to put intra-socialist debates aside and focus on winning the presidency. By electing Sanders to the White House, the duo imply their socialist movement will be in a much stronger position to then launch a much broader, full-scale assault on the American free market system and way of life.

American intelligence does not indicate that Russia is attempting to help President Donald Trump's re-election campaign, according to a new report.According to CNN, who spoke with several U.S. intelligence officials, Shelby Pierson, the top election intelligence official, overstated the intelligence community's assessment on Russian interference in the 2020 election during a recent classified briefing with the House Intelligence Committee. She told lawmakers that Russia is attempting to aid Trump's re-election, the New York Times reported last week.However, the intelligence simply does not indicate that."The intelligence doesn't say that," a senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker."More from CNN:Pierson's characterization of Russian interference led to pointed questions from lawmakers, which officials said caused Pierson to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be reelected.One intelligence official said that Pierson's characterization of the intelligence was "misleading" and a national security official said Pierson failed to provide the "nuance" needed to accurately convey the US intelligence conclusions.Despite these facts, the president's political opponents maintain claims that Trump is a pawn for Russia.MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, for example, called Trump a "Russian operative" last week, while Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Sunday that Trump "has been a gift to Russia."But according to other reports, Trump is not the only candidate for whom Russia has a preference.The Washington Post reported last week that Russia also has a preference for Sen. Bernie Sanders. The Post noted that Russia does not necessarily favor Trump or Sanders over other candidates — nor are Trump or Sanders colluding with Russia — but that Russia is exploiting Trump and Sanders to operate a massive disinformation campaign.

In case you've been living under a rock, you've likely heard the name Mike Bloomberg. You know, Mike Bloomberg. The Democratic Presidential candidate under the impression he will be able to defeat Trump in the 2010 election because he too is a billionaire. Aside from his lame policies and miniature stature, there hare plenty of reasons Mike Bloomberg is a "piece of s***." Here's Crowder to explain. youtu.be

A video of Moses, a pro-Trump Hispanic voter, went viral Saturday showing the man's energetic reaction to his first rally in support of the president's re-election campaign. "This is my first rally. I used to be a Democrat!" he told a reporter with Abate Media. Moses is one of many Hispanics who has attended a Trump campaign event this year. According to Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, 27 percent of attendees at a recent Trump rally in Las Vegas, Nevada were either black or Hispanic.Parscale has highlighted how many attendees of President Trump's rallies are not always Republicans. At a recent rally in Colorado, for instance, 17 percent of those in attendance were registered Democrats. 'Where are the racists everybody talks about? Moses also took a moment to mock liberal media personalities who peddle stereotypes of Trump supporters, such as MSNBC's Joy Reid who said on Saturday people who voted for President Trump in 2016 were preoccupied with "taking this country back from the brown people, the immigrants." "Where are the racists that everybody talks about?" said Moses while looking around pretending to be searching for someone. "I felt so comfortable here," he added while noting Trump rallies are attended by "just people who care about America." 'Build that wall!' The reporter then asked Moses what would he tell the president if he was listening. "I support everything you do," he said. Adding, "I am Latino. I am from El Paso, Texas. Build that wall!" Moses explained he and his family support the wall because it curtails the flow of illegal substances. "So many drugs come in through that border. You're doing a good thing with that wall." The El Paso man's support for the border wall is not unusual among Hispanic Americans. According to a June 2019 poll by Spanish-language network Univision, over "a third of Latinos agree to some extent with building a border wall with Mexico, as proposed by President Donald Trump, in an attempt to stop undocumented immigrants from entering into the country." "We support you. We're 100% Mexican and we're proud to be American!" A January 2020 Pew Research poll found that 30 percent of Hispanic voters support President Trump, a two-point improvement from his 2016 performance, according to exit polls.

Acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli is calling for a boycott of Greyhound after the bus company announced last week it would stop cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.In a shock announcement last Friday, Greyhound announced that "it would notify the Department of Homeland Security that it does not consent to unwarranted searches on its buses or in areas of terminals that are not open to the public."The transportation company cited customer and employee safety as the reason for the surprising change."It's a sad day to see something like this, and hopefully #BoycottGreyhound will pick up," Cuccinelli said Saturday on Fox News."This is not something they talked to us about before they made their public comment. So for us, it's ultimately about how we can all work together and the effectiveness of our law enforcement efforts," he explained.Cuccinelli later said the DHS would engage in discussions with Greyhound about the policy change.And just as Cuccinelli wanted, "#BoycottGreyhound" trended on Twitter on Saturday. www.youtube.com