How Americans Could Elect A Socialist In 2020

The midterm elections have yet to come, but already there is intense speculation about the presidential election in 2020. President Trump has already announced his intention to seek reelection and a number of Democrats are testing the waters. Unlike the 2016 election, there is no Democrat awaiting a coronation in which the primaries are a mere formality. A lot can happen over the next two years, but it is very possible that circumstances will combine in a way that will lead to the election of America’s first socialist president.

The first step towards a socialist is the razor-thin margins by which Donald Trump was elected in 2016. President Trump’s 2016 Electoral College victory was predicated on winning a series of Rust Belt states that normally vote Democrat. Trump succeeded, but by an extremely narrow margin. Changing the vote by two percent in three states (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) would have changed the outcome of the election.

In order to win reelection, the president must either replicate the conditions that won those key states in 2016 or, preferably, win new supporters. However, when it comes to winning converts, the president’s unpopularity has been remarkably consistent. Just prior to the 2016 election, Trump polled at 42 percent. He beat this number in the actual election, winning 46 percent of the popular vote to Hillary Clinton’s 48 percent. Since he took office, Trump’s average approval rating reached a high of 46 percent in February 2017 and then settled back down into the low 40s and high 30s where he has been ever since.

Trump’s approval is similar to that of Barack Obama, who was in the low 40s for much of his presidency. Obama did win reelection, but the problem for President Trump is that his approval has slipped in the places where he needs it most. In the key states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the president now has a negative approval rating. He is also negative in other swing states that he won in 2016 such as Ohio and Nevada. In Minnesota, a state that Trump only lost by 1.5 percent, his approval rating is now negative by 15 points. As it stands now, Donald Trump is an unpopular president who faces an uphill battle to get back to the electoral map that won him the presidency in a fluke.

Donald Trump is unpopular despite the fact that the nation is experiencing an economic boom. If President Trump’s policy of tariffs leads to an economic slowdown and more layoffs among American workers, then his approval could go even lower and spell disaster for his reelection hopes.

The manufacturing states in the Rust Belt are particularly vulnerable to President Trump’s trade war. International supply chains mean that products built in the US are often assembled with components that are imported and subject to tariffs. The tariffs mean higher manufacturing costs and a less competitive product. Tariffs applied to US exports also make American products more expensive to foreign buyers. When costs rise, demand falls. Wage cuts and layoffs may soon follow.

Meanwhile, President Trump has driven the Democrats crazy. The opposition party has moved farther to the left as many of its members embrace “democratic socialism.” Self-proclaimed democratic socialists such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have become immensely popular in the Democratic Party. Rasmussen recently found that 51 percent of Democrats have a favorable impression of socialism. Fifty-five percent of Millennials also had a positive view of socialism according to a 2016 Gallup poll (although 57 percent also like capitalism and 78 percent like free enterprise).

Given the growing number of Democrats who openly profess an admiration for socialism, it is increasingly likely that the party will nominate a self-professed socialist. Bernie Sanders came within a whisker of winning the Democratic nomination in 2016 despite Hillary Clinton’s systemic advantages. In a June Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of Democrats, Sanders ranked third as a potential 2020 nominee behind Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton with Elizabeth Warren finishing fourth. Sanders has a dedicated and loyal following and a nationwide grassroots organization that could give him an edge in the 2020 primaries, especially Biden and Hillary split the Democratic establishment vote.

Would Americans vote for a socialist if the Democrats nominated one? A Hill/Harris poll recently found that 76 percent of Americans say that they would not vote for a socialist. Even 64 percent of Democrats say they would not pull the lever for a socialist.

Nevertheless, socialist ideas tend to be more popular than the label. Both Pew and  Washington Post/Kaiser polls showed that more than half of Americans favor single-payer health care. Another Kaiser poll found that 59 percent approve of Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-all plan. Likewise, most Americans support other ideas championed by Democrats such as raising the minimum wage and free college tuition. For all their craziness, democratic socialists have some popular policy proposals to pair with their unpopular label. Many mainstream Democrats endorse many of the same ideas, blurring the line between socialism and liberalism.

As the country heads toward the next presidential election, the Republicans are saddled with an unpopular president who has done a poor job of selling his agenda to voters. President Trump won the presidency with a minority of votes and then proceeded, as Obama did before him, without regard to the need to build coalitions to support his actions and agenda. Both presidents relied on their congressional majorities, voter bases and executive actions to force their way rather than trying to win people over.

President Trump is immensely popular within the Republican Party. That is enough to win the nomination, but not the general election. For that, the president must persuade those moderate and independent voters that he has been ignoring since 2016. The voters who are unhappy with his trade and immigration policies as well as his continual bad behavior will ultimately decide the election.

Donald Trump was a reaction to the economic doldrums of the Obama Administration and the corruption and incompetence of Hillary Clinton. In 2020, the pendulum is likely to swing in the other direction due to President Trump’s incompetence and erratic behavior if the Democrats can keep the focus on Trump and off of their own foibles and radical platform.

While it is far too early to make predictions, conditions appear to be ripe for a backlash in 2020 against President Trump and congressional Republicans. If Democrat primary voters nominate a Democrat socialist, America might well find itself with its first self-described socialist president.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Bernie Sanders' path to the White House

(Michael Vadon/Wikimedia)

“If Bernie Sanders wins the White House,” goes a popular meme, “it will be the first time a socialist has been elected president since 2008.” While Barack Obama is not an avowed socialist, the meme underscores the fact that socialistic ideas are not the anathema that they once were. Bernie Sanders could win.

Unlike Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders has been open about being a socialist, even if he doesn’t like the term. He has cited American Socialist Eugene V. Debs as his hero. Until he decided to run for the Democratic nomination last year, he served Vermont in Congress as an independent, not a Democrat.

Bernie’s success has surprised many political observers as well as the Clinton campaign. Over the past few months the Sanders campaign has morphed from a quixotic campaign that seemed to exist only to make a statement to a burgeoning political movement that is increasingly playing to win. Still, in spite of his victories, Sanders trails Clinton in the delegate count, thanks in large part to the Democratic system of unbound superdelegates.

At this point in the primary, it appears unlikely that Sanders can beat Hillary for the nomination in a straight fight. With 1,941 delegates still available, Sanders trails Hillary by 688. The proportional distribution of delegates in Democratic primaries makes it difficult for Sanders to win enough bound delegates to dethrone Hillary.

In addition to a Sanders surge, a Hillary implosion will probably be required for a Sanders win. A major gaffe by Mrs. Clinton or, perhaps more likely, an indictment, might swing enough Clinton backers and superdelegates toward Sanders to allow him to secure the nomination. The situation is somewhat similar to 2008 although Obama had a slight lead in pledged delegates in April of that year. In contrast, Sanders trails in a close race.

Winning the Democratic nomination might actually be the hardest part of Bernie’s path to the White House. While most on the right view the word “socialist” as very negative, polling shows that many young voters are more open to voting for socialists. The term is not the political kiss of death that it would have been 20 years ago.

Second, Bernie is not viewed nearly as negatively as Republican frontrunners Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump has the highest negative rating of any presumed nominee in history. Cruz fares better, but is still less popular than Sanders. Neither Republican is widely viewed as honest or trustworthy. With Cruz and Trump calling each other liars, competing to see who can be more harsh on immigration and even insulting each other’s wives, it is unlikely that either will seem much more likeable before the convention.

Current head-to-head polling shows that Bernie fares better against both Republicans than Mrs. Clinton. The Real Clear Politics average shows that Sanders leads Ted Cruz by 10 points while Clinton only leads the Texas senator by 2.5 points, well within the margin of error of most polls. Hillary leads Donald Trump by more than 10 points, but The Donald trails Bernie by a staggering 16 points. With several months yet to go in the bruising Republican primary, it is likely that the eventual Republican nominee will emerge even more damaged and with higher negatives, making it even harder to turn the national tide.

Sanders, on the other hand, is a likeable candidate. Even though most voters probably disagree with his policy prescriptions, he comes across as more honest and charismatic than either Hillary Clinton or the Republican frontrunners. His campaign has a positive energy that is lacking from the stolid plodding of the Clinton campaign, the televangelist feel of the Cruz campaign or the combativeness and anger of Trump. The Democratic primary has not been as dirty and damaging to its candidates as the Republican primary.

In short, it’s likely that Sanders could beat either Trump or Cruz in a head-to-head race if he can put away Hillary Clinton first. The odds are stacked against the Republican duo by their harsh appeals to the conservative base on immigration. The swing states where the presidential race will be decided are filled with moderates and minority voters who are much less enamored with the idea of deporting illegal aliens than are Republican primary voters.

The final nail in the Republican coffin would be the party division that will result from the convention fight that is almost certain to occur. If Trump goes into the convention with a delegate lead that is short of the required majority and does not emerge as the nominee, a large number of his supporters will desert the GOP and either not vote or vote for an independent Trump or another third party.

On the other hand, a Trump nomination would be equally destructive to the GOP. As many as 30-40 percent of Republican voters could desert the party if Trump is its nominee. Trump opponents are also considering third party options. Regardless of the outcome of the primaries and convention, the Republican Party seems destined for a crackup.

Barring a third party run from the left by someone such as Michael Bloomberg, who says he has changed his mind about mounting an independent campaign, a divided Republican Party would almost assure a Democrat victory, whether the candidate is Sanders or Clinton. The biggest obstacle to the White House for Bernie Sanders is disposing of Hillary Clinton and her superdelegate lead. 

Read it on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily

Free showing of Obama movie in Carrollton this Thursday

The Carroll County Tea Party and the Carroll Country Republican Party have joined forces to sponsor a showing of "2016: Obama's America" in Carrollton, Ga.

The movie, which has been panned by many critics, details Barack Obama's early life and purports to show how he was influenced by radical anti-colonialists. The film argues that if Obama is elected to a second term, he will fundamentally alter the United States and its role in the world.

The movie is based on a book by best-selling conservative author Dinesh D'Souza and produced by Gerald Molen, who also produced "Schindler's List," "Jurassic Park," "Twister," "Days of Thunder," and "the Minority Report." D'Souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," was released in 2010 and is the basis for the fi lm.

The film was initially released in July and by August it was outgrossing new Hollywood films according to the Hollywood Reporter. It is poised to become one of the top political documentaries of all time. According to the Huffington Post, the Obama Administration called the film "an insidious attempt to dishonestly smear the president."

The movie can be seen at no charge on Thursday, October 25 at the Amp in Carrollton. The movie will run from 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. A second free showing will be on November 1 at the Mill in Villa Rica.

Originally published on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/free-showing-of-obama-film-carrollton-this-thursday

Happy Government Dependence Day

This is the most dismal Independence Day in memory.

I’m sure that there have been more dreary Fourths of July in our nation’s history. The first few were under British rule and it seemed that the young nation might not survive to celebrate the anniversary of its birth in peace. In 1826, two American heroes, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on July 4. In 1863, although most Americans did not know it yet, almost 8,000 Americans had just died in battle at Gettysburg. In 1942, Pearl Harbor was a recent memory but the American victory at Midway had lessened the sting of the surprise attack. On several Independence Days it seemed that the country might not be around to celebrate another.

There have been other Independence Days when the celebrations must have felt hollow. Rarely has that been due to the actions of our own government, however.

This year the celebrations come less than a week after the Supreme Court upheld the largest expansion of federal power since the New Deal. The federal government exercised unprecedented control over every American citizen and almost 20 percent of the U.S. economy. The founders, proponents of weak and limited central government, are undoubtedly spinning in their graves.

The passage of the health care law was a betrayal on many levels. Most obviously, the Democrats who voted for the bill betrayed their constituents. A strong majority opposed the bill when it was passed. Rather than persuading people to support their legislation, the Democrats, led by an elitist minority, rammed the bill through Congress using the parliamentary trick of budget reconciliation to avoid a Republican filibuster. They betrayed their oath of office by passing a law that was clearly unconstitutional (Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion notwithstanding).

The Democrats also betrayed the ideals of the founders of the United States. The founder of their own party, Thomas Jefferson said, “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.”

Jefferson would have been appalled at Obamacare, which is the antithesis of his goals for America. Our government, $17 trillion in debt, cannot be called frugal. It is increasingly involved in even the most trivial aspects of our lives. It takes bread from the mouths of labor to give to those who do not work. By Jefferson’s definition, our government is not good.

Jefferson, who authored the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom would oppose the government forcing religious groups and believers to purchase contraceptive and abortifacient drugs. He would likely oppose abortion, having penned the phrase “right to life” in the Declaration of Independence. He would also oppose the attempts to silence those oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. “No man,” Jefferson wrote, shall “suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

As the author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson would rebuke the authoritarian tendencies of our current president, a man who is only too willing to circumvent the will of the people and their elected representatives in Congress by legislating with federal agencies and Executive Orders. The Revolutionary War was fought to rid Americans of a king. Jefferson would not want a president who acts like one.

Jefferson, who warned that “the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered,” would be angry at the collusion between government and business that birthed Obamacare. Democrats in Congress attacked insurance and pharmaceutical companies as profiteers in the media, but secretly worked with them to craft and pass the bill. The loser in this “crony capitalism” is the American people.

The courts, whose judges swear to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution” “without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,” ignored critical aspects of the Constitution, U.S. law, and American history. Justice Roberts rewrote the ACA and changed the mandate from a penalty to a tax. Thomas Jefferson would say, “Taxation without representation is tyranny!”

Much has been written about the failings of Obamacare, how it will result in a lower quality of health care in the United States, higher prices, and, ultimately, shortages and rationing. Economically, all of these outcomes are extremely likely.

Perhaps more importantly, however, Obamacare might be the undoing of the entire country. For a nation with $17 trillion in debt and a debt-to-GDP ratio that is greater than 100 percent, the last thing that is needed is another multi-trillion dollar entitlement, complete with tax increases, that will suck money out of the private sector and further slow growth. Even worse, the mounting debt load brings the nation even closer to a complete financial collapse.

As the Democrats systematically destroy the aspects of this country that made it great, the current economic morass is increasingly likely to indeed be the “new normal.” Emulating Europe’s welfare state means that the U.S. will also have Europe’s chronically high unemployment, lower income and wages, higher poverty, slower growth, and higher taxes.

By financing entitlements with debt to be repaid in the future, we are mortgaging our children’s lives and making them slaves to the countries and corporations that buy our debt. We are selling their future just as surely as if we blew their inheritance in the casinos of Las Vegas. In the end there will be nothing left: No money and nothing to show for it. We are impoverishing ourselves. As Rep. Paul Ryan said, “This is the most predictable crisis we have ever had.”

The Democrats have no solution to the crisis. Their only answer is to spend more and hope the economy recovers. Most do not even acknowledge the problem.

Lest anyone accuse me of favoritism, the Republicans have contributed to the problem as well. The Republican spending spree under George W. Bush was exceeded only by that of Barack Obama and Franklin Roosevelt. Republicans expanded government through the Medicare prescription drug entitlement (which at least did consider market realities) and the No Child Left Behind Act. On the plus side, the Republicans may have learned their lesson.

The Republicans are our last hope in government. We have already been failed by one political party that is now ideologically closer to Marx and Engels than Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison. We have been failed by the president and failed by Congress. We have been failed by the courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Some Catholics already see the need for civil disobedience in resisting Obamacare’s anti-religious mandates. If Republicans are elected and fail to change the direction of the country, civil disobedience will be our only recourse.

As Abraham Lincoln said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.” America isn’t dead, but she is critically ill. It is up to the people to save her.

This Independence Day, let us vow that it will be our last Government Dependence Day.

Che’ Guevara: Hero or Mass Murderer?

In recent years, Che’ Guevara has regained popularity. His image adorns t-shirts and posters on college campuses. Barack Obama was even embarrassed by a Che’ flag that a supporter had placed in one of his campaign offices. Who is Che’ Guevara? Is he really someone that people in a modern, progressive and free society should place on a pedestal?

Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara Lynch de la Serna was born in Rosario, Argentina on June 14, 1928. He was the eldest child in a liberal, middle class family. His nickname, ‘Che,’ translates as “buddy,” “pal,” or “the kid.”

Che’ studied medicine at the University of Buenos Aires. While in school there, he spent breaks traveling around South America on a motorcycle with a friend. On such trips in 1951 and 1952, Che’ spends time at a leper colony in Peru. His experiences there convince him that equality can only be realized through socialism. He later writes about his travels in his book, the Motorcycle Diaries. In 2004, the Motorcycle Diaries was made into a movie produced by Robert Redford.

After participating in riots against Argentine President Juan Peron in 1952, Che’ travels to Bolivia and then Guatemala. In Guatemala, he aids in resistance against a coup backed by the CIA (and authorized by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower). After the coup, Che’ flees to Mexico.

While in Mexico, Che’ meets Fidel Castro. Castro is in exile after a failed coup attempt against Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Che’ quickly joins Castro’s band of revolutionaries as a medic and trains in guerilla warfare. In December 1956, Castro launches an attack on the Batista regime, which fails dramatically. Only twelve guerillas, including Che,’ Fidel, and Raul Castro, survive and escape.

The defeat is a defining moment for Che.’ He later writes, “I was confronted with the dilemma of dedicating myself to medicine or my duty as a revolutionary soldier. I had in front of me a rucksack full of medicine and an ammunition case, the two weighed too much to carry together. I took the ammunition and left the rucksack behind." The healer had become the killer.

Che’ becomes Castro’s chief lieutenant and then the comandante of one of the largest guerilla bands. He is ruthless, frequently executing suspected traitors quickly and dispassionately. In a 1957 letter to his first wife (he remarried to a fellow guerilla in 1959), Che’ writes, “I'm here in Cuba's hills, alive and thirsting for blood." In a letter to his father, he writes, “I really like killing.” Che’s instructions to a subordinate are simple: “If in doubt, kill him.”

By 1959, with US aid cut off, the Batista regime is finished. Batista flees the country on New Years Day and the US recognizes the interim government six days later. After a vacation through Africa, Asia, and Yugoslavia, Che’ returns to Cuba where he is placed in charge of Comision Depuradora, which includes the military courts and killing squads for former Batista supporters and government officials. All defendants are considered murderers and the appellate court automatically confirms all sentences. Habeas corpus rights are abolished. Che’ says that rules of evidence are an “archaic bourgeois detail.”

He is placed in charge of La Cabana prison, where the majority of the executions take place. According to the Black Book of Communism, by the mid-1960s, 14,000 Cubans have been executed without fair trials. 500,000 Cubans were incarcerated in labor camps. At one point, in 1961, one of every 19 Cubans was a political prisoner. Che’ plays a major role in developing Castro’s penal system and defends the executions publicly in 1964 after he had ceased to command the prison. He even dismisses his victims as “all CIA agents” before his death in 1967.

During the 1960s, Che’ is instrumental in aligning Cuba with the Soviet Union. Che’ begins meeting with GRU (Soviet military intelligence) operatives, mostly Spanish communists who had fled to the Soviet Union after the Spanish Civil War, soon after the fall of Havana. Soviet agents help to establish Cuba’s G-2 secret police force. As Cuba draws closer to the Soviet Union, the US imposes trade restrictions and, finally, an embargo and travel ban.

Che’ holds several posts in the new Cuban government. He begins as head of the National Bank of Cuba and of the Department of Industry of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform in 1959. In 1961, he becomes Cuba’s Minister of Industry. His economic policies include price controls, heavy taxes on the wealthy, and restrictions on private capital. Land is seized from the rich and given to the government. Virtually everything is nationalized in a war on capitalism and personal property.

Che’s authoritarian economic policies, together with the US trade embargo, cause the once powerful Cuban economy to decline. Che’s plans at industrialization fail, sugar production collapses, and rationing is introduced. Che’s economic deputy, Ernesto Betancourt, later says that Che was “was ignorant of the most elementary economic principles.” Eventually, Cuba relies on sugar exports and Soviet subsidies (the equivalent of eight Marshall Plans, $72 billion) to survive. As the Cuban economy falters, Che’s popularity begans to wane.

Che’ also writes Guerra de Guerilla (Guerilla War). This book serves as a guide for revolutionaries throughout Latin America and the Third World. In Latin America, only one of these movements, in Nicaragua, is ultimately successful. Che’s goal is to spread his brand of Marxism to other countries. After touring the world, he resigns from his duties in Cuba in 1965.

Che’s next move is to lead a group of Cuban fighters to aid in a communist revolt in the Congo. One of his rebel allies there, Pierre Mulele, occupied Stanleyville and was known for murdering everyone who could read or who wore a tie. The people of the Congo do not support the rebellion and Che’ eventually leaves.

Che’ briefly returned to Cuba, but quickly left for Bolivia where he joins another guerilla movement against the government. His goal is to create another Vietnam in South America. In Bolivia, Che’ found virtually no support from the peasants. The Bolivian army, with US support, was soon on his trail.

A series of tactical, strategic, and logistical errors by Che’ and his forces cause problems for the revolt. Even the Bolivian members of his guerilla band do not speak the dialect of the peasants, making recruiting difficult. Che’ wrote that “The ... masses don't help us in anything and instead they betray us." An English journalist and a French writer, Regis Debray, leave the group and are soon captured by army troops. Che’ divides his tiny army and one group is destroyed by the Bolivian army. Che’s health deteriorates in the jungle and he loses his asthma medicine to the pursuers. He is reduced to riding on a pack mule as the remainder of his army tries to escape.

Bolivian Rangers are deployed to the area and, on October 8, 1967, Capt. Gary Prado and his men surround the remainder of Che’s force in the Quebrada de Yuro, a steep ravine near La Higuera. The guerillas try to escape. In the ensuing firefight six guerillas and two soldiers are killed. Three guerillas, including Che,’ are captured. Three guerillas eventually escape to Chile and three elude capture and hide out in Bolivia.

The prisoners are held in a nearby school, and Che,’ wounded in the leg, receives medical treatment. At the time, Bolivia has no secure prison facilities and it is thought that a trial would be media circus and attract other leftists to Bolivia. Bolivian President Rene Barrientos orders the execution of the prisoners in hopes of avoiding further problems.

Che’ and the other two prisoners are executed on October 9, 1967 and buried at an airfield in Vallegrande. His remains were exhumed by the Cubans in 1997 and reburied in Santa Clara, Cuba, the site of one of his most famous battles against the forces of Batista. His summary execution is a fitting end, given his role in Cuba’s executions.

A footnote to Che’s story is that he planned terrorist attacks against New York City long before 9/11 or the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. In 1962, while Che’ headed Cuba’s Foreign Liberation Department, the FBI stopped a plot Cuban UN officials and members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (made famous by Lee Harvey Oswald) to detonate 500 kilos of TNT (five times the amount used in the Madrid bombings) and incendiary devices in Macy’s, Gimble’s, Bloomingdale’s, and Grand Central Station. These bombings, set for the week after Thanksgiving, would have killed thousands of New Yorkers, mainly women and children.

Che’ and Castro’s goal in the New York bombing plot was probably to start a war between the US and the Soviet Union. If Cuba were implicated in the attacks, the US would retaliate. In a war, the USSR would probably intervene to protect its ally. If the conflict had gone nuclear, a distinct possibility, deaths would have numbered in the millions.

The Cuban leaders had tried to start a war the year before during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Che’ and Castro had argued for a first-strike against the US before Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, agreed to withdraw the Soviet missiles from Cuba. They dreamed of telling the Americans, “Say hello to my little friends!” as missiles rained down. In 1962, Che’ told the London Daily Worker, “If the missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City."

Che’ Guevara was a sadistic killer. He enjoyed killing and torturing. His writings preach hatred against capitalism in general and the United States in particular. He was also incompetent. He almost single-handedly destroyed the Cuban economy and his only military successes came against the Batista regime, whose army was weak and ineffective, only after the US withdrew support in 1958. According to some reports, Che’ was betrayed in Bolivia by Castro, who instructed the Bolivian Communist Party to pass information on his movements to the army.

Che’s latter day disciples fall into two categories. The first are committed socialists and anti-Americans who eagerly consumed Castro’s propaganda after Che’s death. Many of these people are Lenin’s “useful idiots,” who live in free and prosperous societies, but dream of socialist utopias and look the other way at communist atrocities. This is the same “Blame America First” crowd who cry for appeasement to dictators and Islamic radicals.

The second group is the people who don’t really know or understand who Che’ was. They see the long haired, “Guerilla Hero” image as a symbol of youthful rebellion and social change. Few, if any, fathom Che’s depravity or have any clue as to the number of lives that he destroyed.

On a per capita basis, the number of people killed and imprisoned by Che’ and Castro rivals that of Hitler and Stalin. Che’s legacy is one of mass murder, assaults on human rights, and the enslavement of entire nations. The world is a better place without Che’ Guevara in it.

Sources:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/guevara.html
http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/guevara01.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2107100
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070730a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070731b.html
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/SDR.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/09/MNVASLK4R.DTL&feed=rss.news
http://www.autentico.org/oa09924.php