There is a curious disconnect within the far left. On the one hand they are supposedly committed socialists who feel the wealthy do not pay their fair share. That would be their espousing of “compassionate” and “inclusive.”
On the other hand, they are closet capitalists when it comes to their own personal finances. To that end, one might look of the word “hypocrite” in the dictionary and be surprised. The definition could be complimented with any number of photos that might include Nancy Pelosi (multi-millionaire), Elizabeth Warren (lives in a mansion) or the uncrowned leader of the “resistance,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, supposed “independent.”
Case in point:
Earlier this month, Senator Bernie, the man who selected Russia as the location of his second honeymoon (shouldn’t there be an investigation?), had to release a new financial disclosure for last year. That in itself is nothing unusual. But one must dig a bit deeper concerning this “avowed socialist.”
He had made $858,000 on two books. You might expect a socialist man who has acquired this much wealth to feel compelled to give it away to charitable causes to avoid a conflict of interest in his political rhetoric.
You would be wrong.
Sanders’ adoring followers were out buying up anything he wrote. But let’s dig even deeper.
The disclosure provided interesting insight into Sanders and his failed presidential campaign. The campaign failed, but Bernie cashed in. His book was due out May 15, but Bernie plum forgot to file for an extension, which is something of common knowledge to any American taxpayer attempting to follow the rules of the IRS.
Lo and behold, the book royalties were the most noteworthy extended source of income Sanders reported in the election-year filings. The vast portion of the earned income was $795,000 that came from his book, “Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In.” It had been published November 15, 2016, one week after the election. Cash in while the iron is red hot.
The hardcover edition sold for $27 and Bernie made 14 stops on a book tour to promote it. He was reimbursed by the publisher for airfare, ground transportation, lodging and meals, the financial disclosure says.
But there is more.
The socialist senator received $63,750 in royalties for another book that hasn’t yet hit the shelves: “The Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution.” This sort of voodoo tax return, especially an “extended” one, the Internal Revenue Service will always take a hard look at.
A man of the people has nothing to hide. But just a moment. For those who still have an open mind in this divided country, where is the media coverage of this aberration? Thinking deeper, for those with that capacity, what would be the coverage were it anyone remotely connected to the Trump administration?
This is not some major scandal in any form whatsoever. These sorts of problems are a daily occurrence for many taxpayers in this country. But in the definition of “hypocrite” and the photos that accompany it, perhaps a photo of any number of news organizations should also be illustrated.
Many in this country still demand fairness and equal justice. But look no further than your daily newspaper or favorite news source. Begin the exercise of counting the number of “news” stories that favor or disfavor certain sectors of the country’s political persuasions. Read the letters to the editor and note percentages of pro and con selections made by the powers that be.
It may strike you that there is no balance in the media. It may also strike you that this quiet form of persuasion is printed under the form of “non-fiction.” But that is a falsehood since much of the “non-fiction” is ruled out by people who do not find it relevant to what you need to know making a fair conclusion yourself.
Perhaps it is time to question much more than the daily and continuous one-sided “conclusions” the faceless provide you the reader/viewer. Don’t you deserve to get the entire picture instead of a partial overview? Remember the counting exercise fair-minded Americans. It won’t take long to figure out the disconnect between “news” and “opinion.”