Connect with us

News

NEVER FORGET: Bernie Once Said U.S. Government Was Behind Domestic Bombings in 1976

Such a proud American!

John Salvatore

Published

on

Democrat Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) loves America like Barack Obama respected the Constitution – not at all.

The current 2020 presidential candidate said the United States government was behind a series of domestic bombings back in 1976.

Read that last sentence again and make sure to remember it when your friends say they’ll vote for anyone but President Trump next November.

Trending: Pro-Lifers Harassed, Kicked & Belittled By Pro-Abortion Radicals, & It’s All Caught On Tape (WATCH)

Check this out…

take our poll - story continues below

Have smartphones made the world better or worse?

  • Have smartphones made the world better or worse?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

From Daily Caller:

Sanders launched his 1976 campaign for Vermont governor by suggesting that government agencies were behind a string of attempted bombings across the country.

Sanders ran on the Liberty Union ticket — a Vermont political party he co-founded — alongside lieutenant governor candidate John Franco, who also lent credence to the conspiracy theory.

Continued:

Sanders and Franco “coupled the announcement with a disavowal of terrorist bombings and a charge that many such incidents may be instigated by government agencies to undermine legitimate efforts to bring about change,” the Bennington Banner, a Vermont newspaper, reported at the time.

Two days prior to Sanders’s announcement, eight letter bombs were sent to seven corporations and a business executive across four different cities. Authorities arrested two men, Leon Cordell Horton and Ardis Odell Reed, in 1981 for sending the bombs in what prosecutors said was an attempt to extort money from corporations. Both men were later found guilty.

And yet, without question, Bernie will receive plenty of support throughout the Democrat primaries.

That, in and of itself, is an utter travesty.

Speaking of travesty, Ann Coulter has completely lost her mind.

In 2016, she backed Donald Trump harder than anybody because he promised to take a tough stance on illegal immigration.

Although the jury is still out on whether 45 has been as strong on border crossings as many would have liked (considering record numbers of migrants are still making their way into the country then released into the U.S. due to lack of border patrol housing), there’s only so much he can do by himself when Congressional Democrats and the mainstream media are attacking him from all angles.

Coulter, without question a one-issue voter, now says she’ll consider voting for Bernie.

Think about that for a second.

Coulter campaigned for Trump just a few years ago, now she’s telling the nation she was never a conservative to begin with?

Coulter said, “If he went back to his original position, which is the pro-blue-collar position. I mean, it totally makes sense with him. If he went back to that position, I’d vote for him. I might work for him. I don’t care about the rest of the socialist stuff. Just– can we do something for ordinary Americans?

Coulter was apparently referencing Sanders’ policy position from 2007 where he opposed an immigration reform bill that he feared would drive down wages for lower-income workers. He co-authored a restrictive immigration amendment with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA. The bill ultimately failed to pass the Senate.

WATCH:

Sanders is now advocating for allowing felons to vote while incarcerated.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

New Women’s March Board Member Gets Kicked To The Curb After Two Days On The Job Over Anti-Semitic Tweets

This lady is deplorable.

Published

on

There seems to be something about the Women’s March that’s a beacon for individuals who just love to hate Jews and Israel. In fact, the group’s latest board member was only on the job two days before being booted after anti-Semitic tweets were discovered on her Twitter profile. Hmmm. Really does make you wonder. Why do these kind of people gravitate toward this group? via TheBlaze: On Monday, The Washington Post reported that inaugural co-chairs Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour had stepped down from their positions at the organization, noting that the trio had “been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism, infighting and financial mismanagement.” Conservative news outlets were quick to point out that many in the 17-member board replacing the former leaders were no better, and exposed an array of anti-Semitic tweets and messages expressing support for black nationalist Louis Farrakhan. One of the new board members was Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The Washington Examiner reported that Billoo’s Twitter feed was “filled with anti-Zionist tweets, which the Anti-Defamation League has deemed ‘anti-Semitic.'” On Wednesday, Billoo revealed that she had been voted off the board of the Women’s March, following “an Islamophobic smear campaign.” She went on to slam the organization for letting her go, saying “it has effectively said, we will work on some women’s rights at the expense of others.” So wait a minute. Is she really going to play the victim card here? It certainly seems that’s what she’s doing. It’s kind of hard to garner any sort of sympathy for a person trying to claim they are the victim of some sort of hate and racism, when they themselves have been engaged in heinous acts of hatred themselves. Billoo wasn’t removed because she’s a Muslim. She was removed…

Continue Reading

News

New Video Shows Beto O’Rourke Moving Toward Openness Of Snatching ALL Semi-Automatic Firearms

Yeah, that’s a no from me, Beto.

Published

on

Not too long ago, failing Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke stated, in no uncertain terms, that he was all about openly confiscating citizens’ AR-15 rifles, despite the fact that owning such a weapon is protected under the Second Amendment. Because why allow a pesky little thing like constitutional rights get in the way of desperately trying to pull ahead in the political polls right? Well, a new video is out on the Internet that seems to suggest that Beto himself is open to grabbing up all semi-automatic firearms. Evan Todd, a survivor of the Columbine shooting, confronted O’Rourke in Aurora, after arriving an hour late to the event. Todd is actually a supporter of the Second Amendment, despite having been shot and wounded at the tragedy in Columbine, and wanted to know just how far O’Rourke was willing to go on gun policies. Here’s more from The Daily Wire: “I understand that you want to implement a mandatory buyback for AR-15s and AK-47s. None of my classmates were murdered with those weapons, 50% of mass murders don’t happen with those weapons.” “Don’t you think it’s time to get rid of all semi-auto firearms?” Todd asked. O’Rourke, who at one point said that if he was elected that he would be removing firearms from people’s “homes,” responded by saying that he wanted input from Todd about what types of weapons he thinks should be banned. Several minutes later, after the event ended and O’Rourke moved inside to answer questions from reporters, a reporter asked O’Rourke if he would be open to adding “additional classes” of firearms to his ban and confiscation plan. “Yeah, I want to listen to him,” O’Rourke responded. “If there’s a way to improve what we have proposed, I want to make sure that we are reflecting that.”…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend