The Candidate for the Little Guy

Bernie Sanders moved another step closer to the White House recently when he stunned his political opponents by securing the endorsement of diminutive actor Danny Devito. The impact can hardly be overstated, considering the accepted truth of the old political idiom: "As goes Danny Devito, so goes Rhea Perlman."

Unsurprisingly, Bernie is making a big deal out of the endorsement of a microscopic sitcom star because it will hopefully distract the media from the fact that, as revealed by Project Veritas, one or more of Sanders' campaign field organizers has let the cat out of the bag about the draconian, anti-American nightmare that a Sanders administration could represent.

Kyle Jurek, who has been paid around $10 grand from Bernie's coffers so far, says on videotape that "cities will burn" if Sanders doesn't win, "cops will get f*cking beaten in Milwaukee," and, as was the case in Cuba, "if you want to fight against the revolution, you're going to die for it, motherf*cker!"

Jerek went on to explain that Bernie's much touted "free education and free college" would really amount to propaganda mills and re-education camps for the "Nazis" who aren't meeting the Left's expectations, and finished his diatribe explaining that "the only thing fascists understand is violence, so the only way you can confront them is with violence."

All of this seems at odds with amiable Bernie's promises of free everything for everybody always, but falls right into place with historical accounts of pretty much every socialist revolution ever. Although Jurek, which might well be pronounced "jerk" for all we know, may represent the fringier edge of Sanders' camp, it is an inescapable truth that the kind of socialism Bernie is proposing can only end in violence, poverty, and fascistic control of our nation.

Danny Devito or not, we can't cast a vote for that.

BONUS: AT THE MOVIES (Spoiler Free)

In our ongoing attempt to fight socialphobia and embrace the modern theater-going experience, we ventured out to see the film "1917" yesterday. The reviews have been great, and it seemed like the sort of thing that deserves to be seen on a big screen.

It's a very good film and we can easily recommend it - especially on the big screen - but it's also a bit of an odd duck (which is more of an observation than a complaint).

The key concept of the movie is simple: in World War I, two young British soldiers are given an extremely dangerous mission, which will see them crossing enemy lines, with only a short amount of time to accomplish it.

Interestingly, the film is (brilliantly) shot in a way that more or less makes the entire adventure into a single, uninterrupted shot with the mission occurring in real time. The upside of this is we get a guided tour of the Hell that was the battlefield, with an abundance of disturbing and frightening detail that reminds us "this is not where you want to be."

The downside of this approach is that the film can't and doesn't explore any deeper story, nor the inner lives of the main characters. Rather, we can only see what is external and happening "right now." We aren't so much an audience as omnipresent witnesses...viscerally feeling the horrors of war.

Our best advice is to accept the film for what it is - an experience as much as a narrative. Highly recommended!