As we are compelled to observe the spectacle of Bernie v. Hillary, an avowed socialist v. an un-avowed socialist, here is a helpful guide, a CliffNotes version of the distinction between socialism and its more-evolved cousin, communism. Lefty politics for dummies.

It would be hard to find a better comparison than the now-defunct Soviet Union (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) versus Nazi Germany (led by Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party). While each nation’s stated political-objective was “socialism,” the USSR sought to embody the pure, Marxist principles of international communism, whereas Nazi Germany pursued state socialism but not communism.  The primary similarity of the two systems is this: (i) each country was led by an autocratic leader; and (ii) each country pursued the socialist objectives of equality of incomes and wealth and a centrally-planned economy.  The principal distinction between the two nations was that the Nazis stopped short of a complete takeover of the private sector and that they based all their planning upon aggressive nationalism, while the USSR pronounced itself internationalist and a pure communist state, with the private sector not just controlled by the government but eliminated, as all private property and other means of production were to be taken over by the workers.  Socialism was considered the first step in the transition from capitalism to communism, the training-wheels version, but both socialism and communism were built around class warfare: the resentment or hatred of the rich by the poor – the “workers.” (Notice any similarity to the standard American Democrat’s favored term, “the hard-working people?”) Each was a reaction to centuries (actually, millenniums) of rule by kings and emperors and land-owners. Peel away all the zillions of scholarly analyses of socialism and you find that the core principle, the core motivation, is the revenge of the poor against the rich.

Senator Sanders is completely open about his belief in socialism, which was the political and economic foundation of both the USSR and Nazi Germany. It is impossible to read any Sanders speech, read any Sanders writing, and not grasp the seething anger and resentment of Sen. Sanders toward the elites of American society – the Wall Street bankers and other financial wizards, the CEOs of major corporations, and just about everybody else who makes more money than poor Bernie. Indeed, it is hard to avoid the sense that the senator is embarrassed by even the above-average salary he is paid as a U.S. senator. He virtually cries out for revenge, and it appears to be the foundation of just about every one of his policy objectives. Bernie is a socialist. Get it? Got it? Take the man at his word.

What about the former Secretary of State, the former First Female Person? You would no more catch Ms. Clinton acknowledging her belief in socialism than you would catch her downloading an app. And yet, and yet, try Googling her Wellesley commencement address (which seems like it could have been shouted from a student-union tabletop), try Googling her senior thesis – her ode to radical rabble-rouser Saul Alinsky, a pure socialist if there ever was one (despite his lifelong aversion to being identified as one). For that matter, check out her initial foray into lawmaking, as Mrs. Bill Clinton: her ill-fated attempt to foist nationalized healthcare upon America. For that matter, read the transcripts of her debates with Bernie, in which she out-Bernies Bernie in her enthusiasm for socking it to America’s high-earners, those dreadful examples of income-inequality in America. Can anyone identify even one substantive difference between the candidates’ respective economic policies? Can anyone explain how Ms. Clinton is not a socialist?

A socialist for America’s president? Really? It is not hard to imagine the horrified looks that would come across the face of just about every American president in history, other than President Obama, when confronted with that prospect.

Here is Merriam Webster’s definition of “amnesty:” “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Here is MW’s simplified version: “a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free.” Here is another version, from Law.com: “a blanket abolition of an offense by the government, with the legal result that those charged or convicted have the charge or conviction wiped out.”

Now let’s look at a different (though somewhat similar) term: “plea bargain.” Here is Wikipedia on the definition of plea bargain: “A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal, copping a plea, or plea in mitigation) is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor.” (emphasis added) Yet another take, from Merriam Webster: “a process in which a person who is accused of a crime is allowed to say that he or she is guilty of a less serious crime in order to be given a less severe punishment.” (emphasis added).

So, what is the difference between amnesty and plea bargain? The obvious difference is that, while each term involves a form of forgiveness or pardon for misconduct, only a plea bargain involves a tradeoff, with the perpetrator required to do something (“some concession,” such as a guilty plea) in return for the favor.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) has come to be known as the “Reagan Amnesty” law. But IRCA never met the definition of amnesty, it was just a massive plea bargain, because it did not pardon the crime of illegal entry, it merely allowed the illegals to remain in the U.S. in return for certain actions and conditions. IRCA only presented a settlement offer to the illegals: they could remain, but only if they paid some money and did some other things. It was a trade-off: you do some important things for us, and we will do something important for you. The reason IRCA came to be viewed as “amnesty,” rather than a trade-off, was that the illegals were rarely held to their side of the bargain – illegals who failed to comply with the conditions were almost never punished or deported. Federal enforcement of the trade-off terms was so negligent that the public eventually came to treat the terms as meaningless, meaning IRCA became the practical equivalent of amnesty rather than a plea bargain.

(The conditions under IRCA were that you had to show that you entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided here continuously thereafter, and that you paid a fine, paid all back taxes due, admitted guilt regarding the illegal entry into the U.S., committed no other crimes while here, and possessed at least minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language. The conditions were thus quite substantial, and had they been properly enforced, we would have no reason to describe the IRCA as “amnesty.”)

Now, let’s compare the conditions in the IRCA with the campaign platform of Senator Marco Rubio, which is set forth on his website –

https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/marco-rubio-immigration-plan-border-security-legal/

The Rubio plan states that Illegal immigrants will be granted the opportunity to remain in the U.S. only if they do the following:

“First, those here illegally must come forward and be registered. If they have committed serious crimes or have not been here long enough, they will have to leave. With the new E-Verify system in place, they are going to find it difficult to find a job in any case.

“Second, those who qualify would be allowed to apply for a temporary nonimmigrant visa. To obtain it they will have to pay an application fee and a fine, undergo a background check and learn English. Once they receive this work permit, they would be allowed to work legally and travel. To keep it, they will have to pay taxes. They would not qualify for government programs like Obamacare, welfare or food stamps. And if they commit a crime while in this status, they would lose their permit.

“Third and finally, those who qualify for a nonimmigrant visa will have to remain in this status for at least a decade. After that, they would be allowed to apply for permanent residency if they so choose. Many who qualify for this status will choose to remain in it indefinitely. But those who choose to seek permanent residency would have to do it the way anyone else would, not through any special pathway.”

Thus there is a substantial set of “trade-offs” involved in the Rubio plan. You cannot even stay here (much less qualify for citizenship) unless you fulfill a lengthy list of conditions. You face deportation if at any time you fail on any one of the conditions. That is not a forgiveness, it is an offer to settle a criminal case, with the criminal giving up something very substantial in return. While the Rubio plan also includes a pathway to actual citizenship, it is an extremely long pathway: all of the conditions must continue to be met by the immigrant for at least 10 years from the date when he or she first fulfills all of the indicated conditions, before the immigrant can even get to the back of the line of legal applicants for citizenship.

Yet a substantial portion of the voting population has been led to believe that Sen. Rubio favors “amnesty” for illegals, even though that is clearly not the case. Yes, it is theoretically possible that a Rubio White House might ignore the new Rubio policy, just as all presidents before him have ignored the terms and intentions of the IRCA, but that could be said of any candidate. Can anyone doubt that even a Ted Cruz or a Donald Trump might eventually discover the same thing that his predecessors discovered, which is that immigration reform is more easily enacted than enforced.

To suggest that Sen. Rubio is in favor of “amnesty” because you are not sure he would diligently enforce the provisions of his own immigration reform plan, is unfair and incorrect. Why should we assume that Trump and Cruz would enforce our laws any more rigorously than Rubio – or more rigorously than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II, or Obama did? How can you call the Rubio position “amnesty” based on a prediction that he would not enforce his own law?

If you are skeptical about this analysis, if you consider it the work of an establishment Republican who is bending the truth in order to support the Rubio camp, consider this extract from a news article in the January 27, 2014 edition of the Chicago Tribune, regarding Edward Snowden: “On Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder rejected amnesty but did not rule out the possibility of plea negotiations, if Snowden returned to plead guilty. ‘If Mr. Snowden wanted to come back to the United States and enter a plea, we would engage with his lawyers,’ Holder said.” Clearly, Mr. Holder understood that amnesty and plea bargains are two quite different things.

The other explanation of the representation of the Rubio plan as “amnesty” is that Mr. Rubio at one point reversed his priorities – he switched to putting border security first, before implementation of the pathway to legal status and citizenship begins. That may be politically interesting, but factually it has nothing to do with whether the Rubio plan should be considered amnesty.

As the sun sets on the American Empire and you lose your chance to make serious money by placing a bet on Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination, let us examine the role of Governor Chris Christie in getting us to our lowly station.

Governor Christie verges on permanent notoriety for making huge contributions to the election of two consecutive presidents who do not represent the political party in which he claims membership. Exhibit A for this thesis was “the hug,” his verbal and physical embrace of Democratic candidate Barack Obama just before the 2012 election, actions believed by many to have swung the momentum in the campaign from Governor Romney to Mr. Obama. Exhibit B was his kamikaze attack on Marco Rubio in the February 6, 2016 debate in New Hampshire, the one that all but eliminated Senator Rubio from the race and thereby all but ensured the nomination of Donald Trump, a candidate whose switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party was too late – and too shallow – to persuade many voters or commentators that the conversion was based on belief rather than ambition.

Many of us have always viewed Mr. Christie as a Republican only by necessity, one who figured there was no way to the top via the New Jersey Democratic Party. But any remaining doubts as to Mr. Christie’s motives were dispelled when, having dispatched Mr. Rubio’s candidacy, Mr. Christie immediately withdrew from the race – indicating that he had not been in it to win it, that he had been in it only to eliminate the one contender with a realistic chance of denying the nomination to Mr. Trump. And that view was reinforced by his subsequent endorsement of Mr. Trump and his continuing assaults on Mr. Rubio’s candidacy. It now appears likely that there was but one inspiration for Mr. Christie’s behavior: venality. Yes, he is a power groupie, but mainly he appears to be trying to buy a place on a Trump ticket or a prominent appointment by a Trump administration, perhaps to Supreme Court justice, Attorney General, or some kind of sinecure.

Let’s return to the topic of Mr. Trump’s miraculous conversion from Democrat to Republican. Consider the markers: (i) the conditions he attached to his pledge to run only as a Republican, conditions of which he regularly reminds us whenever his candidacy runs into meaningful opposition; (ii) his positions on ObamaCare, where he has demonstrated both a preference for a single-payer system and an endorsement of only one element (interstate offerings of insurance) of the full Paul Ryan reform package, which contains extensive, sweeping reforms; (iii) his repeated threats of retaliatory trade policies – “trade wars” – that are directly contrary to conservative economic policy; (iv) his demonstrated preference for an activist federal-government rather than a restrained one, suggesting that his administration would offer an Obamaesque array of non-stop executive orders and federal regulations; (v) his recent revelation of opposition to a free press, in his desire to change the libel laws in ways that could only stifle journalistic independence and freedom; (vii) oh, what the heck, why bother, the list is endless and it is completely transparent to all but the participants in this collective tantrum.

It is easy to imagine that Mr. Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment, to fill the Scalia vacancy, would be one to which Mr. Obama would not have seriously objected; there is zero evidence to suggest that Mr. Trump actually endorses, or even understands, the notion of “original meaning” of the Constitution. By the end of a Trump regime, the Supreme Court could be locked into a non-conservative course for decades. That, for certain, would spell the end of the America we know.

It is theoretically possible that Mr. Trump would negotiate better deals, restore America’s greatness, etc., but that is hardly the same as a conservative presidency. This is not a man who would strive to emulate Ronald Reagan, this is not a man who would even be familiar with the work of Milton Friedman, much less a fan of the great conservative economist. Watch out below.