Connect with us


Flashback: Bernie Sanders Says JFK’s Opposition To Castro Regime Made Him Want To “Puke”

Why didn’t he renounce his American citizenship and move to Cuba in a show of support?



2020 presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders released an ad yesterday invoking the legacy of President John F. Kennedy. But in earlier remarks, he brutally criticized Kennedy and said the former president made him want to “puke.”

In 1986 Bernie Sanders reminisced about watching the 1960 presidential debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon and how it made him sick to hear them talk tough about Fidel Castro’s uprising.

Trending: Trump Scolds CNN's Jim Acosta: Be ‘Quiet’

“But I remember, for some reason, being very excited when Fidel Castro made the revolution in Cuba. I was a kid and I remember reading that,” the Independent Vermont senator said in a clip posted by The Reagan Battalion.

“And it just seemed right and appropriate that poor people were rising up against rather ugly rich people,” he added. “And I remember…I was watching the debates, remember the famous Nixon-Kennedy debates. That was the first time the presidential candidates actually debated.”

Sanders continued, “And I was becoming increasingly interested in politics. And at that time, I was very excited and impressed by the Cuban Revolution. And there was Kennedy and Nixon talking about which particular method they should use about destroying the revolution.”

“Kennedy was saying that Nixon was too soft on communism…we should deal firmly with Fidel Castro,” Sanders shared. “And Nixon was playing the role of ‘Hey, you got to be patient. You can’t do these things. You go to negotiate.’”

The 2020 presidential hopeful then went on to suggest that what Nixon was really “upset about” was that “secretly they were planning the Bay of Pigs invasion, right then.”

“So, he was the liberal and Kennedy was playing the conservative,” Sanders shared. “But I actually got up from the room and almost left to puke because, for the first time in my adult life, what I was seeing is the Democrats and Republicans, both of them…that clearly there wasn’t a hold lot of difference between the two.”

Twitter jumps in:
Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.



Pelosi Slammed for Faking Use of Dozens of Pens During Impeachment Signing Ceremony

Speaker Pelosi was ridiculed, Wednesday, for faking the use of dozens of pens she claimed she used to sign her name.



Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was ridiculed, Wednesday, for faking the use of dozens of pens she claimed she used to sign her signature on the Democrat articles of impeachment.

The signing ceremony was covered live by cable news outlets, but almost immediately social media exploded with people slamming the optics of Pelosi smiling while divvying out the pens to her Democrat pals in rampant celebration only a month after referring to impeachment as “sad” and “somber.”

Even Trump-hating radio talker Tom Nichols (who pretends to be a “conservative”) slammed Pelosi for the pen trick.

“Pelosi has handled the optics of impeachment well, right up until that signing ceremony, which was awkward. Handing out pens should have been done in private. This was not some celebratory moment,” he tweeted.

GOP National Spokesperson Elizabeth Harrington also went after Pelosi:

You know what you hand out pens for? Accomplishments.

Like, say, signing a historic trade deal with China.

So it’s fitting that Democrats are handing out pens for their sole accomplishment: impeachment

Democrats have done NOTHING for the American people

Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.) also tweeted: “They claim it’s a somber, serious occasion they’re heartbroken over…and then they pass out impeachment-signing pens with special cases. Folks. You can’t make it up.”

Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) wrote: “Just walked through aftermath of this ‘signing ceremony. Dems were giddy with excitement in Capitol hallway, asking, ‘Did you get your pen?’ The American people will hold House Dems accountable for making a mockery of their duty to the Constitution.”

Follow Warner Todd Huston on

Continue Reading


Pelosi’s Dems Transmit Fraudulent ‘Articles’ to Senate for Part Two of Impeachment

The Democrat infested House of Representatives have finally transmitted its fraud-filled “articles of impeachment” to the U.S. Senate.



The Democrat infested House of Representatives have finally transmitted its fraud-filled “articles of impeachment” to the U.S. Senate so that the upper chamber can fulfill their part of the impeachment process.

After a month of dithering, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has finally finished her part of the job.

Per Fox News:

The resolution, which passed 228-193 largely along party lines, came nearly a month after lawmakers voted to impeach the president on two counts.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., officially signed the articles Wednesday afternoon during an “engrossment ceremony.” Clerk of the House Cheryl Johnson and House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving walked a note over to the Senate notifying the upper chamber of Congress that Pelosi had signed the articles of impeachment and appointed managers to the trial.

No Republicans voted for the resolution to transmit the articles, and one Democrat, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., was the only Democrat to vote against.

But waiting a month the transmit these fake articles is proof that the whole thing has been a political game from the start, not a matter of law or danger to the nation.

After all, every single Democrat who spoke in favor of impeachment called the act “urgent.” It was “urgent” to impeach President Trump, they said.

And yet… it was so “urgent” that they waited for a month to get the articles to the Senate so that the Senate could do their part?

Clearly it was not really urgent at all if they could dither for a month while Pelosi played political games with the articles.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., slammed the Democrats, saying, “This is not a moment this body should be proud of. As Pelosi says, impeachment is a national civics lesson. Let’s use this blunder as a teachable moment.”

“We wouldn’t abuse our power just for the sheer sake of politics to say you’re impeached forever because I dislike you,” McCarthy added.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also slammed the Democrats.

“It looks like today’s the day. House Democrats may finally stand behind the rushed, unfair, and nakedly partisan impeachment that they themselves delayed for four weeks. The ‘prosecutors’ have finally overcome their cold feet.,” he tweeted.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on

Continue Reading


Nadler Says McConnell Perpetrating An ‘Unconstitutional & Disgusting Cover-Up’



Impeachment ‘Manager’ Jerry Nadler ripped Majority Leader Mitch McConnell during a red-hot press conference today; accusing the top Republican of organizing an “unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up” to acquit President Donald Trump.

Here’s the video:

“This is a test of the Constitution. The President’s conduct violated the Constitution in every single way. Trying to rig an election, stonewalling Congress… It’s a test of the Constitution. The Senate is intended to conduct a fair trial. The American people know in a trial you permit witnesses,” said Jerry Nadler.

“If the Senate doesn’t admit witnesses and all documents the House wants to introduce, then the Senate is engaging in an unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up. The Senate is on trial as well as the President.”

Continue Reading


John Kerry Gets Busted On Face The Nation About What He Said On Money Going To Terrorists In 2016 Iran Deal

When an outfit like Face the Nation calls you out you’ve got huge problems.



John Kerry slammed President Trump’s tweet about Iran Deal funding terrorism, then gets shown what he said in 2016.

He gets completely flustered when he is shown the 2016 clip of him saying that he knew that the money the Obama administration gave Iran would be used to fund the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Take notice of the lip-smacking thing he does while he tries to come up with an answer.

How is giving money to the largest state sponsor of terrorism in human history not considered “funding terrorist operations?”

Red State:

John Kerry really isn’t the person who has any standing to talk about what should be done in regards to Iran.

But that hasn’t stopped him from getting out in media and trying to spin the colossal failure of their dealings with Iran. We’ve reported here and here on how they sent “pallets of cash” to Iran plus lifted sanctions, releasing $150 billion some of which Kerry acknowledged would go to terrorists.

President Donald Trump nailed him for it in a tweet.

Kerry Was appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation” to do more spinning.

Except then, astonishingly, an act of journalism, good job, CBS, they called him on it, mentioned the president’s tweet and brought up exactly what Kerry said about the money in 2016.

He did it knowing and admitting “some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC [Soleimani’s terrorist group] “some of which are labeled terrorists.” According to reports, the deal specifically released sanctions on Soleimani himself, as well as other IRGC leaders. But basically, oh, well, spit happens, nothing we can do.  More

It would be nice if politicians would own up to things they said in the past instead of trying to bald-faced lie about them. CBS taking John Kerry to the mat who would have guessed it certainly not Kerry.

He was only ready for softball questions. Of course, every now and then the fruit just hangs so low that they can’t help but have an attack of journalistic integrity. Just give it a minute, I’m sure it’ll pass.


Continue Reading


UNCONSTITUTIONAL!:  United States Supreme Court Dismisses Impeachment Articles




By Ivan E. Raiklin

This week, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, will submit her two Articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate.  Impeachment is an authority granted to the U.S. House in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.  “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  (emphasis added)

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 vests the power to impeach with the House of Representatives.  “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”  The House Judiciary Committee began its impeachment inquiry by interrogating Cory Lewandowski (I was sitting behind him), when that failed, Speaker Nancy Pelosi then moved the inquiry to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence where no due process was afforded the President in this closed door session, then back to the Judiciary Committee where the President was denied his 5th Amendment Due Process rights by not allowing any witnesses to respond to the allegations.  Upon completion of these hearings, the House of Representatives voted on the following two impeachment articles, titled:

Article 1:  Abuse of Power (December 10, 2019)

Article 2: Obstruction of Congress (December 10, 2019)

For the U.S. House to transmit articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate, the articles must meet the minimal Constitutional threshold of being a charge of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.  Based on the Supreme Court’s analysis below, neither article of impeachment charges the president with either treason, bribery, or a high crime and misdemeanor and thus cannot be transmitted to the U.S. Senate for a trial under Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution.


Article 1:  Abuse of Power:[i]

TreasonNowhere is the term treason used or alleged in this article of impeachment.

Bribery-Nowhere is the term treason or bribery used or alleged in this article of impeachment.

or other high Crimes- The article lists no mention of a crime being committed as taken from either Title 18 U.S. Code or any other Title of the U.S. Code for that matter.  Additionally, reviewing Title 18 U.S. Code, nowhere is there a reference to the term “abuse of power”.  Without a crime of “abuse of power” there can be no basis for there to be a “high crime”.

and Misdemeanors[ii] As mentioned above under high crime, without a crime, there can be no misdemeanor crime to charge the president with in order to impeach him.


Article 2:  Obstruction of Congress:

TreasonNowhere is the term “treason” used or alleged in this article.

Bribery-Nowhere is the term treason or bribery used or alleged in this article.

or other high Crimes- The article lists no mention of a crime being committed as taken from either Title 18 U.S. Code or any other Title of the U.S. Code for that matter.  Additionally, reviewing Title 18 U.S. Code, nowhere is there a reference to the term “obstruction of Congress”.  Without a crime of “obstruction of Congress” there can be no basis for there to be a “high crime”.

The only felony in the US Code that references the term “obstruction” is found at: Title 18 USC § 1505. “Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees”. [iii]  Even if the US House of Representatives is referencing this statute as the basis for its impeachment, this statute clashes with the president’s power of executive privilege.  The House will need to await the adjudication of the Federal Courts if Presidential executive privilege will outweigh the demand

and Misdemeanors-The only federal misdemeanors that reference the term obstruction do not reference obstruction of Congress.  Rather, they are:

  1. 18 USC §1509 obstruction of court orders
  2. 18 USC §1701 obstruction of mails generally
  3. 40 USC §5109(b) obstruction of roads


Recommendation:  White House Counsel file a motion outlining Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s/the U.S. Congress’ violation of Article II Section 4 in the following manner:

  1. To the U.S. Supreme court, under its original jurisdiction authority as this is a case “affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.” Article III, Section 2.
  2. To the US Supreme Court requesting a writ of certiorari on the matter
  3. To the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, followed by appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and concluding with the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the preferred method as this process will take several weeks, if not months to adjudicate, while the U.S. Senate continues to confirm President Trump’s federal judge appointments without any breaks.


Possible Outcomes:

  1. The U.S. Supreme Court dismisses the Articles of Impeachment and thus no Senate trial.
  2. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the articles of impeachment do meet the constitutional threshold of a high Crime or misdemeanor, then the Speaker of the House can send them to the U.S. Senate and act on them as outlined in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 wherein “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
    1. The Senate dismisses the articles of impeachment upon receiving them for lack of an offense/sufficient evidence.
    2. The Senate calls witnesses[iv] to determine President Trump’s state of mind when he asked Ukraine President Zelinsky to investigate corruption. President Trump through the calling of these witnesses exposes the illegal coup by the previous administration, exposes all deep state actors, exposes corruption by the Bidens that he was interested in investigating and brings justice to all those negatively impacted by the illegal Crossfire Hurricane operation and FISA abuses to include LTG (R) Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopolous and Carter Page.


About the Author:  Ivan E. Raiklin is a Constitutional and National Security attorney and Green Beret who has served for over 22 years in various sensitive roles in the Department of Defense and U.S. Intelligence Community under the previous four administrations.




[iv] The following witnesses will need to be called to address legitimate concerns of corruption

  1. Ukraine Related
    1. Hunter Biden-Questions related to waivers to join US Naval reserve and Board seat on Burisma
    2. Hunter Biden’s baby mamas
    3. Joe Biden-Discussions of placing son on Board of Burisma and other dealings involving firing of prosecutor general in Ukraine (Quid Pro Quo)
  2. Impeachment related
    1. Nancy Pelosi-all discussions and deliberations regarding the first time impeachment of president up until the actual impeachment
    2. Adam Schiff-all conversations with the whistleblower and his staff related to the whistleblower
    3. Eric Ciaramella-all communications between him and the rest of the witnesses and staffs listed
    4. Mark Zaid-Lawyer for Eric Ciaramella
    5. Andrew Bakaj-Lawyer for Eric Ciaramella
    6. John Brennan & Staff
    7. Sean Misko
    8. Al Green
    9. Rashida Tlaib
    10. Jerry Nadler
    11. Maxine Waters
    12. Michael Atkinson
    13. Debbie Mucarsey Powell (Drafted Articles of Impeachment?)
    14. Robert Paul (Husband of Powell, received $700 K from the Ukrainian Oligarch
    15. Every member of Congress who made public statements professing to impeach President Trump before the first impeachment hearing September, 2019.
  • Origins of Coup Attempt
    1. White House
      1. Barrack Obama
      2. Susan Rice
    2. Intelligence Community
      1. James Clapper
      2. John Brennan
    3. DOJ
      1. Loretta Lynch
      2. Andrew Weissman
      3. Eric Holder
    4. FBI
      1. James Comey
      2. Rod Rosenstein
      3. Andrew McCabe
      4. Peter Strzok
      5. Lisa Page
      6. Joe Pientka
      7. Bruce Ohr
      8. Nellie Ohr (Wife of Bruce, at Fusion GPS)
    5. State Department
      1. Hillary Clinton
      2. John Kerry
      3. Victoria Nuland
      4. Alexandra Chalupa
    6. Fake Dossier Origins:
      1. Joseph Mifsud
      2. Glen Simpson
      3. Fusion GPS team
      4. Perkins Coie team
    7. Kathryn Rumler
    8. Devon Archer
    9. Christopher Steele
    10. DNC members working on Steele Dossier
    11. Crowd Strike
    12. Andriy Telizchenko
    13. Cody Shearer
    14. Bret Kimberlain
    15. Sid Blumenthal
    16. Derek Shearer
    17. Ian McKinnon
  1. Press
    1. CNN
    2. MSNBC
    3. ABC
    4. CBS
    5. NBC
    6. NY Times
    7. Washington Times
    8. Facebook
    9. Twitter
    10. Alphabet (Youtube, Google)
  2. Support Witnesses
    1. Rudy Giuliani
    2. Jim Jordan
    3. Matt Gaetz
    4. Devin Nunes
    5. IG Horowitz
    6. John Durham
Continue Reading


John Kerry: Obama Administration Gave Iran ‘A Little Bit Of Money’ (Video)

Maybe to a guy like Kerry billions is just chump change.



John Kerry says that the Obama administration gave Iran ‘a little bit of money.’

“We gave them a little bit of money that was released in that period of time, not as part of the nuclear arrangement,” Kerry said during an interview on CNN. “But the fact is the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] had all the money it wanted. The IRGC wasn’t starving at that point in time, and in fact, Iran owed billions upon billions of dollars. Most of that money went to pay off their debts and to facilitate their economic initiatives.”

Yeah, just a little, $1.7 billion. And it was released to terrorists, as he admitted at the time.

Iran’s GDP in 2016 was $419 billion. So Obama injected $150 billion into their economy that’s a 35% increase.

Washington Examiner:

Former Secretary of State John Kerry denied that money from a $1.7 billion payment the United States made to Iran in 2016 went toward funding Iran’s recent attack on U.S. bases in Iraq.

Kerry described the payment as a “little bit of money” and accused Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of lying about what Iran used the 2016 cash payment for. Kerry asserted that most of the money was used to pay off Iranian debts and fund economic programs.

“We gave them a little bit of money that was released at that period of time,” Kerry said. “But the fact is the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] had all the money it wanted.”

“It’s just not true that that money specifically directly went to the IRGC,” Kerry continued. “Money is fungible in any budget. The IRGC had its funding; they had its missiles long before we made any kind of arrangement with Iran.” More

CNN in January 2016:

Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged to CNBC Thursday that some of the money Iran received in sanctions relief would go to groups considered terrorists.

When asked about whether some the $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran would go to terrorist groups, Kerry reiterated that, after settling debts, Iran would receive closer to $55 billion. He conceded some of that could go to groups considered terrorists, saying there was nothing the U.S. could do to prevent that.

“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists,” he said in the interview in Davos, referring to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. “You know, to some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.”

But he added that “right now, we are not seeing the early delivery of funds going to that kind of endeavor at this point in time.”

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the payment included “$400 million, plus an additional $1.3 billion in interest from taxpayer funds, ostensibly to settle a dispute over military equipment Iran purchased but never received following the shah’s fall in 1979. Critics, however, described the payment as a “ransom” to secure the freedom of American hostages being held by the Tehran regime.”

Continue Reading


Democrats Fume At ‘Deadbeat Cortez’ As She Refuses To Fork Over Six-Figure Party Dues

Never trust a Socialist.



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has riled up Democrats by refusing to pay party dues, she won’t won’t donate a cent of her millions to Democrats’ House campaign organization, Fox News has learned.

“Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills,” complained a House Democratic aide. “She’s always whining about people paying their fair share and here she is leaving her friends with the bill.”

Fox News:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has already topped the fundraising charts in her short time in Congress, but the liberal darling won’t donate a cent of her millions to Democrats’ House campaign organization — a position that has rankled some of her colleagues, Fox News has learned.

Instead, Ocasio-Cortez is building her own fundraising operation for fellow progressive candidates to bypass the official Democratic Party infrastructure. Already, she’s actively funding primary challengers to oust certain Democratic colleagues.

“Sometimes the question comes: ‘Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority?’” Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., told Fox News, when asked about AOC’s stance. “And do you want to be part of a team?”

Another source was less diplomatic: “Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills,” complained a House Democratic aide. “She’s always whining about people paying their fair share and here she is leaving her friends with the bill.”

Their gripe is that Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t given any money to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party arm with the sole job of electing Democrats to the House. Records obtained by Fox News show the New York Democrat has failed to pay any of her $250,000 in “dues” to the DCCC.

Her goose egg of a contribution is no accident. Ocasio-Cortez says she has beef with the DCCC and she’ll withhold her money in protest of how the Democratic Party won’t back insurgent progressive primary candidates, like herself, in the name of protecting incumbents. More

So once again the “pay your fair share” mantra and the “wealth distribution” idea only applies to others. Typical Socialist.

Entitled freeloaders never change. They have no problem burning through other people’s cash but don’t ask them to donate, repay, or help out.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider

Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend