Why Sanders’ supporters are disposed to violence.

Even among far too many Republicans, a popular misconception persists that Bernie Sanders, while fundamentally wrong-headed politically, is nevertheless a decent person that means well for the country.

In the meantime, it is Donald Trump and his supporters who have gotten branded as “haters” who encourage violence.

This is bizarro world or, what amounts to the same thing, an ideologically-useful fiction of the left’s.

In reality, Sanders’ supporters have proven themselves to be far more violent-prone than the supporters of any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. In fact, it is only Sanders’ supporters who have established a pattern of visiting violence upon those with whom they disagree.

On the weekend of May 14-15, a Nevada Democratic convention had to be shut down because security at the hotel at which it was held couldn’t contain the mayhem unleashed by the hordes of disgruntled fans of the self-avowed “socialist” from Vermont. In addition to hurling obscenities and accosting people, Sanders’ supporters hurled chairs and issued death threats against the state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange.

As of the Monday following the melee, state party offices were still closed for security reasons: Sanders supporters, ever true to the leftist’s playbook, made public Lange’s home and business addresses, email and cell phone number.

Reportedly, Lange has received hundreds of profane calls and texts from Sanders’ backers in America and beyond. She and her family are being threatened. The restaurant at which she’s employed as well has been deluged by a tsunami of threatening calls.

The phone was finally unplugged.

“It is endless,” Lange says, “and the longer it goes the worse it gets.” She bemoans that she feels “threatened everywhere I go.”

In a letter to the co-chairs of the DNC Rules and By-laws Committee, the Nevada state party explained the circumstances surrounding the chaos. “The explosive situation arose in large part,” the letter begins, “because a portion of the community of Sanders delegates arrived at the Nevada Democratic State Convention believing itself to be a vanguard intent upon sparking a street-fight rather than attending an orderly political party process” (italics added).

The state party’s general counsel, Bradley S. Schrager, insisted upon alerting the DNC to “the Sanders campaign’s penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior—indeed, _actual violence_—in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting” and its “encouragement of, and complicity in, a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats” (italics added).

Even Sanders supporter and Nevada congressional candidate, Lucy Flores, acknowledged that her ilk acted indefensibly. “There were actions over the weekend,” she asserted in a written statement, “that very clearly crossed the line. Progressives need to speak out against those: Making threats against someone’s life, defacing private property, and hurling vulgar language at our female leaders.”

Senators Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Harry Reid—veteran Democrats all of them—claim to have never before witnessed such a gross display of incivility at any of their conventions. The word “disrespectful,” Boxer claimed, “doesn’t even explain it,” for “it was worse than that.”

According to CBS News, multiple “female senators told CNN [that] the attacks” on their opponents by Sanders’ supporters have been misogynistic.”

There are now fears that Sanders’ people will unleash the same poisonous combination of hatred and intolerance upon the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia later this year that it unleashed in Las Vegas this past weekend.

And these fears couldn’t be more justified.

Of course, it is only now that Sanders’ thugs have them in their crosshairs that Democrats are concerned about the “penchant for…violence” that has become such a salient characteristic among Sanders supporters. But for months, the Vermont senator’s disciples have been “making threats” against others’ lives, “defacing private property,” and “hurling vulgar language” at those whom they dislike.

Just ask the folks who have attended Donald Trump rallies in cities across the country.

Ask, as well, the police officers who Sanders’ thugs assaulted as the former tried to protect Trump rally attendees.

Ask the countless motorists who may or may not have had any interest in politics but whose daily lives were disrupted by Sanders supporters who insisted upon blocking traffic.

When Sanders’ backers, along with other leftist activist-thugs, succeeded in shutting down Trump’s planned rally in Chicago, “People For Bernie” put out this lovely tweet: “Remember the #TrumpRally wasn’t just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work.”

The brutal truth of the matter is that this unapologetic socialist who styles himself an “outsider” in spite of having spent the last quarter of a century in the United States Senate has a following that acts brutally.

“Bernie” is most definitely not a “good” guy. In addition to depending upon the confiscated resources of taxpayers for his own income, he as well plans on expanding the power of the federal government so as to fleece taxpayers even more for the sake of subsidizing those causes that he values.

And it is this, I submit, that primarily explains his supporters’ disposition toward violence: Sanders’ supporters are violence-prone precisely because they and their man embrace an inherently, if subtly, violent philosophy: Socialism, like communism (from which it differs, if at all, only in detail, not in kind), essentially militarizes society.

The socialist wants to commandeer the resources in person and property of individuals in order to marshal them toward the ends of the collective. That is, socialism demands that individuals be forced to serve the interests of others, namely, socialist elites who will decide what those interests are.

Socialism, the position of Bernie and his sheep, is the position of the bully.

This being so, it should be of no surprise that, when socialists don’t get their way, they are apt to resort to “whichever means necessary” in order to try until they do.