A SANDERS HATER GOES FOR THE JUGULAR
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
FEBRUARY 7, 2018

HERE’S A NEWS OPINION ARTICLE THAT REALLY GOT MY DANDER UP. IT IS TYPICAL, EXCEPT THAT IT DIRECTLY JUMPS ON BERNIE SANDERS WITH SPIKED FOOTBALL SHOES, THOUGH ANY NUMBER OF OTHER DEMOCRATS AGREE WITH HIM. THEY WEREN’T MENTIONED. IT LOOKS TO ME TO BE PART OF A REPUBLICAN PATTERN TO SPECIFICALLY CUT HIM DOWN – PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY SEE HIM AS A DANGER TO THEIR MAKING AN EASY SWEEP TO ANOTHER EASY PRESIDENCY WITH FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS FOLLOWING BEHIND.

FIRST READ THE ARTICLE. I AM SPECIFICALLY THINKING OF THE ATTACK ON JANE SANDERS MADE BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN LEADER IN VERMONT A YEAR AGO OR SO. MY COMMENTS FOLLOW. THEY HAVE MADE A BROAD EFFORT TO SMEAR HIM THROUGH HIS WIFE. THEY AREN’T DOING THAT TO OTHER DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS. THIS LOOKS PURPOSEFUL TO ME. BY ATTACKING HIS WIFE, THEY ARE ATTACKING HIM.

THEY CLAIM THAT BERNIE SANDERS CALLED THE BANK TO “PRESSURE” THEM TO LEND HER THE MONEY FOR AN EXPANSION OF HER COLLEGE, WHICH THEN FAILED DUE TO AN OVERESTIMATE IN THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING PLEDGES THAT WOULD ARRIVE. THE COLLEGE HAS DECLARED BANKRUPTCY. A GOOD BIOGRAPHY OF HER AND HER WORK IS FOUND AT WIKIPEDIA: HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/JANE_O%27MEARA_SANDERS. THE ANTI-SANDERS FORCES (BASED DIRECTLY IN THE DONALD TRUMP CAMP) ARE TRYING TO PAINT IT AS FRAUD ON HER PART AND ABUSE OF POWER ON HIS. THE WHOLE GOAL OF THIS AND OTHER SMEAR CAMPAIGNS IS TO STOP BERNIE SANDERS. THAT MAKES IT CLEAR TO ME THAT THOSE PEOPLE FEAR BERNIE. WHAT DID HE DO THAT SO THREATENED THEM? HE RAN A STARTLINGLY GOOD RACE FOR PRESIDENT. HE SPOKE GOODNESS. HE IS A TRUE LEADER IN A WAY THAT SOMEONE LIKE TRUMP WILL NEVER BE.

READ IT AND YOU’LL SEE THAT SHE’S REALLY A RATHER SIMPLE SOUL, AND NOT A GREEDY AND DISHONEST POWER PLAYER. SENATOR SANDERS IS ALSO A DEEPLY HONEST PERSON, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, AND HIS EFFORTS TO KILL A COURT CASE THAT SINGLEHANDEDLY “STIFLED THE SPEECH” OF HUGE NUMBERS OF “SMALL PEOPLE” ARE NOTHING BUT THE RIGHTEOUS RETRIBUTION THAT HE, AS A TRUE BELIEVER IN OUR MUCH FINER PROGRESSIVE POINT OF VIEW, IS NOTHING OTHER THAN HEROIC.

HE’S AT THE HEAD OF AN IMPORTANT HUMAN MOVEMENT – THAT OF THE ABILITY OF THE POOR, THE UNLETTERED, THE POLITICALLY IDEALISTIC AND THOSE WHO ARE JUST BLINKING ANGRY AT THE WAY OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN RUN IN THE LAST TWENTY TO THIRTY YEARS.

I, FOR MY PART, HAVEN’T GIVEN UP ON HIM YET, THOUGH VOICES HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DISCOURAGE EVERYONE FROM CONSIDERING HIM SERIOUSLY, REFERRING TO HIS AGE, AND THE ONE CLAIM THAT HE TRIED TO INTIMIDATE THE BANK IN VERMONT. MUCH AS THEY’VE BEEN TRYING, THOUGH, THEY CAN’T FIND DIRT THAT ISN’T THERE. STAUNCHLY PROTECTING HIM IS OUR RIGHT AS CITIZENS, AND WE ARE GOING TO BE HEARD, TOO, DESPITE HOW MANY SELF-SATISFIED RIGHTISTS TRY TO PUT BERNIE AND THOSE OF US WHO FOLLOW HIM DOWN. JUST WATCH US BOB BACK UP TO THE TOP AGAIN!

THE SCURRILOUS AND SELF-SATISFIED ARTICLE BELOW SAYS THAT WHILE THE KOCH BROTHERS HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY AND DO WHAT THEY WANT TO, BERNIE SANDERS DOESN’T. HE CALLS IT “SILENCING SPEECH.” I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO SEE THE RIGHT STOP CALLING HUGE EXPENDITURES OF CASH “SPEECH.”

AFTER THIS AND THE JANE SANDERS BIO BELOW, GO FINALLY TO A GREAT HUFFINGTON POST ARTICLE EXPLAINING THE INTERACTION OF MCCAIN FEINGOLD AND NOW CITIZENS UNITED – HOW THE MEGA RICH HAVE BEEN “PROTECTED” AGAIN.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/citizens-united-koch-brothers-investments-bernie-sanders-supreme-court-20180206.html
Viewpoints
Bernie Sanders' outcry over Koch investments: Another example of the left trying to silence both sides | Opinion
by Antony Davies & James R. Harrigan, For the Inquirer
Updated: FEBRUARY 6, 2018 — 9:55 AM EST

Photograph -- JOHN MINCHILLO / AP

“This is what oligarchy is all about. This is why we need to overturn the terrible Citizens United Supreme Court decision and move to public funding of elections,” wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders in response to an announcement the the Koch network plans to invest some $400 million in promoting various policy objectives ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.

Last week the Koch network, a loosely organized collection of politically concerned individuals and groups headed by Charles Koch, announced that it planned to invest some $400 million in promoting various policy objectives ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. The outcry, from all the usual suspects, was both immediate and predictable. Bernie Sanders got straight to the heart of the American left’s disdain of all things Koch within the confines of Twitter’s 280 character limit, writing, “This is what oligarchy is all about. This is why we need to overturn the terrible Citizens United Supreme Court decision and move to public funding of elections.”

But before you dust off your fainting couch, there are a few things to consider.

Senator Sanders thinks that taxing the American people to pay for political campaigns is the answer to the “problem” of Citizens United v. FEC. In that 2010 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting the communications spending of corporations (both non- and for-profit), labor unions, and other associations. In short, the government may not control “corporate” campaign spending for the same reason that it may not control the speech of individuals: because the government has no right and no business limiting political speech. While “corporations” are not people, people do not check their rights at the door when they join together. The right to free speech applies whether people speak individually or collectively.

Bernie Sanders himself is the perfect illustration of why the government cannot, and should not, be trusted to decide which political messages are legitimate and which are to be circumscribed. The Senator from Vermont does his level best to demonize the “Koch Brothers,” at every turn, but he curiously has little to say about much bigger money donors with whom he has more in common. According to OpenSecrets.org, the largest political donor in the 2016 election cycle was Thomas Steyer, who gave more than $90 million – every dollar of it to Democrats and left-wing causes. In total, the top-100 individual contributors gave almost $1 billion to political causes and campaigns in 2016. Where were the Koch brothers on the list? David Koch didn’t give enough to appear, and Charles Koch came in at #55 with $4 million in donations. Together, the 54 donors ahead of him donated almost 190 times as much. Are donors 1 through 54 somehow less problematic? And should Bernie Sanders, or any other politician for that matter, be the one who decides which donors are problematic?

And what of the organizations that were enabled by the Citizens United decision? The top-50 such contributors gave over $1 billion – 60 percent to Democrats and liberal causes, 40 percent to Republicans and conservative causes. The difference here is labor unions. In 2016, the top-20 labor unions gave a total of $180 million to politicians and political causes – 98 percent went to Democrats, 2 percent to Republicans. Will Senator Sanders speak to the ill-effects of all this union money in our politics? Don’t hold your breath.

Putting aside who gave what and to whom, the total amount Americans spend on candidates and issues is, in the great scheme of things, paltry. In the 2016 cycle, Democrat and Republican candidates and their surrogates spent over $6 billion on campaigns. In the same year, Americans spent $70 billion on lottery tickets, almost $40 billion on beer, and $7 billion celebrating the 4th of July. As a nation, we actually spend more money celebrating our democracy than we do participating in it.

Those who applaud Senator Sanders’ attempts TO STIFLE SPEECH, take heed. As is always the case in matters of free speech, defending the kind of speech one doesn’t like is the most important thing one can do to ensure the long-term health of the republic. If Sanders and his ilk are successful, the power to SILENCE THE PEOPLE will fall to both left- and right-wing politicians. Before long, it won’t matter whether you speak from the left or from the right, because you won’t be allowed to speak at all.

Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. James R. Harrigan is CEO of FreedomTrust. They host the weekly podcast, Words & Numbers.

Published: February 6, 2018 — 9:55 AM EST


JANE O’MEARA SANDERS WIKI BIO:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_O%27Meara_Sanders
Jane O'Meara Sanders
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photograph -- Jane O'Meara Sanders
Jane Sanders.jpg
4th President of Burlington College
In office
March 2004 – September 2011
Preceded by Mary Clancy
Succeeded by Christine Plunkett
President of Goddard College
Acting
In office
1996–1997
Preceded by Richard Greene
Succeeded by Barbara Mossberg
Personal details
Born Mary Jane O'Meara
January 3, 1950 (age 68)
New York City, New York, U.S.
Spouse(s) Dave Driscoll (divorced)
Bernie Sanders (m. 1988)
Alma mater Goddard College
Union Institute and University

Mary Jane O'Meara Sanders (born January 3, 1950) is an American social worker, college administrator and political staffer. Sanders was Provost and interim President of Goddard College (1996–97) and president of Burlington College (2004–11).[1][2] In June 2017, she started the think tank The Sanders Institute.[3] She has been married to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders since 1988.

Contents
1 Education and personal life
2 Career
2.1 Adviser and aide to Bernie Sanders
2.2 Burlington College presidency
3 References

Education and personal life

Sanders was born Mary Jane O'Meara on January 3, 1950, and grew up in Brooklyn, as one of 5 children of Bernadette Joan (Sheridan) and Benedict P. O'Meara.[4][5] She was raised Catholic[2] and attended Catholic schools, including Saint Saviour High School, before attending the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Sanders dropped out of Tennessee and moved back to Brooklyn with her first husband, David Driscoll;[1] they then moved to Virginia. In 1975, they moved to Vermont when Driscoll's employer, IBM, transferred him. Driscoll had requested her husband seek a transfer since she did not like Manassas, Virginia. They divorced shortly after their arrival in Vermont and the birth of her son Dave. Sanders has three children (Heather, Carina, and Dave) from her marriage with Driscoll.[6][7]

Sanders finished her college degree at Goddard College in Plainfield, Vermont, with a bachelor's in social work.[1] She met Bernie Sanders in 1981, ten days before his first campaign victory as Mayor of Burlington, and again at his victory party; they wed in 1988.[1]

In 1996, she earned a doctorate in leadership studies in politics and education from Union Institute & University headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[1][8][9]

Career
Early in her career, Sanders worked in the Juvenile Division of the Burlington Police Department, and then as a community organizer with the King Street Area Youth Center, and for VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America), a job that helped her pay off her student loans.[1]

From 1981 to 1991, Sanders served as founding Director of the Mayor's Youth Office and Department Head in the City of Burlington. She was also active in K-12 education, elected as a School Board Commissioner, and was a founding member of the Women's Council & the Film Commission. In 1991, her husband, Bernie Sanders, was elected to the U.S. Congress. From 1991 to 1995, she worked in his office on a volunteer basis.[10]

In 1996, Sanders was appointed as Provost and Interim President of her alma mater, Goddard College, to help the college through a difficult period. The Board, faculty, staff, students and Sanders worked together to improve the accreditation, finances and governance of the institution.[10]

From 2004 through 2011 Sanders was President of Burlington College, which closed due to financial problems in 2016. It was a small liberal arts college founded in 1972 for non-traditional students.[11] She earned $149,380/year, including benefits, and, upon her departure in 2011, received a total package of $200,000, consisting of one year's severance pay, along with certain retirement and bonus payments.[12]

As senior partner in the Burlington-based consulting firm, Leadership Strategies, O'Meara worked as a political and educational consultant for federal, state, and local political campaigns.[13]

Sanders was instrumental in founding The Sanders Institute, a progressive think tank which launched in June 2017, and is one of its 11 original fellows. Like the other fellows, she does not receive payment for her work.[3]

Adviser and aide to Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders has described his wife as "one of [his] key advisers",[2] and he has employed her at various times as "an administrative assistant, spokeswoman, policy adviser, chief of staff, and media buyer".[2] In a 1996 article in The Washington Post, she was credited with helping him draft "more than 50 pieces of legislation".[14]

She has served in Sanders's Congressional office as Chief of Staff and as Policy and Press Adviser,[13] and also serves as an Alternate Commissioner for the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission.[15][16]

Burlington College presidency
In 2004, Sanders was named President of Burlington College, a private, non-profit liberal arts school founded in 1972 in Vermont.[1][2] She increased the small college's fundraising.[17] During her tenure as President, Burlington had an endowment of "about $150,000",[2] and fundraising revenue had increased from about $25,000 when Sanders first arrived to $1.25 million by 2011.[17] In 2010, Sanders oversaw the purchase of property formerly owned and occupied by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. The College-based the real estate purchase on projections that enrollment would rapidly grow from fewer than 200 to as many as 750 students, with a corresponding income increase from tuition fees.[18]

In 2011, the College's Board of Trustees, while crediting Sanders with acquiring a permanent campus for the 200‑student college, called a meeting for September 2011 and accepted Sanders's resignation. "We reached a decision which I believe is best for both the College and me," Sanders said after the meeting, "The board and I have different visions for the future and that’s perfectly fine."[2][17][19][20] Sanders's salary as President was $160,000, with a contract for the position through 2013; on departure, she received the title of President Emeritus and a $200,000 severance. With the College unable to collect on some promised pledges after Sanders had resigned, and the enrollment increase plans failing, the Diocese settled the loan debt with the College in 2015 for $996,000, less than the agreed amount, and with $1 million of the repayment made in shares of an unidentified LLC company.[21]

In 2016, Burlington College announced it was closing its doors effective May 27, 2016 due to "longstanding financial woes", in particular the "crushing weight of the debt" undertaken to buy the Diocese property.[8][22] After leaving the Burlington College Presidency, Sanders became a member of the Vermont Economic Development Authority.[23][24][25]

According to 2017 news reports, the FBI is looking into allegations of possible bank fraud in connection with a $10 million loan Sanders helped Burlington College obtain in 2010 to purchase 33 acres of land from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington.[26] The investigation was launched after complaints were filed with the FBI in 2016 by Brady Toensing, chair of the Vermont Republican Party and Vermont campaign manager for then-candidate Donald Trump.[27][28] His complaints alleged she had misrepresented the college's donor levels and pledges in the loan application.[28] Bernie Sanders called the allegations politically motivated and "nonsense".[26] As of June 2017, the Sanderses have retained counsel while the FBI investigates the matter.[26]



PAUL ABRAMS OF HUFFINGTON POST SPEAKS OUT ABOUT THE POOR LITTLE GIANT CORPORATIONS WHOSE BOOMING VOICE IN POLITICS WAS “SILENCED” BY MCCAIN FEINGOLD, AND HOW UNFAIR THOSE LIBERALS ARE TO TREAT THE BULLIES SO BADLY. THIS ARTICLE REALLY IS A GREAT ONE FOR EXPLAINING HOW THE LAW WORKS ON THE CORPORATION AS AN “INDIVIDUAL.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/supreme-court-to-hand-gov_b_395239.html
THE BLOG 03/18/2010 05:12 am ET Updated May 25, 2011
Supreme Court to Hand Government to Republicans, Again: This Time, Forever.
By Paul Abrams

In Bush v Gore, the United States Supreme Court, in an unprecedented ruling that proclaimed it should not be used as precedent, decided the 2000 presidential election by a 5-4 decision. Bush v Gore stands as one of the most legally dishonest and the most politically partisan opinion ever issued by the Court.

That is, until the Court hands down its decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, involving a ruling by the FEC that barred a rightwing hit group, partially financed by a corporation, from running a hatchet-job film about Hillary Clinton in the days prior to an election in violation of the McCain-Feingold law.

By another 5-4 decision the Supreme Court will effectively turn the United States government over to corporations, i.e., back to the Republican Party, this time for keeps. The major corporations — total profits of more than $600 billion per year for the top Fortune 100 — will be permitted to advertise without limitation in Congressional, Senate and Presidential elections.

Small-donor internet fundraising that had begun to democratize a still-corrupt political system will be overwhelmed. Foreigners who own all or parts of US corporations will now have an influence in the outcome of our elections.

The (bogus) rationale will be that a private corporation is ‘merely’ an association of people and it already has the status of a legal person. If natural people have First Amendment rights, then a legal person should have the same rights. Thus, restricting corporations is a violation of the First Amendment.

Just as former Chief Justice Rehnquist had never been able to find violations of equal protection until he met a hanging chad in Bush v Gore, similarly we are about to be treated to Justice Scalia ignoring the ‘original intent’ of both the corporate structure and the First Amendment to contrive a violation of personal rights of an unnatural person.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. Private corporations are creatures of the State, whereas the State is a creature of natural persons. The “original intent” of the corporate entity was that, in exchange for protection from liability of the owners, a corporation could be created for a limited time and for a limited purpose. Those limitations did not last very long, and corporations were soon allowed to exist in perpetuity and to have broad, general purposes encompassing anything that was not illegal.

Since its individual owners were protected against personal liability, the corporation itself was liable for wrongdoing. In the case of a partnership or individual proprietorship, one can sue the partners or the individual owner. But, one cannot sue a building. Hence, the concept arose that the corporation itself was a ‘legal person’ to provide a mechanism for legal redress against the entity.

In science-fiction robots become more intelligent and more powerful than their creators, and wrest control from humans. Because of the legal nicety of the corporation, established solely to promote commerce, we are now going to be treated to the permanent takeover of the United States government by these humanly-created legal fictions.

Nor are corporations ‘merely’ an association of natural persons Rather, they are commercial enterprises whose purpose is to make profits.

Moreover, corporations often have foreign shareholders. Although barred as individuals from participating either through financial contribution or voting, foreigners will now be able to use the corporate fiction of a ‘legal person’ to influence profoundly the outcome of US elections.

The Supreme Court will soon allow corporate profits to be spent without limits to “preserve, protect and defend” not the Constitution, but those profits.

Swiftboats will be the fastest growing industry in the United States.

If the disastrous Bush presidency did not provide a sufficiently clear picture of what the country will become under corporate control, here are a few glimpses: financial regulation, or breaking up the banks, that is already destined to be a joke, will not even be on the radar screen. Middle-class workers who have not seen wages keep pace with productivity for two decades will fall even further behind. Healthcare reform? Whatever is passed will be gutted, and insurance companies will again be able to purge you from their rolls when you become ill. Clean energy? It will become a punchline. Taxes to pay for education, for veterans’ care, for food stamps, for unemployment insurance — yeah, right.

Regulation of any sort? Clean air? Clean water? Mine safety rules? Insider trading? Capital limits on banks? Net neutrality? Ha. ha, ha, ha. ha......

Perpetual war, fought by other peoples’ children? Social security trust fund invested in the stock market? Limitations on medicare? Reductions in Medicaid and foodstamps and children’s health? Prayer in public schools? Overturning Roe v Wade? You betcha!

Is there anything that can be done? Probably not, but there is enough at stake that it is worth a shot. Send Justices Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito, a letter. Scalia (and thus Thomas) are unreachable, and Roberts is assuredly in the bag although he has not signaled their intentions. Although Justice Kennedy has signaled his intent to provide the 5th vote, he seems to be the most persuadable in general. With Alito, perhaps just hope that his background may help him see the larger picture. Here is a suggested letter:

Re: Citizens United v FEC

Dear Justice Kennedy (or Alito):

I write out of deep concern for the future of our democracy. I understand that you are about to decide Citizens United v FEC to free corporations from the restrictions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law on the basis of a finding that corporations are ‘legal persons’ and thus entitled to First Amendment protections just like natural persons.

To do so you will ignore the principal of stare decisis, as well as the original intent of both the First Amendment and the purpose of creating a corporation. Have the restrictions on corporations been so obnoxious that they warrant those departures?

There is nothing in the Constitution suggesting that ‘unnatural’ persons are entitled to such First Amendment protections. It is perfectly plausible and Constitutional to create an ‘unnatural’ person for certain limited purposes, such as commerce, without providing that ‘unnatural’ person all the rights and privileges of a natural person.

The original intent of the corporate structure, and the creation of the “legal person”, was purely for commercial purposes. The original intent of the First Amendment was to provide citizens protection against government prohibitions of speech, worship and assembly.

Your colleague, Justice Scalia, proclaims his fidelity to the original intent of the drafters. Yet, he seems to be prepared to override original intent both of the corporate entity and the First Amendment.

A corporation is not ‘merely’ an association of persons. It is a commercial entity, with fealty to its shareholders who may be all over the world. It pursues the interests of those shareholders, not of our communities. Time and time again, when the choice is between country or community vs the corporation, corporations choose their own self-interest.

President Eisenhower warned us about the power of the military-industrial complex. President Roosevelt spoke of economic royalists that had brought the country to near-ruin. President Kennedy told the nation about a tiny handful of steel executives acting with utter contempt for the interests of the country.

The political economist John Kenneth Galbraith described one of government’s roles to be a ‘countervailing power’ to big corporations to protect individual citizens. If those corporations can nonetheless buy the government, there will not be much ‘countervailing’ occurring. The disastrous Bush Administration unilaterally surrendered to corporations and the result was devastating the hopes, dreams and savings of at least one generation of Americans and perhaps two.

So, please, Mr Justice Kennedy, do not think of corporations abstractly as ‘mere’ collections of people, because they are not abstractions. They are very real, very powerful, and have already used their political and economic power to overwhelm the voices and interests of the American people.

That was not the original intent of establishing the legal structure of a corporation. It was not the original intent of the First Amendment to protect ‘unnatural persons’.

Regulating corporations’ political speech does no violence to the Constitution. De-regulating it does.

Moreover, once de-regulated, the power corporations wield will prevent any subsequent ‘correction’. Once done, it is forever; forever is a long, long time.

Please, therefore, give a sober second-thought to what you seemed poised to do. That is, after all, what a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to do.

Thank you.

Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.


Paul Abrams
Last person on Earth not on Facebook