DECEMBER 24 AND
25, 2019
NEWS AND VIEWS
IN CHECKING FOR
COVERAGE ON SANDERS BEYOND OUR PROGRESSIVE SITES, I FOUND SOME INTERESTING AND
POSITIVE INTERVIEWS OR REPORTS. THIS IS A 23:33 MINUTE FACE THE NATION VIDEO FROM
JUNE OF THIS YEAR. THESE DISCUSSION FORMATS SHOW BERNIE AT HIS BEST –
IMMINENTLY RATIONAL BUT EQUALLY COMMITTED AND STRONG. BEING FUZZY-HEADED IS A
VIRTUE – EQUIVALENT TO BEING “NICE” -- AMONG SOME PEOPLE, BUT I DO NOT CONSIDER
IT HONEST OR IN ANYWAY HELPFUL WHEN IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE INVOLVED.
ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT BERNIE HAS BEEN CRITICIZED ABOUT IS THAT HE DOES NOT DEAL AT ALL
WITH INSIGNIFICANT ISSUES. IN THIS VIDEO HE SHOWS THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF HIS
CONCERNS, ANOTHER THING ABOUT HIM THAT CORPORATE AMERICA FEARS. WHY DO THEY
HATE BERNIE SANDERS? IT’S BECAUSE HE IS TOO GOOD, TOO BRAVE AND TOO ASTUTE.
IS HE PLANNING
A BLOODY REVOLUTION? NO. HE’S NOT A VICIOUS SORT OF GUY. HE IS LEADING US DIRECTLY
TOWARD A REVOLUTION OF THOUGHT AND CONSCIENCE, AND AS SUCH HE IS “AN
EXISTENTIAL THREAT” TO THE CORPORATE INTERESTS AND POWER STRUCTURE. HE IS
POINTING OUT THAT THE EMPEROR IS WALKING DOWN THE ROAD TOTALLY NUDE. I’VE
ALWAYS LOVED THAT OLD STORY.
Full interview:
Bernie Sanders on "Face the N...
Margaret
Brennan sat down with 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on the
campaign trail in Columbia, South Carolina.
JUN 23, 2019
THIS PIECE FROM
REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM IS A GOOD ONE, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ALL THE INFORMATION
IS GIVEN FULLY IN THE FIRST THREE PARAGRAPHS, AND THEN IS REPEATED WORD FOR
WORD TO MAKE IT SEEM LONGER. THAT’S ANNOYING.
POPULATION CONTROL,
UNFORTUNATELY, IS ONE OF THOSE SUBJECTS THAT IS TABOO TO NEARLY ALL CHRISTIANS,
BOTH CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT, AND YET IS CRUCIAL TO A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE,
EVEN WITHOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. STARVATION AND RAMPAGING CONTAGIOUS DISEASES DUE
TO OVERCROWDING ARE TERRIBLE NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION. WHAT I REALLY FEAR
MOST ABOUT OUR CITIZENRY IS THE WILLINGNESS TO BEHAVE IN A DESTRUCTIVE WAY JUST
BECAUSE SOMEONE TOLD THEM TO, EVEN IF THAT SOMEONE IS A CHURCH.
WHILE I LOVE
THE WAY THAT RELIGION USUALLY DOES INSTITUTE SOME MORALITY, IT USUALLY IS ALSO
INVOLVED WITH A MANDATE TO OBEY AND “BELIEVE” THE DOCTRINES IN AN UNQUESTIONING
WAY. I CONSIDER “RELATIVE MORALITY” TO BE OVERALL A GOOD THING, BECAUSE THE
INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL SUCH THINGS AS HAVING ANOTHER AND ANOTHER
BABY. FOR MOST COUPLES WHO DO HAPPEN TO LIKE EACH OTHER IN BED, THOSE
PREGNANCIES WILL OCCUR WITHOUT GOOD BIRTH CONTROL.
JUST AS I WOULD
FIGHT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF RELIGIONS, I WILL WITH EQUAL FERVOR STAND UP FOR
FREE THOUGHT WITHIN A RELIGIOUS FRAMEWORK AND THE FREEDOM NOT TO JOIN AT ALL. A
MANDATORY KNEE-JERK RESPONSE TO RELIGIOUS DOGMA IS AGAINST AMERICAN VALUES AND AN
INVITATION TO THE “DUMBING DOWN” OF A POPULATION – ANY POPULATION.
Bernie Sanders:
Abortion And Population Control Are Important Parts Of Addressing Climate
Change
Posted By Tim
Hains
On Date September
5, 2019
PRESIDENTIAL
TOWN HALL WITH SEN. BERNIE SANDERS
VIDEO – Presidential
candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders answered "yes" and spoke about abortion
when asked at a CNN town hall event Wednesday night if population control would
play a part in his administration's policy for dealing with climate change.
"Human
population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet
cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for
politicians, but it's crucial to face," an audience member asked.
"Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population
growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough
to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate
catastrophe?"
"The
answer is yes," Sanders responded. "And the answer has everything to
do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a
right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions."
"And the
Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around
the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth
control to me is totally absurd. So I think especially in poor countries
around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of
babies and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to
control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly
support," he concluded.
FIRST QUESTION:
Would you be courageous enough to discuss population growth and make it a
key feature of your climate plan?
Presidential
candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders answered "yes" and spoke about abortion
when asked at a CNN town hall event Wednesday night if population control would
play a part in his administration's policy for dealing with climate change.
"Human
population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot
sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but
it's crucial to face," an audience member asked. "Empowering women
and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable
campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and
make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?"
"The
answer is yes," Sanders responded. "And the answer has everything to
do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a
right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions."
"And the
Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around
the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth
control to me is totally absurd. So I think especially in poor countries around
the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies
and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the
number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support," he
concluded.
STATES RIGHTS ISSUES
OFTEN TEND TO BE PROBLEMATIC IN AREAS OF FAIRNESS, ESPECIALLY IN RACIAL AND
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. IMPORTANT AREAS OF AMERICAN LIFE LIKE VOTING ARE
CRUCIAL TO OUR DEMOCRATIC FUNCTIONING. NOT ONLY ARE “ALL POLITICS LOCAL,” BUT
LOCAL POLITICAL ACTION TOO FREQUENTLY CAUSES A SERIOUS CRIMP ON INDIVIDUAL AND
GROUP FREEDOM AND INCLUSION AT THE PLACE WHERE MOST OF US LIVE. BEING UNABLE TO
SIT DOWN IN A STARBUCKS WITHOUT GETTING ARRESTED CUTS DOWN TO A HUGE DEGREE ON
FREEDOM.
OF COURSE, THE
PRESENCE OF MANY MORE URBAN ENVIRONMENTS THESE DAYS THAN WHEN I WAS A YOUNGSTER
DOES TEND TO BRING NEW IDEAS AS PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO BE “DIFFERENT” ARE DRAWN
THERE TO GET JOBS. CLOSER EXPOSURE TO THE UNFAMILIAR TENDS TO FIGHT THE CLOSED
MINDEDNESS OF RACISM, SEXISM, RELIGIONISM, AND THE PROCESS CREATES BETTER
SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES, A BETTER CASH FLOW FOR INDIVIDUALS, HOSPITALS,
MUSEUMS, THEATERS, RESTAURANTS. IN SHORT, LIFE BLOSSOMS.
ESPECIALLY IN THE
SOUTH AND THE WEST, THE STATES MAKE LAWS TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTICIPATION IN
SOCIETY. NOT ONLY IS IT UNFAIR, BUT IT CREATES MORE IGNORANCE ON A MORE WIDELY EXISTING
BASIS. PROSPERITY DOES NOT FLOURISH IN THAT SITUATION, AND ALL AMERICANS SHOULD
BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
House Passes
Voting Rights Bill Despite Near Unanimous Republican Opposition
The legislation
restores the core of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights statute
to guard against racial discrimination in elections.
By Sheryl Gay
Stolberg and Emily Cochrane
Dec. 6, 2019
PHOTOGRAPH -- Representative
John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, banged the gavel to announce the House’s
approval of a measure aiming to restore protections against racial
discrimination in voting.CreditCredit...Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The
House voted on Friday to reinstate federal oversight of state election law,
moving to bolster protections against racial discrimination enshrined in the
1965 Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights statute whose central
provision was struck down by the Supreme Court.
Representative
John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, who was beaten in 1965 while demonstrating for
voting rights in Alabama, banged the gavel to herald approval of the measure,
to applause from his colleagues on the House floor. It passed by a vote of 228
to 187 nearly along party lines, with all but one Republican opposed.
The bill has
little chance of becoming law given opposition in the Republican-controlled
Senate and by President Trump, whose aides issued a veto threat against it
this week.
The measure is
a direct response to the 2013 Supreme Court decision in the case of Shelby
County v. Holder, in which the justices invalidated a key portion of the law. They asserted
that the federal oversight of elections was no longer necessary in nine
states, mostly in the South, because of strides made in advancing voting rights
since passage of the 1965 law.
The original
Voting Rights Act, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson as a centerpiece of
his civil rights agenda, was meant to bar states from imposing poll taxes,
literacy tests and other methods to keep black people from voting. Democrats
argued that while such overt barriers are gone, they have been replaced by
stricter voting laws adopted by 25 states since the Shelby decision.
“Selma is still
now!” thundered Representative Terri A. Sewell, Democrat of Alabama, the chief
sponsor of the measure, during debate on the measure on the floor. “I know I’m
not the only black and brown colleague of ours who owes their very presence in
this chamber to the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965.”
Republicans,
for their part, argued that the bill would trample on states’ ability to
dictate their own election rules by abusing measures in place to prevent voter
disenfranchisement.
“The bill before
us today would turn those federal shields that protect voters into political
weapons,” said Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top
Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, adding that the legislation would
do so “when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those states or
localities engaged in any discriminatory behavior when it comes to voting.”
The debate
underscored the deep partisan polarization that has taken hold on issues
related to voting and elections in recent years. In 2006, the last time the
Voting Rights Act was updated, the measure passed overwhelmingly in the House,
where large majorities of both parties supported it, unanimously passed the
Senate, and was signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush.
On Friday, just
one Republican, Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voted “yes.”
In the Shelby
case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that Congress remained free to
try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but
must do so based on contemporary data. The measure passed on Friday was an
attempt to do just that.
Specifically,
it would update the parameters used to determine which states and
territories need to seek approval for electoral procedures, requiring public
notice for voting changes and expanding access for Native American and
Alaska Native voters.
But it is
unlikely to come to a vote in the Senate, where Senator Mitch McConnell,
Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has refused to take up most
legislation championed by House Democrats.
Still,
Democrats saw its passage as a significant victory and an important statement
of their principles — as well as evidence that they can legislate while also
preparing articles of impeachment against President Trump.
With the number
of legislative days in the year dwindling into the single digits, Democrats are
rushing as much work as they can across the House floor to keep the government
running and maximize a record of accomplishments they can show voters before
the 2020 elections.
H.R. 4,
formally titled the Voting Rights Advancement Act and given a
low number by Democrats to reflect its priority on their agenda, was the
product of a series of hearings in eight states and Washington, as well as
hours of testimony. Black Democrats and those who are old enough to remember
the debate over the 1965 bill spoke about the new legislation with passion —
and a sense of history.
“I have been
thinking a lot this morning about my growing up in South Carolina,” said Representative
James E. Clyburn, 79, the No. 3 House Democrat, describing how he drove to
a tiny town in his native state to see the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
speak, just a few months after Johnson signed the 1965 bill into law.
“I’ll never
forget his theme that day: March to the ballot box,” Mr. Clyburn said.
Voting Rights
and Politics
Sheryl Gay
Stolberg covers Congress, focusing on domestic policy. She has been a national
correspondent, political features writer and White House correspondent and
shared in two Pulitzer Prizes at The Los Angeles Times. @SherylNYT
Emily Cochrane
is a reporter in the Washington bureau, covering Congress. She was raised in
Miami and graduated from the University of Florida. @ESCochrane
I DO HOPE THAT
THE FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL STAND BY THIS PLEDGE. IF HE DOESN’T, I WILL BE
TRULY DISILLUSIONED. HE SEEMS TOTALLY DECENT, AND I DON’T CONSIDER THE WAY THE
CORPORATE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEHAVED TOWARD SANDERS AND OTHER PROGRESSIVES TO BE
FAIR OR HONEST.
Published on
Tuesday,
December 24, 2019
byCommon Dreams
Obama Insider
Confirms Former President Ready to Back Whoever Wins 2020 Nomination—Even
Bernie Sanders
"Whoever
emerges from the primary process, I will work my tail off to make sure that
they are the next president."
byEoin Higgins,
staff writer
PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) smiles as then-President Barack Obama signs a bill into
law. (Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
If Sen. Bernie
Sanders is the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, he can reportedly count on
the backing of former President Barack Obama.
That's
according to a source close to the 44th president, speaking to The Hill, who
said that Obama is ready to "go to bat" for whoever wins the
nomination.
Obama himself
said as much in mid-November at a Democracy Alliance event in Washington, D.C.
"Look, we
have a field that is very accomplished, very serious and passionate and smart
people who have a history of public service," the former president said,
"and whoever emerges from the primary process, I will work my tail off to
make sure that they are the next president."
Despite those
comments, Obama's future support of a Sanders-led ticket has been in doubt
due to reporting that the former president considered speaking up to stop the
Vermont senator if Sanders appeared able to win the nomination.
On Monday, The
Hill's source made clear that Obama will step up for the eventual nominee in a
piece largely framed around how Obama is warming to Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.) as a candidate—indicated the former president will step up for
the eventual nominee, even if it's Sanders.
According to
the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Sanders sits solidly in second
place nationally while former vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner
and Warren comes in third.
The former
president isn't the only intraparty Sanders opponent who has signaled a
willingness to support the Vermont senator should he win the nomination.
Columbia
University lecturer Tom Watson, a vocal Sanders critic, has
repeatedly tweeted his enthusiasm for supporting the eventual Democratic
nominee—even if it's Sanders.
"I'll
support the Democratic nominee as hard as I possibly can," Watson said in
July.
That sentiment
was echoed in early December by Center for American Progress president Neera
Tanden, who said on Twitter of Sanders that she would "support him if
he's the nominee."
Tanden added
that the choice between Trump and Sanders was clear.
"People,
Trump's re-election is an existential threat," said Tanden. "If you
do not think the GOP is watching these attacks and will amplify them in the
general, you're wrong."
Our work is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel
free to republish and share widely.
This is the
world we live in. This is the world we cover.
I HAVE FOUND AN
NPR ARTICLE ON BERNIE. IT ISN’T NEW, FROM OCTOBER 22, BUT IT SHOWS AN AMAZING
AERIAL PHOTO OF HIM AT THE PODIUM SURROUNDED BY A THICKLY PACKED CROWD OF STANDING
LISTENERS THAT HAS NO VISIBLE EDGES. IT IS THE CROWD THAT DONALD TRUMP DIDN’T
GET FOR HIS INAUGURATION. I HAVE HEARD ESTIMATES OF 26 TO 27 THOUSAND PEOPLE. IT'S
REALLY HARD TO DETERMINE THE SIZE OF CROWDS, THOUGH, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS
IMPRESSIVE VISUALLY.
'I Am Back':
How Bernie Sanders' Revolution Is Proving Resilient
October 22,
20195:00 AM ET
Asma Khalid - 2016
- square
ASMA KHALID
PHOTOGRAPH -- Democratic
presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally in Queensbridge
Park in New York on Saturday.
Kena
Betancur/Getty Images
About three
weeks ago, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders had a heart attack that threw his
campaign into question. But now, it's more apparent than perhaps at any
point in this presidential race that the 78-year-old white-haired politician
and his revolution will remain a powerful force in the Democratic primary.
Sanders'
campaign has a renewed vitality following a record-setting rally in New York
over the weekend, a strong debate performance last week in Ohio, an infusion of
campaign cash that translates to having more money on hand than any other
Democratic presidential candidate, and endorsements from two of the most
progressive women of color in Congress: Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
His campaign is
optimistic and emboldened with a clear mission: prove the senator's skeptics
wrong, and quash any lingering questions about his health and ability to serve
after his heart attack.
"In the
professional pundit class, in the elite media circles, there's been a strong
effort to discount Bernie Sanders: 'The movement is over, he can't succeed. He
doesn't have opportunities for him to grow, it's gonna end for him,' "
said Faiz Shakir, Sanders' campaign manager, paraphrasing what he sees as a
problematic narrative.
But Shakir
contends that the past week proves the pundits wrong.
"Sanders
has shown that he has the support and the stamina to stick around," he
said.
On Saturday,
the white septuagenarian was joined by perhaps the most well-known Latina in
politics, the 30-year-old Ocasio-Cortez — an alliance that countered the
"Bernie bro" caricature of his 2016 campaign. Ocasio-Cortez, a
darling of the progressive left, officially offered her stamp of approval to
the Vermont senator.
"For me,
the mass movement, mobilization and the decades of work that have gone into
that was a personal tipping point," Ocasio-Cortez told NPR's Michel Martin
on Weekend All Things Considered, explaining why she specifically supported
Sanders over a progressive woman in the field (such as Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren). "It's far larger than a presidential campaign; this is
about really creating a mass movement ... to guarantee health care, housing and
education."
PHOTOGRAPH -- Sanders
hugs Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during last Saturday's campaign rally in
Queens.
Eduardo Munoz
Alvarez/AP
RELATED: ELECTIONS
Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez Says Bernie Sanders' Heart Attack Was A 'Gut Check' Moment
Sanders and
Ocasio-Cortez were met in Queens by a crowd that campaign officials estimated
exceeded 25,000 people — a rally larger than any other Democratic candidate has
seen this campaign.
'A loyal,
strong base'
Sanders is not
the first presidential candidate in history to have had a heart attack. In
fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower had one in 1955, a year before he was reelected for
a second term.
But Sanders has
long been scrutinized for his age, and the moderators on the debate stage in
Ohio last week were eager to get a response from him on the record.
"I'm
healthy, I'm feeling great," Sanders quipped at one point, "but I
would like to respond to that question," he added, as he jumped into a
conversation about the opioid epidemic and drug companies.
Analysts and
experts agreed Sanders looked and sounded healthy onstage.
His positive
debate reviews came on the heels of new fundraising numbers that showed his campaign
had $33.7 million on hand at the end of the third fundraising quarter — more
cash than any of his Democratic opponents, and notably more than three times
as much money as former Vice President Joe Biden.
"If
history is any guide, don't count Sen. Sanders out, he is someone who I think
will be with us in this campaign for quite a while," said Karen Finney, a
Democratic strategist who worked for Hillary Clinton in 2016. "We know
that he's got a loyal, strong base of support."
Mark
Longabaugh, a Democratic consultant who worked on Sanders' campaign in 2016,
pointed out that part of the senator's fundraising advantage was his 2016
campaign operation.
"Just in a
technical sense he came into this race with by far the largest fundraising list
of any of the candidates," Longabaugh said. "And that was
underestimated by a lot of people."
For Finney and
Longabaugh, the main question is how and if Sanders can regain his standing in
the polls.
Even before his
heart attack, Sanders' poll numbers had begun dropping. And the conventional
wisdom was that the Democratic primary was winnowing down to a two-person
contest between Biden and Warren.
Shakir is
dismissive of the polls and insists they don't capture Sanders' full support,
but he also acknowledges that the senator has a steep path to the nomination.
"The path
for Bernie Sanders to win this nomination is arguably the hardest and most
ambitious path of any candidate," he said.
Why?
Because
Sanders' base of support comes from young and lower-income Americans —
people who usually vote at far lower rates than older and wealthier voters.
"He is
trying desperately hard to increase voter participation," Shakir said.
An urgency to
differentiate
Strategists say
it's not enough to have a strong debate performance or bring in lots of money
from devoted supporters. Sanders, they say, also has to figure out how to
blunt Warren's momentum.
One possible
option is to focus on progressive policy.
Sanders has
been trying to prove that he's the furthest-left candidate in the field.
For some of his
supporters, that strategy is particularly effective on health care. Sanders, as
he likes to point out, "wrote the damn bill" outlining a
"Medicare for All" system. Warren has endorsed his plan but, thus far,
has not laid out how she would pay for it.
PHOTOGRAPH -- Sanders
speaks at last Saturday's "Bernie's Back Rally" at Queensbridge Park
in New York.
Greg Allen/Greg
Allen/Invision/AP
"The
Medicare for All message has sort of been his bread and butter, and I think
that is still a powerful issue at the grassroots," Longabaugh said.
Longabaugh, who
is not working for Sanders this cycle, says part of the Vermont senator's
resiliency goes back to his consistency, particularly on health care.
Shakir says his
loyal support is also about trust.
"You just
trust that this is somebody who has a lifetime of consistency and that when he
gets into the Oval Office and he says he's gonna fight for Medicare for All,
he's gonna fight for Medicare for All," Shakir said. The indirect
assumption from Shakir's statement is that Warren, the other leading
progressive candidate in the field supporting Medicare for All, cannot be
trusted as much as Sanders to keep their [sic] word on the issue.
Sanders has
also attempted to outflank Warren on one of her signature campaign issues: a
wealth tax.
He recently
proposed a plan that goes even further than Warren's and, as our colleagues
at Planet Money pointed out, it "could have one large unintended
consequence: It makes Warren's wealth tax look moderate."
Sanders has
been hesitant to go after Warren directly. The two senators are friends and
allies in the Senate, but strategists say there is an urgency for Sanders to differentiate
himself soon. Time is running out before the all-important early states start
voting.
“… WITHHOLDING
FOOD FROM NEEDY PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDEREMPLOYED.” HOW PROUD OF HIMSELF TRUMP MUST
FEEL!
Published on
Wednesday,
December 25, 2019
byCommon Dreams
'Just About
Cruelty': Sanders and Tlaib Rip Trump 'Holiday Menu' of Gifts for the Rich and
Nutrition Cuts for the Poor
"Two years
after passing a $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and
large corporations, the Trump administration plans to strip 3.7 million
people of their nutrition benefits."
byJake Johnson,
staff writer
32 Comments
PHOTOGRAPH -- President
Donald Trump holds up an executive order to streamline the approval process for
GMO crops as Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue claps at the Southwest Iowa
Renewable Energy ethanol plant in Council Bluffs, Iowa on June 11, 2019.
(Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
The holiday
spirit of generosity is alive and well under the Trump administration—but only
for the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations.
As the rich
continue to benefit from massive tax breaks, President Donald Trump is
moving to slash federal nutrition assistance for millions of low-income
people in the United States, a move that would dramatically worsen America's
hunger crisis.
"We know
this is just about cruelty. We know that withholding food from needy people who
are underemployed only deepens the crisis of poverty in America."
—Rep. Rashida
Tlaib, Sen. Bernie Sanders
In a Christmas
Eve op-ed for The Guardian Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep.
Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) termed it "Trump's holiday menu: handouts for
billionaires, hunger for the poor."
"Just in
time for the holidays, Trump has finalized the first of three policies that
will make this disparity even more obscene," wrote Tlaib and Sanders, a
2020 Democratic presidential candidate. "Two years after passing a $1.5
trillion tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, the
Trump administration plans to strip 3.7 million people of their nutrition
benefits."
Earlier this
month, as Common Dreams reported, the Trump administration completed a rule
that would restrict states' power to exempt people without dependents from the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's (SNAP) work requirements. The
rule is set to take effect on April 1, 2020.
The proposal is
just one of several rule changes issued by the White House that, combined,
would slash nutrition assistance for millions of people. The Trump
administration's assault on SNAP has drawn widespread condemnation from rights
advocates and members of Congress.
"Republicans
defend this by saying that keeping people hungry will make them work harder.
But we know this is just about cruelty," said Sanders and Tlaib. "We
know that withholding food from needy people who are underemployed only deepens
the crisis of poverty in America."
Bernie Sanders
✔
@BernieSanders
As the new year
approaches, let us commit to fighting for a government and an economy that
works for the overwhelming majority of the people. That is how we will make
food security a human right in America.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/24/food-stamps-billionaires-nutrition-assistance-bernie-sanders-rashida-tlaib?CMP=share_btn_tw
…
2,790
10:50 AM - Dec
24, 2019
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
1,002 people
are talking about this
In addition to
fighting "as hard as we can against the Trump administration's savage
attack on nutrition assistance," Sanders and Tlaib said "we need
to go beyond that":
We must demand
that the ultra-wealthy finally start paying their fair share so we can dramatically
expand nutrition support. In the richest country in the history of the world,
we have a moral obligation to eradicate the hunger that more than 37 million of
our fellow Americans suffer every day.
We can start by
increasing nutrition assistance by $47 per person per month—that is the
shortfall between what low-income people need to prepare adequate meals and
what they get in benefits. We should also significantly increase the income
threshold for this program, so everyone who needs help gets it. We must
also guarantee that all schoolchildren get free breakfast and lunch at every
public school in America.
And we should
also lift the onerous conditions on what people can buy with nutrition
assistance.
"As the
new year approaches," Tlaib and Sanders concluded, "let us commit to
fighting for a government and an economy that works for the overwhelming
majority of the people. That is how we will make food security a human right in
America."
Our work is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to
republish and share widely.
This is the
world we live in. This is the world we cover.
THIS IS ANOTHER
OLDIE, BUT VERY INTERESTING – SAME MAN, SAME MESSAGE, BUT WITH A HINT BY
SANDERS ABOUT A PRESIDENTIAL RUN ON THE SUBJECT OF OUR OLIGARCHY.
Bernie Sanders
Asks Fed Chair Whether the US Is an Oligarchy
Janet Yellen
admits evidence of how inequality is “very worrisome.”
By John
NicholsTwitter MAY 7, 2014
PHOTOGRAPH -- Federal
Reserve Chair Janet Yellen. (AP Photo / Charles Dharapak)
If the US
Senate really is the world’s greatest deliberative body, it ought to
consider consequential questions. That does not happen often in a Senate
where trivia tends too frequently to triumph over issues of substance. But
Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, raised what might just be the most
substantial issue of all Wednesday, at a Joint Economic Committee hearing where
Federal Reserve board chair Janet Yellen was testifying.
The senator
began with the facts: “In the US today, the top 1 percent own about 38 percent
of the financial wealth of America. The bottom 60 percent own 2.3 percent. One
family, the Walton family, is worth over $140 billion; that’s more wealth than
the bottom 40 percent of the American people. In recent years, we have seen
a huge increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires, while we
continue to have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized
world. Despite, as many of my Republican friends talk about ‘the oppressive
Obama economic policies,’ in the last year Charles and David Koch struggled
under these policies and their wealth increased by $12 billion in one year.
In terms of income, 95 percent of new income generated in this country in
the last year went to the top 1 percent.“
Sanders then
introduced an academic study, by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, that
concludes, “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic
elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups
and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”
That sounds
like an oligarchy.
So Sanders
asked Yellen: “In your judgment, given the enormous power held by the
billionaire class and their political representatives, are we still a
capitalist democracy or have we gone over to an oligarchic form of society
in which incredible enormous economic and political power now rests with the
billionaire class?”
Yellen did not
answer “yes.” But she did say, “There’s no question that we’ve had a trend
toward growing inequality and I personally find it a very worrisome trend that
deserves the attention of policy makers.”
She also
expressed concern that trends toward growing inequality “can shape [and]
determine the ability of different groups to participate equally in a democracy
and have grave effects on social stability over time.”
Sanders asked
another question, as well: “There comes a point where the billionaire class has
so much political power, where the Koch brothers are now because of Citizens
United able to buy and sell politicians; they have so much political power, at
what point is that reversible?”
The senator did
not press Yellen for an answer to that question. And her responses to inquiries
about Republican proposals to cut the estate tax and otherwise steer wealth
upward suggested that the Fed chair believes Congress has policymaking duties
in this regard.
Ultimately,
questions about oligarchy come back to politics, something Sanders well
understands. He’s been arguing that core question regarding the
concentration of economic and political power need to be addressed not just by
politicians but by voters—with choices made in 2014 and 2016. As he
explained recently, “[This] country faces more serious problems than at any
time since the Great Depression, and there is a horrendous lack of serious
political discourse or ideas out there that can address these crises, and
that somebody has got to represent the working-class and the middle-class of
this country in standing up to the big-money interests who have so much
power over the economic and political life of this country.”
The issues are
so consequential, Sanders says, that he is thinking about mounting a
presidential campaign that would ask the American people whether they want to
live in an oligarchic form of society.
* Bernie
Sanders will join John Nichols is a conversation about economic policy and
politics Friday, May 9, at 7 pm, at the Free Churches of Northampton in
Northampton, Massachusetts. The event is free and open to the public.
John Nichols is
The Nation’s national-affairs correspondent and host of Next Left, The
Nation’s podcast where politics gets personal with rising progressive
politicians. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field
Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and
co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against
a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.
A JOBLESS
ECONOMY AND A CITIZENLESS DEMOCRACY
People Get
Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy
Hardcover – March 8, 2016
by Robert W
McChesney (Author), John Nichols (Author)
Humanity is on
the verge of its darkest hour—or its greatest moment
The
consequences of the technological revolution are about to hit hard:
unemployment will spike as new technologies replace labor in the manufacturing,
service, and professional sectors of an economy that is already struggling. The
end of work as we know it will hit at the worst moment imaginable: as
capitalism fosters permanent stagnation, when the labor market is in decrepit
shape, with declining wages, expanding poverty, and scorching inequality. Only
the dramatic democratization of our economy can address the existential
challenges we now face. Yet, the US political process is so dominated by
billionaires and corporate special interests, by corruption and monopoly, that
it stymies not just democracy but progress.
The great
challenge of these times is to ensure that the tremendous benefits of
technological progress are employed to serve the whole of humanity, rather
than to enrich the wealthy few. Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols argue that
the United States needs a new economy in which revolutionary technologies
are applied to effectively address environmental and social problems and used
to rejuvenate and extend democratic institutions. Based on intense
reporting, rich historical analysis, and deep understanding of the
technological and social changes that are unfolding, they propose a bold
strategy for democratizing our digital destiny—before it's too late—and
unleashing the real power of the Internet, and of humanity.
ANOTHER ONE FROM
FOX
Published 3
hours ago, DECEMBER 25, 2019
Sanders
campaign hits Buttigieg for 'gimmick' contest to lower average donation amount
By Joseph A.
Wulfsohn | Fox News
VIDEO – ROAD TO
2020
Vermont Sen.
Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign slammed South Bend, Ind., Mayor
Pete Buttigieg for what it called a "gimmick" for help lower its
average campaign contribution amount by the end of the year.
It came amid
new attack lines from various Democrats seeking the White House, claiming some
of their rivals were seeking too many campaign contributions from the wealthy.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called out Buttigieg during last week's debate
for holding a recent fundraiser at a California "wine cave," adding,
"Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the
United States." Buttigieg fired back by saying he was the only candidate on
the stage who was neither a millionaire nor a billionaire, telling Warren,
"this is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself
pass."
On Tuesday
evening, the Pete for America Innovation Team sent out an email to
supporters launching a "contest" in which the person donating the
smallest unique amount would win a prize.
"All you
have to do to win is donate the smallest amount that nobody else donates,"
the email read. "In other words, suppose you donate $1.00. If someone else
playing also donated exactly $1, you both lose. We'll see if only one player
donated $1.01 and so on until we find an amount donated exactly once, and
that's our winner."
The email added
that "multiple donations are allowed" and that "hopefully, this
is a fun way to contribute" to the campaign.
DNC RAISES
EYEBROWS FOR SNUBBING TULSI GABBARD FROM 2020 'UNITY' AD FEATURING OTHER
CANDIDATES
Tim Tagaris, a
campaign adviser for Sanders I-Vt., mocked Buttigieg's efforts.
"The Pete
for America Innovation Team out there working hard on Christmas Eve coming up
with gimmicks to lower his average donation amount this quarter. Funny
stuff," Tagaris tweeted. "This is so transparently hilarious. Wow,
his average donation was lower this quarter... it’s a Christmas miracle!"
Tim Tagaris
✔
@ttagaris
The Pete for
America Innovation Team out there working hard on Christmas Eve coming up with
gimmicks to lower his average donation amount this quarter. Funny stuff.
Tim Tagaris
✔
@ttagaris
Replying to
@ttagaris
This is so
transparently hilarious. Wow, his average donation was lower this quarter...
it’s a Christmas miracle!
1,417
8:19 PM - Dec
24, 2019
Twitter Ads
info and privacy
105 people are
talking about this
The Buttigieg
campaign did not immediately respond.
Joseph A.
Wulfsohn is a media reporter for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter
@JosephWulfsohn.
A GREETING FROM
THE SANDERS HOUSEHOLD
Bernie Sanders
Verified
account
@BernieSanders
Follow Follow
@BernieSanders
More
Wishing a
peaceful and merry Christmas from myself, Jane, and our family to all those who
are celebrating.
7:59 AM - 25
Dec 2019
1,934
Retweets22,425 Likes
New
conversation
kyle jones
@KyleLovesBernie
10h10 hours ago
Replying to
@BernieSanders
Merry Christmas
to our next President Bernie Sanders and First Lady Jane Sanders.
10 replies33
retweets355 likes
Reply 10
Retweet 33 Like 355
VIDEOS
CHRIS MATTHEWS
ACTUALLY CUT MICHAEL MOORE OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF A SENTENCE, OR MAYBE THE CENSORS
DID IT. HE’S A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT HIMSELF, SO MAYBE IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. WHATEVER
THE CASE, IT IS RIDICULOUS AND OBNOXIOUS. OF COURSE, CHRIS MATTHEWS IS FAIRLY
OFTEN OBNOXIOUS. HE’S LIKE THE CNN LEGAL LADY NANCY GRACE AND THE INIMITABLE
JUDGE JUDY. THEY GET BIG MONEY FOR DOING THAT.
HARDBALL
Michael Moore
says Bernie Sanders can beat Trump in 2020
SHARE THIS - COPIED
Filmmaker
Michael Moore joins Hardball and gives his take on the 2020 race and who can
beat Trump.
Dec. 24, 2019
IT’S FUNNY HOW
THE VIEWER APPROVAL AND DISAPPROVAL RATES ARE THE OPPOSITE ON FOX TO THOSE ON
PROGRESSIVE SITES.
Ocasio-Cortez
says it would 'be an honor' to be Bernie Sanders' VP
14,680 views •
Dec 24, 2019
THUMBS UP 427
THUMBS DOWN 1K
IMPOUNDMENT
CONTROL ACT
RACHEL MADDOW
New evidence
shows fears about legality of Trump Ukraine scheme
SHARE THIS -
COPIED
Ali Velshi
reports on e-mails newly revealed by the Center for Public Integrity
showing Trump administration officials showing concern about the legality of
Donald Trump's hold on congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine.
Dec. 23, 2019
WISCONSIN JUDGE
SAYS STATE MUST PURGE 200,000 FROM ROLLS
RACHEL MADDOW
Democrats
strategize against renewed GOP vote suppression efforts
SHARE THIS -
COPIED
Ben Wikler,
chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party talks about how the party is
strategizing to counter a massive purge of Wisconsin voter rolls and to energize
turnout against Republican discouragement.
Dec. 23, 2019
*
A
VERY
MERRY
CHRISTMAS
TO
YOU
AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
**** ****
**** ****
Comments
Post a Comment