Friday, February 12, 2016

Bernie, the Socialist, Says Everything is Free! Is He Right?

Easy-Cheesy Socialist and Free College Degrees
But don’t take my word for it, vote for Bernie Sanders or his Democrat Alinsky-style adversary, and you shall “Feel the Bern” while you stand in line in sub-zero temperatures to get your “free” welfare rations
By  Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh -- Bio and Archives 
February 12, 2016
“It is a socialist idea that making profits is a vice. I consider the real vice is making losses.”  – Winston Churchill
Because I lived the utopian nightmare of socialism/communism, I think I am qualified to explain the big lie to the young men and women who dreamily and robotically applaud the socialist candidate, Bernie Sanders, for his promise of handouts and especially of free college education.
I am sure, the young Americans, many with worthless, easy-cheesy social work and racial/gender studies degrees and some with worthy college degrees, who find themselves unemployed, will be happy to know that, under Bernie’s mega trillions economic plan, they will find themselves unemployed for free, no college debt. They will “Feel the Bern” of socialism and rejoice in it.
Education, like medical care, was free, but it came with huge strings attached and it was not worth much because the pay was equal, regardless of effort. And you had to go where the government decided to send you in order to pay back your indebtedness to government. Nothing was free, just because they said it was free, it was basic economics, even though socialists called it something else.
If you were an educator, you had to teach in a small and remote village without roads, running water, and electricity, housed in some primitive home with a thatched roof. If you were a doctor, you had to practice for years in a far-away community who had never seen a nurse in their lives or the inside of a hospital.
To get to your assigned post, you had to travel the last leg of your trip in an oxen-pulled wagon.  If you were an engineer, you had to go by train to different locations around the country where the dear leader was building his latest megalomaniacal projects. Nobody ate for free! You had to work, even if it was just sweeping streets, planting trees, weeding the fields, gathering crops, or digging ditches. Nobody was too educated for menial labor.
Before you were able to enter the university, you had to pass the muster of many examination boards, starting in middle school and college. If your grades were good, that was not enough; your communist pedigree and activism had to equally match your academic performance. If your parents were not members in good standing with the communist party and licked their boots, it did not matter how smart you were or how perfect your grades were. Your chance of getting in was slim to none. On the other hand, students who barely passed in high school but were children of prominent communist party leaders got in first. Membership in the communist elite had its privileges.
Free Castro-style medical care was one of the staples of socialism but it came with rationing of care, unqualified personnel, bribes to be seen on time or first, rationing of drugs, empty pharmacy shelves, and early and unnecessary death at the hands of uncaring and half-baked doctors and atrocious hospital conditions.
You should ask yourselves, if socialist health care is so great, why do Hollywood elites and wealthy foreigners seek treatment for their serious illnesses at the best hospitals money can buy in the United States? Why are they not going to Cuba? Michael Moore spoke non-stop about the superiority of Castro’s medical care when compared to our evil capitalist healthcare.
Did we get free cable? Not really, we got two channels daily and one educational channel at certain hours. And we had to pay every month voluntarily. Inspectors would show up unannounced randomly to check our passbook to make sure all the payment stamps were in order for both TV and radio subscriptions. Nobody got to listen to the dear leader’s Pinocchio speeches for free or to classical music.
We did get subsidized housing because salaries were so equally low. It wasn’t much space, 300-400 square feet, the size of a nice hotel room today, but it was in brand-new, concrete block apartments, with wonderful stairs we had to take turns to sweep and mop, and no elevators. The proletariat needed a good workout every day, going up and down.
Not only will you not get a free Prius or Smart Car, you will be lucky to ride the public transportation for a subsidized fee. We got to ride on buses with subsidized fares, or we could walk as far as our feet could carry us. Biking was a daredevil’s adventure – many riders and pedestrians were run over by cars and buses. Life was pretty worthless in those times. Offenders still went to jail though.  And bikes disappeared before you could say “stolen.”
Dormitories looked like army barracks, with walls peeling paint like a bad manicure, and furnished with WWII-like era beds with chicken wire. University cafeterias served the standard fare, cabbage or soup with a few pieces of meat floating on top and plenty of cooking with rapeseed oil and garlic to drown the lack of taste. Bread was plentiful, hard as a rock, and difficult to chew.
We got to go to the movies in a large group for one leu a viewing because we were so poor. It was the commie’s way to pacify the oppressed and throw them a bone once in a while in the form of subsidized movies, a concert, or a play. Only the elites could afford such entertainment on a regular basis.
For those of you young and entitled Americans who like the idea of anything free, especially marijuana clinics, rest-assured that, under communism, you will be put in jail for any drug use and they will lose the key forever.
There was plenty of booze and cigarettes but income was so equally low, you had to give up other important staples in order to buy them. You could drown your miserable life and sorrow in cheap vodka or home-made “tzuica” and darken your lungs with economical “Marasesti” cigarettes. It is still quite fashionable to smoke all over Europe today. You cannot look cool and sophisticated without a lit cigarette and a cup of very bitter and thick coffee.
But don’t take my word for it, vote for Bernie Sanders or his Democrat Alinsky-style adversary, and you shall “Feel the Bern” while you stand in line in sub-zero temperatures to get your “free” welfare rations.
For all my “free” education I received under communism, I had to pay the state back the sum they decided it was worth, once I left the country to live free in the United States. Why should the “capitalist pigs and spies” benefit from my excellent communist education?
Freedom has a heavy price but young people are mesmerized by the empty words of current communists because they never studied their history or forgot what little they did know and are now going to repeat it, with disastrous results.
And those of you who are so accustomed to smart phones, iPad, iPhone, blackberries, laptops, and other gadgets, Smart Cars, your expensive bikes, remember that equal and meager pay will not buy you such luxuries. And, if you are on welfare and the government is providing them, they can be taken away just as easily as they are given.
Look at the “free” healthcare you are now getting under ObamaCare for a hefty monthly premium, huge deductions, and large fines for non-compliance (in 2016, $695 or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater), if you are lucky to find a physician who will accept your worthless government insurance, or find a qualified specialist within your area. Stories of the victims of such socialist healthcare are beginning to filter through the Internet.
The fact that Stalinists, Leninists, and Bolsheviks cannot possibly deliver on any of their promises is exemplified by Dr. Aurel Mircea, a medical doctor, who grew up under communism and eventually fled to freedom in the United States.
“The founders of European Socialism, the Marxist-Leninist scholars, all a bunch of ideologues without the slightest experience in job-creation, advocated free education from k-12 and college. When the communist economies held a tight grip on the people’s lives, the slogan promulgated all over was “Social Equality.” Sure, by then, everybody was equally miserable and poor. As far as the education was concerned, everyone was equally brainwashed and forced to accept revised history, junk science, fabricated political data, and submission to the rules of the Proletarian Dictatorship. The trend still continues to this day, all over the word, shrewdly disguised as new democracies and social justice.”
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education. Visit her website,
Dr. Johnson can be reached at:
Financial Scandals Follow Socialist Millionaire Sanders
By Cliff Kincaid
February 6, 2016
Responding to one of Anderson Cooper’s softball questions, socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told the CNN Town Hall on Wednesday night that he lives a frugal life and indicated that he doesn’t care about money or status. “I have a small Chevrolet,” he said. “It is one of the smallest Chevys that they make.” He said it was about five years old.
But James O’Brien, a political consultant and former publisher of Campaigns & Elections magazine, says the career politician, who has been a mayor, member of Congress and U.S. senator, has achieved the financial status of a millionaire.
O’Brien has analyzed the financial status of Sanders and his wife, including their financial disclosure report, and has concluded they have a net worth in the range of $1.2 to $1.5 million, not the $700,000 or less that is usually reported by the media.
Rather than “Feel the Bern,” the phrase associated with popular support for the self-declared “democratic socialist,” O’Brien says that Sanders is personally “Feelin’ the Wealth.”
Equally significant, his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, left her position as president of Burlington College under controversial circumstances and is now being accused of federal bank fraud. She left her position at the college and was given a severance package known as a “golden parachute” that also benefited Senator Sanders’ personal wealth.
Brady C. Toensing, a partner with the law firm of diGenova & Toensing, has filed a legal complaint with federal authorities requesting an investigation into apparent federal bank fraud committed by Ms. Sanders. His complaint was sent to Eric S. Miller, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Vermont, and Fred W. Gibson, Jr., Acting Inspector General with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
A Sanders spokesman told the Burlington Free Press that the complaint was an effort to throw mud at the presidential candidate.
O’Brien says that Sanders’ financial disclosure forms are incomplete. “For someone who doesn’t care about money, he goes a long way to cover up his true net worth,” he says. “Bernie does not disclose the value of real estate holdings. He can. He is not required to, but he could if he chose. It is known that he and/or his wife own at least two homes—one with rental income in Vermont and one near Capitol Hill where the median home value is $722,000.”
O’Brien bases his conclusions about Sanders’ millionaire status on what is known and can be estimated about his salary, the income of his wife, joint income, investments, pension, and value of his real estate properties.
On top of this, O’Brien notes that Sanders benefits from a multi-million dollar U.S. Senate staff and a multi-million dollar U.S. presidential campaign staff.
In addition to the questions about his real net worth, Jane Sanders’ exit from Burlington College continues to generate controversy, even scandal. She was president of the college from 2004 until 2011.
Federal officials have acknowledged the complaint about Jane Sanders from attorney Brady C. Toensing, but they won’t say whether they are going forward with an investigation.
Although Senator Sanders frequently complains about the “corporate media” that are supposed to have a bias against his candidacy, the necessary task of digging into the finances of his wife has been left to the conservative media and some local Vermont news organizations.
At the very least—as noted by Bruce Parker, a Vermont reporter for—Senator Sanders should be asked to explain how his opposition to severance packages for corporation executives squares with his wife getting a cushy severance of $200,000.
In a story headlined, “Bernie Sanders’ Wife May Have Defrauded State Agency, Bank,” reporters Blake Neff and Peter Fricke of the conservative Daily Caller News Foundation reported the essential facts of the case, noting that she nearly bankrupted Burlington College when she took on $10 million in debt to finance the purchase of a new, far more expansive campus. “The move backfired massively, leading to Sanders’ departure from the college and the near-collapse of the institution,” Neff and Fricke report.
By any standard of fair and objective news reporting, a candidate who promises “free college” to America’s young people should be asked to address the issue of his wife’s financial shenanigans almost bankrupting an institution of higher learning. But it hasn’t been raised in the debates.
At one point it was reported that Burlington College was fighting for its very survival. “As a result of its financial woes, Burlington College is on academic probation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges,” reported, a statewide news website, in 2014.
VT Digger confirmed the nefarious role played by Jane Sanders, noting that she “overstated donation amounts in a bank application for a $6.7 million loan that was used by the college to purchase a prime 33-acre property on Lake Champlain in 2010.” Jane Sanders “resigned under pressure from the Burlington College board of trustees nearly a year after obtaining the multi-million dollar loan,” the site reported. “After both sides lawyered up, the board gave Sanders the title of president emeritus and a $200,000 severance package.”
A Republican activist named Skip Vallee produced a 60-second television advertisement entitled, “Bernie’s Golden Parachute,” describing the nature of the $200,000 severance package and making the point that while Sanders was planning a presidential run “on a theme of railing against golden parachutes and excesses” on Wall Street, he took “his own golden parachute” through his wife’s curious dealings with the cash-strapped college.
The ad features the “S” in Sanders in the shape of a dollar sign and shows Sanders saying the rich in America “manipulate a rigged system” and benefit from “golden parachutes.”
On top of this scandal, The Washington Free Beacon has reported that Senator Sanders used campaign money to benefit members of his family, and that Jane Sanders directed six-figure sums from Burlington College to her daughter and the son of a family friend.
“Getting money out of politics” is one of the planks in Sanders’ presidential campaign platform.
© 2016 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues. One of Cliff's books, "Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World" is still awailable.
Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.
Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc.
Democratic Candidate Bernie Sanders and Wife Sent Money to Some Questionable Causes
By Kelsey Rupp
January, 2016

On October 24, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa.  (Getty - Scott Olson)
Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s anti-corruption image is getting some pushback with a new investigation into the family’s use of finances.
Lachlan Markay at The Washington Free Beacon notes, in an investigation published Wednesday, that Sanders and his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, have:
“On numerous occasions steered money from organizations under their control to friends and family members, public records show.”
The first instance noted is when Sanders’s House campaigns paid O’Meara Sanders $90,000 for consulting and ad placement services from 2002 to 2004. About $30,000 stayed with O’Meara Sanders as compensation.
During that same time frame, O’Meara Sanders’s daughter, the presidential candidate’s step-daughter, was paid more than $65,000 for her work on the campaign.
CHICAGO, IL - AUGUST 17: Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) gets a kiss from his wife Jane Sanders before speaking at a meet-and-greet fundraising reception at the Park West on August 17, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois. Sanders' visit to Chicago follows a campaign trip to Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Image Credit: Scott Olson/Getty
The Sanders campaign did not return Independent Journal’s request for comment.
Markay further noted:
“After working for the campaign, the senator’s wife would come under scrutiny for expenditures at Burlington College, where she was hired as president in 2004. While she led the school, it paid six-figure sums to her daughter and the son of a family friend.”
“Burlington College offered its students a study abroad program in the Caribbean, according to tax filings. It reported spending about $47,000 on that program in the tax year beginning in mid-2008.”
At that time, the son of a Burlington College board member who served with Sanders in the Burlington city government purchased a small resort in the Bahamas.
Burlington College began paying Jonathan Leopold, the owner of the resort, for all-inclusive stays for its study abroad students. From 2009 through 2011 it paid the resort about $68,000, according to annual tax filings.
The payments stopped the year O’Meara Sanders resigned.
(Image Credit: Darren McCollester/Getty)
MANCHESTER, NH - NOVEMBER 29: Supporters hold signs for Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders outside the Radisson Hotel before the Jefferson Jackson Dinner November 29, 2015 in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Under O’Meara Sanders’s tenure as president of Burlington College, and for a single year after her departure, the school also paid more than $500,000 to the Vermont Woodworking School, which was run by their daughter Driscoll.
Even O’Meara Sanders’s departure from Burlington College was a source of controversy.
Local reporting highlighted by Markay notes that the former college president overstated pledged donations in a loan application. O’Meara Sanders used a $6.7 million loan to expand the college by purchasing a 33-acre property on Lake Champlain from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington.
The school also used a loan from the diocese to pay for the property.
O’Meara Sanders resigned from the college in 2011 after reaching a settlement with the Board of Trustees, which voted to negotiate an early exit package. Her future contract negotiations stalled over questions about her plans and fundraising.
Sanders is polling at 32% in the Real Clear Politics polling average. He trails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is at 53.3%.
Bernie Sanders' Single-Payer Health Care Plan Would Increase Federal Spending By At Least $28 Trillion
Jan 18, 2016
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders participates in the NBC News -YouTube Democratic Candidates Debate on January 17, 2016 at the Gaillard Center in Charleston, South Carolina.. / AFP / TIMOTHY A. CLARY (Photo credit should read TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)
On Sunday, January 17—hours before the Democratic presidential debate on NBC—Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders released details of his proposal to replace the entire U.S. health care system with a universal, government-run, single-payer one. “Twenty-nine million Americans today still do not have health insurance,” said Sanders in a white paper published on his campaign website. “We must…achieve the goal of universal health care.” Sanders also published an analysis indicating that his plan would increase federal spending by at least 55 percent, reigniting the debate about whether single-payer health care is worth the money.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Spar On Health Care | MSNBC
Berniecare’s core concept: Free health care for everyone
In recent days, Hillary Clinton has criticized Sanders on health care policy. Clinton has claimed that Sanders’ single-payer plan would dismantle Obamacare, forcing Democrats to “start over again” and “set us back.” Her campaign has pressed Sanders for details on how his plan would work. Hence Sanders’ new publications.
In Sanders’ eight-page campaign white paper, entitled “Medicare for All,” the self-described “democratic socialist” outlines his plan’s core principles.
The plan would effectively abolish the private health insurance industry, including companies like UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, and Anthem. It would charge the government with designing and administering a universal, comprehensive insurance product that would cover “the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments.”
Berniecare would also abolish cost-sharing by patients; i.e., no co-pays, deductibles, or coinsurance payments, and minimal premiums. “No more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges,” says Sanders.
While Sanders bills his plan as “Medicare for all,” it bears little resemblance to Medicare, which does in fact require premiums and cost-sharing from its enrollees, though this cost-sharing is heavily subsidized by younger taxpayers.
In addition, Medicare does not cover every category of health care service, nor does it cover catastrophic health care needs. As Ezra Klein notes, “The list of what Sanders’s plan would cover far exceeds what Medicare offers, suggesting, more or less, that pretty much everything will be covered, under all circumstances.”
Berniecare would increase total federal spending by at least 55%
Warren Gunnels, Sanders’ policy director, retained Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, to come up with a fiscal score of the Sanders plan. Friedman estimates that the plan would require $13.8 trillion in new government spending in the decade spanning 2017 through 2026. But that estimate is misleading, for reasons I’ll outline below.
(Bear with me; this section and the next one have a lot of numbers.)
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that national health care spending from 2017–26 will approximate $47.4 trillion. $13.6 trillion of that is spent by the federal government and $8.4 trillion by state and local government; the remainder is spent directly by private businesses ($9.2 trillion) and individuals ($12.8 trillion).
Friedman, the UMass economist, believes that the Sanders plan will reduce national health care spending by $6.3 trillion, presumably by some combination of rationing care and government price controls, though these aren’t specified. Sanders misleadingly implies that his plan wouldn’t require rationing (“No more fighting with insurance companies”), but a footnote in the Friedman memo indicates that Berniecare would fail to cover “20% of out-of-pocket spending” because it is “deemed not medically necessary.”
Since Berniecare would replace the entirety of the existing U.S. health care system with a new single-payer one, Friedman projects its total cost to be $40.9 trillion from 2017 to 2026, and argues that the plan would raise enough in taxes to cover $13.7 trillion in new government spending.
But Friedman ignores a critical fact: a big chunk of today’s government health care spending is undertaken by states and localities, not the federal government.
As a result, even by Friedman’s own optimistic projections about what single-payer health care could save, Berniecare would increase federal spending by $28.3 trillion over ten years. If Friedman is wrong, and the plan fails to reduce the growth of health care spending, it would result in $32.7 trillion in new federal spending.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that total federal spending from 2017 to 2026, under current law, will exceed $51 trillion. So, under Friedman’s rosy scenario, Sanders’ health care plan would increase federal spending by an astounding 55 percent. If the promised savings fail to materialize, it would increase federal spending by 64 percent—or more.
Such a plan would, of course, be a boon to the budgets of states and localities, who would be freed from the need to pay for health insurance through programs like Medicaid. But there would be no guarantee that Americans would see those savings in the form of lower taxes. Indeed, in most cases, states would be likely to keep the money and spend it on other priorities.
At least $14 trillion in new taxes, deficits
Berniecare would partially pay for that $28.3 trillion in new federal spending by raising $13.9 trillion in new taxes. The plan would impose a new 6.2 percent payroll tax, raising $6.3 trillion. It would levy a 2.2 percent “income-based premium” on U.S. households, raising $2.1 trillion.
Berniecare would raise income taxes, taxes on capital gains and dividends, estate taxes, and cap tax deductions, raising another $2.4 trillion. Because the plan would replace employer-sponsored insurance with government-run health insurance, it would reap $3.1 trillion in new taxes from the workforce: a kind of super-charged Cadillac tax.
In sum, if Friedman is right that Berniecare could reduce the growth of national health spending, the plan would “only” increase the deficit by $14.4 trillion. If Friedman is wrong, the plan could increase the deficit by nearly $19 trillion.
And Friedman is almost certainly wrong. It’s far more likely that once Berniecare made virtually every health care service free to the consumer, that health care spending would go up, not down. Furthermore, the $14 trillion in new taxes would hammer the economy, leading to less federal revenue and greater deficits.
Kudos to Sanders for putting numbers on paper
Bernie Sanders’ single-payer fantasy will never happen. Even when Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate—a filibuster-proof majority—they couldn’t enact single-payer health care. It’s hard to imagine Democrats regaining a 60-seat majority anytime soon, let alone control of the House of Representatives.
But even 60 Democratic senators would face massive resistance if they attempted to increase federal deficits by $14 trillion—or more—by imposing single-payer health care.
So we owe Bernie Sanders and Gerald Friedman a measure of thanks. By unintentionally pointing out the utter foolishness of single-payer, government-run health care in America, they’ve given us more impetus to think about how we could make the health care system better—and expand access to more people—by putting individuals back in charge of their own health care dollars.
*   *   *
UPDATE: I’ve slightly tweaked the above calculations using updated figures from the Congressional Budget Office’s 2016 Budget and Economic Outlook. John Goodman points out that if the point of single-payer is to save money through price controls, you don’t have to impose single-payer: just a price-control law. Ryan Ellis elaborates on the impact of Sanders’ proposal to hike the estate tax. Chris Conover estimates that Sanders’ open bar-style plan—free health care for everyone with weak rationing—would require $44 trillion in new federal spending over a decade, not $28 trillion. His chart is below.
FOLLOW @Avik on Twitter, Google+, and YouTube, and The Apothecary on Facebook. Or, sign up to receive a weekly e-mail digest of articles from The Apothecary.
Bernie Sanders is also a thief, even though only a piker compared to Hillary
By Doug Book, editor
January 18, 2016
After she left the White House, “Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.”
Of course that was petty larceny compared with the countless millions the Clinton’s have amassed during the Pay to Play years of the Clinton Foundation. What follows is a disturbing example of theft-by-political-clout.
Between 2009 and 2013, the Russian atomic energy agency Rosatom purchased Uranium One, “…a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.” According to a New York Times article, the Canadian owners of the company had been heavy donors to the Clinton Foundation during the sale process. And why would the Chairman of Uranium One donate $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation; money which was not publicly disclosed by the Clintons “…despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors?”
According to NY Times contributors Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, the reason for the donations was obvious. They write of the Uranium One sale:
“Being a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies HILLARY ACCOMPLISHMENTS that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
The purchase of Uranium One gave Russia control of 1/5th of the world’s uranium production. But of course, sufficient millions had been donated to the Clinton Foundation piggy bank to render the treason involved tolerable to a former President and serving Secretary of State.
As the New York Times puts it, “…the Clinton Foundation [was] headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer HILLARY BROKE 2American foreign policy as secretary of state.”
If Hillary is a first rate thief and traitor, Bernie Sanders is, by comparison, just a “poor corrupt official.”
According to the Washington Free Beacon, Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane O’MeaBERNIE SANDERS 3ra Sanders, “On numerous occasions steered money from organizations under their control to friends and family members, public records show.”
For example: Sanders paid his wife $90,000 for “consulting and ad placement services” during a number of his House campaigns.
In addition:
• Sanders step-daughter (his wife’s daughter) collected $65,000 for her work on Bernie’s campaigns.
• “After working for the campaign, the senator’s wife would come under scrutiny for expenditures at Burlington College, where she was hired as president in 2004. While she led the school, it paid six-figure sums to her daughter and the son of a family friend.”
• The son of a Burlington College Board member who served with Mrs. Sanders in the Burlington city govt. bought a small resort in the Bahamas. Mrs. Sanders, as President of the college, paid the BERNIE SANDERS 7young man’s resort $68,000 between 2009-2011 for the stays of College “study abroad” students. All payments from the college stopped when Mrs. Sanders resigned her position.
• During her tenure as president, Burlington College paid $500,000 to the Vermont Woodworking School. The school was operated by the Sanders’ daughter, Driscoll.
• While school president, Mrs. Sanders overstated pledged donations to the school in a loan application to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. The school purchased 33 acres from the Diocese with a $6.7 million loan from the Diocese!
Jane O’Meara Sanders received a $200,000 parting gift from the Burlington College, probably because it was cheaper than keeping her on!
Mrs. Sanders “resigned from the college in 2011 after reaching a settlement with the Board of Trustees, which voted to negotiate an early exit package. Her future contract negotiations stalled over questions about her plans and fundraising.” Imagine that.
Bernie and Jane are apparently not possessed of the power necessary to steal the millions Bill and Hillary have gotten away with. But then Bernie is not a former president and God willing, never shall be.
Aren’t Socialists supposed to give rather than take?

Gold Sacks Goldman Sachs
Published on Feb 18, 2016
The Peter Schiff Show Podcast - Episode 144
Sign up for my free newsletter:
Peter Schiff Gold News: