A Nation Out of Balance: Wealth Inequality in America

Did you know that the top 400 richest individuals in America are worth a combined $4.5 trillion dollars? Of those, the top four are worth about $1.9 trillion dollars. Do you think you have what it takes? Just to make it into the top 400 you'll need a minimum net worth of $300 billion dollars. In addition, the top 20 are worth 30% more than they were this time last year. So, who are these modern day descendents of King Midas?

The top five wealthiest individuals are Elon Musk ($180b) at the top, followed by Jeff Bezos ($114b), Bill Gates (135.8b), Larry Ellison ($119.5b), and Mark Zuckerberg ($117.5). Zuckerberg is also the youngest at 39. Warren Buffet is the 7th richest person and Charles Koch ($54.2b), the villain of liberals everywhere, is 17th. Julia Koch ($54.2b), widow of Charles' brother, David, is 18th, making her one of the wealthiest women in the world.  

As an aside, these are the richest individuals in America. Globally, Bernard Arnault of France is the second wealthiest person, behind Musk with a net worth of roughly $174 billion. The balance of the list is the same, making the top 9 out of 10 richest Americans.

Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg ($69b), the bane of conservatives, is actually much richer, clocking in at 10th place.  Of course, these figures are approximate. By the time it took just to type the figures, they already grew several hundred thousands of dollars. And for those who like to gloat, former President, Donald Trump, is no longer among the top 400 wealthiest. According to Forbes, "The Donald's" wealth has dropped from $3.2 billion to $2.6 billion. While that puts him about $300 million dollars shy of the top 400, I doubt Melania is having to clip coupons.

But what about us ordinary Americans? How do we stack up? As of 2022, the "official" poverty rate in the United States was 11.5% or around 37.9 million people. The number of children living in poverty as of 2022 was 12.4%, up from 5.2% in 2021. However, the actual poverty rate of Americans is much higher, especially when you consider that 49% of Americans are dependent in some matter on government services. That translates to roughly $1.19 trillion dollars or 20% of the federal budget.   

Historically it's been the middle class which has provided the economic and social structure to society. The middle class provides the overall stability which keeps capitalist democracies afloat. Ideally, a society should have a relatively small upper class and a small lower class with a large center. However, that's not the case anymore.

In 1971, 61% of Americans were middle class. By 2021, it was just over 49%.  To make matters worse, those in the upper third of the middle class dropped significantly to middle income while many of those previously in middle portion either remained the same or dropped into the lower middle class, thus making the lower middle class the largest of all the economic classes.

Minorities, which had struggled for decades to reach a middle or upper middle class lifestyle (reaching their zenith in the 1980's) have dropped to middle or lower middle income. The decline of the middle class coincided with the closure of factories and exportation of good paying, and mostly union jobs overseas in the name of improving shareholder profitability and staving off corporate raiders.  

The decline of the middle also coincided with growth of the lower class which increased to 25% of the population (some studies put the figure closer to 29%). Of that 13% were classified as "working poor" while 12% were defined as "underclass". Note that none of this takes into consideration those who are under employed or have simply given up looking for employment.

I should also mention that the rate of homelessness has also grown along with the decline of the middle class. Currently 22% of the homeless are categorized as "chronic", meaning they are unable to be find regular shelter. 5% of the homeless have children with them (defined as those under age 25).  6% of the homeless are veterans. The majority of homeless, 21.5%, are men. 13.3% are women.  

When we take a look at wages, the situation becomes more dire. As of 2022, the average company CEO made a whooping 670 times more than the average employee---not the lowest paid employee mind you, but the middle income earning employee. That means for every dollar the average employee earns, the CEO gets $670. In 2021, that ratio was 399-to-1. By 1989, it was 59-to-1, and in 1965 CEO's made $29 dollars for every dollar the average employee made. 

Between 1979 and 2022, the pay of senior company executives went up 1209.02% while the average worker's compensation went up 15.3%. It's worth noting that since 1975, prices overall have increased by 361.41%, or to rephrase it by saying that it would take $5.72 in 2022 to buy the same amount a dollar in 1975 would. Thus when adjusted for inflation, the purchasing power of a dollar relative the rise in wages, which helps to explain, at least partially, the decline of the middle class.

When we look at the situation globally, the picture is much the same. The upper 10% take home 52% of the income while the poorest 50% has just 8%. In terms of overall wealth, the top 10% control 85% of all wealth while the bottom 90% control 15% with the poorest segment owning a mere 2%. The top 1% control 50% of the world's wealth.  

Compare that with the U.S. where, according to the Federal Reserve, as of 2021, the top 1% controlled 32.3% of the total wealth while the bottom 50% controlled just 2.5%. As of the end of the second quarter of 2023, the Federal Reserve said that the top 10% control 69% of the total wealth while the lowest 50% had just 2.5%. The top 1% controlled just over 1/4 of the total wealth in the U.S..  

Globally speaking, the United States has the fifth worse level of income inequality out of the top 35 industrialized nations. Only Bulgaria, Turkey, Mexico, and Costa Rica were worse off. The U.S. also still had the highest disparity between CEOs and workers by a large margin. The next closest was Switzerland where the wage disparity between CEO's and workers was 148%, followed by Germany at 147% and Spain at 127%.

As an aside, it should be pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the growing wage disparity since senior executives continued to receive their full compensation while the majority of the workforce was at home receiving next to nothing beyond unemployment and a couple of small government handouts (aka "stimulus checks").  

Also don't forget about their considerable investments in pharmaceuticals,  healthcare, and medical research. During the pandemic, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and six other billionaires made $360 billion dollars during the deadly outbreak. 

From March 5, 2020 through March 5, 2021, the height of the pandemic, Elon Musk's wealth increased by $118 billion dollars. Jeff Bezos saw an increase of $58 billion while Larry Paige and Sergey Brin saw their wealth grow by $33 and $32 billion dollars respectively. Mark Zuckerberg's portfolio increased by $29 billion, while Larry Ellison's grew by $28 billion. Bill Gate's financial worth blossomed by $24 billion. Two other billionaires, Steve Ballmer and Michael Dell saw their wealth grow by $23 billion and $18 billion. Money begets money, and they have a lot of money to beget! 

The ever expanding wealth inequality has effectively created a two tier society both in the United States and abroad. The middle class has historically been the glue which held capitalist democracies together. Even during feudal times, it was the well-to-do peasant class which helped prop up the monarchies. The middle class has provided an incentive for the lower classes to try to achieve economically and socially while providing a social barrier for the upper classes.

It has been said that the middle class is the only thing protecting the rich from being murdered by the poor. However, if the middle class no longer has as much to protect, then there is no reason it shouldn't make common cause with the lower class which has happened previously in history. If that should occur, there would be a complete upheaval in society.

The choice, therefore, that we all must accept is either fundamental and real change in how society functions economically and politically, including possibly a defacto cap on individual wealth and a minimum corporate tax, or face a real threat of more radical changes at home and globally.

There is no longer a middle ground. Attempts by politicians or the corporate media to divert our attention with another "crisis de jure" or even their blatant refusal to protect their financial interests just aren't going to cut it anymore. It's past time that we took charge of this country again.  

In addition to the links below which explain the statistics mentioned above in greater detail, I've also include two short videos below which illustrate what we've discussed more entertainingly. We hope you enjoy them and will let us know what you think about the decline of the middle class and bifurcation of society politically and economically.

 

Video: Wealth Inequality in America: Visualizedfor 2023 (13:19)

Humphrey Yang

Video: Wealth Inequality in America (6;23)

politizane

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

List of wealthiest Americans by net worth

 

Donald Trump drops from the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans. Here's what changed

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged fordecades

Wage gap between CEOs and US workers jumped 670-to-1 lastyear, study finds

These charts show the growing income inequality between the world's richest and poorest

OCED: Income Inequality

State of Homelessness: 2023 Edition

The Tax Man Cometh: How Much Longer Can We Sustain the Increasing National Debt?

With April 15th just around the corner, I thought now would be a good time to look at the state of our national finances. America is currently in debt to the tune of approximately $24 trillion dollars. That means each taxpayer owes about $161,000...plus interest. Our debt-to-GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ratio is 106%. So, for every $100 dollars we take, we pay out $106. That's a recipe for disaster.

At present, 51% of our nation's taxes come from personal income tax---$1.65 billion dollars. Another 25% or $1.15 billion comes from Social Security taxes. Meanwhile corporations pay just $320 billion or about 6% of the federal revenue. Estate or inheritance tax, typically paid by the wealthy, makes up just $23 billion, while the balance, $260 billion, is paid through other forms of taxes and fees.

That represents our nation's revenue. Now, how about what we spend the money on? 26% goes to Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies; of this, Medicare gets three-fifths of the money. 24% or $940 billion goes to Social Security, while the military gets 15% or $611 billion dollars. Safety net programs such as unemployment , school meals, low income housing assistance get 9% or around $357 billion. 7% pays interest on the national debt. The balance goes to federal and veteran retirees (8%), transportation and infrastructure (2%), science and medical R&D (2%) with non-international security getting 1%. The remainder goes to miscellaneous programs including education related programs.

Think that's all there is to it? Consider that this doesn't include $125 trillion dollars is allocated for unfunded liabilities. It also doesn't cover the military's or various intelligence agencies' unreported "black budget" programs which are estimated to be over $80 billion. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, about 65% of the national debt is held by the public. By 2028 it will 100%. That means all of our taxes will go just to service the national debt.

Another interesting factoid is that only nine countries have worse debt-to-GDP ratios than we do. Unfortunately many are on the news and are tittering on economic collapse such as Greece, Italy, Bhutan, Mozambique, and Portugal. Worse still is that the United States ranks just above Djibouti in East Africa, Jamaica, Cyprus, Belgium (which has been overrun by the so-called "migrants"), and the Congo. It would take the combined economies of China, India, and Japan to pay off our national debt.

It might be worth noting that foreign governments currently own just under 30% of our national debt (the two largest are Japan and China which own 1.15 trillion and $1.11 trillion respectively or about 15% combined). Next is the U.K with about $334 billion in U.S. debt and Brazil which owns just under $300 billion. Ireland and Switzerland round out the top five with $285.6 and $263.3 billion.

You don't have to be a CPA, a political scientist or economist (which I was educated as) to understand that this is insane. There will be a breaking point. There's only so much road that the proverbial "can" can be kicked down, and we've about reached it. Most economists put the "end of the road" at around 2025 or 2030. As the "game" is now being played, the only solution is dramatically increase taxes, be it by increasing existing taxes or finding new and more "obscure" revenue streams.

The problem is that the middle class, which had historically been this nation's backbone and shouldered the bulk of the taxes is not just dead broke, it barely exists anymore. The middle class has been declining every year since 1970, from a high of 62% to a current low of about 45%. Adjusted for inflation, income for the middle class has remained nearly stagnate while the top 10% has seen exceptional growth. Of course, the American economy has transitioned from mainly middle class manufacturing jobs to lower income service jobs in the name of bigger profits.

We also have to remember that for the last 20+ years the U.S. economy has been on a defacto war footing, thanks to our involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria; a hollow stimulation of the economy. This has had the illusion of artificially reducing unemployment by draining off "excess" workers to the war effort while keeping the economy operating at a steady capacity.

America is also experiencing the highest rate of income inequality in the last 50 years (if not longer). In 2012 for instance, the top 10% took home 50% of total income. The top 1% got 20% of that! The top 10% owns more than 1000% more than the middle class remnant. Meanwhile, the top 1% now owns more than the bottom 90%. Since 2000, the number of Americans living in poverty has continued to increase, mainly from the middle class (which has resulted in more Americans applying for aid through our economic safety net which only the fifth most funded portion of the budget).

From 2000 through 2006 for instance, worker salaries increased a total of just 15% while corporate profit increased 13% per year. From 1979 to 2007, the top 1% saw an increase in their household income of 275%. It rose 65% for the top 1/5. Yet for the bottom 1/5, their household income increased a mere 18%.

Breaking it down by states, those with the highest income inequality were the District of Columbia, New York, Louisiana, Connecticut, California, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Kentucky. The top states with the least income disparity? Utah, Alaska, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Hawaii, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Indiana was 15th while Ohio was 26th and Illinois was 40th.

Globally speaking, the United States ranked ninth among the countries with the highest income gap. Not what you'd expect from the "bastion of capitalism" is it? We were just behind (that is, worse than) South Korea, the UK, Russia, New Zealand, the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. Some of the countries worse off than the U.S. included Turkey, Chile, Brazil, China, Mexico, Costa Rico, and India. The nation with the worse income gap in the world was South Africa.

So what does this mean for the United States and what, if anything, can we do to stave off disaster? Well, consider this. In 2016, U.S. billionaire Warren Buffett announced that he actually paid less in taxes than his secretary and other employees. He went on to say that his tax rate was just 17.4%. In 2018, U.S. billionaires paid, on average, at a tax rate of 23% while the bottom half paid an average tax rate of 24.2%. In 2018, the average CEO made 287 times more than the average employee. We have corporations whose profits are more than the GDP of many countries, but they pay little to no taxes.

The Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy reported in 2019 sixty Fortune 500 companies which paid zero federal taxes on their collective profit of $79 billion dollars. We're talking Amazon, Goodyear, Eli Lilly, Chevron, Halliburton, Netflix, Delta Airlines, IBM, Gannet, Honeywell, Prudential Financial, Molson Coors, Apple, ATT, and Duke Energy as an example. Others, like Exxon, Pitney Bowes, U.S. Steel, Starbucks, and many other Wall Street corporations paid virtually nothing. Of note is that IBM, which paid no federal taxes, actually got a refund of $342 million. Amazon got back $182 million, while Molson Coors earned a "cold filtered" refund of $22.9 million.

Sound fair? Hardly. But that's how things function under an Oligarchy. Corporations, lobbyists, politicians, and professional bureaucrats all working hand-in-glove to serve each other's interests while taxpayers---you and me---get the bill. The government is living top dollar on our nickel and dime income. This has only one possible outcome. Perhaps that's the reason for the increase in government surveillance, the fake news, the increased militarization of the police, the manufactured conflicts between groups, the crackdown on owning guns as well as freedom of speech and assembly.

Those in the top 25% income bracket need to be taxed at a much higher fixed percentage so that a minimum tax is always paid. CEO's earning 287% more than the average employee? Great, let them pay at a 287% tax rate. In some countries, CEO's are capped at how much they can earn. In the UK it's 22% the amount of their lowest paid employee. In France, it's 15%, and in Germany it's 12%. Why can't we?

What we need is a complete tax code overhaul. We need to go to some form of consumption tax; a tax on which you pay only if you buy. You control your tax rate by controlling your purchases. You don't have to worry about keeping receipts, filling tax returns, or anything else. A tax code for ordinary citizens would be virtually obsolete.

Secondly, corporations need to pay a minimum tax equal to 15% of their gross profits. If U.S. manufacture products overseas and sent them back, then a special import tax needs to be added. It needs to be cheaper to manufacture here in the U.S. than to close an American plant, lay off workers, ship the job overseas, and then send it back here to be sold.

There was once more of an equilibrium between blue collar and white collar pay back when you had stronger unions. Unions, for all their flaws, at least gave employees a voice in the workplace and a means to fight back. That's all but gone. However, there needs to be the adoption of employee associations to pick up where unions left off. Employees need to be guaranteed a voice at the table---literally. Employees should be allowed to elected representatives to the board of directors on a rotating basis equal to 1/3 of the total board.

To reclaim our Republic from the Oligarchy we need to eliminate the nefarious "Citizens United" which gave corporations "personhood" and unlimited financial "free speech", thus eliminating the impact of the voters. We need to impose term limits and end partisan gerrymandering in order to give back some of the elective power to the people. We need to implement voter referendums too. Lastly, citizens must have the final say in any tax or rate increase. Regulatory boards and governments can and should advise; they can even recommend, but we--the taxpayers---must have the final say. We know what's at stake. It's up to us to incur that risk, be it increase in property tax, school tax, sewer rate hike, or increasing the salary of elected officials...or not.

We need to reevaluate whether those with no children in public schools should have to pay school tax at the same rate as those with children in school...or any tax at all. We need to reconsider whether those on fix incomes should have to pay a property tax or whether those who use bikes on public roads should be required to buy a license and pay a tax like anyone else who uses public roads.

Too often elected officials think the only option is to increase the tax burden on its citizens. They fail to take into consideration the accumulative effect of the increases, along with the increases in other services such as cable, water, gas, or electricity. It's always "just a few pennies" to hear them tell it, but it never is. Politicians, like water, will always take the path of least resistance. Right now that's you and me. We need to change that, and quickly, while there's still time.




18 Facts on the U.S. National Debt That Are Almost Too Hard to Believe

Trading Economics: Government Debt to GDP

Fiscal Indicatiors

Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?


These 15 countries have the widest gaps between rich and poor

Meet Nancy Pelosi : The Bane of Conservatives and Darling of Liberals Everywhere

Mention the name of "Nancy Pelosi" to someone and watch their reaction. Typically you'll get one of two responses. The first might be a smile and sense of pride. Here's someone in Washington who has stood up to Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell; a real fighter for the common folk. The other reaction might be something between an attempt to repress a involuntary urge to hurl or a sneer and sarcastic grunt. There's not too much leeway in between.

Regardless of your opinion of her, she is without question one of the most powerful people in Washington irrespective of gender. She is the first female Speaker of the House (and second in the line of succession to the presidency behind the Vice President), and one of the longest serving Speakers of the modern era.

Nancy Pelosi tries to portray herself as a "defender of the common people"; someone who enjoys rubbing elbows with the "unwashed masses". She would have the American Public believe that she's no different from them; a political outsider and someone removed from the stench of corruption rising out of the cesspool that is Washington. But just how true is that portrayal of her? Is she really "one of us" or is that merely a carefully crafted persona; a mask which she wears when the lights and cameras are on? Who is the real Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro was born in Baltimore, Maryland on March 26, 1940 to Thomas D'Alesandro and Annunciato M. "Nancy" Lombardi. His family came from Genoa, Venice and Abruzzo in southeastern Italy. Her mother's family was from Campobasso in south central Italy. When she came into this world, her father was the Democratic Congressman from Maryland, representing its 3rd district. He held that position from 1939 until 1947 (before getting into politics he was an insurance and real estate broker). From 1947 until 1959, Thomas was the Mayor of Baltimore (his son, Tom D'Alesandro III served as Mayor of Baltimore from 1967 to 1971). Young Nancy started out managing her father's book of who owed him political favors.

In 1961 Thomas was appointed by President Kennedy to the Federal Renegotiation Board (the board was created under President Truman as a government "watchdog" against exorbitant profits taken by government contractors. Its role was to review and renegotiate government contracts if it was deemed that the contractor's profits were excessive). He served in that role until 1969 (the board was dissolved in 1979). Thomas died in 1987. As for her mother, "Big Nancy" as she was then known, was active in politics behind the scenes, often organizing Democratic women's groups and known to be tough.

Nancy graduated from the Institute of Notre Dame, which is a private all-girl Catholic school. Like Bill Clinton, Nancy was infatuated with President Kennedy and even attended his inauguration in January 1961. In 1962 she graduated from Trinity Washington College, a Catholic college in Washington DC, with a BA in Political Science. At the same time she interned for Senator Daniel Brewster (D-MD). Brewster, who was elected in 1963, was the first Democrat to hold that seat since 1946; he previously served as a Congressman. She also worked alongside future House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer (D-MD).

It was while attending college that Nancy met her future husband, Paul Frank Pelosi. They were married in 1963 (they would go on to have five children). About this time, Nancy and her new husband moved to San Francisco where Paul's brother, Ron, a successful businessman was elected to the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Nancy began working with Phillip Burton (D-CA), the 5th District Congressman. Burton was an active opponent of the Vietnam War, worked to abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee", supported Bobby Kennedy's presidential run in 1968 and was closely tied with organized labor. He was a key advocate for funding AIDS research. However, it was his role in reforming existing House rules which earned him the designation as the "Father of the Modern Congress". Nancy was certainly cutting her political teeth with the right people at the right time.

In 1976, Nancy was elected to the Democratic National Committee (which she held until 1996). In 1977 she was elected as party chair for Northern California. In 1981, she was elected to chair the California Democratic Party; a position she retained for two years. She served as the Democratic National Convention Host in 1984, and then as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign finance chair from 1985 until the following year. By this time, Nancy was a seasoned pro at the state level and was quickly learning the ropes at the national level.

Her mentor, Phillip Burton, died in 1983. The seat was filled by his wife, Sala Burton. However, she became ill and did not seek reelection. As a result, Nancy was designated as the heir apparent. She won the special election in 1987 and has held the seat ever since. Nancy's committee assignments were impressive right off the bat, serving on the Appropriations and Intelligence committees and on the Baltic States Caucus. In 1991, she became a founding member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), an unabashed Left leaning issues group whose aim is to promote liberal policies.

In 2001, she was elected to the House Minority Whip, the first woman to hold that position. In 2002, following the resignation of Dick Gephardt (D-MO), she was elected as House Minority leader, again the first woman to hold that key position.

In 2007, Pelosi was elected to Speaker of the House, once more establishing a Congressional "first". She held that powerful position until 2011 when the Republicans won a majority of the seats in the House. In 2008, she was elected as the Permanent Chairperson of the 2008 Democratic National Committee. After the GOP takeover of the House, Nancy resumed her position as House Minority leader. However, this was to be short lived. During the 2018 midterm elections, the Democrats were able to retake the House and in November, she was reelected to a second term as Speaker of the House which she continues to hold.

Pelosi is known her stances as a supporter of LGBTQ issues, marijuana reform and legalized medical marijuana (although NORML's deputy director, Paul Armentano, has said that Pelosi hasn't done anything to make that happen), and the removal of Confederate statues and memorials nationwide. She also opposes "enhanced" interrogation including waterboarding, supports amnesty for illegal immigrants and opposes any steps to secure the US-Mexican border. She is pro-choice and a strong advocate of "Obamacare". She has also voted against efforts to establish a Single Payer healthcare program (a replacement for Obamacare) while supporting increases in Medicare and Medicaid.

In addition, Pelosi is strong advocate of increased gun control laws including expanded background checks, restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" (she received a zero rating by the Gun Owners of America and a 7% rating by the NRA). She has said that climate change is the planet's greatest threat and has supported efforts to curtail offshore drilling and restrict the development of protected areas including national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges.

Nancy supported the 2002 "No Child Left Behind Act" and opposes the displaying of the Ten Commandments in public schools or buildings. She also opposes school prayer or saying the Pledge of Allegiance. She voted against the Balance Budget Proposed Constitutional Amendment Act of 1995 but supported increasing minimum wage in 2007. She also opposed the welfare reform proposals of both President Clinton and President George W Bush. Nancy was also against the tax reform bill signed by President Trump in 2017.

Of particular note is that Pelosi is a supporter of "PRISM", a NSA run program designed to gather information on Americans via the internet and other forms of electronic communication (without bothering with a warrant I might add). The program began in 2007 as an offshoot of the "Patriot Act" under President George W. Bush and extended by President Obama. It is currently administered by the secret U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) which was famously exposed by Edward Snowden.

Nancy Pelosi has had the benefit of coming from a strongly entrenched politically family. She has used her family connections to her obvious benefit, which has enabled her to rise to the highest levels in politics; hardly the moniker of an "outsider". The district she represents, California's 12th Congressional, which includes most of the Bay Area and about 4/5 of Greater San Francisco, is considered the "safest" district in America for Democrats with a 80% Democrat registration. So, while Pelosi has completed 17 terms in Congress, it's likely that she'll be able to hold on to that seat for as long as she wants it.

Finally, we come (as always) to the money. Nancy Pelosi is listed as the 29th wealthiest member of Congress with a net worth of $120 million dollars as of 2018 (her government salary is $223,500 dollars a year). Not too shabby Nancy, but far from being one of "common people". By comparison, her nemesis in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has a net worth of "just" $30 million. It's worth noting that Pelosi's biggest campaign donors come from Wall Street, Big Phama, the real estate industry (mostly commercial developers) and some very wealthy individuals. Not sounding particularly "blue collar" to me, how about to you?

As an aside, in researching information for this article I came across a telling letter written and signed by many of these super wealthy individuals and heads of some very powerful corporation which stated in effect that any attempt to remove Pelosi from her position as Speaker of the House would have serious consequences. These same individuals and corporations also give generously to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and they are closely connected with others who also give big.

The letter, directed to the DNC and key leaders in both the House and Senate, stated that they like the way Nancy does her job and the access as well as the support that she provides them. Thus, any attempt to oust her would result in a major reduction in the amount of financial support they give to the DNC as well as to Democratic candidates direct. In short, do as we want or we'll cut you off. So, here we have concrete proof of the power and clout of the ruling Oligarchy on full display. They have, in effect, selected the third most powerful political position in the U.S. No doubt something similar has been done on the Senate side and directed to the RNC as well. I'm sure their desires for other matters have been made clear as well. This is Senator Mitch McConnell's definition of "free speech" at full throat.

So, there you have it. Everything you wanted to know about the bane of conservatives everywhere. Perhaps though you can see why those on the Left particularly idolize her. She is a highly experienced political operative with an ability to get things done. However, she is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "one of the people". She is the quintessential political insider. She is part of the top 5% wealthiest in the United States and there is no doubt that Nancy Pelosi is part of the patrician class.


Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi's Net Worth

List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth
OpenSecrets: Nancy Pelosi--California 12th District

Nancy Pelosi Victory Fund and the Wealthy Donors Who Own the Democratic Party
'Naive and self-destructive': Big Democratic donors back Nancy Pelosi and warn that funding will be cut in half if she's pushed out

Where's The Outrage? America's Political Apathy

A few weeks ago former President Barack Obama gave a speech before Democracy Alliance. The speech was one of those typical "rah rah" events designed to rally the troops. Mr. Obama stated that one of the problems facing the Democratic Party was that the people no longer knew what the party stands for. He pointed out that much of what the public saw and heard came from the Far Left through Twitter feeds and other social media outlets; much of it promoting "crazy stuff".

I can't say that I disagree with Obama on that point. Most of what we see and hear are, in fact, some pretty outlandish ideas. However, there were several other points made in his speech which caught my attention. First, much of what he said seemed to reflect his support for the military-industrial state and Wall Street.

Historically, the Democratic Party was seen as the "working class" or "blue collar" party. However, that changed decades ago as unions began losing their financial and political clout and the party became ever increasingly propped up by the super wealthy and corporations. This was especially true after the infamous "Citizens United" decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. which effectively ended any remaining illusions of our country's republican ideals.

Today, both the Democrat and Republican parties are owned by corporate interests, and with them, their politicians. Their lobbyists help write legislation and then actively promote its passage through Congress. As a result, we've devolved from a representative or democratic Republic into a defacto Oligarchy; a plutocracy. A neo-Fascist state if you will.

Mr. Obama went on to say that America "is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement". He added that Americans “like seeing things improved. But the average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.” While it's absolutely true that Americans have lost a willingness to impose changes on our broken system, I question his comment that we aren't wanting to see the system totally remade. He made it sound like we're apathetic; like we're content to wallow in a muck not of our making until someone else comes along to clean it up for us.

Right now, there are thousands of mass protests happening around the world, from Chile to Hong Kong. Citizens are openly challenging their government (some even have reputations for brutal reprisals and repression) over issues such as freedom of speech, movement, expression---including that of religion, the climate, and free enterprise. Yet here in the U.S., with Congress maintaining dismal approval ratings for decades, where are the protests? In other countries, similar ratings are often enough of a concern to threaten governmental stability.

As an example, during the week of November 1, 2019, Congress had a disapproval rating of 72% (with 3% having no opinion)! Can you imagine? Governments in other countries would have collapsed with those kind of numbers. Congress hasn't seen an approval rating in the thirties since the last week in August...2009! And this isn't a "Republicans only" issue. The American People have soured on both parties, keeping the approval rating in the dumpster regardless of who controls the Senate or House. In fact, the same October poll asked if we approved of the way Democrats or Republicans were doing their job. 60% said no to both.

I think Americans know beyond the shadow of doubt that the political (and to a large degree, the judicial system) are broken beyond repair. No amount of "reform" or changing the window dressing (ie: voting out the incumbents) are going to fix it. Yet, we sit on our couches watching TV or playing video games, lost in the noise, and do nothing. Sure, we may "bitch and moan" on social media (while subconsciously aware that the new surveillance state is probably reading everything we write) or complain to friends or coworkers. A few may be willing to sign online petitions, but not much more than that happens.

Yeah, the Left have staged a few protests, but very few have been large (perhaps the largest to date was during President Trump's inauguration by Antifa) or sustained. The last best example was the "Occupy Movement" in 2011. Most have been small ad hoc protests attempting to block intersections or highways (a really lame idea by the way) or appearing at Trump or conservative gatherings. As for the Right, they haven't staged any mass protests that I'm aware of. At best, it's been relatively small counter protests. However, all have been directed at the other side. None at the political system itself.

Over the decades, protests against the government have been fairly successful. Look back to the Civil Rights movement. It included calculated acts of defiance designed to attract public attention such as in 1955 with Rosa Parks sitting in a "whites only" section of a city bus in Montgomery Alabama, four black students sitting at a "whites only" lunch counter at Woolworths in Greensboro North Carolina in 1960, or the Freedom Riders in parts of the South in 1961. These were coordinated with mass marches on state capitols along with demands for Congress and the President to act.

The Vietnam War was replete with examples. Everything from sit-ins, protests outside government offices, mass marches, draft card burnings, occupying college administration offices and recruiting stations, and other acts of refusal aimed specifically at garnering the public's attention. It even branched out to include popular celebrities and TV shows (remember the Smothers Brothers?) to incorporating its message in the era's music and arts. Of course, there were, unfortunately, acts of violence brought on by groups such as the Black Panthers (which evolved out of the Black Power Movement), the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Weathermen, and the SLA.

Some was the result of and in response to acts of violence by the KKK and Neo-Nazis who used violence as acts of intimidation (such as blowing up churches, schools, beatings, or outright assassinations). The government too got in on the act by illegally wiretapping, surveillance, break-ins, reading stolen mail, physical intimidation, blackmail, imprisonment, fines, tax audits. Of course, we can't forget the Chicago Police riots during the Democratic National Convention in 1969 or the Ohio National Guard shootings at Kent State in 1970 in which four students were murdered and nine were injured.

There was, of course, the Women's Liberation, Environment, Farm workers, and Gay Pride movements as well as the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the late 60's early 70's. Those weren't known for their violence, but more for the shock value of women publically removing and burning their bras or gays holding parades aimed intentionally at gaining public attention by their outrageous dress and behavior, or the widespread boycotting of certain businesses. Nevertheless, these movements had as their objective equal pay and fair employment laws. They incorporated not just demonstrations, but citizens lobbying (including petitions) and working together to elect supporters to office.

Ultimately, these groups were largely successful. We saw the passage of the Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Under President Richard Nixon the war in Vietnam finally ended thanks to public pressure by 1973. President Nixon also signed into law various bills aimed at cleaning up the air, water, protecting wildlife and consumer safety.

There was the passage of equal wage, fairness in housing and employment laws along with better working conditions for migrant and seasonal workers. However, while there were some initial improvements on Native American reservations, much was left undone, especially when it came to housing, education, and medical care because the pressure wasn't maintained.

Nowadays, with the advent of the internet and social media, it's much easier to organize marches and protests aimed at a unresponsive government, but where is it? Why are the limited demonstrations aimed at either side when corporate/government corruption is the ultimate "villain" in the act? I think the answer is that politicians and corporations got a lot smarter.

First, they redirected their PR departments to focus on creating a more friendly public image by trying to get involved with local projects, emphasis jobs, gloss over outcomes, and changed advertising techniques (for a great example, take a look at the oil and gas companies and how to cover spills or court orders). Even the military did a makeover to make itself more appealing by emphasizing education, training, and "adventure".

Politicians learned to create a more "common man" image; even changing their language to sound more "down to earth", rolling up their sleeves, or hiding their elite professional and academic credentials; telling voters what they want to hear or disguising their votes. Corporations and government also got a lot cozier, especially after Citizens United which opened up the financial floodgate and all but eliminated ordinary citizens from the process.

It's more common now than 20 years ago for politicians or key staffers to turn lobbyists, earning millions to solicit their former colleagues, and you best bet that nepotism is alive and well with spouses, family members and close friends securing some very lucrative positions. Meanwhile, lobbyists "help" write legislation, provide bill summaries (and their recommendations), and freely engage in what can be called as legalized bribery.

With nearly unlimited financing of their campaigns, along with partisan gerrymandering, no term limits, it has become nearly impossible to dislodge an incumbent. They changed election laws to all but eliminate Independents and third party candidates from debates. With these same corporations owning 90+% of all media outlets, Indies and third parties are either ignored or treated like the clown car in a two ring circus. It has resulted in creating a professional political elite; a ruling class.

We've devolved into is duopoly bought and paid by a super wealthy Oligarchy with its own values and separate laws. Society has become basically a two tier economic system with the top one percent controlling 40% of the nation's wealth while the bottom 80% control just 7%. The gap between the top 10% and everyone else is 1000% of their entire wealth.

A free nation cannot survive with a political system which caters to a tiny fraction of its population, or in which the vast majority of its population is all but eliminated from the process. We're encouraged to no longer think of ourselves as citizens of a country but as global consumers. Our worth is determined by our credit rating. Our differences are magnified out of proportion to what we have in common. Americans have been manipulated. We no longer know who to believe or trust. Our hopes have been distorted into "either/or" conflicts with others.

Worse yet, we've seen this corporate/government partnership (what Benito Mussolini defined as a "Fascist" relationship) attempt to restrict or deprive us of our rights. We've seen attempts at restricting our freedom of speech and expression, our ownership of guns, to freely travel, taxation without consent, being detained without charge, what we consume, our right to privacy, and even our right to protest. Did you that there are currently 20 states with pending legislation aimed at restricting our ability to protest? Four states---North and South Dakota, Tennessee, and Oklahoma---already have laws on the books to restricting protests. Where is our outrage?

Former President Obama is, I believe, wrong when he says that Americans don't want to "tear down the system and remake it". We do. We want to return to our representative Republic which offered each of us an equal opportunity to reach for our dreams. That doesn't mean we'll succeed. Outcomes were never guaranteed, only a level playing field. We want to return to a time where a limited government represents the people...not the super wealthy and not corporations.

If the Democratic Party can provide that, then so be it. If the Republicans can, great. If it takes a Independent or third party, then so much the better. Until then, we need to remember that protests and demonstrations work. They have worked in the past and they are working now all over the world. We must, as a nation, come together to remind those in office and those who control them that we---you and I---have the power. It's time to take back our country.


Gallup Poll: Congress and the Public

United States presidential approval ratings

Wealth inequality in the United States

Obama Tells His Party's Elites to Relax

Following The Money: Politicians and Money

Follow the money. We've all hear the expression, which appears to have originated back around the time of President Nixon and the Watergate scandal; made popular by the 1976 docudrama "All The President's Men". Basically, it just common sense. If you assume that everything goes back to money, then no matter how obfuscated the events are or how many people are involved, if you can track the flow of money, you can pretty much figure out most any mystery. Let's take Congress for example.

Did you know that 50.8% of all Congress members are millionaires going into office? The rest are all pretty much upper middle class or "near-millionaires"? Bet you didn't know that nearly every member of Congress leaving office was at least a millionaire. The total wealth of the previous Congress was $2.43 billion dollars, which up 20% over the prior Congress. To put that in context, Standard and Poor's index and the Dow Jones industrial average rose only 10% for the same span.

In case that's still not clear, how about this? The median net worth of an average American household is $92,950 whereas the average member of Congress has a net worth of $511,000 (2016). Let's put it yet another way. The average member of Congress has a net worth equal to 18 average households. Still think they "feel our pain"? By the way, just 5.8% of all Americans are millionaires by comparison.

Thanks to the absence of term limits and party based gerrymandering, the "Citizens United" misruling by the Supreme Court, along with their enormous wealth has created our professional political class; something our Founding Fathers vehemently opposed. In fact, for every 13 members, there is a "one percenters" in Congress (someone whose income is in the top 1%). There are ten House members and three Senators whose individual net worth exceeds $43 million each.

How about party? Which of the two sides has the wealthiest members? In the Senate, it's the Republicans. They have an average net worth of $1.4 million which the average Democrat's net worth is $946,000. However, in the House, it's the Democrats who have most money, but not by much. The average net worth of a Democrat is $424,000 compared to GOP which has an average net worth of $401,000. Taken together, the GOP has 64% of the total wealth in Congress. Sorry, but I'm still not sensing any "pains" for taxpayers yet. Nevertheless, here's a little tidbit which I found interesting, and it deals with wage equality; a very popular campaign issue as you know.

The average female in Congress has a individual net worth of $682,000 compared to her male counterpart who has an individual net worth of $465,000. As an aside, seven of the top ten wealthiest female Congress members is a Democrat with Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) leading the way with a net worth of $58.5 million dollars. By comparison, Darrel Issa (R-CA) has a net worth of $283 million. In fact, just 12 members of Congress have more than 50% of the total wealth of Congress.

How about some other individuals to consider? Let's start with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). She has a net worth of $18 million with most of her wealth coming from real estate. Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA) is worth $18.7 million; mainly from trust funds. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has a net worth of 10.4 million, which the majority of this coming from investments.

Rep John Yarmuth's net worth is $6.1 million with most of that coming from real estate. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has a net worth of $4.7 million with most of that coming from investments. Rep Tom Massie (R-KY) is a pauper by comparison. His net worth is just $800,000 with nearly of it coming from real estate. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is even poorer with a net worth of only $500,000 based on a mixture of real estate and investments. Nevertheless, none of these individuals are what most of us could consider to be "average" when it comes to wealth.

Here's something we also need to consider. First, an average member of Congress earns $174,000 a year (the Speaker of the House earns a bit more, $223,000). Congressional leaders earn around $193,000. The last pay raise Congress gave itself was back in 2009 (Congress has recently sent up a test balloon to increase their salary by $4000. The response thus far has been strongly negative). Secondly, most every member enters Congress already in the top 5% income bracket, meaning that most are already millionaires long before going to Washington.

Third, the majority of Congressional members come from the Business sector where they were typically senior officers (and owners) as well as sit on a number of well paying board of director seats. The majority tend to have come from banking, communications, technology, finance, pharmaceutical, and shipping backgrounds. A little personal tidbit about Congressional members is that they love playing the stock market.

The stock they most have in common is General Electric (probably because of its technology base and the fact that it's a key military contractor). In fact, 74 members of Congress have at least some GE stock in their investment portfolio. Their second favorite stock is Wells Fargo, followed by Microsoft, Apple, Proctor & Gamble, along with Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and other financial institutions. I'm sure that the fact that these companies have the most active lobbyists has absolutely nothing to do with it.

While the overwhelming majority of these individuals can't relate to the average American, we should also show them a little love. After all, running for office isn't cheap. In 2018, the average amount spent to run for a Senate seat was $10 million dollars. For a House seat it was $1.3 million. Of course, this doesn't include what super PACs or political non-profits contribute, which thanks to the Citizens United misruling by the Supreme Court, added millions more to the total cost.

Of course, we have to remember that the vast majority of this money goes to incumbents and rarely to challengers. Once elected, the average Congressional member is expected to spend up to 5 hours a day raising money for their party and for their next election (typically only 3 hours a day is actually spent on the "People's business". That means a lot of schmoozing with deep pocket contributors and corporate lobbyists.

Add in a lack of term limits, and you have a professional political class; politicians who are totally beholden to their new bosses---the ruling Oligarchy. If you think about it, it's a lot like dealing with the Mafia. Once you take that first dollar or accept that first "favor", you're hooked. They've got you. Party means absolutely nothing. It's all about the money. Amusingly, the colors assigned to both parties, red for the Republicans and blue for the Democrats, when mixed is green, the color of money. Remember that!

Meanwhile, the average American is pushed further and further from their rightful place as the master; replaced by faceless corporations which has created an Oligarchy. Gone is the notion of a "Citizen Legislator" as proposed by our Founding Fathers. The master has become the servant (or more properly, the economic serf). Washington has long ceased to answer to us, the voters. We've been made all but obsolete; a necessary inconvenience to be appeased every so often. The question, as always dear reader, is what are we prepared to do about it? How much more are we willing to take?

If we continue to do nothing, it can and will only get worse. Let's not let that happen. Let's find ways to come together regardless of party, gender, race, sexual orientation, or any other manufactured division. That's what the Oligarchy fears the most. That's why they try so hard to keep us divided. We must demand full transparency in government; term limits; an end to Citizens United and real campaign finance reform; an end to party sponsored gerrymandering; ending the cozy relationship between politicians and lobbyists, as well as stopping the revolving door between government and Wall Street or K Street (K Street is where most lobbying firms are located).

Personally, I would like to see newly elected individuals resign from their political party as soon as they're elected and take an oath to represent everyone in their district and state. No more "dialing for dollars" on our time, paid for by our tax dollars. I would like to see a 12 year cap imposed on all federally elected candidates. This means capping the amount of time anyone can hold office. That's six 2 year terms for the House, two 6 year terms for the Senate, three 4 year terms for the President, and 12 years for the Supreme Court and all federally appointed judgeships. If you can't get done what you want in the 12 years, then perhaps politics isn't for you.

So, what do you think? Have you had enough of being manipulated? Are you tired of being turned into an economic serf? Tired of being talked down too or being treated like government knows what's best for you? Had enough of being lied to? Of having politicians ignore the voter's instructions? I could go on and on and you know it. Let's come together as a nation and retake our government back while we still have time to act.


Wealth of Congress: Richer than Ever, but Mostly at the Very Top

One Member of Congress = 18 American Households; Lawmaker's Personal Finances Far From Average

The Richest Members of Congress Built Their Wealth This Way

Most in Congress Are Millionaires, But Many Were before They Were Elected

Political Corruption: Taking Out The Trash

Over the past several weeks we've taken a look at political corruption, from the cozy relationship with the big donors ( and no, George Soros and the Koch Brothers aren't even close to being at the top of that list) to military contractors, local lobbyists, and the always entertaining, "dirty tricks" which happen at the local level. Political corruption isn't unusual or even new. It's been a part of society since the very beginning (the same with religious corruption, which started out as being one and the same as the political, and in many countries today it's essentially the flip side of the same coin).

The real problem is when a society goes from the occasional individual form of graft to institutionalized corruption; where it actually becomes part of the political system itself, which is where we are today. In the past, once a society reaches that level of corruption, society begins to break down, some form of totalitarianism arises and eventually the people rebel. I think that's what we're starting to see today, except that the rebellion is being carefully controlled or manipulated; channeled if you will.

America is governed by an Oligarchy. That's an accepted fact by all but the most naive. An Oligarchy is when a relatively small elite control the government for their own benefit. In this case, it's a plutocracy, which is rule by the wealthy. As I've previously written, they control---literally own---the financial institutions, defense industry (war is a very profitable business), oil and gas, as well as the energy industry, the auto industry, the media (90+% of all forms of media), and many more. This is the stuff that urban myths about the Trilateral Commission, Bildenbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations are based, and to a degree, are true in that they all belong to small interlocking clique of committees and boards that you and I will never belong to.

What is their goal or objective you ask? Well, actually it's quite simple. It's all about having control. They already have more money they any of us could possibly imagine. However, money begets power, and power equates with control. Their aim is to control or influence every aspect of society. For them, control is order and stability. It takes order and stability for business to operate and, hopefully, generate profits. This also means controlling the demand for jobs, wages, and benefits, which also means controlling or destroying labor unions and worker associations. That's why it's important for them to be able to ship high wage/benefit jobs overseas where they pay virtually nothing (and because of the abject poverty and overpopulation, people are glad to take it) and then ship it back over here where marketing creates the demand for it (not to mention intentionally built-in obsolescence).

It means controlling demand...and supply...of not just products but of the availability of jobs. This is the reason many of these large companies push for open borders and/or are willing to employ illegal immigrants. The more demand there is for the limited number of opening, the lower the employer can force the wages as well as any benefits. This is a flaw with labor unions too. They work to recruit illegal workers, especially in the low skill sectors since they are unlikely to rock the boats and ask a lot of questions about how things are run, but more importantly their dues fill near empty union bank accounts.

Another serious factor is controlling ordinary people. The information they routinely gather is used to ascertain our shopping habits---where we go, what we purchase, how often, what we watch, and so forth. It's also used to determine our financial and physical health; our "worth" to the economy if you will. It is used to gather information on our political leanings, which is helpful for them to determine what are key issues or "buttons" are, as well as seeing just how far we can pushed.

If, for instance, I know what are the hot buttons are for various issues, I know I can push you on other topics without much push back. If I know the hot topics for a specific population segment, I know how to manipulate and motivate them to act (like the best way to get you to send money, or maybe call or email some legislator). I also know how to spin issues to make one side look better (or worse, demanding on my intent). That's what the media is for. It's to decided what is and isn't newsworthy, how to present it (spin), and manipulate the outcome.

Now if you happen to be one of those individuals who think it's all the Democrat's fault or the Republicans, then I hate to break it to you, but it's not one side or the other, it's actually both. These Oligarchs literally own both parties and the politicians who are actually more selected than elected. Think about it. If the Democrats were right and the GOP were all a bunch of greedy and selfless bastards, and the Democrats did all they said they would do, there wouldn't be a single Republican elected to office anywhere in this country. On the other hand, if the Republicans were right and the Democrats were a group of manipulative SOBs determined to tax the middle class into oblivion, and they actually did all they promised, you couldn't find a Democrat in office anywhere you looked.

However, we know---we instinctively know---both sides are lying to us. Whenever a single party has controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency nothing changes does it? We still have the same ole BS. Even when a single party had controlled the governor's office and state legislature it's still the same game. The reason is because neither party is actually serious about doing anything. While you and I talk about the system being broken, for them the system works just fine because the ones who line their pockets and campaign war chests are doing just fine. A politician's biggest concern is getting reelected because, frankly, they love the power (which is addictive and gives them a sense of self importance) and they love the perks and lifestyle that power brings them. But getting and keeping that power mean getting access to big money, and the only ones capable of providing that kind of money are the big corporations or their errand boys (and girls) who work for them, the lobbyists.

In fact, these lobbyists are paid really big money on behalf of their masters to make sure those they helped to put in office do as they're told. In some cases, they even help to write legislation and provide summaries for bills or issues along with their "recommendations". All this has effectively made it near impossible for the average American to even consider running for office; it's far outside the financial reach of most of us. That's why Congress is called the "Millionaire's Club", because it actually is. It doesn't matter what your party affiliation is. It matters who your financial benefactors are. The political infighting is both a matter of which special interest group wins out on a particular issue, and in keeping us divided; to make us believe it's the other side's fault (like "taking guns away" or "destroying" some freedom).

The truth of the matter is that the Oligarchy wants--- actually needs--- for us to be divided. It has to keep us at each other's throats in as many ways as possible. "Why" you ask? Again, the answer is pretty simple. As long as we're fighting and arguing with each other, no one is watching the "candy store". That is, we're not focused on the corruption which is taking place almost openly (and in some cases, in broad daylight). Secondly, with us fighting each other, it's so much easier to manipulate one side and then other. That allows them to expand their control. This type of mentality happens not just at the local or community level, but at the state as well as the national and even international levels.

How often have you heard where some country, often one few have even heard of, is suddenly in the news amid claims of "terrorism" or some other "international crime"? Fairly often I would bet. Invariably the US is "asked" by various parties to intervene to help restore democracy or some other noble sounding cause. The odds are pretty good that the sole reason has to do with either access to resources or a market. And as often as not, it's because attempts to gain access to these resources or markets by regular means have failed. Attempts at bribing have failed. Threats have failed, and finally once that has happened, public opinion is stirred up and the next thing we know, we're bombing the daylights out of some nothing of a county or group.

Former Nazi Air Marshall Hermann Goering once said "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” The only real difference today is that the decision is made between corporate and government officials, who work hand-in-hand (in the majority of cases, the revolving door between the corporate world and the government one, be it as an elected official or an appointed one, is a blur) rather a cabal of politicians. In fact, it might as well be stated that the goals of most politicians, senior staff members, bureaucratic department heads, or appointed offices is to become one of these very generously paid lobbyists.

Another feature of a divided people besides being easier to manipulate, is that they almost always look to the government to "fix" the problem, which it is always happy to do since that affords them the opportunity to seize more control over your life. Recently that control has been in terms of surveillance and the increased militarization of the police. Together, they can quite easily devolve into a police state...all for our own protection naturally. There's another interesting feature used in these situations which we're seeing a lot of lately. The use of name calling, or more specifically, of demonizing an individual, group, or term.

Since kindergarten we've all known the value of name calling, rumors, and innuendos. Politics is no different. I've known a certain politician who purposefully would call his female nemesis a vulgar but rhyming term similar to her name. Of course, calling opponents by various derogatory but humorous names has been common since the ancient Greek forums. The late Huey P. Long of Louisiana made it art form! So did President Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin, FDR. It's a staple of politics. What's different today, at least in US politics, has been the misuse of terms like "Nazism", "Socialism", "Communism" as well as "racism" and others. The intent seems to be to confuse people by trying to convince them that the term means something that it doesn't. For instance, claiming that the Democratic Party is "Socialism" or "Communist" while the GOP is "Nazis" (this can just as easily be applied to a specific individual from either party as well).

The fact is that neither the Democrats or Republicans are as the other side claim. Both represent corporate special interest groups; each has its own agenda. While socialism and Communism imply doing away with capitalism and Nazism implies business interests becoming subservient to the state, which are all opposite to what the Oligarchy wants. In addition, the overuse and misuse of the terms distorts and dilutes their meanings to the point no one understands their significance. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose for it to mean---neither more or less". Has politics now become the "Looking Glass"? This misapplication of terms also distort the fact that ideologies such as democratic socialism had worked quite well in Europe until recently when the system was overloaded with "migrants" who, lacking skills, education and a similar work ethic, refuse to participate in the economic system which is required for its success.

However, when it did work properly, the citizenry benefited very handsomely. Yes, they paid much higher taxes (which they voted to approve), but they were willing to do so in exchange for more public benefits. But it also meant the corporations were also more heavily regulated and there was more mandatory transparency. It also meant that unions and employee associations had a much more active voice in government and work affairs. That's something the Oligarchy obviously doesn't want. So, terms like "democratic socialism" become linked to "Communism" or even "Nazism", which already have negative connotations, as if they were one in the same.

So, what kind of government does the Oligarchy and plutocracy want? Their ideal form of government is Fascism, which as its founder, Benito Mussolini once said, would be better called as "Corporatism" since it's a partnership between government and the major businesses (in his view, government would be the senior partner while today it's the opposite). The plutocracy, as the name implies, would like to see to that the rich (and by that I mean really rich) elites are in charge. Thus, the special interest groups behind the Democratic Party and its politicians are pushing for Left oriented form of Fascism while those behind the Republican Party are trying to implant a Right leaning form of Fascism. Either way, it's Fascism.

For it to succeed, we must be ignorant of or willing to ignore the many forms of corruption and manipulation which are taking place at all levels of government (the so-called "Nanny State" which wants to control what you eat, wear, the education of you and your children, your workplace, use of private land, living "off the grid", and so forth while learning everything there is about you). It's also necessary that we not be united. That's one reason we see such groups like Antifa and BLM with their paid organizers and agitators (surprisingly, the Right has been unexpectedly quite when it comes to social violence). However, to be sure when it has come to police shootings, there has been several instances where the police reacted improperly and weren't either punished or adequately punished. But too has been the tendency of the certain groups to think they don't have to follow a cop's instructions or to act physically or verbally aggressively (either intentionally or not). You just don't make a intense situation worse by doing that. It's really stupid and a recipe for tragedy.

There are things we can do, at least for now, to help offset this assault on our individual freedoms and to restore our Constitutional Republics, which for now appears lost. One, don't share personal information (especially financial or political) with groups you don't know. This is especially true of surveys by phone or online (such as the seemly innocent looking quizzes online which offer to tell you what's your "totem animal" or "power color" or whatever). If you must, then lie about the responses. Seriously. Don't give any real data about your viewing, shopping, dining habits no matter how innocent they seem. It all goes to build a profile of you and others with similar responses.

Another thing you can do is to assume that the media, just like politicians or other political groups, have an agenda they're pushing. Try to get as many diverse news sources as possible. Read Left leaning articles as well as Right leaning on the same topic if possible in order to seek out the truth, which is usually somewhere in the middle (no one said this was going to be easy). Read different blogs and pass them on to your friends and ask that they do the same (like this one for instance!). Go outside the US for news stories. You'll be surprised at the different takes they have on events in the US as well as the stories they find important that we never hear about.

We also need to support candidates based on their stances on issues, not political registration (and especially not based on newspaper or other endorsements which, again, are pushing their agendas not yours). Pay specific attention to third party and Independent candidates (remember, Indies are the largest voting bloc in America by far). Partisan politics are about pushing someone else's agenda who has a lot more money than you do or ever will. Get involved in issues which are non-partisan such as real campaign finance reform which makes it possible for anyone to afford to run for office; ending gerrymandering for political parties. This creates artificial and biased boundaries designed to keep the incumbent or their party in power. Push for a non-partisan group like a university to do it using simple population data not based on political registration.

Get involved with efforts to create a balanced playing field for Independents and third parties to file and run for office, as well as participate in debates. There are still backward states which require non-partisan candidates to have hundreds or even thousands more signatures to get on a ballot than a Republican or Democrat. Also, both corporate owned parties actively seek to keep third party and Independent candidates out of debates; they make it appear that you have "choices" while limiting those choices to two! As an aside, the news media also try to ignore third party and Indie candidates; treating like a sideshow if they acknowledge them at all. Voters also need to be the ones with the final say on tax or rates increases, as well as increases in public sector salaries or perks. Allowing citizen initiated ballot referendums must be given.

Volunteer or financially support Indies or a third party candidate if you can, even if it's just telling others. Demand term limits be imposed in order to at least limit the amount of corruption going on. Personally, I support a twelve year cap. Focus on individual issues, and be sure to keep an open mind (doing a little research of your own won't hurt either). Heck, don't vote for incumbents for a change of pace and fresh ideas! Lastly, find ways to bring diverse groups together to target specific problems. If we can do this, we can fight back against the obvious attempt to hijack our country, its values, and its traditions. We need to restore our Constitutional Republic, and by coming together we can do that. But if we wait any longer that opportunity, like our nation, will be gone forever. Let's kick to the curb those who seek to overthrow our nation like yesterday's garbage.

The Two Faces of Racism

I think any who knows me or is a regular reader of A/O knows that I couldn't care less about someone's race, income level, gender or sexual orientation, or religion. My interest is on social justice and non-partisanship. I view people on how they treat me and how they treat others. 

People need to accept responsibility for their actions and stop blaming others or using social crutches when things don't go their way By the same token, however, I never gave anyone a pass based on their race or whatever. You are what you are and that's it as far as I'm concerned. 

Nevertheless, we seem to hear the term "racist" or "racism" bandied around a lot these days (including reverse racism). It seems that in most cases it's coming from Blacks or Hispanics and is being aimed at primarily whites. In a few cases, I think it may be justified. There are some examples of subtle and not to subtle racism taking place, however, it appears that more often than not the term is being used as some form of chastisement for disagreeing with someone of color; of not giving them what they think they're entitled to, and that's wrong. It cheapens the impact of the term. Back in the 60's and 70's, a term for narrow mindedness was to call someone a "conservative". By the 1980's, being called a "liberal" was seen as derogatory.

Now, I do want to clear something up before going any further. There is such a thing as institutional racism, which is the more subtle and perhaps sinister form of racism. This type of racism has manifested itself in several well publicized events involving the police where a Black individual was shot and killed (Tamir Rice comes to mind). We've all seen the video where Eric Garner was choked to death by a New York City cop or Walter Scott, the unarmed Black male repeatedly shot in the back while he ran away. 

The South Carolina police officer claimed he feared for their life. There has been numerous other examples. In some instances, the officer or officers are usually found innocent when they clearly weren't. In several incidents, the officer was justified in taking the kill shot since their life was obviously threatened. In most of these events, as tragic as they were, these events are usually followed by looting, robbery, arson, and attempted assaults on police officers. Most of us are taught that if an cop tells you to stop and put your hands up, that's what you do. Yet you'll hear others say that because Blacks are taught to fear police, they should be treated differently if they decide to run.

I fail to see how any of that made the situation better. Some apologists will say that the community was "angry" and "had" to act out. Really? You mean to tell me that the answer to violence was more violence and destruction of property and robbing neighbors? You'll note that rarely, in similar circumstances, do you see the same "torch and trash" mentality among whites or Asian (or for that matter, generally among most Hispanics). 

Therefore, if that is indeed the case, then we have not a racial problem but a psychological group problem that either willfully ignores right from wrong or is mentally incapable of understanding the difference between the two, and that would likely lead to a societal failure; the treatment of which I could only guess at but assume it would result in the wholesale drugging of an entire population. Perhaps the problem stems from broken homes without a strong supportive male presence. 

Perhaps it also results in behavioral problems in school where defying authority is accepted as the norm (the argument being that black students, especially males, resent non-white authority figures yet the behavior remains the same in schools where the facility is predominately black as well). Some add that there is a "hopelessness" anticipated upon graduation due to low GPAs and students being "flunked forward", which might be true (unfortunately , however, academic performance is usually repeatedly lowered across the board to artificially inflate the passing grades).

 
However, academic performance is often seen as "acting white" or "acting Asian" and thus, strongly discouraged by peer pressure. As with any single parent families, the responsibility for the welfare of the child or children falls on the mother (if she's even present in their lives) or their extend families such as grandparents, cousins, or even foster homes. 

As such, they rarely if ever are able to take an active role in the child's academic or even social life. Well, obviously, poor academic performance coupled with poor discipline (and the lack of ability to administer any discipline) is a near guarantee for life failure (and let's face it, not everyone is going to be a sports star, especially if they can barely spell their name). The result is usually a quick track to jail or gangs and both generally lead to the cemetery. The Black community has always had an unusual attachment to their churches, which seems to attempt to fill the broken home void and instill a sense of self-worth and pride, community, and values; all good things in my opinion, but nothing beats a stable home life.

Schools exist to teach. Not to serve as glorified babysitters. Teachers should not fear being attacked, nor should they be forced to pass failing students to meet some mandated quotas. Control of academics should be at the local level and taken out the hands of the federal government as much as possible. 

Discipline must be restore, either with the parent's permission or the parent's direct intervention. No exceptions. Students should be required to meet minimum academic performances before any extracurricular activities are allow, especially sports. We must stop dumbing down academics and trying to make everyone fit into one neat peg hole.

Those who excel should be encouraged and provided with the resources to help them achieve their potential regardless of race or any other factor (those who attempt to bully students of color for "acting white" or acting Asian" should be dealt with severely. No one should fear having their future taken away from them). All students should be required to take some form of art, music or theater. 

All students should be required to take a civics class and perform at least six academic hours of community service. Lastly, we need to return to trade and vocational education since not everyone needs to attend college but everyone does need a professional skill. In fact, there are shortages in the trades and most pay quite well. Technical knowledge is easily transferable, so no matter where you live there will likely be a demand for your skills. I think once we can improve the academic and self-worth side, I think we can go a long way to eliminating the sense of inferiority which leads some to claim "racism" and the need for violence.

On the institutional side, we need to take serious steps to eliminate the internal protection of those who engage in subtle racism and, to be blunt, bad cops. Right now we seem to have a system which protects and hides bad officers from punishment the same way the Catholic Church has done for pedophiles (another hideous crime which must be stopped). I understand the need for police officers to protect one another (they have this "us against the world" attitude and that most of us are simply criminals they haven't caught yet). T

he point is, bad behavior reflects on the good guys just as much as it reflects on the bad ones and on the judicial system. True, if convicted, these officers are likely to be placed in the same prison system they helped to send the thugs. Frankly, I think that's just too bad. They should have thought about that before they acted irresponsibly. For a society to function properly, there has to be a sense of trust in those whose jobs are to provide safety and administer justice. 

Right now, that's lacking in this country. We have a level of confidence in the federal government which would have triggered an all out revolution in just about any other country several times over (and I have no doubt that we'll have one yet). However, until the system steps up to plate and takes responsibility for the actions of those it hires, the situation will continue to get worse, and that means more people will disregard the police, the courts, and take matters into their own hands, which includes shooting cops and judges if that's the only way they see justice happening.

Lastly, the corporate media. After watching the actions of the corporate media---the so-called "liberal" and "conservative"---it's clear they have "crapped in their own nests". The corporate media, which has long been biased, dropped all pretenses this last go around and openly endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton. They did everything they could to distract, bury, distort, and misdirect. 

Right now they're towing the "Russian's did it" line to cover for Hillary's loss as the result of her corruption uncovered by WikiLeaks. and other sources (including the use of unsecured servers, cell phones, etc). They are trying to find a reason to blame the Russians for "interfering" with our election process, yet we---the American People---know fully good and well that the Russians weren't involved. 

We have the same intelligence agencies who claimed the Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, claiming that the Russians somehow hack through the security wall of the NSA, FBL, DIA, CIA, and Homeland Security, just to see Hillary defeated when we've witnessed Hillary, Debbie Wassermann-Schultz of the DNC caught red-handed fixing the Democratic Primary to ensure Bernie Sanders lost, and then rigging the Democratic Convention to keep Sander's supporters out.

So, when it comes to "racism", we see these same corporate media types trot out the same race baiters and show the same cherry picked and heavily edited footage. In fact, under President Obama, there has been as greater racial divide in this country since the early 1960's. In fact, there seems to be an underlining theme to promote as much division between Americans as possible, be it race, religion, illegal immigration, importing unvetted Muslims from hostile countries, attempts to rekindle a cold war with Russia, issues involving sexual orientation, and so forth. 

 If you look back to the 1980's for instance, you'll note that issues involving race were pretty rare. In fact, there was a significant rise in inter-racial relationships that was unprecedented. Inter-racial or minority dominated TV shows were commonplace and no one cared! Now, it seems like some folks are wearing it on their sleeves and some Black Congressmen and Senators are again talking about Civil War reparations, which would go a long way to raising racial tensions.

Personally, I think this is intentional. As most Americans know by now, America is an oligarchy. We are headed headlong into a neo-fascist police state. The State needs for us to feel insecure. They need for us to demand protection, and they will be all to happy to provide it...in exchange for our personal freedom and greater control over our lives. 

In order to be successful, they need for us to be at each other's throats. They need for violence and uncertainty to reign, and they requires that we be divided; they we be afraid. It also requires that we be unarmed and unable to defend ourselves. As long as we fear or hate each other, we are not looking at them. We are not watching or questioning our freedoms vanishing in the name of "security" or "protection". After all, we were the ones who "demanded" it. 

We need to acknowledge that we are being manipulated and intentionally divided. The government is not our own. It has been usurped by a corporate elite---the 1% if you will. We must ignore the race baiters. We must demand that those who do engage in legitimate hate crimes, regardless of their race, orientation or religion, be punished. The threat to our liberty won't coming thundering. It will be subtle and it will be cloaked in good intentions.


If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 


Obama Has Produced More Racism Than 200 Years of Slavery


Socialist Leader: Racism Is Worse Under Obama


Deep Racial Divide Remains Under Obama


Obama Scolded for 'Divisive' Speech on Racism to Blacks