Impeachment and Life After Trump: "To Whom It May Concern in Anywhere America"

 

Like him or hate him, you have to admit that Donald Trump was never boring. From his sold out speeches in stadiums throughout the country, to his press conferences and verbal jousts with so-called "journalists", to his tweets, we never knew what he was going to say.

However, it was mostly the later, his tweets, which were the most incendiary. Though they were typically directed to his supporters, he would use the platform to go after those who attacked him directly or indirectly. It became a way to express his opinions in a candid and often unfiltered way. 

On January 6th, massive numbers of pro-Trump and ordinary conservatives from around the country descended on Washington DC to express their anger at what they saw as a blatantly rigged election and failed government. But it was much more than that. They were tired of the condescending attitude of members of Congress (both parties) and open bias of the media.

They had endured eight years of mockery and ridicule under the Obama Administration and a full four years of barely concealed contempt and smugness from the Speaker of the House on down. It was just as bad in the Senate. It was all over the news and on social media nearly every minute of every day. It was integrated into magazines, books, music, TV shows, radio, and movies.

Now that the nation had a new (and some who believed an illegitimate) President suddenly calling for "unity" and "coming together" with that the Status Quo back in charge was too much.  So, they planned, organized, and came together in a open and highly visible expression of their own contempt for a system which failed them; which belittled them.

Anyone who bothered to look out their window could see what was happening. There was no doubt that the Establishment was peeing down its collective leg. They were terrified. Hiding in locked rooms, in closets, under tables. They couldn't imagine the American People were actually coming together and saying "enough!". It's the one thing they least expected. It was also the one thing they feared the most.

Trump tweeted out words of support and encouragement. This was what he had fought for over the last four years. Never did his tweets call on the protesters to vandalize, loot, or deface property the way Antifa or BLM had done the preceding year. Never did he urge the protestors to break windows or even enter House or Senate chambers. And, he never encouraged the violence which unfolded.

Yes, a number of the protestors were armed. It was no secret. It was out in the open for all to see. But not surprisingly, their message was lost on the elites. What could all those gun toting protestors carrying American flags and pro-Trump banners want except to tar and feather members of Congress? 

 But the message was clear to the most casual viewer. They were there to impress on Washington that the American People have a right to carry arms. It's called the Second Amendment. It's right up there with the First Amendment---the right to freedom of speech, expression, religion, and to assemble.

 It didn't mean they were there for violence. It was to remind Congress that the People have those rights and will protect them if need be. Of course, how do you explain this to those who sincerely believe they have a pre-ordained right to rule---not govern--- but rule? The concept was beyond their understanding.  But something went wrong. What? The answer is that there were multiple mistakes.

The first mistake was the media. The only ones there that day was the corporate media which has spent every moment over the last four years trying to divide this country, be it Left vs. Right vs.the Center; black vs. white vs. brown vs. yellow vs. everyone else; men vs. women; straights vs. gays, and so on. Division, as artificial as it may be, drives ratings and ratings equal advertising which is money. Divided we can be controlled and manipulated. Together we can't.

The corporate media is the eyes, ears, and mouthpiece of the Status Quo; the Establishment. If you watched any of the "reporting". They were stunned to find conservative blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans in with the crowds. They were equally stymied to see gun totting women and yes, even gays there as part of the protest. It didn't fit the narrative they've been feeding us. The solution was, as always, to misdirect out attention, manipulate the image, and obscure the message.

What was missing was the eyes, ears, and voice of the protestors. Who was their media advocate? The answer was no body (you can't really include Fox News anymore). Image is perception. Perception becomes reality. It controls the narrative, and the organizers left it to the corporate media to dictate what that would be.

The second mistake was not knowing the crowd. I don't how the organizers set about getting the message out, but they did a good job in getting people there. But there was a large gathering of Antifa and BLM just a few blocks away for their own event, which could have easily spun out of control had the two groups clashed. 

Some allege that Antifa infiltrators were the ones breaking windows and spray painting walls,  but there's no hard proof of that (vandalism is a hallmark of Antifa as America and the world witnessed last year).  For those unaware, Antifa is a Far Left anarchist group. They are not directly associated with the Democrats per se. While the name is shorthand for "Anti-Fascist" they tend to behave similar to Nazi Brownshirts and Mussolini's Blackshirts, both  fascist organizations, and the Maoist Red Front.

Several members of the pro-Trump crowd tried to point out these interlopers and separate them from other protestors (they were mostly successful). However, the damage was done, both figuratively and literally. Without a supportive media there to record it as it happened, it created the image the radical Left wanted and the Status Quo hoped for.

The third mistake was Trump himself. The election was over, and whether the results were right or rigged, the corporate media was portraying the outcome as factual.  Trump resisted. He was upset and angry, and he struck out. Never let your emotions guide your actions. He should have known that as a businessman. But, unintentionally, it was his tweets which were his undoing.

President Trump had long used social media to bypass blatantly biased news outlets so much so that they spent as much time on his tweets and posts as they did on his actual statements. Following the election, his media bursts became sharper.

However, on January 6th, Trump tweeted messages like "stay strong" and "fight like hell" to his supporters . While his intent was to provide moral encouragement, the message was distorted. It was filtered through a corporate media seething with hatred for the President and his supporters. It was portrayed in a matter not intended. It was portrayed as to encourage violence and mayhem.

In all likelihood, I suspect that neither Trump or his staff were fully aware of what was actually happening outside. After all, they had been hurried into secure rooms, safe from any potential harm. Any information they received from outside was likely old, incomplete, or possibly inaccurate.

Given Trump's history, his cell phone should have been "secured". Without full knowledge of events, anything more than a "be safe" or "keep it peaceful" message was bound to do more harm than good, and, as we all know, it did. 

Ultimately, one protester, Ashli Babbitt, was shot dead by Capital Police. One police officer died while engaging protestors. Three others died from natural causes, and several were injured. Papers inside House and Senate chambers were strewn everywhere. Even Pelosi's podium was stolen! Windows were broken, laptops went missing, along with some general vandalism as mentioned previously.

The Establishment was pissed. It was time for revenge, and it came swift starting with social media suspending a setting President's accounts and cutting off any direct and unfiltered communication with the American public. There was also a crackdown on Conservative sites as well, including pressuring other social media sites to comply with their new guidelines or risk being deplatformed.

Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi was publically beside herself in anger that citizens had invaded the "People's House" while they were doing "the People's business" without permission. Ugh! We can't have the common rabble running around Congress. Who do these peasants think they are? It's not like Congress actually represents them or anything right?

So, Trump is gone. Biden is President, but that's not the end of the story. Trump is to be the first American President to be impeached twice, which could create a Constitutional crisis of sorts. Can someone be prosecuted for what happened while in office after they've left? We know they can be removed from office while still in office, but what if they're no longer in office?

It's likely the matter will eventually find its way before the Supreme Court, assuming the High Court will even hear the matter. After all, the point of impeachment is to censure the individual for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and, secondly, to remove them from office if necessary. In our history, only three presidents have been impeached, Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.  But what about Richard Nixon? Why could he be important?

President Nixon was never impeached for his role in the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up which included a kidnapping, wiretapping, destruction of evidence, and lying to Congress. However, the House was proceeding with impeachment hearings when Nixon resigned (had he not, he would have likely been impeached and possibly removed from office).

Nevertheless, Nixon was never tried although others were, and some went to jail for their roles. As far as ole "Tricky Dick" Nixon was concerned, the matter was dropped. Nixon didn't lose any of his perks of having been president either. Trump is accused of far less.

It seems to me Nixon comes the closest to Trump's current situation. Nixon avoided impeachment by resigning, nevertheless the stigma remained. As Trump is no longer President, there is no reason to impeach him. His removal from office came as a result of the election. Like Nixon (and even Clinton), the stigma of the first impeachment will itself likely keep him from ever seeking public office again.

But unlike Nixon or Clinton, this isn't about a break in or lying to Congress about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office. It's political, which means its personal. Donald Trump was an outsider who upset the plans of the Status Quo by defeating Hillary Clinton. He then set about exposing the corruption of Establishment, which included both parties, big business, and the media. That was unacceptable. This is about sending a message addressed "To Whom It May Concern in Anywhere America".

That message is a simple one. They will not ever allow another outsider. They will never again be publicly exposed for who they are. They are self-ordained to rule by virtue of their wealth and connections. They are not "one of us". They are our betters. They, and they alone know what's best for us. Our job is to keep quiet and do as we're told. Set back and enjoy the "bread and circuses".

The game is rigged. It's fixed. As George Carlin said, "It's a big club and you ain't in it".  Everything you or I suspected is likely not just true, but worse than we imagined. Once we accept this simple truth, regardless of which wing of the vulture we're under, the better we're going to be. Why? Because knowing the truth isn't the same as accepting it. Once it's accepted, you can act on it. You can start doing something about it.

 

 

These Are The 5 People Who Died in the Capital Riot

Watergate Scandal

George Carlin: It's a big club and you ain't in it

 

 

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

The Impeachment of Donald Trump

Have you ever heard of the "50 Year Scandal Cycle? It's one of those urban myths which say that about every 50 years or so, Washington undergoes some sort of major crisis or scandal. In the early 1870's, former Union General and U.S. President, Ulysses S. Grant, was duped into the national "gold conspiracy" by the robber barons Jay Gould and James Fisk, along with members of his administration which included the Credit Mobilier and Whiskey Ring scandals. It almost cost Grant the presidency.

In the early 1920's, President Warren G. Harding's administration was caught up in the Teapot Dome scandal. Fortunately for Harding, he died before being implicated. Then in the early 1970's we had President Richard Nixon and the Watergate break-in. The result was Nixon resigning in order to avoid being facing possible impeachment while other took the fall. The next big scandal, according to the myth should be around early 2020, and right on cue, we have the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Of course, as with most urban myths, they tend to fall apart under scrutiny. After all, if you go back 50 years before Grant we have President James Monroe. His administration was relatively uneventful except for the Panic of 1819 which was caused by poor banking practices and rampant land speculation. We also had the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This created a balance of sorts between the admission of free and slave-holding states which held until the late early 1860.

Coming forward, we had other major events such as the Great Depression in 1929, which, although brought about by the economic policies of President Coolidge, were largely blamed in on Herbert Hoover. We had World War I under Woodrow Wilson and World War II under Franklin D Roosevelt, not to mention Korean and Vietnam wars as well as other economic downturns and social changes.

So while you can make of it as you will, there's no doubt that we are facing another key juncture in our nation's history. As a country, America is more divided along more lines than at any other time since the Late Antebellum Period just preceding the advent of the Civil War. At the center is President Donald Trump who is seen by the conservative Right as the last major barrier to a "socialist" or "Communist" take over by the Left. Meanwhile the Left sees Trump and his supporters as akin to Fascists or Nazis with both sides accusing the other of as the death harbinger to our nation's democracy. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Never mind the fact that we're nowhere near the accepted definition of "socialism" let alone Communism, and neither are we even remotely close to being like Nazi Germany. However, the death knell of our democratic Republic has long ago sounded. We are, as everyone should know, an Oligarchy; a tightly woven neo-fascist corporate-government alliance replete with a corporate owned propaganda wing in the form of the media. It has produced an emerging surveillance/police state, created under the auspices of "national security" which provides adequate cover to all those seeking to curtail our natural and Constitutional rights, not to mention a perpetual "war on terrorism" to artificially stimulate the economy and to "bled off" a "surplus" population and all the while making obscene profits. It has redefined "freedom of speech" and personhood. It has co-opted both political parties which now serves its interests while leaving us with the illusion of choice. Suffice it to say that America in the Age of Trump is a badly broken country, but I digress.

So what are we to make of the impeachment of Trump? Is it, perhaps, payback by the Democrats for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton? After all, he was originally brought up on four charges under the label of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Two were charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power relating to his affairs with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Two of the charges were dropped, and Clinton was brought up one count each of obstruction of justice and perjury. While Clinton was charged in a bipartisan vote in the House, he was ultimately acquitted along a split vote in Senate.

In the case of Trump, the move to impeach was strictly along partisan lines, at least in the House where Democrats are in control (and there is a personal vendetta against Trump being played out by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)). Nevertheless, when (and if) it goes to the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans and led by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), it will die an ignominious death amid partisan cries of "shame!". I wouldn't be surprised to see it remain in the House where it would be a matter of record, to be used by Democratic candidates as a club to bludgeon their Republican rivals with (especially a candidate Trump or anyone seeking to use his coattails).

But what is this really about? Trump is accused of two charges, obstruction of Congress and abuse of power stemming over his alleged attempts of using the promise of military aid and a White House meeting to get the President of the Ukraine, Volodymry Zelensky, to investigate a potential rival in the 2020 Presidential race, Joe Biden, along with his son Hunter, who has business dealings in the Ukraine.

These actually seem minor, especially when you look back at what transpired under the Obama Administration such as Benghazi, Fast and Furious, failure to reduce illegal immigration and DACA, failure to anticipate the 'Arab Spring' and the crisis in the Ukraine just to mention a few though I will add that him being "award" the Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing was a joke and greatly devalued the importance of the once prestigious award.

The Democrats (ie: Nancy Pelosi) claim that Trump's actions were tantamount to "high crimes and misdemeanors". They allege that President Trump was using his position "personal gain" when dealing President Zelensky which constituted abuse of power, and then by refusing to respond to repeated House inquiries had obstructed Congress. A "whistle-blower" report was filed by an unnamed intelligence officer who claimed that "he" had access to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky claimed that Trump was essentially trying to bribe the Ukrainian President.

However, both President Trump and President Zelensky both deny that anything of the sort happened. Besides, the military aid along with additional economic aid, were released as promised. If that was an attempt to bribe, it sure was a shoddy job. As for obstructing Congress, Trump maintains that he acted well within his presidential prerogative. Perhaps Nancy was miffed because she wasn't included in the discussions.

Additional investigation by the House via lopsided partisan hearings have produced a litany of partisan witnesses who appear to be testifying as much on heresy evidence than anything. Meanwhile, other witnesses, who may in fact be just as partisan, haven't been called despite requests by the Republican House members.

So, in the final analysis, what do we have here? Personally, I think we have the nation's divide on full display for not just the country to see, but for the whole world to witness. Secondly, we have the vitreous hatred of Pelosi for Donald Trump and all he stands for as a populist conservative on full view. She has gone out of her way from the day of Trump's election to impede and discredit Trump at every turn. Is it little wonder that she has led efforts to find a way to impeach Trump from the get-go? Of course, she's far from being the only one. Other Democrats have as well, including Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Elijah Cummings (D-MD) Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA). However, it has been Pelosi who has by far been the most determined.

In the end, this circus, which has cost taxpayers millions, will have accomplished little except to deepen the divide among Americans, but perhaps that's only a small bonus for the ruling Oligarchy which pulls the strings behind the curtains. Trump wasn't suppose to win. We was an outsider; a "sideshow" attraction as some of his fellow Republican candidates said of him in 2016. He wasn't one of the pre-vetted and pre-approved choices we were given. Besides, regardless of who the GOP nominee was, Hillary Clinton was the "chosen" candidate. She was supposed to receive her well deserved coronation, after which she could reward those who had supported and covered for her, not to mention use her position to bury once and for all her numerous sins of state.

But that didn't happen. Instead, a populist conservative with a reputation of being someone who spoke his mind and wouldn't be "managed" was elected. It meant that the Status Quo---the Oligarchy---had to place its plans on hold. There was even the danger that much of what they'd accomplished could be derailed or undone. It also meant that some may even be publicly exposed, which would violate a cardinal rule that was never to be violated.

I think that, in the end, this impeachment process has had but a single objective. That objective is to destroy President Trump's chances of being reelected. In short, it's nothing more than a desperate attempt at character assassination. A President hindered with the charge of impeachment, even if ultimately acquitted, could be viewed as someone who can't be trusted with power of the American Presidency. That would leave the American People with no other choice but to vote for the candidate the ruling Oligarchy has selected for us. Whether we chose to accept their selection remains to be seen.



Barack Obama Was a Foreign Policy Failure

Impeachment Inquiry Against Donald Trump

Trump impeachment inquiry: A simple guide


Top Democrats set to make Trump's life miserable in 2019

Karma: It Can Be A Bitch You Know (Especially in Politics)

You know, they say that Karma is bitch, which I have often seen proven true. There's also a saying by the great Chinese military and political strategist, Sun Tzu, which say that "if you wait by a river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by". Perhaps is this no better applied than in the world of politics. Not long ago, many pundits were predicting about the decline and fall of the Republican Party. The Reagan Revolution had come and gone. George H.W. Bush had liberated Exxon and BP...uh...I mean Kuwait.. from the evil clutches of our regional Iranian counterweight...I mean that ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile our national economy was sputtering, and right on queue came an unknown governor from Hope Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, better known to all simply as "Bill" and his "barely concealed" Machiavellian wife, Hillary. Well, those eight years proved to be a lot of fun didn't they? The economy bounced backed; there were some pretty positive initiatives passed, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act and Megan's Law, along with a few goofs like NAFTA and expanding NATO into Eastern Europe.

We got ourselves involved in a few civil wars, such as Mogadishu and in former Yugoslavia, and his failure to kill and/or capture Osama bin Laden at Kandahar when he had the chance. Of course, we can't forget the impeachment hearings and his lying to Congress (which apparently hinged on what the definition of "is" is). However, most people simply didn't care. They felt that was between Bill, Hillary, and his "victim-of-the-month". After all, the economy was doing great and that was all that mattered. By the time Clinton left office, the Democratic Party was doing pretty well, while the GOP was busy trying to redefine itself and remain relevant after their 1994 "Contract With America" turned out to be more of a "Contract On America" and blew up in the collective faces.

So, then came George "Dubya" Bush, aka "Shrub". I think what most people liked about Shrub...err...George was his laidback easygoing attitude. It seems everyone had an uncle like George locked away somewhere. He proved that anyone with a "D+" grade point average; who was unsuccessful as a businessman, a poor military record, a recovering alcoholic, but had lots of family money and connections could still become president, thus proving the "American Dream" was still alive.

Then again, it could be that voters just couldn't stand elitist Al Gore. Here was a man who just couldn't connect with the American People. He was "insider royalty". He was so elitist that his attempts to fit in with ordinary American's was comical. Then came the presidential debates and Gore's attempts to bully or intimidate Bush (which Bush just laughed off, along with the rest of America on national television).

Now, here was a guy born in the Heart of America, Washington DC (if you're the Tin Man); the son of wealthy and powerful Senator, Albert "Al" Gore Sr, who represented the flyover state of Tennessee. The future VP attended Harvard and Vanderbilt, and volunteered to go to Vietnam as an ordinary private, where he served with the 20th Engineer Brigade as a journalist. He would go on to serve in Congress from 1977 to 1993, when he was selected to run as Clinton's choice of VP. Regardless, Gore just couldn't connect with the American People.

Much to the surprise of the Democrats, who were still riding the Clinton high, "Dubya" won the election. As first, he seen as something of a joke: the proverbial class clown who somehow managed to steal the prom queen from the school jock. Even many Republicans started to shake their heads in embarrassed wonderment. Thankfully, there was some old hands of his dad (and the Establishment) to steer his Ship of State along the dangerous narrows; individuals like VP Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, AG John Ashcroft, Reich Secur...uh...I mean...Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. There Elaine Chao, the wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, who headed up the Department of Labor, as well as two excellent Secretaries of State, Former General Colin Powell and later, Condoleezza "Condi" Rice.

Nevertheless, it was one event which sealed Bush's presidential legacy more than any other, and that was September 11, 2001; better known simply as "9/11". It was the one event which has come to symbolize the early 21st Century. It was the day where America was deliberately attacked by an enemy most Americans didn't even know existed, from a country that some would have trouble finding on a map, and by a group the majority of Americans had never heard of...Al Qaeda.

However, there were some who had heard of its leader....Osama bin Laden; the same bin Laden whom Bill Clinton's Administration failed to kill years earlier (and the same individual whom the CIA picked out as potential leader decades before), after Russia invaded Afghanistan during the final months of the Carter Administrations and the beginning of Reagan's (under "Operation Cyclone", the CIA provided military aid, intelligence reports, training, and logistics to Afghani rebels known as the "Mujahideen", of which bin Laden was one).

This cowardly attack has often compared to the Japanese sneak attack on December 7, 1941 on Pearl Harbor, of course led to US and some allied troops to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and indirectly, led to the US and some Coalition troops to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein; apparently his usefulness had run out, and then again, maybe he knew too many secrets. The excuse this time was "weapons of mass destruction" or "WMDs", which we were repeatedly assured not only existed, but that Saddam was about to unleash on the world! Of course, as we were to learn later, they didn't exist. However, for Saddam and his cronies, he didn't matter. Only the perception that he did mattered. The outcome was a foregone conclusion...he and most of his ministers were executed.

Since then, efforts to rebuild both Afghanistan and Iraq have proved to be much more difficult than originally predicted and has led to a quagmire which we're still dealing with today. Meanwhile, "Dubya" exited the stage with the public's opinion of his administration pretty low (he has the unique distinction of having both the highest and lowest approval ratings, 51% and 25% respectively). At this juncture, the Democrats were feeling a bit more confident about the prospects for the upcoming presidential and Congressional elections. What nobody expected was a political "nobody" coming to the forefront...Barack Hussein Obama.

Barack Obama was unique in several ways. First, he was bi-racial---black on his father's side and white on his mother's. Second, there wasn't much know about his formative years for sure. There were (and remain) many questions over his place of birth; his education in Indonesia and apparently Muslim upbringing; his education in Hawaii, as well as family and personal friends with far Left or Communist sympathies, including former 60's radical and member of the Weathermen, Bill Ayers. Barack Obama was pretty much an unknown at college, despite his claims to contrary. While he claimed to be a law professor, he was in fact actually an adjunct instructor who taught just a handful of courses. In terms of having any real political experience, he was a neighborhood organizer for ACORN. He ultimately managed to fill an empty seat in the Illinois Senate and amassed no memorable record (voting mostly "here" or "present"). He was later, in 2005, that he was elected to fill an empty US Senate seat. It was as "Junior" Senator, with no national or even regional name recognition, that he decided to run for president (a highly unusual and risky political move).

What made the move that much more risky was that he would face the odds on favorite, Senator Hillary Clinton (she had changed her residency to New York to run for Bobby Kennedy's old seat, thus creating a link between the Clinton's and the Kennedy's (Bill Clinton met JFK as young man and has remained a lifelong admirer). Ultimately, Clinton lost in a highly contested campaign to the Junior Senator. Obama would go on to face Senior Senator John McCain, a disabled Vietnam War veteran, former POW, and a highly distinguished Naval pilot who came from a long line of Naval officers.

John McCain, who first rose to national prominence while he was a prisoner of war, held in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton". He later became a US Senator in 1987, after having served as member of the House of Representatives. McCain quickly earned a reputation for being outspoken and frequently disagreed with GOP party bosses. He was seen by many as a moderate or a more "traditional" conservative. Given McCain's reputation and name recognition, it was presumed that he would easily beat the Illinois upstart. However, that wasn't to be the case.

Barack Obama used his youth, bi-racial status, and charismatic speaking ability to attract the emerging Millennials, who are the largest voting demographic, while McCain's appealed mainly to the aging Babyboomers. There was also a notable difference between the two campaigns. McCain's campaign conformed primarily to the more tradition format (with the novelty of selecting an unknown for VP, non-conformist Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, to attract the more conservative elements of the GOP. Ironically, Palin would prove to be more popular among Tea Parties and some other conservatives than McCain). Obama's campaign was based more on the use of social media, including his use of the internet to raise money. In the end, McCain was outspent 4 to 1, and Obama won with 53% of the vote compared to McCain's 46%. Obama's first term, however, did light a spark under the Democrats, though the numbers were pretty much average with his accomplishments (except golf outings. There Obama wins hands down with 113). Immediately after becoming president, Obama was also roundly booed by public opinion for being "awarded" the "Nobel Peace Prize", an honor he didn't earn, and as a result, tarnished the award for all future recipients. However, it would be his second term which would become most noteworthy. First though, he had to defeat the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts.

Rome had its Crassus. The Democratic Party has its Al Gore. The Republicans have Mitt Romney. Romney, like Al Gore, comes from a prominent political family. Both of his parents, George and Lenore were very active in politics (his mother even ran for office), while his father went to work for the Nixon Administration as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and then, later, as Governor of Michigan. In addition to coming from a established political family, they were also Mormon. Mitt also made a fortune while working for Bain Capital (and ultimately as CEO) through leveraged buyouts. His net worth is estimated to be $250 million (his wife, the daughter of heavy construction equipment co-founder Jared Industries, Edward and Lois Davies, is worth some $50 million).

Like McCain, Mitt Romney just didn't connect with ordinary Americans. He had no real understanding of their issues, and certainly didn't share their working class values. He came across as arrogant and pandering. When the dust settled, Obama had won his second term with just over 51% compared to Romney's 47.21%. What hurt Obama in this election was the lower return of Millennials, who, while strongly disapproving of Romney, were disappointed in Obama's first term performance.

Obama's second term proved to be controversial, from de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants (and a questionable lawsuit against Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws), to the illegal sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels, the "Obamacare" healthcare law (which was unconstitutionally altered by the Supreme Court. In addition, prior promises by Obama, such as keeping healthcare providers, existing insurance, all turned out to be false). Perhaps worse of all, was the lies surrounding the Benghazi attack and the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three former special forces/CIA operatives amid illegal arms shipments to Syria and the same terrorists were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (except in Syria, where we suddenly called them "freedom fighters", since they opposed Russia's longtime regional ally). But, what difference did that matter?

The situation in the Middle East failed to improve as did his attempts at expanding gun control to ban "assault" weapons. IRS official Lois Lerner testified that conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status had been targeted by the IRS. Obama also pressed for a land invasion of Syria which was met with absolute rejection by the American People. Obama's Secretary of the Veteran Affairs, Eric Shenski, was forced to resign over charges of mistreatment, misreporting, and prolonged delays resulting in appointment backlogs and preventable veteran deaths. On the plus, Navy SEALs did find and kill Osama Bin Laden, despite delay's by the Obama Administration.

Obama, like Clinton's NAFTA, signed TransPacific Partnership, again selling out unions. We also had "Citizens United" upheld, which gave corporations the same rights as humans, except when it came to political contributions, where they were permitted near unlimited "free speech" (as donations were euphemistically called), while it remained limited for ordinary flesh and blood types. Without question, Obama's second term didn't live up to expectations, by Obama, his administration, or the American People. His approval rating for his second term only averaged 47.9% while the public's confidence in government slumped to a mere 30%.

So, there you have it. All the "static" about Trump's success or failures so soon into his first term is just that...static. Each political party has its ups and down. The big difference in Trump's case, is the open season by the corporate managed media. Trump was the "unexpected" candidate; he was the anti-establishment candidate that didn't come with strings attached. The media and political establishment----both corporate owned parties, the "K" Street lobbyists, the "princesses and snowflakes", and all those with dirty hands---already had Hillary crowned and enthroned. They were wrong. The public knew her record and they rejected it. Perhaps...just perhaps...Americans have finally had enough. We can only hope.



Obama's first term: By the number


Republicans for Obama


Obama's second term: A timeline


Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of Government

Generations

My generation, the Babyboomers, began with the idealism of John F. Kennedy. Granted, Kennedy wasn't a great president. Some would argue that he wasn't even a good president. Some make the claim that Kennedy was only starting to hit his stride and it would have taken a second term to test his true potential for greatness. But, of course, we will never know. When he was murdered in Dallas on that November day in 1963, the man died and the legend, or rather, the myth of Camelot began to take shape. His brother, Bobby, did much to create that myth. His death too added to it. It was a traumatic time, with the death of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Civil Rights movement, the "Freedom Riders" and the murder of three young men in Mississippi, the Watts riot (and countless others), not to mention the war in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and our government's efforts to "contain communism" through not just wars and insurrections, but manufactured coups and assassinations.

Of course, like to many wars, the one which began in Vietnam was started on the basis of a manufactured event; a lie. "The Tonkin Gulf Incident" as it was called. The story, as it was originally told, was that a US ship was in international waters when it was deliberately attacked by ships from those nasty godless Communists, the North Vietnamese. In really, there was no attack. We were told too that we were "protecting" the Vietnamese People from Communism. In truth, this was a Civil War which had its beginnings in the 1920's against the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally, us. We installed the Vietnamese president (after approving the overthrow and assassination on his predecessor) and continued to prop him up throughout the war. We were lied to about the progress of the war, and the determination of our enemy that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen faced daily.

Sadly for my generation, we witnessed soldiers murdering college students at a university in Ohio named Kent State. My generation gave birth to Hippies, Yippies, and Flower Children; the SDS--Students for a Democratic Society, the Gray Panthers which sought to treat seniors with dignity, and more militant groups like the Weathermen, the Black Panthers with Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver, and the Symbionese Liberation Army or SLA which was made famous by heiress Patty Heart. We endured America's first defeat, not on the battlefield, but in the halls of Congress, the Office of the President, and at the negotiation table. We also witnessed governmental betrayal again with Watergate. We also saw the rise and later perversion of the "Feminist Movement", the Gay Pride Movement, Cesar Chavez and the Migrant Workers Movement for better wages and work conditions, the Ecology Movement and legislation to reduce pollution, the "Back to Nature" and the Commune Movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM) and efforts to right centuries old wrongs. We worked to bring more equality in the workplace between gender in terms of wage equality and breaking through the "glass ceiling". It should also be pointed out that we were the most materially spoiled and richest generation in history in terms of disposable income. We would go on to produce self-adsorbed materialistic Yuppies and "Soccer Moms". We became what we loathed the most.

orld stage. We have gone from the John and Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Chavez to the likes of Bill "Cigar" Clinton, George W Bush, with Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush filling in the highs and lows in between. Finally, we capped it all off with Hillary Clinton. My how we've fallen. In many respects, Hillary represents the ideals of my generation. First and foremost, she was the first woman to run for president...of a major party (there have been others, most notably Shirley Chisholm who was also black). She served as Secretary of State (but, again, she wasn't the first, and, again, most notably and more successfully, was Condoleezza Rice...and she was also black). She was the first wife of a former president to run for office, although one could make a serious argument for Eleanor Roosevelt serving as a co-President or for Woodrow Wilson's wife, Edith, serving as the defacto President following Wilson's stroke during the latter part of his second term.

There's no questioning Hillary's public persona. She comes across as someone who cares about families, women, and social justice. However, the private Hillary---as revealed by the testimonies of those close to her---plus the thousands of private emails, as shown her to be just as hard drinking, hot tempered, and foul-mouthed as any of her male colleagues, and such as conniving. There are still unanswered questions regarding illegal gunrunning deals, use of unsecured cell phones and the release of classified information, possible acts of treason, repeatedly lying to Congress, the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi which resulting in the murder of four Americans, including the ambassador, the "pay-to-play" channeling of millions to the Clinton Foundation while she was the SoS, not to mention the curious coincidences of deaths associated with the Clintons going back decades.

Hillary Clinton claims that if the election had been held on October 27th, before the FBI Director James Comey's press conference regarding her emails, she would be president today. I beg to differ. Hillary lost because she proved to a poor candidate. She showed that, as a person, she is hollow. It wasn't one particular email or instance which did Hillary in. It was the culmination of numerous instances; of numerous emails; of numerous questionable behavior that couldn't be hidden. Not every actor can maintain their mask for long. Hers repeatedly slipped when examined closely. The American People, despite her cheerleading supporters in the corporate controlled media, weren't fools after all.

The Millennials, however, are the new generation on the block. Theirs is the largest generation in terms of numbers since the Babyboomers. They are new to the political game. They haven't learned to become cynical yet. Their first taste of politics came with Barack Obama. They bought the act. They thought they had the whole political game figured out, just as we did back in the early 60's. If they were disappointed with Obama's first term, they were stunned by his second. Perhaps that's why most Millennials have turned their backs on party politics in the first place. Most are Independents (which is America's largest political "party"), followed by Democrats and trailing in third place, Republican. They are predisposed to focus on issues and move on. Perhaps that explains their disillusionment with the outcome of the election, and their (for lack of a better term), temper tantrum. They saw Hillary Clinton as perhaps the "New Hope" to borrow from Star Wars. Another chance to do what Obama couldn't or wouldn't do. Maybe it was the sense of history and electing America's first woman as president.

So, what we've seen is a generation behaving badly. They show up at events intent on destroying property and picking fights. Whereas universities and colleges were once the bastions of free speech (thanks in part to groups like the SDS), people who may disagree with them are boycotted, shouted down, harassed, while the school's administration finds itself threatened. We find some of the Millennials demanding "safe places" where they cry in seclusion. It reminds me of spoiled kindergartners or first graders. There is an old saying which goes like this, "What the grandparent seeks to overcome, the child seeks to forget, and grandchild seeks to learn". If these Millennials are seeking to imitate us, their Babyboomer grandparents, with their militant-esque behavior, they are doing a sorry job of it. Instead of trying to run away from what they dislike (or are afraid of), or trying to bully individuals or institutions into silence, they need to examine what it is that they don't like, and that means looking at the facts of each issue, which is something that Millennials are suppose to be good at; ignoring the BS and getting to the core issue, then solving the problem.

Meanwhile, we have the corporate media not wasting a single opportunity to take a swipe at Trump or his administration. It's like the first piece on every newscast or the lead article in every newspaper has to be a concocted piece designed to discredit Trump and Company in some way. We see former Republican presidents chumming it up with their former Democrat "rivals" in bashing Trump, which only goes to show how phony the party divide really is, as if we didn't already know. I have no doubt that it's intentional. It's specifically aimed at delegitimizing Trump and to set the stage to ensure "The Donald" is a one term president, and, perhaps, to prepare Americans for an Obama third term featuring Chelsea Clinton in some capacity. After all, she is the heir apparent.

So, where do we go from here? For all our faults (and there were many), my generation of Babyboomers were (and are) idealists. To paraphrase Kennedy, we saw wrongs and sought to right them however we could. But we didn't deny people the opportunity to speak, even if we disagreed with them. We did question and challenge the system. We fought for equality...for everyone, not just one or two groups. We opposed conformity, but understood too that wherever we came from or however we got here, we were Americans, and that meant speaking a commonly understood language, English, if we were to function as a society. Racism has become a bigger issue now than it was in the 70's, and it's largely not coming from whites. We sought new ways of doing things. Perhaps we went too far in some matters and not far enough in others.

However, I think there needs to be a new emphasis on education, especially trade schools, to overcome poverty, discrimination, crime, violence, and incarceration. People should be hired and promoted based on their abilities, not on a quota system. Unfortunately, education was a key area where my generation failed. It dumbed down the quality of our education out of fear of hurting feelings along with an overemphasis on "group equality" while forgetting the individual. A well educated population would have solved many of our problems then and will solve many of our problems now. Besides, it's what the political class and the Oligarchs who control them fear the most, so it has to be a good thing right? These are things the Millennials, our successors, will need to figure out.

Are Hillary and Donald Qualified to Lead?

There are just about 344,000,000 individuals in America at this moment. That means we have the third largest population in the world behind the People's Republic of China and India. That means that 4.5 of the world's population lives in the United States. The majority of these individuals live in major metropolitan centers such as New York City, Los Angles, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Washington DC, and Philadelphia, Atlanta, and San Francisco. Not that it matters much, but the majority, 63%, are Whites of European origin. Almost 67% of the population is between 15 and 64 years of age. The average age is 36 for males and 38 for females. About 16.7% are Hispanics while Blacks make up just over 12% with the rest being comprised of Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and so forth.

The average household income in America is between $51,000 and $53,000 with Asians having the highest household income by race followed in order by Whites, Hispanics and Blacks (actually, Native Americans have the lowest levels of income based on demographic breakdown with those living on reservations living well below the poverty line). As one might expect, those with professional degrees (doctorate, law, medicine, engineering) tended to earn the most, followed by those with graduate or post graduate degrees, bachelorette degrees, an associate degree and/or professional certification, and high school diploma/GED with those having not completed high school or earning a technical/trade/professional certificate earning the least. Those with technical or trade school degrees such as plumbers or electricians tend to earn on par with those who had obtained a BA or BS degree.

When we break this down by the numbers, just under 88% of the population has a high school diploma or GED. About 59% has some college while 42% has an associate degree. 32% has bachelor degree. 11.77% has a Masters degree or professional certificate. Just over 5% has a doctorate or professional degree (these numbers are based on ages 25 and over). Women tend be graduating at higher levels than males, which is a complete reversal of pre-1995 numbers. In fact, 62% of all associate degrees awarded with go to women, along with 60% of all bachelorettes, 63% of all master degrees, and 55.5% of doctorates! Quite impressive if you ask me, but I'm sure you're wondering where I'm going with all these numbers and percentages.

Well, it's simply this. Given the size of America's population and percentage of individuals who've gone on to college (and beyond), why are we down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? As these numbers indicate, neither of these two are even remotely close to being the best this country has to offer for President. Hillary Clinton and "The Donald" are the two most disliked presidential candidates America has produced. Why is that? Hillary isn't unique when comes women who've graduated from college, or even women who obtained a doctorate or professional degree. Hillary attended Wellesley College and obtained a BA in Political Science and then obtained a law degree from Yale University. There's also a lot of women who are just as driven as Hillary is (except hopefully more honest). Trump attended Fordham University in New York City before transferring to Wharton's School of Finance and Commerce (University of Pennsylvania) where he earned an undergraduate degree in Economics. Again, great but hardly extraordinary (I earned a BA in International Economics with a minor in Political Science as an example before going on to earn a dual Master's and a Postgraduate certificate among several other professional certificates).

Certainly we would want any president to be well educated, and both Trump and Clinton are as all of the presidential nominees since at least the turn of the 20th Century have been with one exception (Harry Truman had only a high school diploma. A total of 12 presidents never graduated college up to and including George Washington who had earned a surveyor certificate). Most, but not all, were lawyers. John Kennedy for instance briefly attended the famed London School of Economics but transferred to Harvard University where obtained a BA in Government with an emphasis in International Affairs (yes, I note the irony), but professionally he was a writer. Both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt attended Harvard University as well and while both briefly enrolled in law school, neither graduated. So, what else do they have in common to qualify them for president? Well, they're both filthy rich and being rich seems to be a required to be in Washington and member of the political or ruling class.

In a 2010 survey, the collective wealth of Congress was $2 billion dollars. Yes, you read that right. That was a 25% increase over a previous 2008 survey. The minimum net worth of members of the House was $896,000 dollars while over in the Senate it's $2.7 million dollars. Doesn't sound like a nice cross section of America to me. Does it to you? No wonder these people have no idea about goes on in America. They don't live like us, how can they expect to know what we need or want? You could argue that Congress, as well as the Presidency and Supreme Court, are so far removed from us socially and economically, that they indeed constitute an entirely different class. Among those who ran for president this go around, Ted Cruz was the wealthiest candidate, yet he didn't even break into the top 100 richest members of Congress (the poorest of the GOP nominees was Marco Rubio, but give him time. He's still young yet).

The second richest was Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky (for the record, former Senator and current Secretary of State John Kerry has a net worth of $200 million). On the Democrat side, Hillary was by far the richest, even topping out over the many of the Republicans while Bernie Sanders is among the poorest member of Congress with a net worth of just over $163,000. You might find it interesting to know that the "working class" party as the Democrats are known are collectively wealthier than the so-called "business class" Republicans, but not by much---only around $47,000. As for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, how do they fit in? Well, according to Celebrity Net Worth, "The Donald" is worth $4.5 billion dollars and takes home a salary of $60 million dollars a year. Hillary Clinton has a net worth of $45 million dollars (Bill Clinton, who keeps his finances separate, has a net worth of between $80 and $100 million dollars while the Clinton Foundation, which is classified as a charity, had assets in 2012 of over $226 million).

The point I'm hoping to make is that there's nothing unique or special about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump except that are clearly among the top 1%, and it's the 1% which comprises the Oligarchy which rules America. Their wealth, while certainly nice to have, should actually preclude them for government. Why? Because government should represent the American People, not just the wealthy. Their outlandish wealth, almost by definition, means that they have no connection to ordinary Americans. We talk about a "disconnect" between the "Beltway Crowd" and "Flyover Country", well now you see why. They can't relate to what it costs to struggle between paying bills, going to the doctor, or buying groceries. We already face the widest and deepest income divide in our nation's history. They live in gated (and guarded) communities. They have little concept about crime other than what they read about or see on TV. Their education is above average, but not unique and definitely not superior, at least academically. It's not party affiliations since both parties shared near equally in the numbers of millionaires. It is their wealth and social connections which set them apart and gives them their sense of entitlement.

Clearly America can and must do better in not just its choice of Presidential candidates but in its selection of representatives it sends to Washington. Surely neither the likes of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump (nor any of the others who ran in the primaries) represent the best America has to offer. The same can be said the Congress. There are more than ample potential candidates with closer ties to the average American out there to pick from. Of course, elections have become outrageous expense (on purpose) to keep ordinary individuals out and with gerrymandering near guaranteeing reelection along with unlimited "free speech" donations courtesy of Citizens United and its "Frankencorporations" creations and absence of term limits the only hope of change will have to be grassroots driven. The question is not can we do it, there is no doubt about that. Instead, it should be whether we have the will do it? Are we sick and tired enough yet of being turned from a free people and citizen legislators into economic serfs and political bystanders?


The National Center for Education Statistics: Educational Attainment of Young Adults
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_caa.asp

Educational Attainment in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States

And Congress' Rich Get Richer
http://www.rollcall.com/news/And-Congress-Rich-Get-Richer-209907-1.html

The 50 richest members of Congress
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/21/news/economy/richest-congress-members/index.html

Celebrity Net Worth
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest-billionaires/donald-trump-net-worth/