We Interrupt this National Decline...

It was once said that that all roads led to Rome. It was true figuratively and as well as literally. With some 100,000 miles of road, it provided direct access for the Roman legions to any hotspot within the empire. It established trade routes throughout the empire and eventually even connected to the Silk Road to the Near Eastern nations, India, and finally to China. But, as goes another old saying, as Rome's roads went, so went the Roman Empire and its ability to defend the empire and its trade routes, and with that, along with the decline in political stability thanks to the ineptitude and corruption of the political class and the financial elites, taxes, decline of the water systems, agriculture, decline in innovations, quality of the fight forces, increases in pirates and illegal immigration who didn't integrate, the rise of the poor amid the decline of middle and business class, ever more successful foreign invasions, devaluation of its currency, and a host of other factors---some major but most subtle, the glory and the might that was Rome gradually faded over the course of about 300 years until it became but it memory.

Much the same has been said America. Certainly, we face many of the same factors. Like Rome, we went from rule by a monarchy to a Republic and now to an oligarchy; controlled by transnational corporations which have no loyalty to either a nation or national ideals. Wealth--- economic and political control---is the hands of the top 1%. Our Middle Class is all but nonexistent while not the ranks of the poor increase, some communities and cities look like they belong to some third world nation, as social services decrease due to expense. We too experience a debt that not only can we never hope to pay, but is actually unsustainable. We too are being invaded by illegal immigrants looking for a better life, but few are finding it. They too are refusing to assimilate. While are military remains strong (though, like Rome, there is talking about incorporating illegal immigrants as an avenue to citizenship), it is ever more dependent on technology, which makes it vulnerable to shortages of those able to operate and maintain it as our educational system continues to decline.

Like Rome, we face a decline in social morals and a sense of community values in the name of "inclusion", or as we would say, "political correctness". Our roads, dams, electrical grids, bridges, and highways are crumbling too, and again, like Rome, a public reluctance to paying for repairs through higher taxes (they often did so out of the pocket of a government official, usually seeking higher office). Trade and often innovation has steadily shifted overseas, not for lack of resources, but avoidance of labor costs or in some cases taxes, and then reshipped back into America by these stateless corporations. Meanwhile, public funds are often diverted to pay costs they incurred or for poor management while local businesses struggle or are forced to close.

I could go on and on, but we all get the picture. It doesn't matter if you lean politically Right, Left, or like the majority of Americas, to the center and increasingly independent. We've all witnessed the rise of the Occupy Movement which opposes the economic and political control of Corporate America and the 1% while others, such as the Tea Party, opposed to over reach and intrusion of a growing federal government clamber for a return to the original intent of the Founders. Therefore, it seems to me that it's time that we refocus the discussion. We see what's wrong with America, though we may have different solutions. Perhaps it's time for changing America and move away from mere criticisms. The powers that be hold power largely because they've been successful in dividing us, which is ironic if you accept that we largely want many of the same things. We---as individuals and communities---have allowed ourselves to be pitted against each other across artificial divides. As long as we argue and fight each other we fail to see those who are not just the source of our misery, but profiting off of it.

Maybe it's time we reconsider if we want this to remain a single nation? Perhaps we time we go our separate ways. Or, as some contend, the Constitution (largely usurped already) is outdated; made obsolete by technology and societal changes unforeseen by our Founding ancestors? Perhaps a democratic socialist state which serves the needs of all equally is what we should strive for (and no, we aren't "socialist" now despite the talking heads on the Right. We are, however, increasingly fascist---corporation rule per its creator Benito Mussolini) or should we rely on our innate abilities embrace libertarianism as espoused by Jefferson? Some would argue that we've advance to far as society for that---an ideology best suited for small agrarian societies.

The demise of the oligarchy and restoration of the Middle Class are givens I think. How about freedom? How much do we want? How much can we stand? What kind of freedom to we want? China calls itself "free" and so does Holland. What form of government do we want now that we no longer have a democratic republic? Do we return to a democratic republic but with greater restrictions? Certainly ending gerrymandering, adding term limits, real finance reform and reversing "Citizens United" I hope; perhaps too, revising federal judicial appointments, including federal judgeships and the often out-of-touch Supreme Court. What about proportional representation like the other limited democracies have or mandating voting? Regardless, let's consider the America we want and not the one Washington is giving us.

The elites control us by controlling our ability to communicate. Did you know that only six corporations control our public media?

They attempt to mold and manipulate what we think and how we act. Mao Tse-tung once said that power came from the barrel of gun. Nowadays, it's more likely to come from the click of mouse. Within little more than a decade, we've witnessed how social networking and the Internet has brought down military dictatorships, theocracies and other corrupt governments. It's little wonder nations, including the United States, have banded together in an attempt to control, regulate, or monitor the Internet. The idea of people exchanging ideas and find a commonality brings fear to those who try to inspire fear and intimidation to their people. This may yet prove to be more powerful than Mao's bullets. This then is our best tool to molding a nation or perhaps a world into what we want. As has been said, people don't want wars. Governments and banks do.

And speaking of the world, we, as Americans, must understand and accept that we have no obligation or even right to impose our values, beliefs, or even our form of government on any nation or any people. All individuals have a natural right as human beings, to chose freely the form of government they want irrespective of what their neighbors desire them to have. Though not alone, America has interfered and attempt to impose its concept of Americanized government or worse, violent militarized juntas on people for the sake of economic profit and corporate control. If we demand freedom for ourselves, they we should do less than allowing others the right to chose their own governments whether we agree with it or not.

In our present military situation, our response to 9/11 was to find and bring to justice those responsible (and accepting, however painfully, the reasons why 9/11 took place). Beyond that, we proceeded for the sake of economic---corporate greed--while claiming the virtues of "freedom". Kuwait was not liberated for "freedom of Kuwaiti People" or even Royal promises of social, political or "gender" equality---none of which never materialized, but for influence and control of assets. The invasion of Iraq wasn't required. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was already impotent militarily and politically. It wasn't done for the sake of the Kurdish People who we've promised much and delivered little. It was for the sake of controlling Iraqi oil and gas. What it did, thanks to an incomplete and unrealistic occupational plan, was open an Pandora's Box that has costs the lives of thousands of brave military personnel while at the same time providing a gold mine for lobbyists, contractors, the WTO, the IMF, and others, not to mention a perfect sandbox for testing the military's latest toys.

The adoption of the never-ending "war on terror" and a terrorist or potential terrorist behind every tree mentality has also provided

a perfect excuse to impose restrictions on our freedoms which we never would have previously tolerated; surveillance of all/threat by few/denial for your own good is our new mantra, and a way to cover-up a weak economy racked by unsustainable debt and greed through a never ending supply of recruits to keep the employment numbers down and keeping the economy running on a artificially inflated "war economy". This too is something we must address since this conspiracy, which is not of the making of a few extremist crack pots, but adopted by both parties as cover for the oligarchs who now run our country. Meanwhile, endure those who have a visceral hatred of this country; who attempt to make profane the American Ideal and its symbols while pursuing every recourse to weaken and belittle this nation.

These are things we each see and mostly agree on. The powers that be will continue to obfuscate, distract, divide, frighten, or if necessary, threaten. It is also quite capable deceit, lies, of manufacturing evidence or worse. The question I repeat, is not to continue to debate the merits of what we all see, but to agree that we must begin to find ways of addressing them. Whether the status quo agrees is irrelevant. Ultimately the only real power it has is the power we cede to it.

Socialism or Fascism: Which Way America?

I keep reading articles or hearing people, mostly on the Right, speak about the Obama Regime or Democrats in general leading us down the road to socialism's perdition. When George W Bush was in office, the Democrats and those on the Left kept comparing "Dubya" with Hitler and the Nazis. First off, there's no way those in power on the Left or Right would allow this country to become "socialist"; they simply are not going to give up their wealth or power and neither will Wallstreet or the banks. As for National Socialism, this means basically a "one man/one party" rule and there's too many primadonnas in Washington for that to ever happen. In addition, National Socialism meant a partnership of sorts between the government and Big Business with the latter assuming a junior role, and we all know Wallstreet would never go for that today, and by the way, the "socialism" part of National Socialism didn't mean what most people today assumes it meant. For them, it meant a community of likeminded people or "Volk". So then, let's talk about just what road we are going down.

Socialism means that the people essentially own everything, including the corporations. Power and the control of wealth is in their hands. I don't see that happening do you? I don't see the Wallstreet or K Street lobbyists becoming weaker. Certainly that's not what the "Citizens United" or "McCutcheons" decisions by the Supreme Court did. Under communism, which is often---though incorrectly--- used interchangeably with socialism, there are again no privately own properties, especially corporations. The State owns everything. Do you see corporations surrendering their power and wealth to Washington? So, what is it that America is morphing into? The answer is fascism. Fascism is, as its founder Benito Mussolini said, more accurately described as "corporatism". Specifically, Mussolini said this “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. Novelist Upton Sinclair called fascism "capitalism plus murder" while Vladimir Lenin referred to fascism as "capitalism in decay".

Politically, it borrows some of its goals and techniques from the Left and some from the nationalistic right, including militarism. But it's objective is corporate control, plain and simple. The role of government is to serve as the junior partner and "middleman" between the "elites" and everyday people. It's objectives are to serve the rich. The corporation is everything. The individual is nothing. Under fascism, there is little to no middle class. There's the insanely rich and then there's everybody else. Sound familiar? Can you see the one percenters giving up their money; their penthouses; their private planes and yachts? Under socialism, they'd have to; the same under communism.

Consider this too, Unions exist under fascism, but are weak and fairly ineffective. Their prime purpose to keep the masses in their place---on the job and off the strike line---while generally backing the decisions of the corporate bosses. They serve the interests of the corporation, even if it means cutting benefits, pensions, and hours. Under communism, the State is the union and you automatically belong to it. But again, no strikes and no complaining. Under socialism, there is no rich or poor; everyone is equal, so there's really not much need for unions, but if there were, everyone would be a member at birth.

So, what would it be like to live in a socialist country? Actually, not all that bad. Yes, taxes would be near 100%, but then social services would cover nearly everything, and they would be offered in sort of a smorgasbord or al-a-carte format. The emphasis of government would be on a very active participatory democracy; there would be little if any "mandating" of anything and a strong emphasis on the individual. Companies would be run more in a co-op fashion, with the focus on needs and social uses rather than artificial want and profit. Financial institutions would be similar to credit unions, whereby members have a say in the company's policies; that is if there's even a need for money. There would be a strong emphasis on the long term approach to maintaining infrastructure too. Personally, I would have no problem with a socialist government, but unfortunately, the world has never actually had a socialist government. Greed and power always seems to get in the way. Scandinavia has gotten close; consistently ranking as the happiest and healthiest and best educated places to work and live with some of the longest life expectancies in the world, and the most environmentally friendly as well. What's not to like? Let me tell you.

Sadly, the EC's mandatory "open door" policy to immigration has cause these once idyllic nations to come to their collective breaking points as immigrants fail (intentionally it would appear) to adopt to the same work ethic as the native populations which believe in sharing the work (and taxes) while sharing the obvious benefits too. Instead, the immigrants, mostly from poorer and less educated nations in Africa, believe in simply enjoying the perks of Scandinavian life without contributing back to society. This stress has nearly broken the back of their socialistic democrat forms of government, but that's another story for another time. The question as to whether America is becoming "socialist" under Obama and Democrats, the answer is a profound "no" (and a hearty chuckle).

So in reality, we are morphing into a corporate fascist State. Corporations, using the government, previously pushed us to the Right and now is pushing us toward the Left, but the ultimate goal is to diminish the power of the individual while increasing our dependence on the State, which in turn, is controlled by Wallstreet and the corporate elite. In short, we're to become economic serfs with the government serving as the manager and corporations as the owners of us all. Of course, the "big prize" is the creation of a single interlocking global corporation. That means creating and using global organizations to serve as the intermediaries on global projects and national one's on more regional projects.

National governments, like Washington, become much more pervasive in role of overseer while local and state governments become weaker. This role also enables the corporations to use taxpayer money to acquire resources for their uses rather than their money, while at the same time, shielding their intentions behind the illusion of a sovereign government. They also can have the national government take other actions on their behalf, like wars, trade agreements, or treaties, to enhance their wealth and power on the taxpayer's dollar rather than theirs. In further defining corporatism, its founder, Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.” . What he's talking about is the concept we're now experiencing, that of perpetual war---like the "war on terrorism"---to maintain control over the population and the exploitation of resources by corporations, be those natural resources, national resources, or the individual. Sound familiar? Now, what are you going to do about?

When Enough is Enough?

With all the scandals which has rocked the Obama Regime, there's been a lot of talk about impeachment from the Right. But, as I recall, there was talk about impeaching George W Bush too, just as there's considerable chatter about the removal of Holder, Boehner, Pelosi, or whomever. That would be the logical thing to do, that is if we were dealing with an otherwise legitimate government. However, we're not. This is not the government bequest to us by our Founding Fathers. This is not the government guaranteed to us under the Constitution. It is not the form of government we celebrate the creation of on the 4th of July. It is not a government which represents the will of its citizens. It is, however, the type of government that our Founders warned us about. At present, our voices and our votes count for little. What matters apparently is money, for its money which the Supreme Court said represents free speech. It also money which equates to access, and with access comes power; something "We the People" are denied.

What should we do then? How should a people express their dissatisfaction with a government which no longer serves the People, but instead, bows to the will of artificial entities rather than flesh and blood? Our Constitution, while pandered to by those who go through the motions to serve, is still much in force by the People for whom it was written, gives us the answer. It tells us that if the government fails in its duties, then we have both the right and responsibility to modify or change that government.

Since our votes and Will count for little thanks to the misrulings of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis McCutcheon and Citizens United, and district gerrymandering by Congress and state legislatures, how about another tactic for your consideration? We as Citizens have the right (for the present) to protest. However, we are expected to do so within certain restrictions; restrictions designed in part to take the "sting" out of the our collective voices since all too often the representatives are either not there or fail to even notice us unless they happen to catch mention on one of the local news channels. Certainly not very effective, and since money is not only "free speech", but also access, what if we took it further still to make our point?

Specifically, what if we took our signs; our demands; our voices to the very street and indeed, in front of the homes where "our" so-called representative live? I'm sure there may be some sort of hoops to jump through, but would that get their attention? Would that make up for our lack of "free speech"? I just might be worth it. What if we expanded it to include the residences of their staffs? Do you think they'd make their boss aware our displeasure? If not, I have no doubt their neighbors would.

As for lobbyists, who are little more than errand boys and girls on behalf of the one percenters and corporations, perhaps they too should know our displeasure with plans to move jobs overseas, harm the planet, or get taxpayer based welfare. The names of their presidents and boards of directors are publically available. Use it. Make our displeasure felt not just at public parks, on street corners, or at memorials, but where they live...literally. When they get tired of having their dirty laundry paraded in front of their neighbors, they'll get the message.

Remember, we are no longer a democratic republic; the government given to us by our Founding Fathers, or as Abraham Lincoln once proclaimed, "of the people, by the people; and for the people". The government is an oligarchy. Officially. A government responsible to the top 1% wealthiest individuals and to a small clique of banking and corporate elites. In short, Washington no longer represents Mainstreet America. It represents Wallstreet.

In a land where the rule of people has been supplanted by the weight of the dollar, is this how America must act? Our Founding Fathers would have said yes. However, the decision is yours to make America, once you've decided enough is enough. Think about it.

America: Are We Really Free?

Are we free? Really free? We're taught from nearly day one of school that America is world's freest country; the "beacon of light" to the world; the home of the world's greatest democracy. With the Supreme Court's most recent decision ruling, McCutcheon v FEC, in a 5 to 4 ruling, corporations and the very rich can now donate as much as want to too any candidate, party, cause, or political action committee. They had previously ruled in 2010, in the Citizens v FEC case and another 5 to 4 decision, that free speech equated to money and that corporations had essentially the same rights as flesh and blood individuals; actually, more rights to be truthful since individuals remained capped in what they could donate.

With this recent ruling, the uber-rich and the supra-corporate elite have much more "freedom" that ordinary working class Americans, who are severely limited in the amount of "free speech" they are able to give. In effect, the one percenters can openly buy any candidate and any election they want too. Of course, they've been doing this for a long time already, but now they can come out from behind the curtain and out of the shadows and do it openly while the rest of America just stands and watches their Constitutional freedoms evaporate one by one. Chalk up another victory for the Oligarchy. This got me to thinking--just how free are we really? How do we compare with other nations?

Well, one would hope we're still number one; at least I was hoping. However, not only are we not number one, we're aren't even in the top ten freest countries. The freest country in the world is actually Hong Kong, followed by Singapore. Interestingly, both nations have a "open" or laissez faire economy (think "hands off" by the government or a libertarian style economy). That's something our Founders had planned for us but has long since vanished. So, where do we stand?

Actually, the US is 12th, between former Soviet client state of Estonia and the constitutional monarchy of Bahrain (known for being dictatorial with an ineffectual parliament and ineffective judiciary system as well as human rights violations, which Human Rights Watch calls "dismal"). For "leadership of the free world", that's not exactly good company (no offence to Estonia or Bahrain intended). Our neighbor to the north, Canada, came in sixth while our southern neighbor was ranked 55th, which might explain all the border troubles! If there's any good news here, it's that our friends across the pond, the UK, came in 14th place (and being part Irish, I have to point out to our English mates that Ireland was ranked 9th).

Speaking of human rights, the International Human Rights Ranking Indicator places America in 20th place, between France and Monaco. Not exactly comforting for the "leadership of the free world is it? Canada was ranked 10th while Mexico was 63rd. Who ranked highest for protection of human rights? That was Norway, followed by Sweden and Australia. In another ranking, this time compiled by the Maplecroft 2014 Human Rights Risk Atlas, the US ranked 139th out of 197 countries, making it a "moderate" human rights risk while the Scandinavian countries ranked at the top.

In comparing Hong Kong with the US, I found some remarkable results. In terms of business freedom; that is how much a business can operate without government interference, Hong Kong score nearly a perfect 100 which the US wound up with an 85%. Closely related, in terms of fiscal freedom, Hong Kong "very free" with a 95%. The US was rated as "moderately free" with a 65%. In looking at government spending, the US at 50%, which put it in the "mostly unfree category" while little Hong Kong again was ranked as "very free" with another 95%.

In terms of property freedom, both Hong Kong and the US ran equally at 90% until 2009, when the US dipped to 80%. Meanwhile, Hong Kong continued at 90%. In terms of freedom from governmental corruption, US ranked 72%, making it the 23rd in the world. As for Hong Kong, it came in 13th place at 82%. Any way you slice it, America didn't do so well, so I decided to see just how well respected we were. Surely, we were at least well respected.

Well, as it turns out, not so much. America was ranked paltry 22nd most respected country in the world, just ahead of Peru and just behind Brazil. According to the report, the reasons for our dismal showing was our perceived lack of an effective government and "appealing environment". In case you're wondering, Canada came in first, following by Sweden.

Clearly, we're a nation in trouble, at least from the perspective of the rest of the world, which seems to bear out what the overwhelming majority of Americans think. According to a recent Rasmussen Report, only 28% of Americans think we're headed in the right direction, and those numbers have remained fairly consistent. Congressional approval is currently around 13%, which is actually up from 9% in November. For the last three years, it's been 20% or under. Obama isn't doing much better. Gallup has his most recent job approval rating at 43%. And the Supreme Court? The last poll was taken before their recent decision, but even then, it was only 45%. I'm sure it's much lower now. In any other country, that would be called a "no confidence vote".

So what does all this mean? Well, obviously we're not the free country we think we are, and we haven't been for some time now. It means that not only does the world have its doubts about us, we do too. We're not happy with the nation we've become, and despite our objections, those elected to represent us either ignore us out of arrogance or self-interest, namely they're catering exclusively to those whose "free speech", as defined by the Supreme Court, they hear the clearest. In what has to be the clearest case of politics making strange bed fellows, those outside of conventional party politics on both the Left and Right, have more in common than not when it comes to defining who's to blame. What do I mean?

The non-aligned Left sees the transnational corporation's influence over governments as the key problem while the non-aligned Right see government as being too large and too invasive. Both see the power of government becoming to encompassing as the power of corporations over governments, even superseding governments, continues to grow. In any other country which valued freedom, both would have used this common cause to march together in the streets and in to the halls of power----Wall Street and K Street and maybe if they have time, Capitol Hill. In any other country which valued freedom, there would have been revolution to rid itself of the corruptors and abusers of our sovereignty, but America isn't any other country...or is it?


2014 Index of Economic Freedom
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The World's Most Reputable Countries 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/06/27/the-worlds-most-reputable-countries-2013/

Right Direction or Wrong Direction?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

Barack Obama Presidential Approval
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Congress Job Approval Starts 2014 at 13%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166838/congress-job-approval-starts-2014.aspx

International Human Rights Ranking Indicator
http://www.ihrri.com/index.php

Maplecroft 2014 Human Rights Risk Atlas
https://maplecroft.com/themes/hr/

What's Going On America?

You may never have heard of Jamie Dimon or his ilk, but there's no doubt you've felt his influence. Dimon is the CEO of one of the largest financial institutions in the world, JPMorgan. His was one of the institutions which trigger the great financial meltdown a few years back, resulting in the largest bailout in US history and the now infamous phrase, "to big to fail". Mr. Dimon's company remains very much in business and none of executives or shareholders ever faced a day in jail though JPMorgan was forced to pay the largest civil penalty in US history. In fact, he just received a 74% increase in salary--mainly in the form of stocks and stock options---from $11 million to $20 million dollars.

Not too shabby, especially if you consider that real wages for the average working class family has continued to drop year upon year and, after being adjusted for inflation, is no better off than they were in the mid 1970's. In fact, since 1997, all economic gain has gone to those in the top 10% income bracket. Meanwhile, while companies like JPMorgan were bailed out on the taxpayer's dollar (against the will of the American People I should add), some 10 million individuals have lost their homes since 2008 due to the home mortgage meltdown. And, yes, while many should have known better than to borrow more than they needed or could afford , despite intense pressure for banks, so too should the bankers and mortgage companies have known better. Apparently Middle America wasn't deemed "too big to fail" by the Washington-Wall Street nexus.

As everyone should know by now, the top 1% control some 40% of the nation's wealth while the bottom 80% controls a scant 7%. Only 19% of that wealth is actually in the form of income. Most of it is in the form of stocks, bonds, and real estate. To put it another way, the richest 400 people in this country control more wealth the bottom 150 million people. That's a hellva of disparity. The largest ever in our history. So, what are we to do about, if anything?

There's been a lot clamor about raising the minimum wage from its current $7.25 to $11.00 or even $15.00 dollars an hour. Of course all that will do is raise the costs of products, increase the number of layoffs or reduce hours while increasing workloads, not to mention the likelihood of a reduction or elimination of benefits. Heck, some employers may just shut their doors. President Obama is expected to increase the minimum wage for federal contracts to $10.10 an hour, which is nice except the contract bids will simply be adjusted to accommodate the change and thus the taxpayers---that's you and I---will be forced to pay for the wage increase. Sounds like swimming in mud to me.

Typically those who hold minimum wage jobs are the poorly educated (as to whose fault that is, is the subject for another time). Anyway, the only option typically is to return to school. However, to do that means incurring a back breaking debt, despite grants and low interest loans. Since 1999, student debt has increased a mind numbing 500% while those graduating were faced with an average decrease in starting salary of 10%. And filing bankruptcy may help with some of their debt load, it won't erase their student debt, but it will leave an nasty mark on the credit rating, which is the last thing they need.

Unions can't help them much either. Membership continues to drop. Today, it makes up only 7% of the work force thanks to job exportation, NAFTA (thanks heaps Bill), and changes in technology. The only segment of the workforce where unions at least continue to hold their own is the government sector, though wages increases, benefits, and pension protection are but dead. If amnesty is given to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now living in this country (not including the anticipated 7--10 million that will follow in the next wave), we'll see wage and benefits decline even further as demand for jobs far outstrips supply. Blacks and Asians will be most adversely affected in the influx since they currently hold most of the jobs that will be undercut from them and taxpayer based services are redirected away to pay for translators, housing, re-education and training programs and other social services. Meanwhile, the strain of Obamacare all but break the back of America's healthcare capabilities. Minimum care will become the norm with only critical care being available for those deemed "productive" as doctors and other healthcare providers hang up their white coats and college bound students consider other professions. All this calls to mind Ronald Reagan's famous quip about the nine scariest words, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". So, what do we do then?

Serious discussion about extensive government reform, and even revolution are almost commonplace, even anticipated, although the media attempts to make it sound like "crazy talk" from the lunatic fringe. But the facts are that less than 20% of population say they have any faith in the government while just over 50% say that US democracy needs a total overhaul, even if that mean open rebellion (of those, only a few believe that reform will suffice). The majority of Millennials (those under 30) support socialism, primarily because they see capitalism as it now exists as having failed. Perhaps that's why federal agencies have been on a massive spending spree acquiring military grade firepower and ammo; police departments have become more "militarized", senior military officers are quizzed about their willingness to fire on US civilians (those refusing have been largely relieved of command); increased drone and cyber-surveillance; ongoing government harassment; and a proliferation in what I term "diversionary television" designed to take the public's mind of our national and economic decline as well as get us accustomed to the idea of being watched with the variety of "reality" TV programs.

"Diversionary television" is of course, but one part of the media outlets controlled by the top 1%. While media coverage seems to be focused on gay rights, abortion, or domestic spying, not to mention such earth shaking events involving the likes of Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus or the Kardashians, only 3% of those surveyed in a poll conducted by AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in December 2013 thought those were important issues. The overwhelming majority of Americans it seems were interested in under-reported topics such as healthcare, jobs, the economy, and illegal immigration. Bread and butter issues seems to be the only "View" the majority of Americans are interested in. It may be why we don't hear very much about what's happening in places like the Ukraine. Certainly the goal is to keep America's attention diverted from the real issues, but also Americans divided along as many lines as possible to prevent a united front from focusing on them (this also explains the usual empty talking heads on TV and radio). Meanwhile, politicians are gearing up for their next cycle of hype and misdirection intended to play on the public's emotions. But, I wonder, for how much longer?


Why There's No Outcry
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-theres-no-outcry_b_4666330.html


Could America's Wealth Gap Lead To a Revolt?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalearcher/2013/09/04/could-americas-wealth-gap-lead-to-a-revolt/


Why America May Be Ripe for a New Revolution
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/10/19/why_america_may_be_ripe_for_a_new_revolution_burman.html

The Disconnect That is Congress

According to a 2013 poll, some 41% of Americans no longer believe it's possible to achieve the American Dream. I suppose that includes a good job with decent pay and benefits; a car; a home in a safe neighborhood; good schools; reasonably affordable healthcare. However, a plurality of Americans no longer believe they will do better than their parents nor do they expect their children or grandchildren will likely achieve the American Dream. That's something that's never happened to Americans before. We've always believed that each generation would build on the last and the quality of life would continue to improve. What happened?

Key has been our loss of faith in government. As we start 2014, Congress continues to have approval ratings in the toilet---currently 13%, though it's been lower (5% in December 2012) and there's no reason not to expect that it will continue to remain embarrassingly low. 53% of Americans disapprove of Republican House Speaker John Boehner's job while a pathetic 24% think their representative is the best person for the job. In another poll by Gallup, 81% of those polled said they had little or no trust in government---regardless of party.

Perhaps that's not to be unexpected. We've long known that Washington is out of touch with most America---what the Washington Elite spitefully refer to as "fly over country". After all, shouldn't there be some commonality with the people they represent? A "share the pain" moment?

As I last reported to you dear reader, there's an inequality that exists in the workplace today that's unheard anywhere in the world today. CEO's earn, on average, is 354% more than the average employee of their company (In France, the ratio is 104%. In Germany it's 147% while in the UK it's 84% and 206% Canada. Japan has a ratio of 67%). Seriously, is anyone worth that? Does anyone work that much harder or longer to earn that much discrepancy in income? Did you know, for instance, that the top 1% own 40% of all wealth in this country and "earn" 19% of all income while the bottom 80% account for only 7% of the total wealth? To put it another way, the top 400 wealthiest individuals in this country have a combined worth of the nation's 150 million poorest. A nation cannot long survive on such a disparity of wealth.

So then, given that the majority of members of Congress come from the business world, no one should be surprised to learn that 237 out of the 534 members are millionaires. The median income is $2.7 million dollars. Some are richer...much richer and the poorer ones aren't doing too badly either. They are indeed part of that top 1% mentioned above. Together, they have more money than 90% of all Americans. They don't worry about unemployment, healthcare, or foreclosures. They are exempt from much of the reality that you and I face. When they debate cuts in food stamps or job losses, I wonder if they have that same sick feeling in the pit of the stomachs that you and I do? When they discuss bank and corporate bailouts, are they thinking about your home interest rates or small business loans or the cost of education? They have guaranteed incomes for the rest of their lives while America is face with a unofficial but real unemployment rate of 23%. They don't have to choose between paying bills or buying food or medicine. They don't even have to worry about Obamacare because they have their own healthcare package which includes their families, not to mention a private gym and health spa largely paid for by taxpayers. That' you and I...again.

Members of the Washington elite have no concept of what the average working American goes through on a daily basis any more than the average American can relate to the lives of people living in third world countries. So, how can we expect them to make decisions benefitting the average working class family? When America was young, we were mostly a nation of farmers and shopkeepers---small businessmen (and a few businesswomen). True, there was income disparity, but not to this extent, and there was a real belief---a real hope---that with a little hard work and education, you or your children could and would do better. No more.

Our Founders opposed a professional political class as much as they despised political parties. Citizens were expected to briefly participate in holding an office---at little or no compensation---and then return to home so that someone else could have their turn. Instead, we are now a nation with a professional and wealthy ruling class---a plutocracy---far removed from the people they were elected to serve. With the Supreme Court's incorrect decision in upholding Citizens United, corporations can now act like individuals from a legal perspective, except they have literally more right than you and I do especially when it comes to money and campaigns. Whereas we are limited, they are no longer. Thanks to Citizens United, money is now equated with the 1st Amendment, that is, freedom of expression, and since they have more money...much more money...they obviously have more "freedom" than flesh and blood individuals.

Ben Franklin said they created a republic for us, if we can keep it. Well, old Ben, I am sorry to say that we failed or, at least, we're failing badly and will soon do as every democracy and republic before has done.

Trust in Government
http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx

Congressional Performance
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance

New Financial Data on Members of Congress
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages.php

Rich Congress Poor America
http://www.rense.com/general96/rich.html

The Corporate Shell Game: The Future Before Us

There's no question I'm an individualist. I fully support the "rights" of the individual over the corporate, but the modern corporation in our post-nation world doesn't see it that way. Nope. Not at all. In today's world where corporations have replaced national governments, the concept of individuality, like privacy, has become, shall we say "passé".

In the pursuit of maximizing profit and increasing shareholder return, corporations view the world in terms of marketplace. In their world, there is no Germany, India, Mexico, or United States. Designs are created through multinational teams electronically linked through satellite or Ethernet. Products are then modeled and finally produced in a host of regions in varying degrees; material gleaned from one country, sorted and roughed out in another using labor from yet another country, and then shipped using a ship or plane or truck registered to still another, to an assembly point in yet another location, and again, in all likelihood using workers who are perhaps from somewhere other than the host company. The concept of an a "American" car or Japanese electronics are the thing of pure advertising gimmicks or quaint nationalistic myth. Don't believe me? Look up the parts on your car. Look at the tags on your wardrobe. Check out where the parts of your washer and dryer are made. Go ahead. I'll wait. The rest of this article will be here when you get back.

You see, what matters here is the unfettered access to and use of resources, be those resources natural, manufactured, or human. Yes, I said human. In this evolving era of the neo-feudalist State, employees--folks like you and I---are merely resources; something to be used to accomplish a specific goal and then discarded, either because the costs of retaining us exceeds the benefit of retaining us or our function has become obsolete like an eight track player (if you don't know what that is, ask your parents). Wars aren't fought for national pride or even "freedom"--ours or anyone else's. They're fought to secure economic resources and markets by governments on behalf of corporate interests.

In order to pursue this Post-State open market strategy, it's necessary that the governments maintain to a stable economic platform. Simply put, keep the masses in line. In order to generate profits, companies must be able to plan and that means they must be able to anticipate, predict, and manipulate trends. You can't do that when the herds of humanity aren't manageable. Therefore, governments must ensure there is a measure of functional stability through rule of law. So, how do you do that? Actually, it's relatively simple.
Remember, no matter how complex the marketplace is, it all can be reduced to its most common denominator: supply and demand. In this case, we're not talking about widgets. We're talking about jobs. By restricting the number of jobs available, the demand increases. The fewer the jobs available, the more applicants there will be to work at a lesser rate (which includes things like pensions, work hours, vacation time, and healthcare benefits, and so forth). At the same time, these transnational corporations encourage governments to pursue non or low growth policies and use diversionary policies such as blaming one group or political party or the other for the nation's woes. It keeps the focus off of the real reasons.

Secondly, governments have to have funds to function. With a decrease in the availability of jobs, there is a corresponding decrease on available taxes. Therefore, taxes increased in the name of "progress" or some humanitarian sounding program. Governments also control the availability of money through interest rates and amount of currency in the economy. Companies, to be sure, pay taxes too, but only insomuch as it benefits them. You can best bet they get their money's worth, but back to the point. Our taxes pay for services to ensure the smooth function of commerce; that is maintaining a level of security, education, adequate housing, education, clean water and air, etc. In other countries, priorities may differ. Again, it depends the number of " two legged resources" and the availability of jobs. That's why poorer countries may not focus so much on, let's say clean water, job safety, or housing. Of course, culture plays a part in this too. These same locales may not have the benefit of a historically benevolent social-political structure (case in point are many Latin American and East Asian countries).

Another way to maintain control is through electronic surveillance. By actively monitoring the populace, governments can keep check on the mood of the masses and anticipate possible disturbances that could affect commerce. They also can watch for and keep tabs on potential "troublemakers" so in the event something happens, they know just where to look and who to watch out for. Companies already do this internally by being on the lookout for so-called troublemakers or those individuals willing to speak up and speak out (often those individuals are harassed into quitting or "downsized"). Companies with unions often use unions to keep the rank and file in check (ie: defuse worker discontent, discourage walkouts and/or strikes or strong arm members into approving less than acceptable contracts). At the same time, the current mobility of companies also eliminates the impact of the union by being able to close the business and relocate elsewhere.

This too encourages a individualistic go-it-alone mentality born out of frustration. With many of the blatant abuses of employees having been eliminated over five decades ago, this has all contributed to the decline of organized labor (not to mention Labor's history of corruption and being in the hip pocket of the Democrats). Meanwhile, economic policy is set at WTO, G8 and other conferences with instructions or "advisory consultations" from these same transnational corporations, while we're keep preoccupied with the latest fashion trends, games, car models, latest manufactured crisis, and easy-on-the-spot credit. Bread and circuses the Roman's called it. It meant keeping the masses just contented enough not to notice what was happening. So, is possible to fight back?
The answer is yes, but a qualified yes. First, one has to think in this same terms as the corporations and their governmental hirelings. The idea of borders is obsolete. Governments simply manage a given area. That's why corporate associations support amnesty---more workers = lower wages. Political ideology is just as obsolete since corporations can operate with the same degree of freedom in China as in Canada or France. How a particular government manages its populace is of no concern.

However, democracy is considered an impediment since in a actual democracy, there is an accountability factor between the people and government, and by implication, corporations and their "social and economic responsibility". People have to think, act, and cooperate globally. There has to be a unison of action. A particular action in, say, Portugal, has to draw a similar response elsewhere. This requires a level of communication which doesn't quite exist yet, but the tools are there (which may be one reason governments are eavesdropping more and trying to regulate and tax the internet). As an aside, and perhaps most importantly, one has to accept that political parties are virtually irreverent. Odds are they are owned. Part of the pacification of the workers is to keep them confused and divided. This can be through the shell game of blaming the nation's ills on the opposing party, or pitting one economic class, race, or religion, against the other as well. You'll hear various politicians come out with promises or claims to be "with the people". Right. Check out who gives them money; what committees they're on, and how long they've been in office (the longer the more likely they've been bought and paid for).

Elections, especially at the state/provincials or national levels, are more about the illusion of choice than they are about real change. Few issues involving big money or contracts haven't already been settled behind closed doors long before the public or media ever hears about it. Demand specific actions from them. Demand "sunshine laws" to eliminate closed door hearings from the general public and not just certain members of the media. Remember, as long as the working class (and that includes especially the middle class), are fighting amongst themselves, they're not focused on the real problems or the culprits.

Secondly, there needs to be global worker cooperatives or clearing houses for the exchange of information about corporate abuses of employees as a whole, the environment, or corruption of government officials. This requires monitoring of the government and corporations by whatever means possible and the deliberate and immediate publication of this information. It means the sharing of organizing techniques, be it by Skype--either teleconferencing or individually, emails, blogs, YouTube, or snail mail. But remember again, if it's electronic or telephonic, it can be easily monitored.

Third, as Malcolm X once said, "by any means possible". That has to be your tactics, but avoid violence. Why? Violence begets violence and governments, in the interests of their corporate paymasters, will be itching for an excuse to impose martial law. Look for examples in Iceland, Ukraine, Poland, and Romania. Note too where the "Arab Spring" failed with their democratic movements (a bad example is often more useful than a good one). What the workers should be looking for is exposure and global condemnation. Think in terms like Berlin and Spokane aren't different cities in different countries. In this new world, they're two cities in the same global market. The workers there are just the same as workers in a neighboring town.

Lastly, the one thing that is feared more than the public spotlight is the environment that deters this, and that's democracy. However---and this is key---never assume that democracy is the same for everyone. What Americans had was based on a specific series of cultural and economic events. Every people is unique and must develop their own style of democracy. For some, it may be socialistic while for others it could be more theocratic or even anarchic. Whatever works best for them is what's acceptable.

While many, if not most of us, still cling to the notion of "my country right or wrong", countries themselves exist only as reference points and fond memories. This is the New World Order. We need to accept that the rules have changed and learn to play them lest we travel even further down the path of debt slavery and indentured serfdom.

What Should a Patriot Do?

You know, I often get accused of all sorts of nonsense or called names. It comes with the territory for being a non-partisan political writer and community organiser I suppose. After awhile, you kind of develop the skin of an armadillo; a solid sense of humor doesn't hurt either. Everyone once in awhile, someone will say something that actually gives me pause. Sort of a "say what?" moment.

A few weeks ago, I was reading an article about the upcoming 2015 race for Kentucky Chief Buffoon...I mean Governor. Sorry, my bad. The article discussed the possible candidacies of current Lt. Governor and former Louisville "Mayor-for-Life", Jerry "His Excellency" Abramson, current Kentucky Attorney General, Jack "Please Love Me" Conway, State Auditor Adam Edelen, and James Comer, the Agriculture Commissioner and perhaps the Kentucky Republican Party's one bright star. Former State Auditor and political powerhouse Crit Luallen and novice Stanford banker Jess Correll were also mentioned as possible contenders (Abramson has since indicated he will not run).

I had briefly commented that of the lot, Democrat Crit Luallen is probably the best qualified candidate in terms of experience and temperament. Edelen has shown himself capable, but there's been some questions about his relationship state lobbyists. But on the other hand, he has done a Yeoman's job with his investigation of Kentucky's Emergency Management Agency. On the Republican side, James Comer is the banner carrier for the beleaguered KYGOP. The article went on to discuss Kentucky's junior Senator Rand Paul's support of Republican Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell's upcoming race for re-election and the possibility of a presidential bid by the junior Senator.

I added in my comment that Rand needed to be less focused about a run for President and more on getting re-elected, especially since he lied to his core group of supporters, the Tea Party, over the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Paul originally said he opposed any form of amnesty for the estimated 12 million illegals currently in the US. However, since he's "buddied up" with the anti-Tea Party McConnell and joined the so-called "Gang of Eight", his position changed with his raising notoriety. It seemed, I said, that the more public attention Paul gets, the more he seemed to distant himself from his base.

Granted, genuine bipartisanship in Washington is as rare as an honest man (or women) on Capitol Hill or K Street, bipartisanship kicks its heels high when it comes to gerrymandering districts in order to protect incumbents of either political denomination. However, even a junior Senator can't go around kicking sand at his core supporters before even his first re-election campaign, especially in a sparsely populated district as his. The Tea Party put a little known Bowling Green doctor into office and I have no doubt they can pull him out faster than a bad tooth. Well, wouldn't you know that someone took umbrage to my comment? 

Here I am, expressing my own non-partisan opinion, and I get a comment from the nut gallery about how "surprised" they were that I, as a "key Tea Partier", would say something unflattering about the son of Ron Paul, the darling of Libertarians everywhere. Of course, they had nothing to say about my remarks concerning the potential gubernatorial candidates. I guess they like Crit. They just seemed miffed for some unexplained reason that I pointed out that Rand Paul needed to get his head out of the oxygen deprived air of Washington's Beltway, and his feet firmly planted back on the Kentucky Bluegrass that put him into office in the first place. It just seems to me that if you're to make promises, you should do your level best to live up to them. At least, that's what I was taught as a kid.

Now I'm not naive enough to believe every political candidate actually intends to fulfill all their promises. Most couldn't even if they actually wanted to. It's simply not how the game is played. Energetic idealists are often so overwhelmed by the reality of office, they haven't a clue as what to do once they arrive in Washington. As a result, they're taken under the wing of some more experienced member to show them the ropes (ie: who gives and gets the payoffs and where the real levers are power are). Little by little, they're ensconced in the muck they came to rake. Even if they're still intent on carrying out a modicum of their campaign promises, the bureaucracy and mechanizations of power (sub-committees, committees, special advisory boards, parliamentary manipulations, corporate lobbyists, etc) will insure they're kept so busy they're too tired or isolated to make "revolution".

All the same, someone like a Rand Paul, can at least stand his ground on an issue like no amnesty for illegal immigrants, but I suppose the bright lights of the various talk shows has curled more than his hair. It curled his tongue, and by that, I mean his ability to tell the truth. Amnesty is bad for America. It's bad for American workers. And the current plan is bad for those here illegally, and he knows it.

Knowing that though, I have to ask myself why patriotic groups like the Tea Party would keep helping to elect people like Paul to go to Washington and cooperate with a system which has long since stopped working for the American People. Think about it. Why would you want to "go along to get along" as former Speaker of House Sam Rayburn used to say when you're whole argument is that the system is corrupt and rotten to the core? Wouldn't you instead try to elect people whose sole purpose is create a new Constitutional Republic by refusing to cooperate with the old one?

Maybe they shouldn't even be trying to get people elected. It seems that all it does is feed the system and sooner or later, corrupts even the noblest of knights errant. Instead, perhaps the objective of the Tea Party and other patriotic minded groups should be to educate the populace through grassroots' efforts (petitions, shadow economies, protests, citizen lobbyists, etc) and to create a revolving door of defeated "apparatchiks" to the point where they will have no choice but to adopt real change. In other words, harass and starve the Beast.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not a "Tea Partier", but I am a proud American and a Independent.