Slipping Off the Mask of Identity Politics

We've all heard the terms---LGBQT Equality, Alt-Right, Black Nationalism, Senior Entitlements, Veteran Needs, and countless others. These are all examples of the latest trend on modern political landscape--- Identity Politics. In fact, identity politics can now be used to define issues germane solely to seniors, urban vs rural, education, culture, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, and so on.

There's really nothing new about identity politics. It's been around from almost the moment we started coming together to form villages, towns, and cities thousands of years ago. Mankind is tribal. We've always been tribal. We are hardwired to be tribal. Tribalism is what has protected us, provided for us, sheltered us, and enabled us to develop sub-specialties which led to the creation of economies and thus civilizations. Identity politics is our incarnation of tribalism.

The modern notion of tribalism or identity politics began in the early 1960's with the likes of King, Abernathy, Randolph, Young, Wilkins and the Civil Rights Movement they led which sought to create social and economic parity between the black community and white community. This later resulted in the creation of a competing parallel moment which sought to replace the white, mostly male, political, social and economic leadership with a black counterpart. In fact, in some cases, it sought to create a competing counterculture; a separate society which wanted instant change "by all means possible". This was the black nationalism of Huey Newton and Malcolm X. Nevertheless, the concept of modern identity politics was born.

The term itself is thought to have first emerged in 1977 as part of a political manifesto put out by Barbara Smith, one of the founders of a black Lesbian feminist group, the Combahee River Collective, which also had a strong Marxist bent to it. What's different is that today's version is more about the creation of a very narrow demographic which is focused on just a few issues for their own benefit at the expense of all other issues and groups.

Under Classical Marxism, the notion of identity politics was already well defined. It was the working class---the proletariat---against the bourgeoisie; that is, the owners and Capitalists. However, the objective was to change the social structure in order to benefit all not just the working class. Under National Socialism (aka "Nazism"), it was about removing one group---the Jews---and replacing them with another group---the "Aryans", and with it, creating a new social, economic, and political order.

Nowadays, it's not about changing the social order. It's about substituting one group for another so society itself doesn't change. Just one's place in it. The Far Left, as well as the Democratic Party, are often accused of promoting identity politics, both in terms of claiming solidarity with each group and sub-group's goals while at the same accusing Conservatives and the Republican Party of backing the Alt-Right or Alternative/Far Right, which is the politically correct term associated with "white nationalists", "white supremacists", "white nationalism" and others on the so-called Far Right (we are to believe this includes the Tea Party, pro-life, and those who are anti-illegal immigration or pro 2nd Amendment).

Of course, it should go without saying that there are those on the Right who maintain that the extreme Left and Democratic Party are trying to promise everything to everybody in order to cobble together a new political base which includes black and Hispanic nationalist groups like Black Lives Matter and La Raza, as well as those who have pro-Marxist or pro-socialist leaning, radical feminists, pro-choice, and pro-amnesty group along with those who'd like to restrict or prohibit gun ownership and stifle free speech. Even those like Antifa, which often behaves like the Fascist it says it opposes, are being courted.

Regardless of who accuses who of what, the end result has been a further division of this country by those who are solely interested in their own issues at the expense of everyone else. It's not like these groups are able to achieve any real political clout beyond the regular news cycle. Nevertheless, the corporate media makes them seem larger and more powerful than they actually are. The real special interest group, the moneyed powerbrokers, continue on with politics as usual.

These other groups do nothing more than serve as a distraction from what's really happening behind the scenes in Washington and on Wallstreet. We find ourselves fighting against each other on issues and causes which mean little or nothing. The identity politics of old may have organized around one segment of society, their ultimate objective was to transform society as a whole for the betterment of all; not to the exclusion of all as it is today.

It's time we take stock of what we have in common with each other and not in the manufactured differences which the media promotes. As long as we remain divided, we cannot focus on the crimes and violence being committed at home and abroad in our name. Only by coming together as unhyphenated Americans will we be able to address these modern day robber barons; the globalists who seek to undermine our national sovereignty, undercut our Bill of Rights, and usurp our Constitution.

We've become an Oligarchy. Power is in the hands of a ruling political class comprised of plutocrats and an elite clique of very powerful and wealthy CEOs. There is still time to take our country back and restore what we've lost, but the sands are quickly running out of our nation's hourglass. We're seeing our freedoms chipped away piecemeal. There's an invasion taking place in Europe and countless attempts to repeat the experience within our borders. Jobs, especially union jobs, are exported overseas, leaving many Americans scrambling to find ways to pay their bills and keep food on the table while taxes and public utility rates increase in order to pay for these unwelcome changes.

Even our children and grandchildren aren't safe. Through the inclusion that's identity politics, we have drag queens reading to our kids...in school libraries... about the normalcy and joys of gay relationships . Some have even been putting on excerpts from their routines! I couldn't care less about someone's sexual proclivities, but damn, should children be exposed to this stuff at such a young age? Others are trying to claim that pedophilia is normal; just another "sexual orientation" like any other. The hell it is!

Being called a "racist" is now justified if you, for instance, happen to disagree with someone of another race (this works only one way of course). It seems to be a handy little tool to get what you want or to get out of trouble. Reverse racism has become acceptable to the point where whites and even Asians are expected to feel ashamed of their racial and/or ethic heritage. There are even white females who feel that they're "obligated" to have sex with a minority male in order to "atone" for some mythical transgression of their ancestors. Shouldn't we simply focus on ending racism period? At one point, not that many years ago, racism had all but vanished.

There are those who seem indignant that the majority of Americans support protecting our borders, our national sovereignty or not using taxpayer money to support those here illegally. Those individuals talk about so-called "migration rights" as if a secure border is somehow a bad thing. There are religious organizations and church who think they're are exempt from federal laws concerning immigration; that we should "embrace" foreign languages, values, and traditions at the expense of our own. Even some cities and states believe they can ignore federal immigration laws with impunity, and still have the audacity to demand more federal dollars to cover the cost! This is yet another form of identity politics.

When it comes to religion, it's just as crazy. Under the facade of modern identity politics, Christians, as well as Jews, Hindus, and Buddhist, among others, are expected to curtail their religious practices so that one group doesn't feel "offended" or excluded. There are even LGBQT and feminists groups who support this when, in truth, that religion would murder the other two without a second thought because that's part of its guiding dogma. It would be their "religious duty"! Again, identity politics.

The irony (and humor) here is nearly overwhelming. It would be like "Hasidic Jews for Nazis" in 1934. Meanwhile, the US is attempting to impose "democracy" on a people who barely have any concept of democracy while attempting to gain control through military means of their natural resources.

We are under surveillance in some form or fashion nearly every moment of our lives (for our own protection we're told). We watch helplessly as wars and conflicts are orchestrated under the banner of "spreading democracy" or overthrowing some tyrant (which, as usually the case, we helped to install and whose usefulness has expired) while deals over the control of resources and assets are made in boardrooms and on Capitol Hill.

The United States was intended to be a unique experiment in the history of Mankind. It was to be a place where anyone from anywhere, regardless of their circumstances, including race, religion, or ethnic group could come and start over. All we asked was that you leave behind your past prejudices and hatreds; that you accepted our laws and values, and you did it legally. There was no room for hyphenated loyalties. You were an American or you weren't. Naturally, it helped if you spoke out language. Whatever you brought with you in terms of traditions and so forth was blended in with every other immigrant. It was called the "The Melting Pot", and it made us a great nation.

Today, we're told to embrace "multiculturalism"; where everyone could bring a piece of their home country with them, along with all its petty bias and hatreds. You could even bring a system of religious laws not compatible with democracy, and yet we're told to accept those differences as if nothing will ever happen. Identity politics once again. Of course, all we have to do is watch world news to see that's not true. The social and religious values are different; often brutally so. The work ethics is different. One society believes in hard work and self-improvement while the other believes in getting by off of others.

This is the other side of identity politics. It says that all societies have equal value and thus are fully compatible with ours; that no society is better than another. This doesn't encourage building a stronger society, but one which will result in a balkanized nation. Of course, by breaking us down into the smallest denominator, we're more controllable; more manageable, and if you're setting at the very top of the food chain and your goal is absolute control, then that's exactly what you want.

The Oligarchy That Is America

As everyone knows by now, the US is an Oligarchy. We have a professional class of plutocrats who think they know better than we do about what we want and don't want from government. They've created a system that makes us dependent on them. They have, in fact, created the means by which they can bribe us with our own money. They've created a surveillance state and are awaiting the opportunity---be it real or manufactured---to impose a police state. But first, we'll have to demand it. "Do what" you say? We would never demand that government impose a police state on us. Well, yes we would, and here's how.

Imagine a situation where crime, especially violent crime, has gotten out of hand. No place was safe. Imagine an economy where good paying jobs were hard to come by because there were more workers than openings. Towns and cites were overpopulated. As a result, people were willing to take less and less; worker associations were either too impotent, too politicized, or too afraid do anything, and most were working hand in glove with employers. People became frustrated. They started protesting. Before long these protests turned into riots and looting became rampant. The only relief was public entertainment like sports.

The infrastructure had been deteriorating as a result of decades long neglect to the point of no return. There were more and more external threats to the nation, and those threats were spilling over the borders. Politicians didn't know how to handle the situation. Along with that, increased immigration; most of it illegally, was causing an ever greater stain on the economy along with the diseases they brought with them. Taxes rose as a result, and there seemed to be no end in sight. The government was corrupt and worse, it was simply an accepted fact. Previously, they at least tried to hide it. Not any more. Most don't even bother to try. They were bought and paid for by a handful of very wealthy individuals. Of course, the politicians continued to talk like the public's opinions mattered; like they were a part of the working class, but they weren't. They were to far removed from the same concerns of the ordinary masses to understand what their lived were like.

Pretty soon things became so bad that the people started demanding change; the the government do "something". The people knew the Republic was no longer their own. So, a few stepped forward and provided an end to chaos. They provided law and order and economic stability. Think I'm talking about some fictional scenario? Nope. What I just described was Ancient Rome during its late Republic period; the same Rome which we modeled our political system on. This was Rome just before the arrival of the Caesars. So don't think for a moment it can't happen here or that we're so different.

So, what do we do? Well, we can do nothing and see what happens. Maybe we'll get lucky and something or someone will save us, but don't count on it. If there were, we'd be the first Republic in history to do so. In addition, historically speaking, democracies and Republics are actually pretty rare. If we look back to the end of World War II, there were only around 26 democracies in the world. Today there are approximately 86, which is actually pretty good, but they still fail, even today. Now, I have a trivia question for you. Ready?

The US has been involved in "nation building" since the end of World War II. We've pumped tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in helping build the majority of democracies around the world. So, how many countries have based their new governments on the US model? The answer is zero. Absolutely none. Surprised? Want to know why? It's because we have a rigged election system; a "winner-take-all" form of government. Only two sides---Democrat and Republican-- are represented, and if you're not a member of one or the other faction, then you're out of luck; your views aren't represented. Talk about taxation without representation!

For the rest of the world's democracies, the preferred form is based on the British Parliamentary system of government which allows for everyone to have a voice in government even if your party doesn't win because it allows for multiple parties to be represented on a percentage basis. Naturally, it has its flaws like any other government, but it is at least more balanced than the American System when it comes to everyone's voice being heard.

I'm not necessarily advocating for a parliamentary form of government. I'm just pointing out the obvious since the majority of Americans are registered as Independent (about 44%), and have been since around 2005. Since both parties control board and commission appointments (which is typically allotted based on the number of seats held), it means that the majority of Americans aren't being represented. If you happen to be a registered Democrat or Republican, and your candidate lost the election, it means that your opinions aren't being considered either.

So, what can and should we do about that? Well, I have a few suggestions. First, we need to impose term limits. The Founding Fathers never intended that we should have career politicians or even political parties. In fact, they'd be appalled that we. They were strong advocates of the "Citizen Legislator"; someone who comes to the state legislature or to Congress with a limited mandate, completes their term, returns back home, and someone else takes their place.

Today we have a professional class of politicians. In fact, they are a professional class of political plutocrats. If you're not a millionaire going into Congress, you'll certainly be one shortly after getting there. We need a constant turnover to ensure fresh ideas are being introduced and to minimize the level of corruption. At best, we should cap terms to 12 years. That's six 2 year terms for House Legislators, two 6 year terms for US Senators, three 4 years terms for the President and federal judges including the Supreme Court. As the late great Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn (D-TX), once said "to get along you have to go along" which is a polite way of saying you have to turn a blind eye when it comes to graft and corruption.

We need to eliminate lifetime salaries and perks. Once someone leaves office, their salaries end with their departure. No more salaries for life. No more free or taxpayer subsidized insurance or other benefits. Speaking of insurance, elected representatives should expect to buy their coverage on the open market just like everyone else, especially after they leave office. Alternatively, we could go to a single payer form of converge for everyone.

All US Citizens would get a basic insurance package through the federal government and paid for by a small corporate tax. Individuals could then opt to buy a supplemental plan for any special needs. This would cover all government employees, elected officials, and the general public (the only exemption would be military personnel). This would also enable small companies who can't afford to offer insurance to their employees to compete with larger ones who can. There should also be no more "double dipping" of pensions; retiring from one government job and then getting rehired to another just to pad your retirement income. Taxpayers should pick up the tab for personal security for certain individuals and their immediate family the first year after leaving office, but after that they should be on their own.

The vast majority of elected officials, upon leaving office, go to work as a lobbyist or "consultant" where they call on their former colleagues on behalf of corporations who already spend millions buying elections. Anyone who was elected to office should be barred from calling on their former pals for a minimum of ten years. While we're at it, any contact between a legislator and a lobbyist (or "consultant") should be an open book. Total transparency. There should be no sponsored trips on private jets, use of private or corporate owned property, memberships to clubs, etc. If the average citizen can't do the same thing, then neither should an elected official. While we're at it, the citizenry should have final say in any tax or salary increases for elected officials, as well as any increases in rates for public water and utilities.

We also need real campaign finance reform, which means eliminating "Citizens United" which allows corporations a blank check to buy any candidate or election they want. Campaigns should be privately funded by individuals. I would even go as far as to say openly funded without a cap. However, corporations are not people nor do they represent the opinions of their employees. The 1st Amendment was intended for flesh and blood people, not artificial entities.

We should also end the funding of partisan primaries by taxpayers. You read that right. Taxpayers pay the cost of Democrat and Republican primaries, but not so the primaries for third parties. They also ban registered Independents and third party members from voting in primaries, and yet their tax dollars go to funding those primaries.

Another problem we need to address is the restriction of third parties and Independents from running for office. Since Ross Perot's run in 1992, both the Democrats and Republicans have tried to keep anyone other than the status quo out of debates and away from the money. That needs to end. They should have the same access as the two corporate parties. Meanwhile, the media tries to ignore Indies and third party candidates; deny them any media access (pretending that they aren't "legitimate" candidates") or treating them as if they're a sideshow.

Along with stopping this media bias, is ending the unfair advantage Democrat and Republican candidates to the ballot access. Whereas Democrats or Republicans may need two or three signatures to get on the ballot, Indies and third parties candidates typically need hundreds or sometimes even thousands, depending on the office, to get on the ballot. That is clearly illegal and yet it persists. All candidates should have to meet the same requirements, and if it isn't, it needs to be challenged in court!

We also need to end partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, for those who don't know, is where political parties divide up their districts so that the voter registration is favorable to their party. Both parties engage in the "wink and nod" form of electioneering. It basically guarantees reelection. Instead, a non-partisan body such as a university for local and state elections and the Census Bureau for federal elections should use blind data to redraw districts to match population changes. I wouldn't hurt either if the federal government became more decentralized and returned power back to the states.

We already have an Oligarchy at the federal level and its influence is increasingly felt at the state and local levels. Recent studies have shown that the ordinary citizen has near zero effect on legislation at the federal level and that's starting to be the case at the state level as well. Politicians follow the money, and that comes from the coffers of corporations and wealthy special interest groups. Even unions, who've lost their political clout decades ago, can't match corporate dollars (they're typically outspent $5 to $1). Meanwhile you and I have no one looking after our interests. Unless we make deep changes, and very soon, America will continue to drift further and further from being the democratic Republic our Founding Fathers envisioned for us with no way back.

The Significance of Julian Assange and His Arrest

On April 11th, the co-founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange was arrested by British Police. Assange spent seven years living in an Ecuadorian consulate compound in London to avoid extradition to Sweden originally, and to the US on conspiracy charges and computer hacking. The conspiracy charges are in conjunction with former Army private and intelligence analysis Bradley Manning, who now goes by the name Chelsea Manning. Assange, who is 47 years old, had originally sought sanctuary over alleged rape charges of two women in Sweden and skipping bail. As it turned out, neither of the women actually filed rape charges, but were attempting locate Assange, whom they claimed knowingly transmitted a STD. However, those charges were dropped long ago and Sweden has shown no interest in reopening them.

Over the years, there's been several attempts to force Assange out, including attempts to kidnap him from the London compound. However, yesterday, Equator withdrew its "invitation" and the London Metropolitan Police were finally successful in "getting their man" just as Ecuador signed a 4.2 billion loan deal with the International Monetary Fund (the IMF). Assange is expected to be extradited back to the US as quickly as possible in order to stand trial. His crime, authorities claim, is collusion with the Russians (yes, them again) using hacked documents, some of which were allegedly classified and secret. Assange has maintained for years that none of the documentation came as a result of Russian espionage and that the documentation had been secretly provided by a third party.

The real "crime" that Julian Assange stands accused of...and for which he is no doubt guilty...is releasing the information he acquired to the public; information which reveals just how corrupt the US and other governments are. His information "leaks" mentions names, dates, places, and amounts. Assange has outed agencies as well as high profile individuals. Obviously, that makes him a dangerous man, and potentially one with a very short life expediency ahead of him.

Julian Assange is not unlike Edward Snowden, who revealed government secrets; mostly about secret surveillance of individuals like you and me by the federal government and made it public. Meanwhile, social platforms like Facebook, collected volumes of confidential information on its users and in turn either gave or sold it the various government intelligence and other agencies. As a result, Edward Snowden was forced to flee to Russia, where he now lives in exile while others, such as Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, are hailed as "patriots" by the ruling political elites.

Thus, I have to wonder if it's not the fact that confidential information was compromised, but the fact that information affecting the ruling elites and government agencies, illegal though it may be, is to remain private and out of the public eye, while our information, regardless of how private and personal, is free and readily available to the government or can be sold without out knowledge or consent. Therefore, we have a situation where there is privacy and the veil of secrecy for some, but not for all.

Some would argue that releasing classified government information, regardless of how it's obtained, or information about public officials, even if it involves criminal activity, is somehow different from making available the private information of ordinary citizens who could, after all, could allegedly be plotting some possible terrorist act or other crime-in-the-making. Enter the "thought police" and where you are presumed guilty first. Meanwhile, wars for profit, running illegal arms deals or taking bribes to the tune of millions or even billions by government officials are seen as somehow okay or beyond public scrutiny. So too is using unsecured servers for the receipt and transfer of classified communication pertaining to national security is apparently permissible.

What we have is obviously a double standard. One set of rules and laws for the ruling Oligarchy and political class of plutocrats, and an entirely different set for you and me. Privacy, as we know, has become largely a thing of the past. Something that once existed decades ago, in the time of our grandparents or great grandparents. We are monitored virtually 24/7. Every time we go out to a public venue, there are cameras, be they security cameras on nearly every corner, in stores, or someone videotaping someone else. Overhead satellites are constantly looking down on us. Their sophistication is to the point where they can literally read the text on our cell phone, but of course, every electronic signal we generate, be it a cell phone call, text, email, landline call, computer log on and site search is tagged and monitored. In fact, every electronic message sent anywhere in the world is monitored. Every single one. We know this, in part, thanks to individuals like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and groups like Anonymous, bloggers, and vloggers. They ratted out the rats regardless of the political leanings. For the Oligarchy and ruling political elites, people like Assange and Snowden are every bit as dangerous as Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, and his capture is viewed by them in the same light.

So, what is the significance of Julian Assange's arrest and future trial (assuming he makes it that far)? No doubt that first and foremost, government authorities are going to want to know where...precisely...his information comes from. If it's the Russians or Chinese, they are going to want to know name, dates, and times. They will then conduct an exhaustive internal search for a possible mole. Obviously, this could result in a major international fallout. Alternatively, they will want to know if the information comes from a disgruntled employee or someone seeking a little private revenge for some perceived wrong. Perhaps too, the information comes from someone who feels they are a true patriot and was just serving their country by outing secret crimes against this country. Either way, government prosecutors and intelligence agencies are going to want to know who. That potentially put other lives in danger.

But there's something else at risk here, which is far more important and dangerous, and that's freedom of speech as protected by the 1st Amendment. Julian Assange views himself as a investigative journalist (whereas Edward Snowden was a government employee and Whistle-blower). Journalist have long enjoyed "journalistic privilege" which allows them to protect their sources, regardless of who those sources are or where that information comes from (with the possible exception of information which is potentially libelous). Government authorities will likely argue that Assange is no journalist and that he runs a extortion racket or perhaps even a spy operation whose goal is to spread disinformation.

Just as important, if not more so, is what information Assange is still privy to? What "dirt" is he still sitting on, and on whom or what government agency? The reason they'd want to know is to bury or discredit the information, eliminate any leaks or potential threats (in the literal sense of the word), and ensure that there are no further leaks ever again (if this was a movie, it would be something like "The Empire Strikes Back"). In the parlance of the intelligence community, this is about "identification and clean up". Assange's trial will be public. That much is true, but there will be much the public will not be allowed to see or hear. Behind the scenes, the "empire" will be mobilized to snuff out any "resistance" to the status quo; anything which prevents the expansion of its control, which especially includes keeping secrets from the public.

Fascism, as I've often mentioned, didn't die in 1945 in the ashes and rubble of World War II. It survived. If you strip away the racial and nationalistic ideology, it works because it's very effective. Fascism is a partnership between the government and big business. In the past, government acted essentially as the senior partner. Today, that partnership is much more balanced because they very same people routinely move between senior private and public sector positions. Wealthy corporate CEOs and presidents run for office, getting elected with the help of other wealthy and powerful individuals and groups in and out of politics. They serve for a while, often with the aid of these very same folks. When they retire, they go to work as lobbyists or "consultants", calling on their friends still in office and helping other like minded individuals into office, and so the cycle repeats. Partisanship and ideology doesn't really matter. Government contracts and profit do.

Fascism has generally been viewed as "Right-wing" historically because of its nationalism, although in truth it's a merger of elements from the Left as well as the Right, based on a particular country's history, traditions, values, and political structure. That's why the Fascism of Italy differed from the Fascism of Hungary or Romania, which in turned was different from the fascism of Spain, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, or even Nazi Germany.

As modern Fascism's founder, Benito Mussolini once said, Fascism would be better named as corporatism. America have evolved (or "devolved" would be a better description) into an Oligarchy comprised of these super wealthy individuals and their corporations, alongside a professional political class of plutocrats into a modern Fascist state. Instead of pushing a solely nationalistic agenda, it pushes brand loyalties. Something we, a tribalistic human beings, can belong to, be it a product or a sports team. It's something we can rally around while remaining controlled. That's the point of today's political parties. We fight "wars" against "opponents" and reap a sense of victory or defeat. We defend our victory or revenge the defeat. We humiliate or "assassinate " the other side's leaders.

Of course, the more we can be divided, the easier it is to manipulate and control us; playing each other off the other. The more divided we become, the more focused we are on each other and other differences---real or manufactured---and the less attention we pay to the real changes happening around us; the wars over the control of resources or assets, the loss of freedoms such as free speech and the right to privacy along with the growth of a surveillance state, which is nothing more than a neo-police state.

The last thing the ruling Oligarchy and political class wants is for us to know the truth and to unite. That is what is behind the arrest of Julian Assange and others like him, be it vloggers on different ideological sides like Lauren Southern, Abby Martin, Bill Whittle, Stormcloudsgathering.com, or groups like Anonymous, as well as certain bloggers and local talk radio hosts. Government whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden pose a special threat to them because they are on the inside. The arrest of Julian Assange is also as much a message as anything to those who expose light into places where the ruling class wants darkness. It's as much about government transparency and the right of the public to know what's being done in its name as it is about protecting your personal and financial privacy.



Julian Assange: WikiLeaks co-founder arrested in London

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London, facing possible US extradition

Ecuador inks 42 billion financing deal with IMF-Moreno

The Groups Anonymous Inspired Are More Powerful than Anonymous Ever Was

5 of the most famous federal whistleblowers

When Kentucky Bluegrass Smells like Stinkweed: More Kentucky Corruption

Over the past several weeks now, I've been sharing with you the results of my research into the politics of money; who's giving it and who's getting it. We've looked at the key industries which donate the most, and the largest individual donors (and no, the Koch Brothers and George Soros aren't even in the top ten. by the standards of the really big donors, they're paupers). In our Capitalistic world, everything has a price, not the least of which are politicians especially since the gross error of a out of touch (and perhaps naive) Supreme Court which upheld Citizens United (Citizens United vs. FEC in 2010).

As I'm sure you know, this "supreme" mistake declared money to be equal to "free speech" and turned corporations into "pseudo-people" ("Frankensteins" as I call them) with the same rights as us mere flesh and blood mortals, except more so. While you and I are capped as to what we can give, corporations aren't. They're free to give what they want, when they want, and to whom they want; essentially taking ordinary citizens out of the picture. Adding in all that lobbyist do on behalf of their corporate masters and the revolving door between Wall Street, E Street (where most lobbying firms are located in Washington DC), and Capital Hill, it's no wonder that we're an Oligarchy; a plutocracy. It seems that politicians only have time for us every two, four, or six years, when they don their "common folk" apparel, adopt their well practiced populist patter and force themselves to mingle with the ordinary citizens out here in "Flyover Country".

My last article discussed Kentucky being named one of the most politically corrupt in the nation and some of the common dirty tricks used by candidates running for office, especially those used in my home state of Kentucky. I thought it would be interesting to discuss a few more of those tricks. But first, since we've previously discusses the major donors at the federal level and the role of military contractors and their beneficiaries, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the key lobbyists in Kentucky. So, let's take a look shall we?

There are approximately 20 "high dollar" lobbyists in Frankfort, Kentucky's state capital, who represent around 720 corporations and associations. First on the list is John McCarthy, the former top generalissimo of the Kentucky Republican Party and regular sight at the Jefferson County Republican Party meetings (McCarthy was the former Kentucky GOP Chairman). McCarthy's clients include Altria (Phillip Morris USA), the University of Louisville and Bardenwerper Talbott and Roberts, LLC, a law firm which represents land real estate developers. McCarthy earns $315,003 for his efforts. In second place is the former State Auditor and Secretary of State, Bob Babbage. Babbage, a Democrat, represents clients like Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Aetna, Cash Express, and Novo Nordisk Inc, which is a Danish pharmaceutical company.

In third place is Patrick Jennings. His clients include UPS, Swedish Match AB (a manufacturer of tobacco snuff, cigars, smokeless tobacco, lighters, matches, etc), and Consumer Healthcare Products Association (does anyone else note the irony here?). He earns $281,626. Forth place belongs to Ronny Pryor. Pryor's top three clients are Molina Health Care, LifePoint Hospitals, and the Hospital Corporation of America. Next, at number five, is Karen Thomas-Lentz. She represents clients like EPIC Pharmacies, Swisher International (a manufacture of cigars and other tobacco products), and the Kentucky Liquor Retailers Coalition, for which she makes $209,073. Coming in at number six is Sean Cutter. Sean's clients include the Jefferson County Public Schools, the Kentucky Distillers Association, and EQT Corporation, which is in the oil and gas exploration and pipeline transportation business. For his services, Sean earns $201,380.

In the seventh spot is John Cooper, whose main clients are Toyota, the Kentucky Bankers Association, and the Kentucky Medical Association. For his efforts, Mr. Cooper is paid around $193,405. In eighth place we have Leigh Thacker. Ms. Thacker represents the Kentucky Press Association, the Cigar Association of America, and the Outdoor Advertising Association, for which is earns $182,667. Our ninth place goes to Kevin Payton. His top three clients are Fidelity Investments, the Outdoor Advertising Association as well, and FanDuel, Inc., which is a daily fantasy sports provider and sports bookmaker service based in New York City. Kevin's brings home $172,200.

Completing our top ten is Chris Nolan, whose three clients are the Kentucky Distillers Association, Maximus, and RAI Services. Chris earns $170,847. In case you're wondering, Maximus is a information technology services company which provides business process services for government healthcare and human service agencies. It's focus is on administering government based programs such as Medicaid, child support enforcement, welfare-to-work programs, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Medicare. RAI Services is Reynolds American Incorporated, whose chief business is tobacco products.

Some other notable mentions include Rachel Bayens, whose clients include Louisville Regional Airport Authority, CVS Health, and Anthem, Inc. She makes $122,654, which is nothing to sneeze at! Greg Brotzge who represents Sullivan University, the Kentucky Paint Council, and the Kentucky Bluegrass Cannabis LLC. His income is $114,734. Jason Underwood's clients include Legalize Kentucky Now, Delaware North Companies which is a global food and hospitality company. It's also involved with gaming, sporting and entertainment businesses, and Sazerac Company, an alcoholic beverage company.

While only the top three clients are listed here, state lobbyists typically handle 25 or more clients. Meanwhile, lobbyists in Washington may handle fewer clients, their dollar volume is much much higher, as are their incomes. It's not uncommon for lobbyists in Washington to earn well into the seven figure salaries with some seriously great perks, which is why most politicians and senior staffers on Capitol Hill set their sights on E Street almost from day one (or sooner) of their careers.

Nevertheless, lobbyists spent a record setting $8.4 million dollars in Frankfort to insure they got the proper amount of "free speech" spread around to Kentucky politicians. That's three years in row where lobbyists have set a new spending record. Who "spoke" the loudest to legislators? That would be Altria (Phillip Morris USA), the tobacco company. They spent a record $332,000, outspending everyone else to make sure they were heard loud and clear.

That message included easing restrictions on tobacco advertising and stopping any tax increases on tobacco products. Another big spender was LG$E and KU Energy, which lobbied hard to reduce what they have to pay for excess energy created by consumers who generate their own electricity from solar panels and windmills. Apparently their $116,858 wasn't enough and House Bill 227 failed.

Sadly, while businesses and professional associations are well cared for in places like Frankfort and Washington, ordinary citizens lack any full, or ever part-time lobbyists to protect our interests. Even if there were, it's highly doubtful they could come anywhere near to matching the money that would be needed to offset what businesses are prepared to spend; even unions are grossly outspent. Meanwhile, even politicians with the best of intentions (I've known a very few and I'm sure you have too) have to raise money to get and stay elected. Today's campaigns have all but squeezed out anyone who isn't a millionaire, or at least well-off, and that's just local and state elections.

Federal elected offices are completely out of reach of most everyone (and really, even appointed offices which are often given based on the one's ability to raise and donate money). So, when we look at the quality of people in office, just remember that these are far from the best and brightest America has to offer. These are those who were willing to sell themselves for corporate money...and the corporate chains which go along with it. It is not a place for those who think and act for themselves.

As you'll recall from my last article, we discussed some of numerous "dirty tricks" campaigns engage in. There are literally hundreds of little "gotchas" campaigns play on each other. Most are usually harmless and designed to liven up the otherwise monotonous days and evenings that campaigning can become, though a few can be pretty annoying. However, there are numerous other, not so humorous, things which unscrupulous candidates, their managers, advisors, and/or volunteers do which are unethical in the least or totally illegal at the worse.

Surprisingly, one of the more common, and certainly unethical things is hiring or otherwise bribing someone to run in your race as a "ringer". Usually, but not always, this happens in a Primary. The reason is actually quite simple. First off, primaries tend to have a low turnout, therefore it's important to make sure to get your supporters out and keep your opponents at home. The next best thing is to split the vote. That's were getting a "ringer" or two to run in order to divide the vote for your opponent. More specifically, it's useful to divide an anti-incumbent vote. How many times have you seen a unpopular incumbent "somehow" win? Well, it's usually because they get people to run in the race and focus their efforts against the incumbent's strongest opponent. It's also a great way to get the weakest candidate the advantage. We'll look at both situations.

As an example, I know of an instance where a well known and pretty strong candidate ran for an open seat (meaning there was no incumbent). That individual was known for being honest and seriously interested in helping the people in the district as well not one known to do as they're told. However, a "good ole boy" clique didn't want that. They needed someone they could "own". So while they found someone to run, they knew that individual couldn't win. So, they got two others to run and concentrate their efforts against the better candidate, which, in effect, meant the better candidate was running against three individuals rather than just one, and just before the election, both of the "ringers" dropped out and encouraged everyone to support the weaker candidate. Unfortunately, this technique often proves to be successful.

A similar example is when a unpopular incumbent faces a strong challenger. When attempts to buy them out of running fails (like offering to help get them a board or commission position, promise to get snow removed from their neighbor's streets, fix their sidewalks, drainage, or pave their street), the incumbent will often employ a ringer or two. From there, it's pretty much the same as above. Often times, a ringer won't show up at a debate out of fear of getting caught. However, they sometimes do, and when they do, they're fairly easy to spot since they don't go seriously after the incumbent (they may make a few little jabs at them, but nothing too serious).

In another instance I know about, a candidate appeared at one of those so-called newspaper "endorsements". Of course, I'm one of those who believe the media should simply report the news, not try to manipulate or push their agenda like they do with their "endorsements", but nevertheless, this candidate appeared along with his opponent and another individual who turned out to be the ringer (and an obvious one at that. He played in the same local band as the opponent's brother!). So, after introductions, the questioning by the panel started. It didn't take long for the opponent to show their complete absence of any knowledge of issues. While the better candidate knew their stuff, the opponent didn't have a clue. Most telling, however, was that the ringer had no responses at all! When asked for their opinion on an issue, they would shrug their shoulders and say something like "I don't know" or point to one of the other candidates and say "I agree with him".

Never once did the newspaper interviewers, whose jobs are to ask tough questions and investigate, ever question the cavalier attitude of this mystery candidate. They never bothered to check this individual out (which even a casual inquiry would have revealed they identity). So, at the end of the interview, the opponent and ringer walked out together...laughing no less! When the "endorsements" came out a few days later, there was no or little mention of the ringer, and while generally good comments were made about the better candidate, it was the opponent who got the endorsement! Of course, what helped was that the opponent candidate's actual answers were changed.

Remarks they made in the interview were deleted or altered, and in a few cases, misapplied from the better candidate. How can that be? Simple, someone didn't want the better candidate to win, and that meant no "endorsement" Of course, eventually everything comes out with the wash as the expression goes. It was discovered that one of the interviewers (allegedly) got a complimentary membership of some sort...after the election. While there's really nothing "illegal" about any of this, it's quite obviously unethical, which should tell you all you want to know about the opponent and those backing them.

Since then, and as a result of other stories, I've encouraged candidates to avoid newspaper endorsements. Yes, some may be honest, but you never know. Secondly, those doing the interview rarely if ever reveal their names to the public and never do they reveal their political registration which the public deserves to know; they need to know the political slant of those making the endorsements in order to know how seriously the "endorsements" should be taken. Lastly, I've campaigned to not only have this information made public, but also to record and release the interview itself unedited, either in video form on the newspaper's website, or simply print a complete transcript of the interview. Until newspaper's become as transparent as they tell everyone else to be, candidates should avoid the interview.

Again, there is nothing unusual here. It's not uncommon in today's world of politics, but that doesn't make it Ok. Most endorsement processes don't permit other individuals such as campaign managers or advisors to be in the room, and most definitely no recording devises. The claim is that they would try to "coach" their candidate with the answers or intimidate their opponent by recording devises (or more likely, embarrass their own candidate who may come off looking or sounding like a dork). Personally, I think it's more a matter of catching the interviewers in the act of playing politics in what's supposed to be an unbiased and honest process.

There you have it friends. This is how the game is all too often played, and I haven't even scratched the surface yet. I go back time and time again to stress that we need to undo decisions like Citizens United; we need to implement serious campaign finance reform; we need term limits and an end to gerrymandering. We need a level playing field when it comes to allowing third party and Independents the opportunity to run for office, or even a seat on the Board of Elections (in case you forgot or didn't know, Independents are the nation's largest political bloc with 44% of all registered voters, and growing. Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans are stuck in the 20% range and shrinking overall). Unless we do, Kentucky and America will remain an increasingly corrupt duopoly amid a ruling Oligarchy of plutocrats. In short, we will continue to lose our Republic and the freedoms which go with it.



Kentucky's GOP former chair is now top paid lobbyist in Frankfort

These 20 lobbyists were among the highest paid people at the state capital in 2017

Lobbyist spending tops $8.4 million in Kentucky legislature