Some Thoughts about Louisville’s Mayoral Primary Race from an Independent

There’s been a lot of gnashing of teeth since the primary election results of May 19^th rolled in. How could we end up with two Democrats in November and no Republicans? To compound matters, one of those Democrats is the much disliked current mayor, Craig Greenberg, the bane of nearly every Jefferson county resident; viewed by many to be one of the worse mayors since the city/county merger of 2003.

The other, lesser known, Democrat is Shameka Parrish-Wright, the current metro council represent for District 3,  which covers some of the city’s West End and much of Shively. First elected in 2023, she serves on the Budget, Planning and Zoning, and Public Safety committees as well as on the Commission for Persons with Disabilities.

As a community organizer for 25 years, Shameka is the executive director of VOCAL-KY, a social activist organization dedicated to ending AIDS, the failed drug war, overcrowding jails and homelessness.  She was the co-chair of Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression and was active with Black Lives Matter and the protest movement pertaining to Breonna Taylor.

 In addition, she has been involved with numerous other social justice groups such as The Coalition for the Homeless, Kentucky Reproductive Freedom PAC, the Anne Braden Institute for Social Justice Research, and other progressive causes. In short, all things many on the Far Right would consider “socialist” or “communist”. That leaves local Republicans and conservatives between a rock and a hard place with many looking for someone to blame.

Several have suggested Rep. Jason Nemes (R-Middletown), who proposed making the Mayoral and metro council races nonpartisan. He was a lead sponsor of HB 388 making Louisville, one of just six cities with partisan races out of the state’s 400 other cities. The idea was to bring Louisville more in line with the other cities and communities in the Commonwealth and in keeping with the growing trend nationally.

HB 388 was also based on recommendations made the bipartisan Louisville Metro Comprehensive Review Committee (which, by the way, excluded Independent and third party participation or input). Thus, no longer will the mayoral or metro council races reflect a candidate’s party affiliation. As a result, uninformed voters by and large, weren't sure who they’re voting for.

Just because no party loyalty label ("D" or "R") was shown on the ballot, the candidates were still very much partisan. In a true non-partisan election, candidates shouldn't be tied to any party, otherwise you end up with what we got---two Democrats running. Of course, it could have just as easily gone the other way with two Republicans facing off in November. 

In non-partisan elections, voters need to be educated to look at a candidate's position on issues and make their decision about who to vote for based on that. Given that most voters are generally conservative leaning (though not extreme), the moderate Right and moderate Left should do well while the extremists on both sides would likely be defeated. This would bring us back to where rationality and compromise are the order of the day.  

The second big issue was that most voters, despite their near constant kvetching about Mayor Greenberg, didn’t bother to vote. Of the 585,088 registered voters in Jefferson County, just 151,288 showed up at the polls. That works out to be a measly 25% of the vote. Where was the other ¾ of the county’s voters? As an aside, of Louisville’s 7,655 Independents and third party voters, 6,516 turned out to vote. That’s an 85% turnout.

Therefore, it looks like the fault (or blame if you prefer) rests with the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties for failing to get their people out to vote, and especially that of the local Republican party for not helping its voters to know who on the ballot was a Republican! An apparent failure in understanding non-partisan ballots.

I should also mention that it is my understanding that Republican metro council members, as well as other elected Republicans, decided to “stay home” as well. While technically the party doesn’t openly endorse during a primary, individuals, elected or not, most certainly can support a candidate of their choice. Afterall, since this was a “non-partisan” race, there would obviously be no bias or violation of bylaws since no one on the ballot was a “D” or “R” (or “I” if we were so allowed).  

I suppose if anyone is looking to fix blame on the mayoral election outcome, Republicans can look to their party leaders and to other elected Republicans for not supporting their own as well as failing to alert their partisan “congregation” just who was and wasn’t a member and working to get out the vote. From my perspective, this is a not just a failure of leadership, it’s a betrayal of Republicans and conservatives alike.

Finally, we need to look at our fellow voters. Three-fourths of those eligible to vote stay home,. Most of those were in the county while urban Louisville came out to vote in force---as it usually does. It makes me wonder just how much worse things are going to have to get in Louisville to get us off our collective butts and do something aside complain. To paraphrase President Teddy Roosevelt, “if all you want to do is complain and offer no solutions, then sit down and shut up. We need doers to change the system. Not whiners".

 

In Focus: State Rep. Jason Nemes discusses updates toKentucky Law that governs partisan and non-partisan races in Louisville

Commonwealth Secretary of State’s Election Results

Is Civil War on the Horizon?

 

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than years leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during the era of Women's Suffrage, Prohibition, or the Great Depression. Even more so than the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent presidential and national elections (such as in New York and Virginia) has served only as dark mirrors of our division. What have we've become?

One ideal is in the belief of a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government our of our private lives. The other ideal is one where government is the sole source of our social and economic salvation. The first believes in opportunities where one succeeds or fails by their  own efforts.  Neither the government or society  owes you anything.

The other believes in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal and should be given special consideration for one historical slight or another.  One believes success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to teach the skills one needs to survive in society, not to babysit. They believe everyone needs a helping hand from time to time.

The later believes in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. A society  where mediocrity is superior to a society of meritocracy; that successful people "owe" those who aren't as successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or playing sports is more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a living just for showing.

They believe they should be "forgiven" of their school debt because they received degrees which aren't marketable but fail to explain how taxpayers, who must pick up their defaulted debt, are responsible for their bad decision making. 

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They envisioned a nation free to believe what they wanted without being manipulated. They believed that the right to petition their representatives meant the right to question them and if necessary recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our personal business. There's’ no doubt this belief would extend to corporations as well.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”.  Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proved their mistrust government.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as surely as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include those who are members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering and legacy media propaganda.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while we are left dealing with the mess. 

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how the other side won't simply roll over and let them have their way. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule, not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you are never allowed to see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws to allow them to make more money while avoiding taxes. They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms to government bureaucracy and back again. They are the corporate lobbyist and Beltway insider.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources while selling us illusions of how our lives could be in ten second TV spots or 8 x 10 retouched glossy magazine photos if we only bought their product.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by no boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and citizens to mere global consumers. We’ve become indentured economic serfs and captives to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence. They are the ultimate users and corruptors.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Our constitutional republican government is beyond mere reform. Many already recognize this. A few more are finally waking up. Some, however,  may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as the they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Uncle Sam is on life support while his two hopeful murders, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment, Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice any longer. 

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

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

The Case of the Vanishing Republic: The Morphing of America’s Democracy

 

It seems that the Right is perpetually speaking about Democrats leading us down the road to socialism's perdition. With Donald Trump in office, the Democrats and those on the Left kept comparing "The Donald"  with Hitler and Republicans with fascists (hence the thinly vailed “No King” protests). It seems that neither side is familiar with history.

First off, there's no way those in power on the Left or Right would allow this country to become "socialist", Communist or anything else that requires them to surrender their wealth or power to the State. Secondly, the two party system is a farce. Wall Street owns both parties and they make no secret of it. What we see on a daily basis is political “kabuki” theater.  

The only real difference between the two parties is the two competing corporate cliques. Citizens United has ensured corporate control of the political system. It has put political reform all but out of reach of the average American. Corporate lobbyists write the laws, leaving voters with the illusion of choice. 

As for fascism, it was (and remains) a partnership of sorts between the government and Big Business. In the past, the latter assumed a junior role, but nowadays, we all know Wall Street wouldn’t go for that.  

Actual socialism, which remains an abstract idea since it has never actually been implemented, means that the people essentially own everything. Under actual socialism  political power and the control of wealth would be in the hands of the working class. Businesses would be typically employee owned and run while others, particularly essential businesses, would be controlled or heavily regulated by the State.

Nevertheless, I don't see Wall Street or their K Street lobbyists allowing anything like that to happen do you? Certainly not after the "Citizens United" or "McCutcheon's" decisions by the Supreme Court which gave them carte blanche to the halls of power and the public trough! 

What passes for "socialism" today is an admixture of capitalism, democracy, and a welfare state comprised of social programs  under the heading of "Democratic Socialism", which is common in Scandinavia and places like Germany and Netherlands. Think of it as "capitalism with a friendly face".  Of course, that hasn’t kept some authoritarian states from usurping the term. It’s like North Korea calling itself the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

Nevertheless, despite high taxes (especially on the wealthy and corporations), the democratic socialist form of government have proven to be quite popular with the masses, with practically everything being subsidized. However, it requires everyone to pitch in and contribute back into the system. But when you have a mass of people who draw on the system without contributing to it, it fails, which is what seems to be happening in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe.  

Under Communism, which is often---though incorrectly--- used interchangeably with socialism, there are again no privately own properties, businesses or corporations. The State owns everything. Everyone works for the State. The State is everything. Do you see corporations like Google, Lockheed Martin, Exxon or people like Zuckerman, Musk, Bezos, or Buffett  surrendering their power and wealth to Washington? So, what is America is morphing into? The answer is a Corporatocracy, which is a de facto form of neo-fascism.

Fascism is, as its founder Benito Mussolini said, was more accurately described as "corporatism". Specifically, Mussolini said "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 Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin referred to fascism as "capitalism in decay".

Politically speaking, fascism isn’t stagnant. It borrows some of its goals and techniques from the Left and some from the conservative Right, including militarism. It grafts various national traditions and values to its cause as needed and jettisons whatever is no longer of use.  Corporatism is, if nothing else, adaptable. It's objective, however, is always corporate control plain and simple. The role of government is to serve as the lesser partner and "middleman" between the "elites" and masses. It's objective is to serve the rich.

Under a Corporatocracy, there is little to no strong middle class; certainly not in the way we're used to. There's the insanely rich and then there's everybody else. There is a two tier justice system. One for us and another for the elites. Sound familiar? Can you see the one percenters giving up their money; their penthouses; their private planes and yachts if we were truly becoming “socialist”?  

As an aside, some less informed individuals and groups (and few who should know better) want to convince you that Nazism was a Leftwing “socialist” movement because they used the term “socialist” in their name. Hitler’s definition of the term was that of a community of likeminded Germanic people (aka “Volk”) with a shared culture, values, and heritage. Also, unlike communism or socialism, it was strictly nationalistic, not international.

Consider this too, while unions exist in a Corporatocracy, they are weak and fairly ineffective. A far cry from the unions of old. Their primary purpose is 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.  

So, in reality, we are morphing into something akin to a neo-fascist corporate State where we see the top 10% owning 52% of all wealth. The ultimate goal is to diminish the autonomy of the individual, as well as our economic and political power, 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 our overseer and corporations as our masters. Of course, the "big prize" is the creation of a single interlocking global corporation with a single government. A digital ID will serve as our chains. That means creating and using global organizations to serve as the intermediaries on global projects and national one's on more regional projects with the legacy media selling a siren’s song.  

Under corporatocracy we can expect national governments become ever more pervasive in their role of overseer while local and state governments become weaker and more dependent on the federal government.  This role also enables corporations an ever growing access to taxpayer money to acquire resources domestically and globally while at the same time shielding their intentions behind the illusion of a sovereign government.  

They can also use 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.  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.”. In short, war and the threat of war is good for business.

Il Duce was also talked about was the concept (novel for his time) of what 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 they natural resources or national resources for the sake of the bottom line. It artificially stimulates the economy, masks actual unemployment numbers, and allows for near unlimited deficit spending. Sound familiar? We get crumbs and they call it a “victory”.

As an aside, what did Mussolini think of socialism? After all, his father, Alessandro,  was a prominent Italian socialist and Benito started off his political career as a socialist. This was his opinion, "Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail".

So, when someone starts complaining about America becoming "socialist" or "Communist", remember that famous line from movie "The Princess Bride" as uttered by the swordsman Inigo Montoya (played brilliantly by Mandy Patinkin), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".  

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

 

Eight Billionaires Own asMuch as the Poorest Half of Global Population

 

The Rich 1% Own Almost Half the World's Wealth & 9 Other Mind Blowing Facts About Wealth Inequality

 

Is it time America had a National “Come to Jesus” Conversation About the State of America or Face a National Divorce?

 

What’s wrong with us when a large segment of the population celebrate the murder of someone just because we disagree with them or they challenge our worldview? I wasn’t a follower of Charlie Kirk, though I did occasionally listen to him. I didn’t always agree with what he said, but I did respect his right to say it; to express his opinion in an open and civil manner, which was more than he typically got in return from those who proclaim themselves “woke” or “enlightened” (more like they’re sleepwalking and regurgitating what they’ve been told.

 And since when do we make excuses for coldblooded murder on  individuals minding their own business sitting on a bus reading a book or out walking their dog in the park? Is it simply easier to blame the victim now that they can no longer speak for themselves?

 To compound matters, there were four other sitting just feet away to refused to act while she was being murdered, and even after the killer walked away, boosting that he had just killed a “white girl”, they just left her to die alone on the floor of a bus.  I guess after they praised three separate assassination attempts on President Trump, we should have expected it.

 When Donald Trump was first elected President, his campaign mantra was to “make America great again”. Well, he’s back and it’s once again the mantra of his followers amid the vitriol of the Left. Ironically, the phrase was used in a radio commercial for Hillary Clinton during her run in the 2008 Democratic Primary, now we now hear from the Left asking, “what’s so great about America?” and “when was America ever great?”.

Under President Eisenhower’s two terms running from 1953 to 1961, 73% of Americans said they trusted their government. Going along partisan lines, the trust level of government was 79% among Republicans. Even Democrats were happy (yes—actual “happy” Democrats. They did once exist). 71% said they trusted in the government.

The overall trust level had jumped to 77% by the time Lyndon Johnson took office. But as the war raged on and the causality rates rose (as well as lies by the military and government became public), those numbers started to drop. Still, they would be regarded as high by today’s standards with 66% confidence level by Democrats and a 60% by Republicans.  By the time Johnson left office, and Richard Nixon took over, public trust had dropped but still remained strong at an overall 68%.

Following Nixon’s resignation and the advent of Gerald Ford’s “caretaker” administration, public trust was floundering at 36%. Among Republicans, just 38% had any confidence in the government. The Democrats weren’t far off with 36%. Jimmy Carter was elected as the “anti-insider” in 1976. The American People had had enough of Washington insiders and Carter took office with a new high---40%---before tumbling to 28% by the time he left office.

Despite Reagan’s perceived popularity over his eight years as president, trust in the government never did any better than 46%, a pale reflection of the Eisenhower days which Reagan often recalled in his speeches. By 1994, during the Clinton Administration, the public’s trust in the government had hit a record low of 19% before rising to 49% by the end of his second term.

President Reagan was well known for his often quips. One involved his switching parties. When asked why he left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican, he famously said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me”. I guess this was the time when the American People could say the same thing about both parties now and the government in general. Government had left the American People.

Sadly, it took a national tragedy like 9/11 to rekindle America’s faith in their government, and it came shortly after George W. Bush (aka “Dubya”) took office. Poll numbers vary slightly, but the public’s trust in government ranged between 55% and as much as 60% according to some polls. Ever then, confidence in the government has been on a downward trajectory ever since. As some have said, “we're in a handbag to Hell on roller skates and no one is driving”

The best Trump did in his first term was 27%. Under President Biden, levels of trust in the government again repeated lows of 19%. Even among Democrats, the trust factor never did better than 35%.  For Republicans, it remained at levels one could only call abyssal---11%.

Today, Americans barely tolerate each other. We tend to live in our collective bubbles and regurgitate what we see and hear without bothering to question or investigate. They demand to be heard but refuse to listen. They celebrate the murders of others and excuse their killers. We’ve become two nations.

Even when we break down trust in government by race, we don’t see much of change. Using the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson administrations as a starting point, Blacks and whites intersected in October 1964 (the early LBJ Administration) with a 77% each saying they trust the government.

Staring in 1968, that trust among Blacks has plummeted. The next time it peaked was in 1993, corresponding with Bill Clinton’s inauguration, when it hit 43%. Even under Obama, it didn’t do any better than 39% in February 2013. Biden got close in April 2021 with 37%.  Trust levels hit rock bottom in March 2019  during Trump’s administration when they dropped to 9% thanks largely to relentless negative news about Trump and his administration by the legacy media. It was so bad that 67% of Blacks had been convinced that the political system exists to hold them back. 

Among Whites, their highest trust level in government following October 1964 wasn’t until October 2001 under George W. Bush when it reached 61% few weeks following the 9/11 attacked (was this actually “trust” or just patriotism?).   For Whites, their low point came in October 2011 under Obama when it dropped to 8%.

According to Pew Polling, Hispanics weren’t tracked until December 1990 when  George “Dubya” Bush was the president. Their initial starting point was 39%. They quickly reached their highest level of trust of 57% in December 1998, which was late into Clinton’s tenure as president before again dropping off. Their next high point came in January 2013 when it reached 44% under President Obama. Interesting, their lowest level of trust in the government came at the end of the Biden’s presidency when it hit 23%.

Lastly, Asians. Apparently, they first appeared in polling data in August 2020 during Trump’s first term when they expressed a trust level of only 27%. They peaked in May 2022 at 37% under Biden, only to bottomed out a month later at 23%. Native Americans and Independents, the nation’s largest political bloc, were excluded in the polling data.

Now, President Trump promises to make us “great” once more. That would mean taking us politically, socially, and economically back to the post-World War II years of Harry Truman and Ike. The American economy was booming and we had taken center stage as empires of old, England, France, and Germany faded from the limelight. We had become a “superpower”.

As for President Trump, he has been implementing many of campaign promises (a rarity in itself). He has started deporting illegal residents by the thousands (many of whom had previously just laughed at the usual empty rhetoric about deportation). He has started purging the government of useless and redundant bureaucrats, saving taxpayers millions in the process, and having an eye towards shutting down unneeded agencies. President Trump is, as promised, “draining the swamp”.

Of course, in his zeal, he needs to be careful of not overreaching into areas vital to ordinary citizens such as Social Security, unemployment, or WIC, while ensuring that those who actually need government services receive it. Often reformist zeal can turn into blind zealotry. He has imposed tariffs, which has been largely unpopular with the public and small businesses since it means higher prices which big business seems rather pleased. He has also promised lower prices, especially for staples like milk and eggs, which has yet to happen. 

For too long, the bulk of American citizens have seen government as inept and corrupt. Over 65% of Americans are unhappy with our position in the world. 72% of America agree with the statement that "America was once a good example of democracy, but no longer".  Among the OECD nations, the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to trust in government at 31  %. Only Columbia and Chile rank lower.  The country with the highest level of trust is Switzerland with 83.78%. 

 Given the appalling insensitive reaction of many on the Left (including much of the legacy media) to the death of Charlie Kirk, Iryna Zarutska, and others, the question  which now faces our nation is “now what?” We’ve become two nations with differing values occupying the same space. Our only commonality is the Status Quo which serves itself by keeping us divided and at each other’s throats. Can we root out the "Deep State" and restore our Republic or is it too late? Can we learn to talk “to” and not “at” one another again; to be respectful whether we agree or not with each other?

Personally, I have my doubts. America has become too deeply and widely divided and too willing to act as if this is acceptable.  It’s not. That means either deep reform, if not a complete overhaul of the government and breaking up the powerful corporate-government state, and returning to a constitutionally based Republic as intended by our Founders (which incidentally means doing away with political parties and having “citizen legislators”) or finding a way to peacefully create a two state nation, perhaps along the lines of a loosely based federation (Yugoslavia or the old Austro-Hungarian Empire comes to mind).  

We’ve watched the government slide from a Republic responsible to its citizens under Eisenhower to a surveillance state within a neo-fascist corporatocracy which serves Wall Street. Government, both elected and appointed, no longer represent the American People. Instead, it serves corporate interests and those with deep pockets.  Much of what Congress, the Judicial system, past presidents, and the legacy media bears that out. We can’t even be sure our vote still counts.

The only alternative is to terrible to seriously contemplate. Those who seek balance---“centrists” or “moderates”---have been largely purged from both of the corporate owned parties. As a result, they now make up the nation's majority of voters. They’re called Independents and unlike the two corporate parties, everyone is welcome if you believe in tolerance and having an open mind (we’re funny that way).  

But regardless of your political leanings, there’s one thing which is crystal clear and that is that our present dystopian state of the nation cannot hold.  Something has to give. It’s time that we, as a nation, have a frank and honest national conversation, a so-called “come to Jesus” moment to address some ugly truths about ourselves and find a way to peacefully coexist or simply agree to disagree and go our separate ways. 

Empires come and go. Republics tend to last about 250 years before they implode. We’ve reached that 250 year mark. We are, as our Founding Fathers said, a “grand experiment”. Nothing about our future was pre-ordained. I suspect we’ve already exceeded their expectations. One thing is for sure though. If we are to “make America great again”, we cannot continue to limp along as we have been doing and still pretend we’re a “Republic”. We’re not. Extremism and intolerance has no place among a free people. So, what do you want to do America?

 Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Pew Research: Public Trust in Government: 1958 - 2024

 

72% of American say the US used to be a good example ofdemocracy but isn’t anymore

 

WEF: Trust in Government by Country 2024

 

Make America Great Again

 

The American Experiment

 

Gallup: A Third of Americans Satisfied With Global Position

 

Black Americans mistrust the US political system

 

 The State of Public Trust in Government 2025

Americans Deepening Mistrust of Institutions

Did We Do Right By Bombing Iran?

What’s your opinion about the United States bombing three nuclear sites in Iran? Did we have a national security or moral obligation to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and try to disrupt its potential nuclear bomb making capabilities? Was there an ulterior underlining motive? To address those, and other questions, we need to take a brief look back at the history of Iran and its relationship with the United States.

In 1953, the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown via a CIA orchestrated coup (with the help of British Intelligence, MI6), under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt Jr, a intelligence officer with the CIA's Office of Policy Coordination, and grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt.   

Roosevelt had previously helped orchestrate the 1952 coup in Egypt with the Free Officers Movement to topple King Farouk. The movement was led by a small cadre of Egyptian and Sudanese officers and was led by Abdel Moneim Abdel Raouf, and included such future notables Gamal Abdul Nasser (who became close friends with Kermit Roosevelt), Salah Nasr, and Abdel Hakim Amer.

Mohammad Mosaddegh had been appointed prime minister by the democratically elected Iranian Parliament (the “Majlis”). He had also co- founded the National Front, a Left leaning pro-democracy, secular, and Iranian nationalistic political party. They also implemented a number of land and tax reforms aimed at helping the lower class.

Amid a period of political unrest, assassination, and emerging religious extremism, Mossadegh sought to maintain power and improve Iran’s economic stability by nationalizing its burgeoning oil and gas industry, beginning with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Eventually, following a series of constitutional crisis events, which included the Shah fleeing to Italy out of concerns for his safety, Mossadegh was forced to align himself with pro-Soviet factions (despite strongly disliking the Communists). This was all the CIA and MI6 needed. The result was an overthrow of his government (and future suppression of the National Front) under “Operation Ajax”.

The result was the installation of a much more pro-Western government under the direction of  CIA recommended General Fazlullah Zahedi as the new Prime Minister. Among the many changes implemented by Zahedi was ending nationalized oil and gas production and returning control to British, French, and American oil companies.

The CIA also organized guerrilla groups to disrupt pro-Communist groups. In addition, the CIA also directed Major General Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. (father of “Stormin Norman” of Gulf War fame) to Italy and “encourage” the Shah to return to Iran. He also helped organize and train Iran’s new security service, SAVAK, in order to help the Shah maintain power (in time the SAVAK would develop a reputation similar to Stalin’s NKVD which eventually became the KGB).   

All went well between the West and Iran until 1979 when Shah Reza Mohammed Pahlavi was overthrown by a small group of religious extremists led by the exiled cleric, Ruhollah Khomeini (incidentally, who was also named Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1979) and was described as the “face of Shia Islam”.  He was later to be named the supreme leader in Iran and given the title of “Ayatollah ”, an honorific title of the “Twelver” Shia sect which was to become Iran’s official state religion (95% of the world’s Muslim population is Sunni, however, Iran is 95% Shia). He was also credited with labeling the U.S. as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan”.

Although the U.S. wasn’t happy that their man had been thrown out of power and forced to flee the country (he was given asylum in the U.S. for health reasons), what really irked the U.S. government was the seizure of 66 Americans, which included diplomats, civilian personnel, and a small security detail U.S. Marines, along with the U.S. Embassy itself in a series of assaults by the Muslim Student Followers of  the Iman’s Line, not to mention instigating hostilities with the CIA’s man in Iraq, Saddam Hussein which ultimately led to the Iran-Iraqi War.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis lasted from November 4, 1979 until January 18, 1981. During that time, then President Jimmy Carter made numerous unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation. In October 1980, Carter authorized a rescue operation (euphemistically named “Operation Eagle Claw”) which was an all-around disaster and national embarrassment, representing a political, military, and intelligence blunder. Eight servicemen were killed and four were injured amid several mechanic failures and crashes.  

Largely forgotten today, there was also an attempted attack on the U.S. embassy in Pakistan by over 1000 pro-Iranians protestors and an aborted attempt to seize the Soviet Union’s embassy for its “Marxist and anti-god beliefs”.  Some U.S. embassy personnel were able to evade capture and hide in a Canadian embassy before being able to escape through an ingenious CIA ruse popularly called “The Canadian Caper” (a 2012 movie entitled “Argo” details this secret rescue operation).

Meanwhile, the Iranians made numerous threats about the imminent execution of the hostages unless the U.S. agreed to a number of demands (essentially blackmail), including the return of the Shah to face trial and probable execution (which was refused). The Iranians ransacked the American embassy, revealing great many political, diplomatic, and intelligence secrets. Finally, after 444 days, and the election of Ronald Reagan, the hostages were released (this was seen as a calculated insult directed at Carter for the attempted rescue operation).

Ever since, The U.S. military and intelligence community has been looking for a way to overthrow Iran’s theocratic regime. Accordingly, Iran has been ostracized, boycotted, and even had billions of its dollars held in U.S. bank accounts frozen, The result had little effect on Iran’s ruling elite although, as usual, the average Iranian felt the brunt of the embargos. Much of the money was ultimately returned. President Obama approved releasing $400 million in August 2016 and President Joe Biden released $6 million in September 2023 for "humanitarian purposes".

 Meanwhile the Iranian government helped organized, train, and finance numerous terrorist organizations whose sole intent was the destabilization of the West (especially the U.S. and Israel) as well as specific Asian nations by any means possible with the ultimate goals being creation of a global caliphate under their version of extreme Islam.

Key among these groups was Hamas, responsible for the October 7^th attack on Israel which resulted in the butcher of over 1,139 men, women, and children. as well as seizing 251 hostages. They are also responsible for keeping the Gazans living in a state of terror. Hezbollah is another such group, which routinely launches missiles into Israel from Southern Lebanon.

 Boko Haram, who are known for their raids on African villages to capture women and girls to sell as slaves and butchering non-Muslims. The Houthi, who operate in Yemen, regularly launches missiles into Israel and is active in destabilizing the region. Of course, there is also ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Talban, who received support from the Iranians.

It’s believed that Iran has sponsored establishing sleeper terrorist cells in Europe, Canada, South America, and the United States, and is responsible for the hoard of immigrants into Europe (conquest through numbers?).  It’s been often noted that many of these so-called “migrants” are very fit, aggressive military age males, which isn’t typical of the average refugee (also notable is the lack of women, children and seniors accompanying them).

It should be mentioned that starting with the Ayatollah Khomeini, they have repeatedly promised to “wipe Israel off the map” by every means available, including the use of nuclear weapons, even if it meant their own total destruction. They have been responsible, directly or indirectly for attacks in Paris, Berlin, Tel Aviv,  and “lone wolf” operations in the United States and elsewhere as well as dozens of so-called “self-radicalizations” terrorists.

However, resistance has been growing, especially in Iran where women, long denied basic rights to education, employment, choice of marriage, physical mutilation of their genitalia, political suffrage, have been becoming more militant to their suppression, even to the point of risking death. It’s common for resisters to be blinded in one eye, tortured, suffer broken bones, face mutilation such has having their tongue, nose or ears cut off, or have acid thrown in their faces, and so forth. As an aside, this is, in part, those who back the Iranian regime or radical Islam are supporting.

Despite U.S. and Israeli warnings, Iran has been engaged in the development of a nuclear infrastructure, which they claim is for "energy purposes" only (and yet they sit on some of the world’s richest oil and gas reserves). Taking Iran’s threats seriously, Israel has done everything it could to deter Iran’s efforts overtly and covertly (I’m particularly impressed with the massive computer virus and the exploding cell phones of Iranian nuclear scientists. Bravo Israel! Very clever).

However, despite their best efforts not to provoke an all out war, Israel had little realistic options remaining except to go after Iran’s reactors. It’s noteworthy at how many countries, including those inside the United States, who turned on the Israeli government following the barbaric attack by Hamas on Israel or Hamas’s use of private homes, schools and hospitals to launch their missiles, store weapons, and hide some of the hostages it taken on October 7^th (including a tunnel system under a EU hospital!).  

 Hamas has repeatedly attacked or hijacked relief columns of food, fresh water, and medicine, often selling it on the black market for either more weapons or to fund expensive vacations for Hamas leadership. Europe, especially Germany, long been an allies of Israel, now accuse the IDF of doing what Hamas is guilty of. Turkey, an EU and NATO member, even hinted at a possible direct intervention in Gaza. How would that affect NATO's mutual defense clause? Would that plunge NATO into war? 

Finally, this brings us to the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by U.S. bombers. Did we have a moral or political obligation to attack those sites? Every U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, from Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, regardless of the officially stated reason, has had the secondary goal of bringing us a little closer to Iran.  Was this then just an opportunity to strike Iran after all these years or was it, as President Trump said, an opportunity to make the world a little safer?

According to polls, most Americans opposed the bombings. A poll by The Hill showed that 56% of Americans in general disapproved of the bombings although 82% of Republicans were in favor. However, 60% of Independents (America’s political majority) weren’t happy with the bombings along with 88% of Democrats. 78% of Americans were concerned we will get drawn into a war with Iran.

Additionally, 71% of Democrats said they didn’t trust Trump to make the right decisions on behalf of the United States when it came to Iran.  62% of Independents said they had little or no confidence in Trump's decision ability. On the other hand, 51% of Republicans confirmed that they had a great deal of faith in Trump while 37% said they had a moderate amount of confidence in the president.

 It bears mentioning that prior to the current ceasefire, 59% of Americans in general thought that our attack on Iran actually made it more of a threat to the U.S. and the world. Many were concerned that our attacks might provoke Iran to launch more attacks on Israel either directly or through its many surrogates as well as possibly activate imbedded terrorist cells in Europe, Canada, or the United States.

Finally, there’s Israel itself. Aside from being the only democracy in the Middle East, it is also an important trading partner and a vital source of intelligence information in the region. It also provides a key strategic position for U.S. and allied operations in the Middle East and Africa. Iran has made it crystal clear that it intends to wipe Israel off the map even at its own destruction and there's no reason not to take them at their word. 

Such a fallout would trigger a dire humanitarian crisis regionally as well as globally. Israel’s beef with Iran is direct and personal. The outcome of Iran’s boast would have a severe impact on the rest of the world, not to mention on Humanity as well, which Iran and its cohorts abhor. A nuclear Iran is not just a threat of the survival of Israel. It’s a threat to the survival of Mankind too.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 Free Officers movement (Egypt)

Kermit Roosevelt Jr.

Iran hostage crisis

October 7 Attacks

The Canadian Caper

56 percent disapprove of U.S. strike on Iran: Survey

Voters 51 – 42 Percent Oppose U.S. Joining Israel inMilitary Strike…

Islam in Iran

Nuclear facilities in Iran

The "Gospel" of Partisan Politics

I am a frequent and often requested respondent on the site "Quora". Over the past 5 or so years, I've had somewhere in the neighbor of 10 million viewers and have my answers included in a number of dedicated spaces which are similar to encyclopedia entries. My specialties are history (especially military history and WWII in particular), economics, theology, humanities, community organizing and activism, management/employee relations, sociology, and of course, politics. 

Recently I was asked a rather unusual political question. The individual wanted to know which of the two corporate controlled parties (the Democrats or the Republicans) considered their particular brand of political dogma to be "gospel", which I took to mean as not based on their professed "ideal", but on their reality. Below is my answer. How would you have answered?  Does either party govern the way they claim to do? 

Which party sees its dogma as political “gospel”? Simple. They both do. That’s why we have such a wide and deep partisan divide. Each believe they know what’s best for the country and the American People. Each has a nearly inflexible political dogma which has lead to intolerance for anyone who isn’t as “pure” as they are. Compromise, which used to be considered the hallmark of modern politics , is now viewed with contempt.

The only thing the two corporate owned parties seem to agree on is their opposition to third parties and Independents (who happen to the nation’s majority voters) because they represent a threat to their control and power. Independence of thought or the development of critical thinking skills are to be discouraged and ridiculed.

Secondly, both agree on pursuing every means of self-enrichment, primarily for the benefit of their controlling corporate clique. It’s not by chance that power doesn’t rest in the hands of the voters, but boardrooms. There’s a reason why we’ve transitioned from a Republic to a corporatocracy and why we’re led by an oligarchy of very wealthy individuals.

As long as we remain divided, we are easier to control and manipulate, which is why both parties have largely purged moderates/centrists for their ranks. It’s why money is “free speech”. It’s why corporations, those legal fictions, have not just the same rights as people, but in many cases, have rights that exceed flesh and blood citizens. So, which party sees its ideology as “gospel”? The answer is that both do, and their gospel was written on Wall Street and their prophets can be found on “K” Street. 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Ending The Corporate Takeover of Politics: No Money For Taxes But Plenty For Donations?

We are going to continue with our series in examining the ongoing corruption of the American political system, which began with our March 28th article entitled  “Has the Season ofMAGA Finally Arrived? Democrats Struggle for Relevance”. I should point out that I’m hesitant to say “our” political system since, as most of our readers already know, it stopped being “our” political system many years ago. Certainly, since the 2010 Citizens United folly by the Supreme Court when it defaulted to Wall Street.

Any vestiges of a Republic “of, by, and for the people” as President Lincoln famously proclaimed, ceased at that point since it placed elections in the hands of the highest bidder and effectively removed any competition between Wall Street and unions, but between the wealthy elite  and ordinary citizens.

We’ve also taken a look at partisan gerrymandering and unlimited term limits which has virtually ensured that the two corporate owned parties---the Democrats and Republicans---maintain a lock of the system. Partisan gerrymandering as allowed them to redraw congressional districts to their advantage (and basically permitting them to “choose” their voters instead of the other way around).

Unlimited term limits gives them a virtual unhindered lock on their seat in Congress regardless of how low their approval rating is (the same can be said for federally appointed judges, including the Supreme Court). Approval ratings for Congress are often in the low 30% range (it’s been as low as 9%), and yet Congress still has a 97% reelection rate.

Can you imagine bombing every employee evaluation by your boss, consistently getting customer reviews, routinely going over budget, and keeping your job? How about even allowing you to decide on your own pay raises?  Well, in Congress you can.  

We also just covered allowing unequal ballot access. Both of the two corporate parties (which also happen to minority parties when it comes to voter registration) are free to write (and pass) legislation giving them the advantage at the ballot box and effectively restricting competition by making it inordinately harder to get on the ballot.

One tool used is requiring 10x more signatures on ballot application or limiting the timeframe to obtain the signatures, as well as indirectly collude with the media to keep them out of debates (especially at the federal level), limiting “equal time” public access, and the perpetual belittling of third party and Independent candidates.  

Finally, adding salt to the wound, is legislation mandating that all taxpayers pay for the primaries of the Democrats and Republicans, irrespective of their registration, but despite paying,  you aren’t permitted the opportunity to participate. Imagine going out to eat. But, before you can order, you’re required to buy two dinners for someone else, and you don’t have any say in it. Why? Because that’s the restaurant rules, which, by the way, were written by the people whose dinners you’re paying for.  Is that fair? Of course not! In politics, it’s called taxation without representation and that’s what you have in closed primary states.  

Now, let’s say you’re a registered member of the Libertarian or Green party (the third and fourth largest political parties respectively in the U.S.). Despite belonging to an official party,  you are still obligated to pay for the primary of the Democrat and Republican parties. However, nothing goes to your party. Not a dime.

In fact, to keep your party going, you have to pay out of pocket if you want to support it.  Finally, if you’re a registered Independent (the nation’s largest political bloc), you face the same problem.  Not only are you prohibited from participating, you are being forced to financially support  your political opponents!  

So, we’ve obviously covered quite a bit since the kickoff on our political system corruption series. So, let’s take a look at another topic near and dear to our hearts----taxes (sarcasm intended). Actually, we’re going to look at corporate taxes and how it impacts politics.

Everyone is familiar with Tesla, thanks to Elon Musk, the current head of DOGE—the Department of Government Efficiency---whose job is to snoop around and file government “bad actors” and financial malfeasance of taxpayer’s money. But did you know that Tesla, which is valued at $41 trillion dollars, reported earning $2.3 billion dollars in 2024, paid zero dollars in federal taxes? That’s right. Nada.   As an aside, the average American family pays roughly 14% of their income on taxes.

Over the past three years, the auto manufacturer earned  $10.8 billion dollars and yet managed to pay just $48 million in federal taxes. That works out to be a corporate tax rate of 0.4% (the statutory corporate tax rate is 21%). But it was more than just clever accounting involved. Congress actually passed legislation giving Tesla a tax break which saved them some $2.4 billion dollars.

Meanwhile, according to CBS, Elon Musk donated $277 million dollars to the Trump campaign in 2024 through his political action committee, “America PAC”.  He also donated $10 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, which backs Republican Senators. He also gave $3 million dollars to MAHA Alliance PAC, which is associated with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  I’d say that’s not a bad return on his investment.

In addition, 3M and Airbnb paid zero federal income taxes in 2024. Cisco, a high technology specializing in AI infrastructure, and networking company (reputedly also the second most valuable company in America) paid nothing in federal taxes either despite $2.7 billion dollars in profit in 2024. In fact, 10% of the S&P 500 companies paid nothing in federal taxes.

Top executives at Cisco contributed $2,301,092 to candidates, political action committees and other political organizations in 2024. The candidate who got the most was Kamala Harris. She received $588,525 while $63, 977 went to Donald Trump.  The DNC Services Corporation received the second largest amount at $244,261.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee got $62,543 while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee picked up $50,973 in donations. The National  Republican Senatorial Committee was given $42,947 (it should be noted that between this and Trump, all other leading donations went to Democratic candidates or causes)

Cisco lobbying ranks 197^th out of 9,200 company’s who employ lobbying firms. Their lobbyists spent $3,270,000 in 2024, which is up from 2023’s $2,790,000. 32 of their 43 lobbyists were previously government employees. That’s 74.42%. In 2023, they employed 34 lobbyists. 84.29% were former government employees (elected, appointed, or hired).  

When it comes to donations from 3M, the same hold true about top executives donating. 64.40% of all donations went to Democratic candidates, organizations, or causes. Republicans got 35.60%. Interestingly, 74.86% of incumbents were supported compared to just 25.14% of challengers. Kamala Harris was the top dollar among candidate, picking up 105,639 dollars.  Donald Trump received just over $21,000 while the conservative oriented “Never Back Down, Inc” received $150,000 in donations.

Airbnb’s top executive donors gave Kamala Harris the most. $224,995 went to her campaign with only Maryland’s Future, a conservative outfit, picking any money for the right of center crowd. They received $25,000. Of note, $43,050 went to the Libertarian Party’s National Committee . 93.92% of all donations went to candidates compared to just 6.08% that went to political action committees.

As an aside, Airbnb co-founder, Joe Gebbia, joined Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”), which is headed by Elon Musk.  Gebbia stepped down from his executive role at Airbnb in 2022 but remains active on the board of directors. 

In terms of lobbying, Airbnb spent $940,000 in 2024, which is down from $1,030,000 in 2023. They employed 22 lobbyists in 2024, of which 68.19% held government jobs previously (elected, appointed, or hired).

General Electric earned close to $7 billion dollars in 2023 and not only didn’t pay any federal taxes, they actually got a refund of $423 million dollars! T-Mobile paid 0.4% in federal taxes yet bought back $13 billion dollars of its own stock back in 2023, giving its shareholders a hefty profit on their investment.

Top executives at GE gave Kamala Harris $159, 351. Trump received $43,987. The DNC Services Corporation got $43,342 while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee picked up $32,369. The National Republican Senatorial Committee got $20,527. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took in $19,931 in donations from GE executives.

The overall total donated for the 2024 election cycle was $1,139,136. GE lobbyists “invested” $3.570,000 in 2024. 44 of their 68 lobbyists (64.71%) previously held a government job as note above.  In 2023, it was 71.23% of the 73 lobbyists they employed.

Meta (which owns Facebook) spent $20 billion dollars on stock buyback in 2023, which was four times more than they paid in federal taxes. General Motors spent $11 billion dollars on stock buybacks, which was 40 times more than they paid in federal taxes.

In 2024, Meta spent $24.4 million on lobbying efforts while key executives at Meta donated over $5.5 million to candidates, PACs, and other organizations. Kamala Harris received the most at $1,657,461.  It’s worth mentioning that 53 of their 65 lobbyists previously held government jobs. That’s 81.54%.

These are just a smattering of companies who pay little or no federal taxes. JP Morgan Chase for instance had an effective federal tax rate of 5.9% in 2021 despite earnings of $48 billion. Microsoft ‘s effective tax rate was 9.7 although its earning were $33.7 billion. Chevron’s was 1.8% but earned profits of $9.5 billion, and the list goes on.  

Of course, they take full advantage of whatever deductions are available based on existing federal laws, and who can blame them? However, it is noteworthy that many of key officers for these corporations have also made substantial political contributions. In addition, many of their top executives have received compensation greater than the amount of federal tax their corporation pays.

What can we do? Frankly nothing as long as Citizens United remains in place. However, Congress could mandate a minimum tax based on anticipated profits by independent auditors. They could also direct that no donations can be made to candidates who have a direct relationship with their industry or that all donations over $5000 per person must be directed to a blind trust, to be dispersed by the party along with a percentage to be donated to a fund available to third party and Independent candidates.

Additionally, the cap of $3,500 an individual can donate per campaign should be eliminated. Afterall, people should be entitled to the same “free speech” as corporations, who are nothing but legal fictions. Of course, partisan gerrymandering must end, and term limits must be imposed. Lobbyists should no longer write legislation and all interaction between election or appointed officials, their staff, and lobbyists should be transparent and made public. 

Rank choice voting would also be a good step for more fair elections as would equal ballot access. Lastly, parties should be responsible for funding their own primaries. Until then, the corporate takeover of  elections will continue.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Elon Musk spent $277 million to back Trump and Republicancandidates

Telsa Reported Zero Federal Income Taxes on $2 Billion ofU.S. Income in 2024

Big Corporations Paid Shockingly Little Taxes Last Year

 

Nearly 10% Of S&P 500 Companies Paid No Tax----Including Telsa

FEC: Contribution Limits

These 19 Fortune 100 Companies Paid next To Nothing---or Nothing at All---in Taxes in 2021

Who Pays and Doesn’t Pay Federal Income Taxes in the U.S.?

 

 

 

How companies like Amazon, Nike, and FedEx avoid paying federaltaxes