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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

These Are The 5 People Who Died in the Capital Riot

Watergate Scandal

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

 

 

President Biden, Storming Washington, and What Kind of America Do We Want?

The Republicans have lost two important seats in Georgia and as a result, will lose control of the Senate. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell will now be the Senate minority leader. Democrats are already in control of the House. Trump has held off conceding the election, though it's clear that Biden is the victor. Trump is expected to concede, but doesn't have to say that Biden won "fair and square". That's because it appears that he didn't. But there's a bigger story being played out here.

Americans have had mounting doubt about the legitimacy of elections going back to at least George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 (remember "dangling chads"?).  Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016 sparked another round and launched a nearly four year investigation into alleged Russian collusion and a rigged election, amplified by the media, which was at least partially complicit.

 Ultimately, it was proven that not only was there no Russian collusion, but that the whole story was  concocted by the Clinton-Obama camp to discredit Trump (which also goes to show the extent those in power will go to keep power. I dare say they will go much further); an opening salvo to destroy Trump's credibility.

Now, with the 2020 election over, we're being told that China this time was directed involved in the election results by the Right.  We're told that the voting machines were rigged; that fake ballots were used; that the dead rose from their graves and somehow voted for the Democrats; that the vote counts stopped as soon as the Democrats had enough votes to win. Meanwhile, the victors, the Democrats, are telling us that the election went just fine. That our elections can't be rigged unlike the results in 2016.

Is any of it true? To be honest, I don't know. I've seen a lot of footage which reputedly shows illegal vote counting in process. I've read numerous articles about the reliability of some of the voting machines. We know the "Russian collusion" of 2016 was a hoax at taxpayer expense.

Frankly, I see no reason to think the claim of Chinese involvement is anything but utter garbage. Why would Russia or China try to destable the country when we are quite able and willing to do it to ourselves? It's just something else to cause us to doubt the legitimacy of our electoral system.

But here's the real issue. Americans, especially on the Right, have long believed that the we're losing our freedoms and I agree, although perhaps not to the extent that they do. We are certainly not a Constitutional or democratic Republic any longer. We are a defacto Corporatocracy, controlled by an small group of Oligarchs. We are a surveillance state which is just one major crisis away from becoming an all out police state.

We no longer feel we have a say in what's going on (academic studies conclude that's pretty much the case. Congress and the Presidency follows the dictates of the 1% and a relatively few very powerful global corporations). Therefore, we feel threatened. We have come to believe that we have only two arrows in our Constitutional quiver---the ballot or the bullet.

If we can no longer trust the ballot, the only remaining option is a revolt. Could it happen? Yes, it's certainly possible. However, with the tools of the surveillance state already in place, it would be hard to pull off. I don't think, however, that we are expected to pull it off. Historically speaking, the larger and more complex a society is, the more difficult it is to topple.

The best examples of successful overthrows of governments are the so-called "Rainbow Revolutions" of Eastern Europe; the "Pots and Pans" revolution of Iceland; and, of course, the Second Revolution in Russia following Gorbachev. The uprisings during the "Arab Spring" are another great example.  Even the recent pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, while apparently unsuccessful due primarily to the COVID outbreak, merit close study as does the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989 in China.

These were sustained protests aimed at key government centers. They were largely non-violent since the State is always looking for an excuse to declare martial law and call out the National Guard or military. The protests sought to disrupt not just the operation of government, but the personal lives of those in power; to make it nearly impossible to function or for them to go or do anything.

They are also disregarded the official media which serves the interests of the Status Quo. The media's job is to divide the opposition into as many factions as possible in order to render it impotent. That includes manufacturing events to pit the various groups against each other (which the media has already been doing for awhile now). It is to discredit or vilify the opposition and its leaders.

The State will do everything possible to disrupt and infiltrate the opposition that they can. In the U.S. they've been doing that going back to at least the 1920's they infiltrated the KKK, Odd Fellows, the Socialist Party of America, unions, and other groups. During the 60's and 70's, it was the anti-war movement, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Black Panthers, the Civil Rights Movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Women's Liberation Movement, and so forth.

They threatened and attempted to blackmail MLK, Malcolm X,  Cesar Chavez of the National Farm Workers Association among others. Wonder whatever happened to activist unionism? Wonder no more.  It was "defanged" like all the other groups which posed a threat to the Status Quo. Heck, more recently they did it within Occupy Movement and the Tea Party.  The singular goal of the Status Quo is to maintain or expand the power and control of the Status Quo.   

Naturally, I'm not proposing anything. I am, however, saying that when people no longer have faith in the government; that when they no longer believe their vote counts, then the State leaves no option for the people they will, like a cornered animal, strike out, be it Left, Right, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, or whatever. I'm sure those in power are keenly aware of this, just as I'm equally sure they are prepared for such an action by the people.

Those in power will use patriotic sounding words like "our democracy", the "People's representatives" or "doing the People's business". They will tell us that protests against government "aren't who we are". That we are a nation of laws except they fail to mention that there are two sets of laws. One for them and another for everyone else. That speaking up is "Un-American". They will act surprised by any protests or acts of resistance. Perhaps some of it will be actually true. It's so hard to differentiate their lies from the truth anymore. 

Nevertheless, those in Washington are largely out of touch with what the average American endures, let alone those among the working poor or homeless. Anything to tug at our heartstrings so that we back down. Anything to obfuscate the corruption of government and acumination of wealth and power. It's the silk glove covering the mailed fist.

People, regardless of political ideology, race, gender, or religion, must wake up to the fact that this is not "our" country any longer. The ruling Oligarchy has near absolute control of America. One percent controls as much wealth than the bottom 90%. The inequality gap is the widest of any industrialized nation. Our healthcare and educational systems are among the worse. Our social safety net is inadequate at best (we rank toward the bottom when it comes to infant mortality and child poverty).

Most of our well paying manufacturing jobs have been outsourced overseas. We're now largely a low paying service economy.  Unions, once the backbone and voice of the Working Class are mute.  Our infrastructure is crumbling and yet we spend more money on the military that the next ten nations combined, including Russia and China. We are taxed without input. And now, even our supposed national voice---the election process itself---is no longer reliable.

There's an old curse---"may you live in interesting times". I'm sure the next four years will be interesting times without a doubt. The only question is what, if anything, can we do about it? What, if anything can the American People---Left or Right---do restore or rebuild the America we want to live in; that we want our children and grandchildren to live in? The answer is up to you.

 

"The Top 0.1% percent...owns about the same wealth as 90% of America"

U.S. Defense Spending Compared To Other Countries

How Does the United States compare with child well-being?

Addressing Child Poverty: How Does the United States CompareWith Other Nations?