Culpability: The Protest on The Capital and Who Is Responsible

Mea Culpa. It's a legal term which means accepting responsibility for one's actions. Despite four years of creating a volatile---even hostile--- environment, not once has the corporate media, including social media platforms, newspapers, or the networks stepped up and accepted responsibility for their actions; for creating a climate of fear. For dividing Americans and America as they fan the flames of descension but ignore responsibility for the fire it creates.

Not once has the likes of Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Schumer, and others offered a sincere apology to the American People for fostering and inciting hatred of the President and their disdain for not just his supporters, but of anyone who disagrees with them. Remember the sarcasm of Pelosi throughout his State of the Union address? Remember her publically ripping his State of the Union speech in half and throwing it away? Whatever happened to simple common courtesy or at least respect for the office?

The feigned "shock" and "outrage" from Washington officials smacks of second rate Vaudevillian shtick. Despite professing ignorance of the American People's anger, they throw around empty words like "the People's House", "it's not us", or how protesting a corrupt Congress or a broken political system is somehow "Un-American".  How could they not have known? Perhaps they were too wrapped up in their own self-importance or insulated in the vacuum of their self-serving bubbles.

How is it they condemn ordinary the working or middle class or small business owners for wanting not just their lives backs, but for wanting a political system which works: one where, at the very least, their vote---their voice---still counts for something? These Americans were protesting what they believed to be a fixed election following four years of being told their President was a fraud; that his election wasn't the result of individuals tired of a broken system which serves the wants and whims of a wealthy class of elites, but the result of "Russian collusion".

Yet, these same hypocrites never condemned the riots and looting of this past Spring and Summer.  No, they never spoke out against the arson, the violence, the vandalism of public and private property or the destruction of historic monuments. Instead, they asked why there wasn't more protests in the streets? They encouraged the rioters. They egged on the looters.

Was President Trump to blame for what happened on January 6th? Yes he was, at least in part. Certainly the language he used in his Tweets and texts didn't help. Trump wanted to show support for those who stood by him these last four years. He encouraged his supporters and others who were fed up with Congress to come a show their support, not just for him, for an America which is passing away before their eyes.

Did Trump encourage violence or to act out? No. That, it seems, may have been the result of Antifa and BLM who, according to some witnesses, were bused in to disrupt and discredit the protestors. Sadly for all, it seems to have worked.  But we're not hearing that part of the story. Perhaps it just doesn't fit the narrative. Even if not, who, if not the media and certain members of Congress, are not responsible for creating the climate of anger and mistrust? There's plenty of blame to go around. It's not all President Trump.

So, now we are hearing about calls to impeach President Trump again. However, this would be under Article 25...for alleged sedition.  The goal is not to remove the President from office. There's not enough time for that. No, the goal is to ensure that Trump can never again run for a federal office...like for President in 2024. They want Trump not just discredited, but destroyed so that he will never be seen a symbol of resistance by the people. 

Senate Majority Leader...I mean...Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seems pleased with the results of the election, though not necessarily his loss in position. He seems even more pleased with efforts to impeach President Trump. In fact, he's gone as far as to openly support the idea since, in his opinion, it will go a long way in purging Trump supporters and the like from the Republican Party. Long live the Establishment, be it Democrat or Republican I suppose.  

The ruling elites of the Corporatocracy also want to send a message that no outsider will again challenge their grip on power. Anyone who runs for office must be a loyal adherent to the Status Quo; their party affiliation matters not. Both serve the same moneyed interests, and that's the way it will remain.

The inauguration of Joe Biden will take place as scheduled. It was always intended to. But it will be much more than Biden taking the oath of office and becoming the 46th President of the United States. It will represent the restoration of the Status Quo. The Oligarchs will be back in power after four years in shadows. The neo-fascist Corporatocracy, which has replaced our Republic, will be open for business as usual.

Biden will offer an olive branch and a call for unity, but don't assume that its meant to represent some form of compromise. His speech will be full of colorful phrases designed to press all the right buttons along with some subtle warnings. He'll utter empty words "family" , "patriotic", and a plea for us to "come together" aimed at making us feel nostalgic. What he is really saying is that we're back in charge and we intend to remain in charge.

It's said the history rarely repeats, but it often rhymes. January 6, 2021 marked the day that America crossed its Rubicon. Except there was no Caesar to cross its shallow river and restore the Republic or remove a bloated and corrupt Senate. The dice were cast, but this time it was the Oligarchs who won.

Like those of his kind, Biden will seek to mend fences and build alliances to help him secure his power. Stability is always the primary requirement for the corporate state. He will offer appeasements to whatever group he thinks will provide him with that stability.

I expect he'll open the southern border to illegal immigrants and call for so-called "reparations" to those who claim the bitter wounds of 160 years ago is the reason for their failures and not the result of failing to take advantage of the opportunities available to all. Something tells me it won't be enough. He may offer an alternative to the National Anthem or make America officially a bilingual nation.

He may impose a tax on the 2nd Amendment while curtailing the First. He's already hinted at it.Then too, he's always supported tax breaks for those of his social class over the last 47 years, so there's no reason to think that won't change. Zebras, skunks, and politicians rarely ever change their stripes. 

Corporations too will benefit as they always do when the elites are in charge of the public pocketbook. Those who countries which continue to support the Status Quo will benefit nicely as they always do, though the masses seldom benefit.  

As for the rest of us, the unwashed masses, we may see some crumbs thrown our way to buy our acquiesce to the corporate fait accompli.  It seems that protesting in the Capital is now prohibited in the Capital lest our followerless "leaders" cower under tables and behind locked doors. Should we endeavor for a kinder and more gentle outrage?

You can count on distractions too. They will need "something" to divert our attention from their sleight of hand now that they're back in business.  Bread and circuses have worked well these past 2000 years. No reason to stop now.

Meanwhile, the insincere indignation which barely conceals a gleeful cackle from the corporate media and political establishment will continue, at least for now. But don't hold your breath expecting their admission of guilt for their part in what's played out so far.

 

Do You Trust the Government?

With the Presidential election cycle, among others, starting to heat up, now would be a good to time to ask yourself, "do you trust the government?". As we all know, we're no longer a democratic Republic as originally intended by our Founding Fathers. Instead, we've become a defacto Oligarchy whereby government and the super-wealthy (along with their global corporations) work in tandem to the point where are interests are overlooked (or better, ignored) approximately 99% of time according to some surveys (at best, our interests are addressed only about 10% of the time). So, what do you think, how much faith do you have in government?

According to a recent Gallup Poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans have little or no faith in government regardless of which of the two corporate owned party holds sway. As of late January 2019, only 10% of those polled indicated that they had faith in government. 31% said they had a "fair amount" while 57% had little or no confidence whatsoever.
Let me tell you, in practically every other country on this planet those numbers would be a near guaranteed that a massive revolt or revolution was about to happen. These type of results would have most government leaders shopping around for a nice place to spend in exile somewhere.

In terms of domestic policy, 63% of the population believes government can't be trusted to get it right. Think about for a minute. 63% of Americans, regardless of party, ideology, gender, age, religion or whatever have no faith in Washington's ability to deal with the issues which directly affects us each and every day. Yet, for some mysterious reason we keep falling for their same old repackaged ideas and "solutions".

In looking specifically at the different branches of government, we find that as of the end of 2018 (the most recent result) there's not much difference. 59% of the American People have little or no confidence in Congress. Of course, the approval rating for Congress has been dismal for decades; sometimes barely making it out of single digits! As for the Judicial Branch, which includes not just the federal courts, but the "unSupreme" Court as well, it's much better. 68% actually trust either a lot or a fair amount the Judicial Courts.

To get a balance perspective, I checked with Pew Research to see what they showed. The poll I looked at was the most comprehensive on trust in government from 1958 through 2015. According to them, just 19% of citizens have any trust in government. Yikes! By comparison, they number was 80% in 1963 under President John Kennedy's Administration. My how things have changed.

Pew also broke the trust factor down by party. It found that just 26% of the Democrats and Republicans trust the federal government. Given that it's largely a problem of partisan making, it's a little surprising that the figure was so low. As an aside Independents distrust the government about 70% of the time (conservative leaning is about 71% while liberal leaning is roughly 67%).

If we look at other factors like age or race, we find that younger voters (mainly Millennials and Gen Z, both of which having shown support for socialism) trust the federal more than older voters---27% among 30 and under; 19% for those 31 to 49; and 15% for those 50 and over. So while the younger generation trusts government more, the numbers are far from stellar.

Among whites in general, a mind-boggling 84% either have little to no trust in Washington. Blacks distrust the federal government by a margin of 77% to 23%. For Hispanics (many of whom having come from totalitarian regimes) 69% have little or no faith in government. These are staggering numbers; the kind of which that indicate a fundamentally flawed societal foundation of the kind you would expect to see of a nation in a "death spiral". Historically speaking, few countries have been able to survive numbers like these and emerge unchanged to their core.

As an interesting aside, those with a post-graduate degree have any trust in the government about 23% of the time. That means among the academic professionals (professors, doctors, lawyers, etc) 76% have little or no faith in Washington. Those with a Bachelor or Masters degree have an even lower opinion. 80% of them keep their hand on their wallet when Washington comes knocking. Finally, individuals with a High School diploma, GED, or less trust government just 19% said they had any faith in the federal government.

Finally, I wanted to look at the approval rating of each of the institutions I mentioned starting with President Trump. As of the first two weeks of July 2019, Trump's approval rating stood at 44%. Obama's average for his first term was 49%, so despite all the "fake news" being manufactured by the corporate owned media, Trump isn't doing too bad (the average for all Presidents is 53%).

As for Congress, through the first two weeks of July 2019, their disapproval rating stood at 76%. Lastly, the Supreme Court. Rasmussen, which had the latest polling results of the high court, found that 60% of those surveyed approval of their decisions. Meanwhile, 40% said that the ideological balance was about right with 24% saying it's too liberal and 36% saying it was too conservative.

The poll also broke down the responses by political affiliation and race as well. It found that 77% of Republicans approved of the Supreme Court's decisions along with 57% of Democrats and 50% of Independents. 64% of whites agreed as well as 52% of Hispanics and 51% of blacks. Interestingly, the poll also revealed that Justice Ruth Ginsberg was the most popular member of the court while Justice Brett Kavanaugh had a higher name recognition, albeit only slightly.

Einstein once famously remarked that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Are the American People insane or are we just that easily duped by propaganda. Maybe we're just lazy. The US Office of Strategic Services made the following observation about Adolf Hitler their psychological profile of the Nazi leader, "His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it". You could apply that same description to describe how both of the political parties as well as the corporate media acts vis-à-vis it relationship with the American People. I guess someone was paying attention after all.

So what do you think? With numbers like these (which, by the way, have been long trending), why do we keep voting in the same crooks and charlatans time and again? We know they are lying just as we know they have no intention of representing us. We know or should know that it was our actions (or inactions as the case may be) has led to the loss of our Republic.

The American People should understand by now that we need term limits; that we must end political gerrymandering; that at least at the state level, we need voter ballot initiatives and referendums and that we, the taxpayers, should have the final say on rate, tax, and salaries increases. It's our money and Lord knows that politicians can't be trusted with money. We also must remove Citizens United and get unlimited corporate money out of politics as well as end the revolving door between government, Wall Street, and E Street where is the lair for lobbyists. By the way, 80% of voters oppose Citizens United.

Until we do these things, we will continue to become bystanders to a government which was supposed to represent you and I regardless of our political leanings. In the absence of action by us, the voters and citizens of this country, money will fill the void. Lastly, if you have any doubts, I encourage you to check out the links below. We have to act.



Politicians Don't Actually Care What Voters Want

Trust in Government

Trust in government: 1958 - 2015


Presidential Approval Ratings--Donald Trump

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

0% Approve of Supreme Court Performance; Plurality Believes Ideological Balance About Right

Citizens United Poll: 80 Percent of Americans Oppose Supreme Court Decision

Playing "Chicken" With American Lives: The 2018 Government Shutdown

Once again, Washington politicians have shown a complete disregard for the lives of ordinary Americans living out here in "Flyover Country". This time the shutdown was the result of some 44 Democrat politicians playing a game of "Chicken" over approving a budget to keep the government going without a deal on amnesty of so-called "Dreamers". "Dreamers", in case you don't know, are individuals who were brought here by their parents; parents who came here illegally and thus are generally considered to be criminals.

Now before you start tearing up about these "poor little children caught in the middle", know this. These individuals are mostly adults. They have know all along they were brought here illegally, and thus by extension, are illegal as well. Nevertheless, despite knowing this for years or even decades, very few have taken any steps to become legal residents. Now, facing the possibility of deportation, these "Dreamers" are suddenly getting their panties in a bunch and crying "poor me".

Both political parties have known darn good and well that amnesty for illegal immigrants of any sort is and has been a non-starter from the outset, and yet the Democrats are going to try and hold those who depend on the federal government as hostages. Who am I talking about? How about the millions who receive WIC or federally funded pre-school or after school care? How about people drawing unemployment? How about those on Social Security, military or VA disability? Government employees, including those who are retired? It also includes VA hospitals and low income housing. Then there are the men and women serving in the military as well as retired military. Let's not forget those going to school using a federal grant or GI Bill. Somehow, I'm not surprised that these same politician are exempt, as are all the nations worldwide that we prop up. Regardless, Congress is a millionaires clubs to begin with (especially the Senate), so they don't have to worry about paying bills or buying groceries do they?

From my perspective, every time the federal government does a shutdown, it usually means that Congress and the President are about to do something that ordinary Americans aren't going to like. However, all sides will fall back---throw their hands in the air--- and exclaim that it was the best deal they could manage and how grateful us worker bees should be. Of course, this time it was the Democrats who stepped in it. In times past, it was just as often the Republicans, so neither side gets to point the finger at the other.

Normally, I would say something like "why doesn't Congress listen to their constituents? They know that Americans overwhelmingly oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants". Well, the truth of the matter is that Congress does listen to their constituents, at least the important ones; those corporate paymasters who finance their campaigns and pull their strings. Everyone should know by now that our Constitutional Republic is nothing but an illusion, just as the notion of a republic was under Augustus or Tiberius Caesar. The truth is that we are an Oligarchy; a plutocracy with its growing police state mentality. If these "elites" didn't want this to happen, be it a shutdown or amnesty for "Dreamers", then you can bet it wouldn't happen.

So what would be the reason for amnesty? Obviously it has to be something which benefits our Corporate Overseers. The best I can figure is that it increases the numbers of those seeking jobs, which on one hand is a good thing, but on the other, the more people competing for limited jobs drives down wages and benefits (simple supply and demand economics). With ordinary Americans more concerned about getting or keeping a job, we are much less likely to be focused on what Washington is doing.

Of course, unions could benefit as there is a strong likelihood that some of these individuals will seek employment in a union shop. However, that too is a illusion. Unions have been on the decline since the 1960s. Few have any real clout---economically or politically; most are hand-in-pocket with management, willingly or not. Their marching orders are to keep workers on assembly lines and off picket lines. Therefore, all this does is help fill the coffers of cash strapped unions.

Another advantage is that is gives the Democratic Party talking points for the next election. They are hoping that by holding Americans at gunpoint, these "Dreamers" or others seeking amnesty will either register or vote Democrat in future elections (the majority of American voters are registered Independent, and that number is growing while those registered Democrat or Republican are declining).

Of course, they are counting on America's notoriously short attention span and lack of long term memory to forget missing their retirement or disability checks; their paychecks, WIC payments, unemployment , or healthcare. Who knows? They may be right on that point. After all, the Left has been on a witch-hunt (is that a politically correct term?) over alleged cases of sexual abuse or sexual assault (often happening decades ago), and yet conveniently ignore the fact that one of their modern political icons is an acknowledged sexual predator!

The last thing amnesty does it that it cheapens the value of our borders and the meaning of American Citizenship, which, interestingly, has long been the goal of so-called "globalists" or "internationalists". These groups want to do away with borders, countries, and even the notions of nationalism or patriotism. For them, the ideal world is one global government interlocked with global corporations to create a single open and managed economic and political marketplace. People in Chattanooga will be competing for jobs with people in Bangalore and so forth. Once, being an American carried with it a sense of pride. If you came here from another country, you did everything you could to become "an American", from becoming a citizen as quickly as possible, learning and speaking English to adopting our customs and traditions. You didn't lose your heritage. You added it to the "Great American Melting Pot".

I don't expect this government shutdown to last very long. Just long enough to scare most Americans into accepting anything just in order to get on with their ordinary lives (fanned to near hysteria, of course, by the corporate media). In fact, I believe both corporate owned political parties and their puppets are counting on it. There is no real reason---no honest reason---that certain essentials remain funded and outside the scope of their political gamesmanship. I'm talking of course about social security and disability payments, healthcare and housing costs, paychecks for the military, WIC and unemployment (of course, suspending the pay and benefits of the President and Congress should be a no-brainer). It's high time that we as Americans put a stop to this. If you want to see who voted and how, I've proved two links below. I strongly encourage you to contact the appropriate representative and tell them how you feel---really feel---about this.



How Every Senator Voted on the Government Shutdown



How senators voted on the government shutdown

Mister Pot meet Mister Skillet: Defining America

I was listening to a friend of mine's radio show recently. He was talking about the latest misadventures of the Mayor; the Metro Council, and our "once great" newspaper; all of whom seem to coordinate efforts their misuse of the public's trust in his opinion. Truthfully, I was amused by his litany of adjectives in describing each---always with added emphasis on certain key words. However, it was in those descriptions that I noticed a continuation of a trend common in most conservative talk shows, news shows and mailings sent out from various associations and groups.

I noticed their rather loose use of the terms "socialist", "Leftist", "Communist" (or the more purgative word "Commie"), "Progressive" and "Liberal". They seem to throw these terms around indiscriminately or use them interchangeably as if they meant one and the same. Of course, they don't. Nevertheless, this got me to thinking---what does government behave like? It certainly doesn't behave as "socialist". This would imply that control would rest with the people; that there would be no Wallstreet, private banks, income gap, and so forth for instance. Socialism means the common ownership of the means of production with an eye toward equality---social, political and economic---for all the citizens. On the Authoritarian Scale, Socialism rates relatively low though it is strongly centralized. Communism means that the State owns everything and the people work for the State. That means little or no private ownership of property, businesses, banks, or anything else. As expected, a centralized government of this nature would rate very high on the Authoritarian Scale. Does either of these sound like the government you know?

Now, how about the other side of the coin, Nazism and Fascism? We often hear the Left refer to everything done by the Right as being one or the other, but is it really? Nazism (derived from the German term for National Socialist German Workers Party or NSDAP), was originally a small Rightwing discussion group known as the German Workers Party or "DAP", co-founded by Anton Drexler (the "socialism" in the title pertained to Germany as a community of communities and not to the unusual meaning of the word). Later, it evolved into the NSDAP under the leadership of key individuals, including brothers Gregor and Otto Strasser, Hermann Goring, Joseph Goebbels and, of course, Adolf Hitler. Nazism is often described as a Right wing ideology, however in actuality it was center-right in that it derived its policies from both the Left and Right (in terms of economic policy for instance it was Keynesian and included expansive social programs, common at the time, and operated on a four year economic plan). Hitler opposed unregulated Capitalism as much as he detested Communism. It also incorporated a expansionist foreign policy (again, common at the time) and a racial purity policy, which made it somewhat unique as well as nationalistic and militaristic.

Under Nazism, which is a form of Fascism, the government was highly centralized, often operating under a dual governing system whereby government appointed department heads would often be in direct competition with party officials who were operating under similar authority. The idea was to foster internal competition and, thereby, creating a more innovative and efficient system (this rarely happened and often resulted in conflicting policy directives). The government was overseen by a single leader---Der Fuehrer---while departments operated more or less autonomously. Under Nazism, individual unions were disbanded and replaced by a single national union---the German Labor Front or DAF--- while many of the earlier union demands were made into law. Nazism rated high on the Authoritarian Scale.

Fascism was the brainchild of former Italian Socialist activist and newspaper editor Benito Mussolini who abandoned the precepts of socialism in favor of nationalism following his experiences in World War One. According to "ll Duce", Fascism is best described as "corporatism" in which government is run much like a corporation and in close partnership with the business world. Unlike any of the above, Mussolini was President of a governing committee of ministers (and near war's end, was voted off the committee, and thus out of power). While considered a Rightwing ideology, Fascism actually draws from the Left and Right though it strongly favors corporate dominance. As stated by Italian historian Gaetano Salvemini in 1936, Fascism makes taxpayer bear the costs of corporate failures and added that "profit is private and individual while loss is public and social".

That means there could be an increase in certain social programs (typically Left) while decreasing corporate regulation and increased cooperation with the wealthy while taxpayers paid for bad business decisions or business related expenses. It is high in terms of centralization and is often accompanied by a police state along with a strong Executive. Like Nazism, Fascism is also highly martial, meaning a strong military and an influential military industrial complex. Under Fascism there is typically a large gap between the wealthy and everyone else. Unions, under Fascism, were largely co-opted into supporting corporate dictates or banned and outlawed. Fascism rates moderately high to high on the Authoritarian Scale.

Lastly, let's briefly discuss Libertarianism. Libertarianism essentially embraces the concept of "self-government" and voluntary cooperation or participation although there are numerous variations covering the political spectrum from Anarcho-Capitalism and Left Libertarianism to Anarchy and Ayn Rand's Objectivism. As such, Libertarianism doesn't fit neatly on the Left/Right Political Spectrum., but it usually endorses only the bare minimum amount of government needed to maintain the social order and promote trade with emphasis on individual and political freedom. As odd as that may seem to us today, several of the Founding Fathers were strong advocates of this form of government; most notably Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Libertarianism prefers a laissez-faire economy, which is defined as self-regulating with minimal or no government or outside control beyond the marketplace itself. Unions are permitted, if, however, participation is voluntary and remains off limits from the government interference. Many, however, doubt that given the complexity of today's society that Libertarianism would be practical. Nevertheless, it remains a active and popular political ideology.

There you have it. Now, after you've had an opportunity to review each, which one do you think we have today? Are we the emerging "socialist" or Communist nation that those on the Right claim? Is the Left destroying Wallstreet and eliminating corporate influence over government? Or do you see corporate power over government as the central problem? Is Wallstreet exerting too much power over the direction of US domestic and foreign policy? Is the military industrial complex more or less influential? What do you think about the power of unions---have they become stronger or have they largely been co-opted by big business or even made ineffectual?
What's your opinion about individual freedom---is personal freedom expanding or are we "under the microscope" more today? What about government regulation of business, wages and the income gap, quality of life, the Middle Class, social programs, and personal opportunities? Are they growing or contracting in relation to yourself and other individuals?

I think most of you will agree that our current social, political, and economic situations doesn't favor ordinary individuals. Wages, in terms of buying power, has been on the decline since the late 1970's. Individual freedoms have also decreased since 9/11 while there's been a marked increase in government surveillance by various national security agencies as well as serious infringements on the Constitution and Bill of Rights---all for our own protections naturally---not to mention the militarization of the police. Taxes and job security certainly don't favor the Middle Class (or what's left of it).

Unions, which have been on the decline since the early 1960's, have become impotent. Most survive by being the water boy of the corporations they're supposed to be protecting the employees from.

As I often mention, we are no longer the democratic government of our Founding Fathers. The 2014 study by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Ben Page of Northwestern University confirmed what the majority of Americans intuitively knew---we've become an oligarchy. The government is no longer "our" government. It serves the interests of the 1% , which includes a handful of corporations. There's one more thing I should mention about Fascism, and that's it tendency to demonize what it fears the most. By demonizing socialism or certain individuals or countries, it is attempting to implant a negative image in your mind in order to build up an automatic rejection. Fascism was successful with that tactic in Germany, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Romania and elsewhere. There's no reason to think it won't be successful here. So, the next time someone claims America is becoming "socialist" or "Communist", be sure to point out their mistake.


The 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html


14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism
http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm


Socialist Party USA Principles
http://socialistparty-usa.net/principles.html


The Socialist International Declaration of Principles
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31


The Transformation of American Democracy to Oligarchy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-transformation-of-ame_1_b_7945040.html


The Libertarian Party Platform
https://www.lp.org/platform

Playing the Trump Card

If you didn't see the debates, I'm sure you've heard all about them by now. For days before, all I heard was how Donald Trump was going to be the comic relief; not to be taken too seriously while the corporate media barely was able to hide both its puzzlement as to how Trump could be leading the pack of these prepackaged "empty suits" so handedly (he was leading with 27% pre-debate; close to 3 times that of his closest opponent) and their contempt for "The Donald".

While I don't think the gloves were on in the first place (given the not-so-subtle negative buildup and steady innuendos), they were definitely off by the time of the debate; while the other candidates were asked mostly policy type questions, the three Fox moderators went after Trump's personal life and past statements; some from years ago. Now, I will agree that in some instances personal questions are important since they go to character of the individual, however in the Donald's case, it was almost all personal. It seemed clear that the intent of the moderators was to make Trump look like an amateur up against the professionals, which in some ways I guess he was.

Trump defended past remarks---some made in jest or off the cuff---with all the "in your face" finesse we've come to expect from New York developer. Trump made it crystal clear that he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Meanwhile, the other candidates were asked a few character defining questions, but for the most part, seemed to get off light in that respect. Most tried to pretend they weren't professional politicians or were mere humble servants of the working class. All, without exception, touted their political accomplishments, which is certainly fair enough (a few carefully omitted the part about undertaking their newly found "Man of the People" exploits while planning their presidential run. But you know what? That's just politics. All politicians prestaged their races with calculated acts to make it look like they're not a part of the political class. They talk about sponsoring bills to do this or prevent that without mentioning they never made it out of committee or were never voted on by the House and so forth. Others like to talk about "taking the lead" for some cause or another, when all they did was lend their name (if that) or happened to mention it in a talk or speech. Of course, all of them love to take credit for popular projects they either had little to do with or just happened to fall in their lap.

I remember back around 2001, after spending months working to preserve a badly needed bus route which was used by seniors and low income individuals, an opponent of mine stepped in and took credit for the effort right after the election to the amazement of the other nine or so individuals on the board; some of whom never even had heard of him (TARC, the quasi-government transportation company shot it down anyway, citing insufficient usage). He went on to try and take credit on a neighborhood drainage issue I had had spent a year or so working on. I think the only ones who bought into it was his core cronies! But, as I said, that's just politics and that's what most of these characters were doing. At least Trump was honest. No spin. No "PC". When he liked someone else's answer, he acknowledged it. How wonderfully unscripted!

The big take away from the debate was that except for a few of the candidates, most of these individuals looked plastic. A few did stand out. Notably Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee with some outstanding comments (though Dr. Carson's nervousness showed through), while a few others, including Chris Christie, Rick Sanatorium and Kentucky's Rand Paul didn't do themselves any favors. Christie and Paul came across combative (some critics were calling Paul "Napoleonic" presumably because of his size and almost angry tone. He would be better served by relaxing more and showing more of his personality). Christie too was competitive, which, while people like his straightforwardness, seemed more spiteful than explanatory (which conjured up images of the big traffic foul-up undertaken by his staff, and allegedly with at least his tacit knowledge if not approval, over an unintentional slight by another politician. Vindictiveness never looks good in the light). As for Rick Sanatorium, he just seemed unprepared and ill at ease, which is not what you want in a potential candidate. Florida Governor Jeb Bush, he had a few good remarks as well. However, his lack of charisma shined through as did his Establishment demeanor (there's been some persistent rumors that somehow Jeb Bush or someone on his staff were given an advanced copy of at least a few of the questions. I suspect that will remain unproven. Nevertheless, it's seems that Bush is the Establishment's "boy". The rest, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and company reminded me of the old Second City comic team, "The Not Really for Prime Time Players".

Yet with all of this, the pressure was on to make Trump look unstable, volatile, and not a team player (by that, I mean the "go along to get along" sort as former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn used to say when talking about backroom politics). When Trump fired back, the Fox mediators tried to make it look like he was too unpredictable to be president. When the candidates were asked if they'd support the party nominee, everyone raised their hand except Trump. Moderator Brett Baier jumped on that and kept repeating the question as if Trump had admitted to committing some major crime (I guess in the eyes of the oligarchs who run the media and this country, his response could be viewed as crime). Trump made it clear that if he significantly disagreed with whoever the nominee was, he'd at least consider a third party run. Even after the debate, Trump wasn't invited to a follow-up event and now, apparently, one of his campaign managers has decided to leave. There's is no doubt that this kind of pressure isn't for everyone, and you can bet that the media and power elites are going to try to find Trump's "Achilles heel' anywhere and anyhow they can.

Think about this for a minute. Here's someone who has more politicians who owe him favors than he owes them. He's also one of the very few individuals who could largely, if not totally, underwrite his entire campaign. He is also someone who is not willing to play

the usual political game of making promises he knows he cannot and never intends to keep. He's not "politically correct". He's saying what the American People have been saying all along. He's not letting those who control both political parties (as well as the media) dictate his responses the way they do just about everyone else. Trump isn't beholden to the powerbrokers. And despite how desperate the media tries to manufacture a negative image of Trump, he continues to not just lead in the polls, but is gaining momentum. That has to send icy cold shivers down the spines of the 1% the way another rich blue blood did to his fellow aristocrats nearly 75 years ago. I am, of course, talking about Franklin Roosevelt (one could even make a good argument for JFK who turned his back on the political establishment) who was labeled a "traitor to his class" by the Wallstreet elite of his time and more than a few newspaper editors.

So, what's the bottom line here? I think it's quite simple really. The American People know that our political and economic system is utterly broken despite all this "rainbows and sunshine" these candidates and the media are trying to blow up our collective rear ends. Bush talked about "raising up" Americans while Huckabee talked about "restoring" American values. You can't climb a ladder with missing rungs or rotten legs. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you can't afford shoestrings---or even boots. Mega corporations like the kind which own Washington get rewarded for moving jobs overseas and slapped on the back for finding creative ways to steal from taxpayers or avoid paying their fair share of taxes while mom and pop shops are either regulated out of business or undercut by cookie cutter stores.

The Average American is struggling to make ends meet, and many aren't succeeding even by working two or three jobs. When adjusted for inflation, Americans are make less---far less---than they did in the 1970's. Young adults are burden with school debts that some may

never be able to pay off while the academic performance of American high school students continues to nosedive. Welcome to the Machine children. We hope you adjust to your serfdom quickly. We have a tax system which is out of whack and grossly unfair. Seniors are struggling and Obamacare isn't working. Crime is rampant. America is and has been invaded by individuals coming here illegally, not to become citizens or avoid persecution, and most definitely with no interest in integrating into the American Melting Pot or even learning our language (expecting Americans, instead, to learn theirs). Despite a decade or more of public outrage over illegal immigration by the majority of Americans, politicians of either party even bother to give us lip service anymore.

That's another point made by "The Donald". If it wasn't for him, the GOP wouldn't even have acknowledged illegal immigration. At least now they will have to pretend to care and offer up a make believe "solution". We are engaged in two wars that we shouldn't be involved in; particularly Iraq, which was conceived of and carried out as a bold face lie for the sake of "punishing" Saddam Hussein and to acquire control over Iraqi oilfields; such is the ignorance, arrogance and callousness of the ruling elite. Meanwhile, we find ourselves wanting to extend "political correctness" to our enemies while at the same time inviting them with open arms into this country and cater to their every demand lest they don't like us anymore (you would think hate filled chants of "Death to America. Death to all Americans" would be a clue as to their feelings), and all the while, we've been transformed from the democratic republic of our Founding Fathers to an oligarchy with a neo-police state to enforce it. Thus far only a small handful of countries have escaped this new version of WTO, IMF and Federal Reserve inspired corporatism (another term for fascism as defined by its founder, Benito Mussolini). The most noteworthy of which are China and Russia (wouldn't it be ironic if our Cold War bogeyman, Russia, proves to be the very nation most capable of saving America from our new fascist overlords?).

Like him or hate him, Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air. He's giving voice to what America believes. He's not politically correct. He's not prepackaged. Yes, he's part of the Establishment, at least in some ways, while he firmly stands outside the fantasy world of Washington's Beltway. Trump, at the very least, energizes the country. Will he win the nomination? In a word, no. The power elite who control the election process and the levers of power will never let a potential reformer anywhere near the Oval Office. Some of his less "extreme" ideas may be incorporated, at least into the rhetoric but rest assured, the powerbrokers will make sure their chosen one will be selected just as they will on the Democratic side. "The Donald" can attempt a third party run, but remember the two parties previously came together when third party candidate Ross Perot ran so successfully to make it impossible for no future independent or third party candidate to ever again challenge their cozy rigged system. So if nothing else, Donald Trump has reminded the American People of just how far removed the political system is from the ideals of our Founding Fathers and what it's going to take to restore our America.

Israel vs. Gaza: Where Do You Stand?

You know, I am seriously having trouble wrapping my head around all the anti-Israeli sentiment I'm seeing and hearing through the corporate media, and even to some extent in the blogosphere. I know I shouldn't expect much; certainly nothing approaching a pro-Israel message, but some...hell... most of these articles and TV programs are downright hostile to Israel. They claim that somehow the mess in Gaza is all Israel's fault. There was a time, not all that long ago really, where we stood shoulder to shoulder with Israel. What happened? Why have we turned against our best and most trusted ally--the only democratic nation in the Middle East? I think I know the answer and I would like to share my thoughts with you.

As I'm sure most of you know (or should know), the State of Israel was born out of the holocaust and horrors of World War II. I guess in a way, one could thank Hitler and the Nazis for acting as the mid-wife to the birth of Israel. Europe itself had for centuries a love/hate relationship with the Jews---they loved to hate them--unless, of course, the Jews were of some immediate use. In the years leading up to the election of Hitler to Chancellor in 1933, the anti-Semitic rhetoric was rampant, and not just in Germany, but throughout all of Europe. So, when the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP or "Nazi" for short) began their rise to power, no one was particularly bothered by the anti-Jewish speeches. In fact (and in retrospect, a little hard to believe), but the Nazis weren't even the most virulent of the anti-Jewish parties either in or out of Germany!

Nevertheless, the Nazis were elected to power and proved true to their word and murdered some 6 million Jews plus millions of Gypsies, gays, pacifists, and of course, political opponents (as an aside, in terms of population percentages, Gypsies lost a higher percentage of their population than any other group, including the Jews). Even after war, the Jews were still treated almost callously by the allied powers. However, thanks to the Belfour Declaration and the passing of the UN's Resolution 181, the British, who controlled Palestine and large areas throughout the Levant including Egypt, turned over territory for the creation of a state for the Jews---Israel. After decades of political backsliding, not to mention some not so subtle raids by Arabs on Jewish farming settlements, Israel came into being on May 14, 1948. Almost immediately, Israel was invaded by five Arab powers plus contingents from over a dozen other Moslem nations. Israel, using mostly surplus German weapons (oh the irony) bought on the black market, defeated the Arab coalition. These same Arab nations repeatedly attacked Israel---1956, 1967, 1973, and on into today. In addition there have been numerous terrorists groups like PLO and Black September, that hijacked planes, attacked the Munich Olympics, and murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Each time, Israel acquired large amounts of Arab territory. Each time, Israel was willing to return it in exchange for peace. However, it seems that peace only begets time to prepare for more war.

Throughout almost all of this, America had Israel's back. Some would cite the so-called "Jewish Lobby" in Washington. To be sure, that may be true; they are perhaps the second most powerful political lobby behind the NRA, but who can blame them? They're interest is the continuing support of Israel, a tiny nation of around 6 million, surrounding the tens of millions of Arabs whose sole agenda is to drive the Israelis into the Mediterranean Sea to drown. Historically, the Arabs have been armed and supplied by the Soviets, Chinese, and North Koreans. Israel has had some support from a few other nations, and lukewarm backing from Europe, but their key supporter--the one they literally couldn't survive without---the United States. But, now something has happened, and it seems at least to me to go beyond the mere question of US support for Israel.

In recent years, America has lost its way. We are no longer the democratic republic with its Constitution our forefathers had bequeath to us. We have lost that America. Today, we are an oligarchy. Officially. The government (notice I didn't say "our") represents the top 1%; the global corporate interests. We are on the fast slippery track toward fascism and a police state. Somewhere along that slippery slope to serfdom, we simply stopped caring. We stopped caring about our allies, and we stopped caring about ourselves as a nation. That's not to say we don't feel apathy. We do. We're still the most giving nation ever. But we stopped caring about our freedoms. We stopped caring about what kind of government we had. We stopped caring about the character of those we elected to office. maybe we got preoccupied with so-called "reality" shows, video games and other distractions. It didn't matter we told ourselves, after all, "they're all corrupt". And now, it really doesn't matter. Government moved from petty larceny to the arrogance of a plutocracy. We now have the political class we were warned about which is all but isolated from the People thanks, in part, to gerrymandering, a rigged election process, and the Supreme Court errors of McCutcheons and Citizens United.

Through all this, we've also come to blame the victim. We are more concerned about what happens to the individuals who commits the crimes than to the victims or their families. We want to vilify those who take a stand or fight back. We've come to embrace Hollywood's "values" that has "wussyfied" the US male while celebrating the limousine liberal who doesn't have to live with the reality they espouse. We shout down those who disagree with us rather than to listen with an open mind. We demonize all those who don't share our opinion. People who raise questions are labeled "racist" or "haters". And this same sort of distorted rationality is being applied to Israel's actions in Gaza.

It was Hamas, a bona fide terrorist organization, which is part of Gaza's Unity Government, whose Preamble calls for the destruction of Israel, who instigated this. They were the ones who first (and indiscriminately) began shelling Israel. They were the ones who dug tunnels into Israel in order to murdered or kidnap Israelis. They were the ones who routinely attacked, stabbed, or threw rocks at innocent passersbyers. And they did this year after year. Israel pleaded with the Unity Government to stop. They pleaded with the UN. They asked the international community to intervene. But no one responded. Even President Obama turned his back on Israel's pleas. In fact, Obama has shown himself to be weak in the face of Islam, including groups like Hamas. He has allowed them, especially the most extreme, to believe they can act with impunity. As a result, churches throughout the region are decimated. Historical artifacts are destroyed. Christians are attacked or murdered--mostly beheaded---while children are ripped from their parent's arms and forcibly made to convert, and then sold into slavery or married off as young as 9 years old. Residents are burned out of their homes and communities. Even now, Christians and other non-Moslems in some areas have been ordered to covert immediately and pay a special tax or die. Even moderate Moslems aren't immune. They are often beaten or even crucified--yes, nailed to cross or other structure. Hindus and Buddhists have faced the very same terrors. So has the Taoists. So has the Shamanists. We mistakenly think that we are somehow safe. Israel, however, can not afford that kind of illusion.

So, Israel did what it had to do. It fought back as a last resort. But, it did so in way which I believe is unique in the annals of war. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) called every person in the Gaza phone directory and warned them to leave days before. They sent notices to every resident of Gaza; it allowed them time to buy food, medicines, to store water, and seek shelter; they sent commando units into Gaza and posted warning notices. When Israel attacked, they again alerted the residents. They sent over phosphorous warning shots and waited before actually shelling a building. Did the Germans warn the Poles or French first? Did the Russians warn the Latvians or Germans or for that matter, anyone in Eastern Europe first? Did North Korea warn South Korea? Did the US warn the Vietnamese?

Israel, the victim, has shown an amazing commitment to humanity in fighting an enemy who has repeatedly refused to stop sending missiles over; who has repeatedly refused a cease fire; and who has continually used schools, hospitals, Mosques, and ordinary homes as launching sites for it missiles knowing full well that Israel will hit back. Whenever residents sought to leave, they are forced back in at gunpoint by Hamas. They have chosen to hide behind their own people; to make them victims too in order to use their dead bodies as a gruesome propaganda tool; a tool the weak minded have chosen to embrace...both in the Middle East and in the West. Again, as in America, the victim has been condemned as the guilty while the criminal has been allowed to escaped punishment. So much for our new inverted idea of justice.

Yes, innocent people have been wounded and some have died. That is the nature of war. It's not a pillow fight. But it's even worse when your own side has already declared you a victim for its own propaganda purposes. You just haven't been told were to lay down at yet. To end the deaths and the conflict, the people of Gaza need to stop Hamas. It cannot operate without their support, either openly or by their silence. America too is no longer the country we once knew and cherished. The light of freedom has grown dim as "We the People" have chosen to do nothing.

Your silence, like in Gaza, is your consent. Israel knows that most of the American People still have their back, even if the government in Washington doesn't. America has always been willing to stand up and fight for what's right...until recently that is. Evil, in whatever its forms or wherever it lives, must be confronted. It must be fought with whatever weapons we have at our disposal. It cannot be ignored. It cannot be reasoned with. It cannot be negotiated with. So I again ask you, what are you prepared to do?



List of Wars Involving Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Israel

ISIS Detroys Jonah's Tomb
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/isis-jonah-tomb_n_5620520.html

Heads on sticks: ISIS video shows 50 beheaded Syrian soldiers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707322/Heads-sticks-Sick-ISIS-video-emerges-showing-50-beheaded-Syrian-soldiers-impaled-poles-held-aloft-Raqqa-city.html

After 2000 Years Last Christian Is Forced To Leave Mosul
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/20/After-2-000-Years-the-Last-Christian-is-Forced-to-Leave-Mosul

Sacred Cows

I've never been accused of being a conformist. I think going my own way or thinking my own thoughts was just something I was born with, much to the exasperation of my teachers, bosses, and my mother (for which, I'm sure, accounts for more than a few white hairs). Perhaps I am a noncomformist, but it has never been a matter of being "rebelling" simply for its own sake. I've always preferred thinking and doing out of the box, and I'm sure the results always spoke positively for themselves. I've never been afraid of questioning an assumption or challenging a tradition, and questioning presumed authority (or authority figures) for that matter. Times and circumstances are constantly changing, and we must change and adapt with them or be swept away by them.

Ironically, despite this, I'm still a fairly conservative guy, at least concerning most things. For instance, I ardently believe in the foundation established by our Founding Fathers, through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Of course, some in Washington and elsewhere are saying that the Constitution is too "restrictive" or too "inflexible" for today's vastly more complex problems. Perhaps that's because today's problems have become more complex because of over regulation, over legislation, and over taxation. Perhaps what we need is a more simpler approach to government. By that I mean, perhaps the federal government should govern less and allow states more authority to deal with situations closer to home. It seems like the government's solution to everything is to legislate a situation to the point where it needs additional legislation to correct new problems which arose out their efforts to solve the original problem in the first place, while at the same time, leaving rather convenient loopholes for their corporate masters to exploit at our expense. After all, haven't we been told that money is free speech and those with the most money get to speak the loudest, and it's the loudest who get Washington's attention right?

But that's not what I'm wanting to discuss at the moment. What concerns me is that many conservatives are so stuck with preserving the past, they've lost sight into what's important. Let's look at the marriage issue briefly. I grew up (and believe) that marriage is between a man and woman. It's the basic foundation not just of America, or Europe, or even Asia, but of society itself. It's the core around which civilization itself has been built. But, as society has become more complex and gender roles have evolved, not to mention technology and self perception, so too has the concept of what constitutes a "family" , and by extension, a marriage. If two individuals---two adults---happen to be attracted to each other and want to make a lifelong commitment, who am I to say "no"? Sure, I could cite some biblical verses, but what does my faith have to do with theirs?

For that matter, let's not forget that the religious texts used by Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, as well as Muslims and their Koran, were written thousands of years ago, in another time and place, and for another people who had different societal needs and values. Providing a stable loving relationship seems to me to be more important than whether I agree or not with their choices. Who am I to decide who someone can love or not? And what if a particular church or other religious institution is willing to sanctify the union? How does that say about other religious institutions who don't? My own pragmatic conservatism (and touch of libertarianism ) also tells me it's none of my business or anyone else's.

Speaking politically, conservatives are getting their collective clocks cleaned where same-sex marriage has become an issue simply because the largest voting bloc, the Millennials, see this a critical issue. Overwhelmingly, the Millennials--those 30 and under---see no problem with gays, lesbians, or transgendered individuals, and certainly they have no issue with gay marriage by a wide margin---70%. Those that do tend to be the 40 and older crowd, which also happens to be a shrinking demographic while Millennials are the largest segment to come along since the Babyboomers (and as group, are more numerous than Boomers). Therefore, the party which accepts this political reality (whether or not they agree with it personally), will thrive while the other party will find itself repeatedly punished at the ballot box, perhaps to the point of political irrelevancy. This also speaks to the increasing candidacies of individuals running independent of party; something Millennials also favor by large numbers.

Let's take another issue--global warming. Those on the political Right insist that at best, global warming is myth; an attempt by the some in the government and certain industries, to tighten the noose around our energy policies. At worse, global warming, if it exists, is a natural cycle. A minor hiccup. Either way, Man doesn't play any significant role. Yet, most of those behind these claims are those business most likely to be negatively impacted, such as coal, oil, gas, and automobile industries. Some of those on the Left want much greater regulation of these industries it is true. They haven't met a regulation or tax they didn't like. They too dance to their own puppet masters.

My thoughts on global warming are this---the overwhelming majority of climatologists and other scientists---97%--- agree that the earth is getting warmer. The polar ice caps, which are not only our largest sources of fresh water, but also reflectors of solar heat, are melting; especially the Arctic (think of it as the earth's thermostat).The oceans are becoming warmer...much warmer...and less salty thanks to melting Arctic. Storms are becoming more frequent and more violent. Fertile lands are becoming more arid. Ocean life is dying. Water shortages are becoming more severe, more frequent and lasting longer. Co2, especially the type which has the chemical signature produced by manufacturing, and is the primary culprit in global warming, has dramatically increased over the last 100 years. Although I believe Man is the main cause of global warming, it really doesn't matter to me if someone else thinks it's all part of a natural cycle. The fact of the matter is that it's real; it's happening now; and we're all at risk.

So, Man-made or cyclical, we need to do whatever we can now to keep it from spiraling out of control. That means cutting CO2 emission anyway we can. For states which depend on coal production, they're going to take a huge economic hit. That's why they need to be preparing now before they become the proverbial buggy makers in the horseless carriage age (yes, I appreciate the irony of that analogy). Those states need to invest heavily in alternative income producing sources sooner rather than later. The auto industry needs to be given an ultimatum---produce exclusively vehicles with low to no CO2 emissions along with a non-moveable "drop dead" date which carries a stiff fine for each day missed. Other countries already have widely available and low emission mass transit (such as Iceland, whose mass transit vehicles run on hydrogen fuel cells. Their only emission is water vapor), so why don't we? The same goes for any industry which pumps CO2 into the air. Stiff financial penalties for any industry which fails to comply. Activists too can participate by bring pressure on corporations not just by protesting and bring attention to non-compliant companies, but by also becoming stockholders and speaking out at stockholder meetings. Meanwhile, the US needs to make alternative energy a national security issue. After all, we've been talking about it since Jimmy Carter and the original oil embargo in the mid '70's.

Smaller countries such as Germany get a substantial amount of their energy--27%-- from alternative energy sources, principally solar and wind. We have almost 1/3 of the country which would be ideal for solar energy production. We have more than ample offshore areas which would be excellent for energy producing windmills, yet we generate only 13% of our energy needs through alternative energy sources. Solar panels could be required for all new resident and commercial projects; planting green gardens on buildings and high rise tops to help adsorb CO2 emission. Planting of more CO2 absorbing trees and developing better means of conservation. Encouraging more home gardens, rain water conservation, and "buy local" projects in order to cut back oil and gas consumption as well as vehicle emissions.

No, the US can't do this alone, but it doesn't have too. There are already dozens of nations engaged in some form of CO2 reduction. A few countries, like China, aren't. Economic and political pressure needs to be applied to those refusing to comply. If we fail to act, and soon, we will be facing not just more deadly storms, rising water, or hotter temperatures, but an increase in brownouts or blackouts, higher prices for gas, oil and electricity. Food and water prices will skyrocket to the point where even basic commodities are unaffordable for the average family, and I wouldn't rule out food shortages or water rationing, which are already happening in some parts of the world. And let's not forget that the increased temperatures melting the polar ice caps are also killing off some species, and thawing areas frozen over for tens of thousands of years, releasing dormant and potentially deadly bacteria from its hibernation, as well as an increase in insect infestations (and who needs more spiders, flies, or mosquitoes?).

Now if these aren't reason enough, remember that global warming is of key concern to Millennials. After all, it will be their generation more so than ours how will be impacted the most. Once again, the party or individual that best embraces this will be the party which will succeed. At present, the Left may have the advantage since they accept global warming as the problem it is. Left on their own devises, they will gladly over regulate and tax. However, on the Right, they are heavily populated by the religious Right. I would assume they would embrace a biblical stewardship of the earth and demand changes in current environmental policies. The same would hold true for most other religions too. As for me, conserving the environment couldn't be any more conservative an ideal since it protects the planet, the air, the water, the animals and humanity while at the same encourages innovation for safer and longer lasting energy sources (besides, how much safer or longer lasting can you get than the sun and wind?).

Topics as diverse as these are sacred cows to those who oppose or resist change. Change isn't easy to embrace, especially when it affects our moralistic or economic self interest. However, all things change and evolve. It's a fact of nature. Those that do not adapt will wither and die. Be it an individual, a nation, or a world. That too is a fact of nature. We must adjust our perceptions of what it means to be a family just as must examine the environmental footprint that we leave, individually and as society.

Why the fight over same-sex marriage is over
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/10/why-the-political-fight-over-same-sex-marriage-is-over-in-1-chart/


5 Reasons Millennials Are Going To Save The World
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/millennials-save-the-world_n_4174079.html


NRDC and Global Warming
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/


Iceland: 100% renewables example in modern era
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/iceland-a-100-renewables-example-in-the-modern-era-56428



Iceland phasing out fossil fuels for clean energy
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/18/driving.iceland/index.html?iref=newssearch


Germany Sets New Record
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/


Climate Hot Map
http://www.climatehotmap.org/


NOAA & Global Warming
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php

The Disconnect That is Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Sense of Uneasiness

Do you sense it? That feeling of uneasiness which seems as if it's soaked into everything like a faintly discernable odor, from the nightly news to random conversations with strangers while standing in line at the grocery store or sitting at the doctor's office. Nothing feels safe or secure. Very little, if anything, has that sense of familiarity or comfort to it any more. You subconsciously find yourself on guard every time you go out, or when your children go out to play or even go to school, or something as innocent as when you let your pets out at night. You're not sure what or who is safe anymore. Even the sacred has a sense of hollowness about it.

Corruption, crime, violence in government, schools, the courts, and even our places of worship has almost become commonplace and almost brazen; we barely take time to even register it unless it reaches a new level depravity. How often to do hear of a teacher raping one of their students? Now ask yourself how common that was when you were in school. Or what about the trusted pastor who has for decades used their religious authority to abuse children, only to see them moved to a new state or new church where they can continue while the victims are threaten and intimidated for saying anything. Or politicians sending naked pictures of themselves and showing remorse; no humility when found out. We see or hear practically every day about deeper levels of the debauchery that would have made Genghis Khan flinch so often we've almost become numb.

Society seems to be decaying. Our so-called political leaders are more concerned about their careers and pleasing the new crowners of power---transnational corporations while "We the People" have been stunned into apathy. We need to rebuild; to regenerate a society based on the traditional values or norms which have stood the test of the ages; which can provide the foundation to create a stable new society; norms like the family unit (and by extension, close friends), neighborhoods, and community.

We must find ways, large or small, to become less dependent on governmental institutions and the corporatization of society; to break the chain of control. We need to take only what works the best and leave the rest to rot in the wastelands of history. By that, I mean accepting from government only those things society can't do alone. We need to look to ourselves by volunteering, developing local networks for mutual support, shopping and buying local whenever possible, grow as much as we possibility, start our own cottage business if possible, and even barter.

The time has come when we need to circumvent a dying system; to ignore it; to refuse to acknowledge its authority over us. This is the same technique that other passive revolutionaries such as Gandhi used. Gandhi defeated the British Empire at its imperial height by convincing the Indian People to ignore it. After years of violence, the Irish employed similar techniques. Sergey Nechayev, the Russian anarchist, employed these techniques too, shaking the Czarist regime to its core so much so that Nechayev was declared the most dangerous man in all of Imperial Russia (Sergey was even denied his name. After being sentenced, he was henceforth referred to simply as "the prisoner in cell number 5". Nechayev also wrote the treatise, "The Revolutionary Catechism" which has been employed by nearly every group bent on societal change since its publication in 1869 ).

To refuse to accept the dominance of the system is to deny its power, and denying acceptance of this power is to deny its authority. Thus, to deny its authority is perhaps the ultimate act of non-violent revolution an individual can offer, though perhaps the word "revolution" should more properly be rendered as "devolution" since we're talking about return to our collective roots of community through acts of citizen activism.

Storming the Barricades

Storming the barricades. You know, that's something which happens somewhere else, maybe a third world nation or someplace trying to break free for a ruthless tyrant. It doesn't even feel right to write the words, "barricades" , and yet that exactly what happen last week. Veterans, those brave men and women, who served our country; who fought, bled, and suffered for our freedoms, denied access to war memorials dedicated by this nation to them, and by extension, to us.

As I'm sure you all know, the government shutdown was all about an attempt by Republicans (specifically we're told, by Tea Partiers) to defeat Obamacare by defunding it. In order to do that, it was reasoned, it was necessary to simply forgo a budget; bring the nation to the financial brink, and the Democrats (or more specifically, Obama) would cave. Easy peasy. Well, not so much.

In the process of teaching Obama and the Democrats a political lesson in hard ball politics, the GOP forgot rule number one: having a backup plan, which generally involves having better PR than your opponent. It all started off with a filibuster by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and his 21 hour filibuster which included a reading from Psalms, a monologue about poker, Ashton Kutcher, and a reading of Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham". Nevertheless, it was all downhill out of the gate as Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH and Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tried every political trick in the book (including trying to look sincere) to gain political traction, but to no avail. While everyone in the polls took a big hit, the Republicans caught the brunt with the lowest polling of either political party at any time, 28%.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, some 800,000 "non-essential" federal employees were furloughed without pay. Government agencies across the board were affected, including a partial closure of the departments of Homeland Security, Energy, Education, and the EPA. But what seemed to catch the public's attention the most was the partial closure of the Department of Interior which closed our national parks and wildlife refuges like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and of course, the various memorials in and around Washington.
Perhaps the single most memorable act that came out of this governmental debacle, was when a group of WWII veterans attempted to visit the WWII memorial. The memorial was blocked off---barricaded. These old warriors refused to leave. They just stood there. Silent. Waiting. Finally, one lone Park Officer, set aside the barricades so these heroes could go in (he was later reprimanded, and the memorial not just reclosed, but the barricades were wired shut together). Now, I don't care about your politics, but when it comes to how we treat our veterans, especially these brave souls who we are losing at a rate of 650 per day, that's going too far. That memorial, if none other, should have been left open. What made the closure even more repugnant, was that the White House and Department of Interior, which manages the memorial, knew these veterans, who were part of Honor Flight which provides free transportation of veterans to DC to visit the memorials. Rep Steve Palazzo (R-MS) had made several requests to allow these veterans access; all denied by the way. In the end, however, the veterans were victorious. They had beaten the Nazis; Imperial Japan; the Communist North Koreans, and now they've beaten a federal shutdown (it should be mentioned that other veterans who showed up at other memorial sites such as the Vietnam Memorial, were denied access and the areas remained cordoned off).

Nevertheless, as if to get even, the Obama Administration approved a protest and concert on the National Mall by illegal immigrants, which even featured a speech by House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Why did this administration refuse to open parks and memorials for school children and our nation's veterans, but saw fit to allow illegal immigrants access to the National Mall? Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture? According to the spokesperson for the National Park Service, Mike Litterst, the illegal immigrants were afforded the same first amendment rights as were the Honor Flight veterans. The rally, entitled "Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform" was organized by the AFL-CIO and Service Employee International Union (SEIU) along with other pro-amnesty groups. The unions and many businesses having been working together to push for pro-amnesty legislation since this would, on the one hand, increase the size of the workforce and drive down wages and benefits and, on the other hand, hopefully increase union membership and bring badly needed dues into the union's coffers.

First off, these are veterans. Former US servicemen and women who fought for this country and earned a right, not just by birth, but by blood and valor, to be there. Second, the memorial was considered "closed". The veterans entered by force of numbers. Now, these illegal immigrants never earned nor had any such right. The veterans were given no official welcome or escort. There was no official presence of the National Park Service there while the illegal immigrants were allowed full access to the National Mall with available park officers on hand.

In the end, after a 16 day shutdown and bringing the nation to the edge of a financial meltdown, the debt ceiling was raised and the government is funded...for now; Obamacare was untouched. The Supreme Court had previously upheld (improperly I might add) Obamacare as a tax, and it's funded accordingly, along with other fees. The GOP walked away with nothing to show for their efforts except a very angry public. Tens of thousands who rely on the government were threaten with a cut off of their benefits, people like seniors on social security, disabled or retired veterans receiving compensation or retirement, and low income families receiving assistance. The shutdown cost taxpayers approximately $24 billion dollars. Oh, and by the way, since nothing was resolved, we get to do this all over again in January. I'd start stocking up if I were you. It may be a long cold winter.




Number of furloughed workers shrink as shutdown drags on
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/09/shutdown-furloughs-return-to-work/2953191/

Here's How Much The Government Shutdown Costs The Economy
http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/17/heres-what-the-government-shutdown-cost-the-economy/

Government shutdown: What's opened, what's closed?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/government-shutdown-impact/

Government Shutdown: WWII Vets Say Feds Should Be Ashamed for Closing Their Memorial
http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/02/government-shutdown-ww-ii-vets-say-feds-should-be-ashamed-for-closing-their-memorial/

Obama admin knew about WWII veterans' request and rejected it
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/01/obama-admin-knew-about-wwii-veterans-request-and-rejected-it/

Immigration rally allowed on Mall despite shutdown
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/08/government-shutdown-immigration-rally/2942257/