400 Years of Slavery in the New World

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ" Ephesians 6:5

2019 marks 400 years of slavery in the New World. An event worthy of remembrance. However, to read the articles and hear the speeches, you would be inclined to think that slavery sprung into existence as a result of some nefarious plot concocted by the twisted mind of an Englishman, a Spaniard, a Portuguese, or perhaps a Dutchman to enslave his fellow man solely for profit; a scheme to enslave one and only one group of people by one and only group of another people. Obviously this couldn't be further from the truth.

Slavery has been part of the human condition almost from the beginning of civilization some 6000 years ago (if not longer). It has destroyed civilizations and communities as much as it has individual families. The ancient Sumerians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians all talked about taking slaves (usually the result of war). Greece and Rome, upon whose foundations the West was built, were depended on slaves, as were the ancient Indian, Muslim, and Chinese empires. Not only are the ancient texts full of references, but even the sacred writings of most all modern religions are full of references to slavery (not to mention religious institutions themselves direct involvement with slavery). Most refer to the treatment of slaves or under what conditions they could be sold and so forth. Rarely was there a reference about the depravity of the institution. So much for religious infallibility.

There is hardly a group or tribe on this planet who haven't, at some time or another, hasn't been subjugated. While most has resulted from conquests, some have voluntarily sold themselves into a form of slavery called indentured servitude. Typically these individuals had no choice if they were to survive their living conditions. Many were recruited out of the slums of cities, especially poor houses and other places of destitution. Others, however, were simply individuals looking to leaving for the New World and a chance to start over but were to poor to pay their passage or to buy the land they needed to get started.

Either way, they willingly (some would say coerced) sold their labor to someone willing to pay their fare and provide work, food, and shelter in exchange for a set number of years of often backbreaking work. Many of these individuals didn't survive the voyage while others died during their servitude. It wasn't uncommon that owners would work these individuals beyond their prescribed term since the indentured worker had little ways of determining how long they had actually worked.

At the end of the their service, if they survived, they were to be rewarded with their freedom and typically some previously agreed to payment of sorts, usually a specified amount of land and/or cash along with seed and perhaps a few rudimentary pieces of equipment to get started. It was a very tough existence and not all were successful.

While indentured servitude is most closely associated with early European settlers, especially the Irish, Welsh, and Scots, it existed well back into antiquity. The Bible mentions, for instance, in Exodus 22. 2-6: "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever". Thus six years was considered an acceptable term of servitude, which we would associate with being indentured.

However, this appears to have more of an exception than a rule. Slavery was, for the vast majority, a fact of life and it was often brutal. While some speak of a "bond" between slave and master as a form of informal agreement, it was clearly to the benefit of the owner. Nevertheless, a slave could not be compelled to do what they refused to do. However, the result was usually beatings and/or death. Yet for the master, that represented a loss of investment and labor, which had to be protected.

Slaves from Africa for instance, didn't simply appear at the ports, ready for iron chains. They were typically prisoners; the result of tribal wars where one side fought and captured another. The losers were quartered and then sold to roving coastal slave traders from Europe, Asia, or the Middle East. From there they were shipped to various ports and resold several times before reaching their final destination. Some Europeans too found themselves sold into slavery, often as a result of some unscrupulous sea captain tricking immigrants who didn't speak the language or know anything about where they were.

Such was the case of some of my ancestors coming from Germany to escape religious persecution. Not speaking any English and trusting the ship's captain, they thought they were headed to Maryland but ended up in Virginia where they were sold to the Virginia Colonial Governor by the ship's captain who unable to afford his docking tax (he blew it on booze and prostitutes before leaving port in England). Fortunately, two of my ancestors managed to escaped and were latter able to help free their fellow passengers.

"Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior". Titus 2:9-10

As with the empires of the past, modern empires continued in the slave traded through the early part of the 19th century when slave trade effectively ended in the West. The empires of Great Britain, Spain, Holland, Portugal, and Italy all stopped dealing in human flesh. However, slavery continued in Africa, especially through the efforts of Arab and Asians slave traders (the slave trade remained alive and well in Asia too). Of course, this isn't to say that slave-like conditions didn't continue to exist. As an aside, the Ottoman Empire, continued with the dealing in slavery well into the 20th century.

The colonial powers, which now included Imperial Germany (until 1918), continued to treat native populations, mostly in Africa and the Pacific Rim, as little more than ignorant children. While they were employed and received a wage, working conditions were often horrific, yet competition for the limited jobs (often in mines or factories) which included housing and basic medical care, was stiff. Nevertheless, the colonial powers did employ native populations in their military, police, local administration, office managers, and so forth.

As a result, a professional middle class was created which afford their children with the opportunity to attend leading schools. For some, this meant entree in to places like Cambridge, Oxford, the Sorbonne, or the universities of Madrid, Heidelberg, or Berlin. For the less well off, schools were created which at least provided a medicorum of education; a bit more than basic reading, writing, grammar, science, history, and mathematics. It should be pointed out that many of these schools were tied to churches and social reform groups and less so directly connected with the colonial government who incorporated their own agenda.

In time, this colonial system created lawyers, doctors, engineers, and other well educated professionals along with professional soldiers, journalists, police officers and a bustling class of small businessmen and entrepreneurs (this was especially the case in India, Egypt, Morocco, and South Africa). Thus, colonialism brought with it an end to the slave trade and a great of economic and social opportunities, it also included a strong measure of exploitation as well as discrimination against the native populations.

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your master, not only those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh". 1 Peter 2:18

In the American colonies, religion was viewed as the foremost moral authority, and with it, basis for slavery as an institution. Men such as the famous Puritan minister, Cotton Mather, spoke in favor of it as did Judge John Saffin. Nevertheless, the importation of slaves in America ended in 1808. Slavery gradually ended in the more industrial northern states, though it continued in the primarily agricultural south (it should be pointed out the industrial north heavily benefited from the cheap products produced by the south's slave based economy). However, the common stereotype of a land chock full of plantations with their gentlemen owners sipping their mint juleps on the front porch and the all the Southern Belles busily chirping away about the latest cotillion is purely myth.

In truth, out of a population of 5.2 million whites in 1860, only approximately 6% owned any slaves at all (the average was just three), while plantations, the homes of the very wealthy, comprised just under 3% or about 150,000 individuals. Most owners typically worked shoulder to shoulder with their slaves; ate the same food, and shared many of the same hardships. Among the wealthy plantation owners, the vast majority didn't employ white "taskmasters" with whips to beat or brutalize the slaves into submission. We should also note that there were examples of blacks owning black slaves or of having never been slaves.

Such treatment would have likely had the opposite effect as you can imagine. The field supervisors as they were called were almost always trusted slaves who understood the nature of the work involved, be it planting cotton or other crops, chopping lumber, or working in small factories, but I'm getting a little ahead of myself. As for the relationship between slave and master (or for that matter, between the white and black populations), commentators at the time stated that the relationship was typically one of respect, even to the point of taking on a paternalistic quality in some cases.

The general attitude toward slavery in the South was typically threefold. The first was its immediate end. Men like General Robert E Lee held this position which stated that slavery was an outdated and inhumane system which no longer served its purpose. The future of the South lay in its industrialization as quickly as possible. The second position, shared by individuals like President Jefferson Davis, was that slavery was a doomed institution and industrialization of the South was the future.

However, slaves lacked, in many cases, a basic education as well as lack of understanding of laws and general business dealings. Therefore, they believed that slaves should be educated to the point where they could be freed and would be able to adequately function in society. Davis and others had instituted as series of reforms on their plantations to do just this. It was Davis' intent to implement this throughout the Confederacy as quickly as the war permitted. Later, after the war, Davis stated that had been able to implement these reforms, slavery in the South would have ended within ten years and without any bloodshed.

The third perspective was that the institution of slavery was just. Why? Because the Bible held it to be so, and it was their belief that the Bible was the literal truth as pronounced by God. While America was at that time considered a rather devout nation where organized religion held preeminence, it was especially so in the South which had been settled mainly by Northern English, Scots, Irish, and the Welsh who were predominately fundamentalist Protestants (Jefferson Davis declared, in 1861, that the Confederacy was a Christian nation and would forever remain so, and was included as such in the Confederate Constitution which was ratified on March 11, 1861).

Following the war, things changed unimaginably. Gone was the entire social order, and with it starvation, disease, and new found poverty. Northern influence, be it good or bad, was everywhere. It didn't take long for resentment, anger, and violence to surface. Recovery for the nation was going to be a slow process, but especially so for the South which had been nearly leveled. For whites, it would be starting over from virtually nothing. For the newly freed slaves, they were going to have to adjust to a world they knew little about; some preferred to remain with their former owners while others were able to quickly adapt.

Since 1865, numerous laws have been enacted to create a level playing field, be it in terms of voting, employment, housing, and general integration into society. It's not been easy for anyone, but perhaps more so for these former slaves and their descendants. However, by the 1960's, much of this had been overcome. Pockets of discrimination still existed (as it did for other groups such as Jews, Catholics, or even Asians), but we seemed to have finally come together as Americans by the close of the 1960's. Racism had, in fact, become the subject of ridicule and comedy by the early 1970's (as illustrated by the comedy of Mel Brooks, Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, and others). But sadly this wasn't to last.

"One who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and one who gives gifts to the rich---both come to poverty". Proverbs 22:16

By the late 1990's, racism (or what passed for "racism", whether real or not) was rekindled. Today, anyone who disagrees with someone of color, particularly if they're white--the only way racism seems to work---is automatically accused of being a "racist". The corporate media, through its marketing and advertising, has begun to impose certain stereotypes and standards on society. Whites are now suppose to feel "guilty" for so-called "white privilege" although no legislation has awarded them any such honor. In fact, whites alone among all racial groups, are actually denied the same social benefits as other racial groups. Naturally this isn't meant to imply that pockets of actual racism doesn't exist, nor that racism is all one sided. Any racially different group can be guilty of racism. It's just that the media downplays or ignores this fact.

We hear of "reparations" for what occurred over 150 years ago. Paid to whom I wonder? Not all blacks in America descend from slaves or whose ancestors were slaves in America. In fact, many actually owned slaves and/or were never slaves themselves. But if reparations were to be paid, would it include European slaves? How about Asian? What about Native Americans? After all, they were sometimes held as slaves and at other times, owned slaves. Who would pay these "reparations"? Just America? Why not England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Sweden, and Holland too? They were just as involved. Of course, we can't forget the African tribes who started the process can we? Nor should we forget the Arab or Asian slave traders who were directly involved. Seems like a lot of blame to go around.

The fact of the matter is that slavery has been a disease which has affected Mankind from the beginning, and unfortunately it still continues in places today. Muslim extremists like ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Harem and others still engage in slavery, mostly of Yazidi and Christian women and young girls, but also of boys and men too. Slavery among some Africa tribes also exists, and yet the world has done little to put an end to this savage practice. Until we do, there's plenty of blame to go around. We should look at this 400 year anniversary as a warning. Like any disease, it will grow and metastasize until we muster the courage to eradicated it once and for all from the planet. Perhaps that's the best form of reparation.

Some Thoughts on Illegal Immigration and What We Can Do to Stop It

America. It's been the beacon of hope to millions since its discovery and colonization starting with Jamestown in 1607. Of course, what many don't realize is that America was settled not just by the British, but also by the Dutch, the French, Swedes, and the Spanish. While everyone came here for their own very personal reasons, the vast majority risked all to make the dangerous six week journey to start over (it could take as long to two to three months depending on the weather and currents).

Many wanted to escape the stifling economic conditions which condemned an individual to whatever their economic and social class status happened to be with little hope for improvement (the only ones whose financial status seemed to improved was those who were already wealthy and have the political, social, religious, and financial connections). The "New World" as it was called offered an opportunity to start over for those willing to work...work hard...and suffer the incredible hardships it took.

Along the same lines, others came to this country to escape their past, whatever that was. Some were convicted criminals; felons or those convicted of minor crimes such as theft (especially of food to feed themselves or their family) or in some cases, prostitution or similar crimes . There were those trying to escape crushing debt or other obligations typically forced on them by the social circumstances.

There were many who willingly sold themselves...or their children... into a form of limited slavery called indentured servitude. There were those of financial means more than willing to take advantage of the poverty of others to work long hours, seven days a week over years on end in exchange for payment of the passage to this New World and the promise of some reward at the end of their service; often a piece of land and/or some form of payment. However, the trip, working conditions, and lack of health care was often so arduous that many died long before the tenure ended.

As an aside, occasionally these individuals would find their servitude altered. Instead of, for instance, working seven years, their owner would work them eight or nine years without them knowing. It also occurred that individuals and their families were actually enslaved (as happened to some of my ancestors who came from Germany to avoid religious persecution. They intended to settle in modern Maryland but ended up in Virginia where they, and the community which came with them, were sold).

This brings me to the other key reasons early settlers came here. One of the most important was for religious freedom; to avoid a State imposed religion or at the very least, a State imposed tax supporting the "official" religion as well as a tax on their religion. Going hand-in-hand with this was political freedom. In many of these countries, political freedom was strictly restricted. No voting for those not belonging to the official church; no political participation for those who didn't own land; no role in politics for those of certain classes or financial means, and obviously women were excluded altogether.

However, as America it developed, more domestic laws evolved which reflected the ideals of the colonists and less of their imperial masters across the pond. Following the American Revolution, laws were quickly developed which restricted immigration along with establishing the sovereignty of this new nation, including its borders, and why not? Every nation has laws designed to protect its citizens and its sovereignty.

Over the seceding decades and centuries, these laws changed as our boundaries expanded---rightly or wrongly---and the nation set about establishing its own unique national identity. Some of the laws concerning immigration were contradictory; some were outright racist in the legitimate use of the term. For instance, at one point the Chinese were encouraged to come (they were seen as a cheap source of manual labor). Then, their immigration was strictly prohibited. The same was true of the Irish (along with the Scots and Welsh). At other times, while the laws allowed immigration of certain groups, they were ostracized by some of those already here. These "Know-Nothings" aimed their wrath at Germans from the East, Italians, Poles, Jews, Catholics, Russians, among others.

Eventually, they came to be accepted, but not without hardship; often severe, suffered at the hands of those who rejected them. One of the chief reasons for their rejection was the belief that they could never become "true Americans". This helped to inspire as sense of desperation among the new arrivals to become more "American" than the Americans living here.

These immigrants prided themselves on becoming Americans. Many were all to glad to leave their past behind. Those who didn't speak English tried to learn what they could before leaving or on the way over as well as learn as much as they could about their new homeland (small classes were held aboard ship which also helped pass the time). It wasn't uncommon for them to encourage their children to become fluent in English and adapt to their new homeland. A few even went as far as to change their names or religions. They worked hard difficult jobs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

While remnants of their homeland were present, the ancestral ties tended to fade over the generations (the Asians, however, have retained the strongest tie to their ancestral and racial culture). America had become, essentially, a "melting pot" of cultures, races, ethnic groups, classes, and political as well as religious beliefs. President Teddy Roosevelt summed up the attitude of the times the best when he said, "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people". And so it remained for decades.

There are those who, today, would call President Roosevelt a "racist" for that statement, but then again they would be trying to judge our 26th President by their standard of today. In his day, his remark was the sentiment of just about every American, be they newly arrived or having deep roots in this country. But something began to change. It's hard to pinpoint when or how it occurred. I suspect it was after World War I. Returning troops had been exposed to European traditions and culture, and for many, it was eye opening. It created a real sense of "American Exceptionalism". They had come to believe that that the "American Experiment" as it has been called was truly a success.

At some point, perhaps during the 1950's and 60's. we began trying to impose our values---political and economic---on other nations. We had come to expect that everyone wanted to be just like us, and if not, we had the military and economic might to impose ourselves on whomever and wherever we wanted.

We thought nothing about overthrowing governments who refused to cooperate with us. Worse, we even helped install brutal military juntas or corrupt political dictators in order to ensure their cooperation, not to mention unfettered access to their national resources and assets. We did it in places like Cuba, Paraguay, Argentine, Vietnam, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama, Laos, Mexico, Iran, among many---many--- others. Is it any wonder we became known as the "Ugly Americans" to most of the world?

To add insult to injury, part of our "Americanization" of the world, known euphemistically as "nation building", resulted in US taxpayers shelling out billions upon billions of dollar (without our approval by the way), largely on behalf of corporations seeking to profit from the new world order. Yet, despite the numerous countries which benefited from our largess, not a single country modeled itself after the US model. Not. A. Single. One. Nevertheless, corporations profited handsomely.

Today, we face an invasion of our own. It comes mainly from the very countries which we helped to destabilized through our "interventions", be it military/CIA or economic. The "pollo" have come home to roost so to speak. The situation had been a slow, but steady increase since the 1950's, however, it wasn't until 1986, when President Ronald Reagan (R-CA) granted amnesty to the estimated 3 million illegal immigrants living in the country, that the surge began in earnest.

Nowadays, the actual number of illegal immigrants living in America is anybody's guess; best estimates put the number at somewhere between 10 and 30 million, and all them are expecting, even demanding, that they too be given amnesty. Even the leaders of various Latin America countries, such as Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador, and Costa Rica publicly stated that the United States had "no right" to prohibit their entry or to secure our borders, which was amazing given their strict immigration laws.

When the State of Arizona attempted to help enforce current federal immigration laws, President Obama (D-IL) ordered his then Attorney General, Eric Holder, to sue the state for enforcing existing federal immigration laws! To make matters worse, he even allowed Mexico, a sovereign foreign countries, to join in the lawsuit; something no other president had not only never done, but would have never even considered! As an aside, Holder would later be involved in illegally selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels ("Operation Fast and Furious") which resulted in the deaths of US federal and Mexican law enforcement agents as well as civilians, and individuals were still being murdered with these weapons as recently as 2019.

Some businesses, especially in the restaurant, apparel, construction, farm, yard care, and horseracing industries, also engage in hiring illegal workers, who typically work for pennies with no protection from unsafe and unhealthy working conditions or limits to hours worked, not to mention any form of legal protection. To further complicate the situation is that American labor unions are encouraging individuals to illegally cross the border in the hopes they will obtain many of the low paying menial jobs typically found in hotels or horse racing, and join the local unions. The reason? Dues. Unions have long since lost their political clout and can't begin to compete with corporations which defacto own both major political parties. Besides, it's not cheap for unions bosses to keep up appearances.

Churches and religious institutions have also been active in promoting the violation of US immigration laws, using their religious status and influence to avoid typically searches and arrests. They've even been involved in actively providing shelter, evading arrest, finding permanent jobs, residence, and how to circumvent laws to obtain taxpayer based services. Even some universities (many the beneficiary of taxpayer dollars) have begun offering reduced tuition rates for illegal immigrants or their children.

However, this all pales to the fact many politicians, especially within the Democratic Party, have openly allowed their towns, cities, and even state to adopt a so-called "sanctuary" status, in clear and flagrant violation of US Federal Law (and even then, demanding more federal money to cover the costs!). Now, we have candidates running for president in the Democrat Primary promising amnesty for all illegal immigrants in this country and even for a open border policy. Can you imagine what that would do to the US economy (and especially US taxpayers)? At present, illegal immigrants already cost taxpayers approximately $130 billion dollars annually. I don't know about you, but I can't afford any more tax or rate increases!

Needless to say, their promises, like all the others, is to win the election. Frankly, I don't care that these promises are coming from Democrats or even Republicans. Neither of these two corporate owned parties represent my interests (nor that of the majority of Americans given that most Americans are registered Independent; a number which continues to grow). The fact is that we are a nation of laws and those laws need to be enforced. Those who violate them should be severely punished, including the arrest of their leadership be it a mayor, governor, corporate president, HR manager, local priest or minister. They should also be heavily fined and stripped of their corporate or non-profit charter as well as their tax exempt status as applicable.

Meanwhile, we debate about building a wall or the cost of the wall, or how humane the presence of a wall would be, or for that matter, whether enforcing our immigration or sovereignty laws, just like every other country on the planet, are. Perhaps another factor we overlook is that these individuals aren't coming here to become Americans; to adopt to our laws, language, or values.

Few, if any, are coming here because of political or religious persecution, at least according to the US State Department and Homeland Security. They are coming here solely for economic reasons ("economic migrants"), which the United Nations has stated is NOT a legitimate reason to request sanctuary. As an aside, the UN also states that immigrants must move to the next closest stable country, not trek the length of a continent to find a better paying job or to seek any form of sanctuary. I'm sure there are a small few exceptions along the hordes trying to gain entry, and if so, those should be weeded out as soon as possible.

The United States, while no longer the representative Republic we were intended to be (we're a corporate dominated Oligarchy in case you didn't get the memo) is still the country of choice for those seeking freedom and a chance to start over just like our ancestors did. Nevertheless, we are first a nation of laws, and like every other nation, we have not just the right but the duty to enforce those laws, especially when it comes to our sovereignty.

As an aside, I have to say that much of the problems America faces, particularly regarding illegal immigration, has resulted from the government's tendency of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, especially on behalf its corporate masters, simply because we don't like the choice of government some other people have chosen or the policies of their governments. The US would be best served by our Founding Father's advice to avoid "foreign entanglements" unless it's a matter of dire humanitarian necessity, and then only in conjunction with other nations.

We welcome those who come here with the intent of bettering themselves and through their efforts, bettering this nation. All we ask is that you following the existing channels and laws for entering this country, learn the language of this nation---English--- respect the values and traditions of this country, and obey the laws of the land once here (ie: we are not and will never be a theocracy). This is nothing more or less what any other country would expect and demand. If you can't do that, you need to look elsewhere.



United States involvement in regime change in Latin America


United States involvement in regime change


The 2020 Democratic immigration debate, explained

Where Have Our Heroes Gone? America's Loss of Trust in Itself

What has happened to us America? There was once a time where we could trust those in office. We could believe what the media told us. They had integrity. We could trust them. But that's gone. Today we hear voices coming from every direction telling us who to hate, who to fear, or whose fault is was for our problems. They want to rage on about our differences; some real, but most manufactured. Where are the voices telling us who to love or to have compassion for? What happened to those who extolled our commonality and sense of community? What we share is far greater and more important than what separates us.

We've come to expect politicians to lie to us. It's almost automatically assumed they are corrupt. But then, in a nation ruled---not governed---by an Oligarchy, isn't it true? The Oligarchy owns both of the two political parties, and that includes their respective politicians. They underwrite their campaigns. They help to write the bills, which then goes before committees whose members are equally bought and paid for. The only real "partisanship" is between the competing cliques pushing their own agenda and who gets the biggest piece of the financial pie.

But, this wasn't always so. There was once a time where we had faith in those we elected. Yes, there was partisanship and real disagreements, but at the end of the day, they could still come together and treat each other with civility and respect. We could turn on the evening news and feel that we were getting a balanced and honest reporting of the day's events. But not anymore. Gone are the likes of Chet, Walter, Howard, Frank, and Peter, and with them the integrity we once believed in.

Today's 24/7/365 news cycle is less about facts and all about ratings. We routinely watch as these "talking heads" strive to out shout each other; call each other names. We see rumors and speculation presented as truth. They start with an agenda and work backwards, making the parts fit their twisted puzzle, and when they don't, they manufacture the missing pieces. And it's not just one side or the other which is responsible for this, it's both, and why not? 90%+ of all media, including network, cable, magazines, newspapers, radio, as well as movies and video games are controlled by just six corporations; all a central part of the Oligarchy.

Even our nightly entertainment carries with it a divisive political message designed to divide us. Even our movies seem to carry a political message, often a subtle one, which is aimed to influencing our opinions. We're implicitly told what life styles, political opinions, or attitudes are acceptable while those who disagree are villainized or ridiculed. It seems that whatever we watch, read, or listen to has a message that we have to consciously filter out. I suppose Mrs. Cleaver doesn't live here anymore either and Father doesn't know best.

We've watched as those in power increasingly lost their professionalism; their civility to each other. It plays out on local TV, cable, and satellite. We can watch it "streaming" anytime we want, or even when we don't want. It appears every waking moment of every day of the year. We've come to expect politicians to lie. We watch teachers get busted for having sex with children or graduating from high school with the equivalent of a eighth grade education.

Our kids play video games or go to movies which glorifies violence. They make it seem as if life has no value or some magically "reset" button somewhere will restore everything to right. Yet, we wonder why there is so much violence. We're told the problem is guns or some politician when in fact the problem lays with us and not taking responsibility for what our children are exposed to. We watch as ministers preach one thing and drive away in $100,000 cars to their multi-million dollar mansions; many of whom getting busted for tax evasion or sex scandals of their own.

We must demand accountability, be it teachers, school boards, ministers, or anyone else is suppose to hold the public's trusts. I wouldn't want the pressure a police officer has to endure every day. The vast majority of these men and women deserve our never-ending respect. However, there seems to be a segment which I find utterly disgusting. They tarnish everything they're fellow officers stand for along with the trust of the community. Yet, the system protects them. We see their actions on the body-cams (if they're on). We hear the witness accounts. But, somehow they are typically found not guilty.

That's why independent police review boards comprised of ordinary citizens is so important. We link between the police departments and judicial system is so strong that they're nearly one. A independent review board would, at the least, provide a sense of impartiality for the residents. At the same time, there also needs to be transparency to these hearings. Anything which goes on behind closed doors is going to create a sense of suspension, and in an environment where there is already distrust, it only makes the situation worse.

People tell us to go vote if we don't like how things are being run. Yet, the political system has already been rigged to ensure that change never really happens. Every politician tells us how they're going to "stand up" to Washington or its power brokers; how they are demand change. Yeah, right. The system is designed to filter out any real reformers. For the very few who get through, they are sorted through a system of committees and "door keepers" designed to keep them to bust to focus on any real change.

In addition, they are exposed almost from day one to a strictly enforced hierarchy. Money brokers descend on them like vultures on a fresh kill. If the money and lure of power doesn't convince them, their party leaders will. Barring that, they will find themselves ostracized and facing competition back by their own party. If you won't bite the rotten apple, they'll find someone who will. It reminds me of junkies trying to get others hooked so they'll get more of the drug as a reward. The longer you're there, the deep the hook goes.

I suppose people have stopped voting because they're tired of being disappointed. We've had enough of being lied to. We know that once they're in, they'll either be corrupted or spit out. Political parties control the makeup of their districts through gerrymandering. Essentially, they chose their constituents instead of the voters choosing who they want representing them. Do you think that either party are going to willingly given this up? It practically guarantees that the incumbent will be reelected.

What about term limits? Terms limits would force politicians to focus their objectives to just a few issues which can be accomplished within a set amount of time. It would also limit the amount of corruption which can be imposed as well. It would created a fresh flow of new ideas and energy. Another thing it would do as well is, because of the turnover, it would force politicians of different partied to work together to get things done, which would only benefit us, the voters. The downside obviously is that the old partisan political system would collapse. Frankly, that's not a bad thing at all for the American People. Who knows, it might even resurrect a measure of civility and trust!

Of course, we know Citizens United, which created "individuals" out of corporations (except they have more "rights" than you and I). We must get corporate and other special interest money out of politics. Period. We need to make it possible for the average American to be able to run for office rather than multi-millionaires who have little, if anything, in common with ordinary Americans. Our Founding Fathers intended on this being a nation of "Citizen-Legislators", and not professional politicians. In fact, they also opposed the notion of political parties which they saw has being corrupting special interest groups which would gradually seize power from the people; making government subservient to the parties rather to the American People. Can you imagine that ever happening?

Americans have long lost trust in their institutions, and here's proof. According to a 2019 Gallup poll, only 36% of those surveyed had any trust in organized religion. The Supreme Court only got 38% while the criminal justice system saw a 24% level of trust. Congress, regardless of party, saw just 11% overall. The Presidency had a 38% confidence level. Yet, we still have a 73% level of trust in our military.

Trust in Organized Labor was just 29%, which is still better than Big Business which had only 23% but Americans still little their local businesses. Small business had 63% trust ranking which may be why big businesses try to portray themselves as being "local". Surely our schools would do better. After all, they caring for our nation's future. Well, not so much. Confidence in our public schools was 29%. Despite all the bad press, the police still saw a 53% level of trust.

How about the media? Newspapers, which has been in serious decline for decades, saw only 23%. TV news (including cable) ranked a lowly 18%. News on the internet ranked just a bit lower with 16%. Our trust in the medical system was surprisingly low at just 36% (think about the next time you visit your doctor or have surgery). Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) didn't fare any better. Their trust ranking was a unhealthy 19%. Banks received just 30% which isn't perhaps to surprising. Who trusts banks anyway? As an aside, 73% of Americans believe that artificial intelligence will eliminate more jobs than it will create, thus increasing unemployment among blue collar workers and the lower middle class.

The systems is broken across the board. The question is what we're going to do about it. I've presented some possible solutions. There are other things we can do such as demand citizens referendums and initiatives; voter approval for all rate and tax increases (including salary increases for elected officials); a level playing field to allow ballot access for third parties and Independents (who also happen to be the nation's largest voting bloc) and voter recall of those not doing the job we elected them to do.

We can also start taking charge of our neighborhoods and communities and squeezing political corruption out and partnering with other such groups (remember, politicians have no real power without our cooperation). We can start home educating our children; instilling in them the values we want them to have, not the ones the State decides on. We can form block watches. These will not only help to make for safer neighborhoods, but also as way to assist first responders, as well as make it more difficult for corruption to get sweep under the rug too.

We, dear reader, are not powerless. Far from it. We just have to realize that we are the ones who still hold the real power. Without out tacit approval, those in power, even the Oligarchy, can do nothing. They require our cooperation and obedience in order to control us. If we deny them that, they can be defeated and we can take back our government and restore our society.


Gallup Poll: Confidence in Institutions

The Shootings: What Can We Do?

Two shooting within hours of each other. The first, on August 8th, took place in El Paso Texas. An individual murdered 22 seemingly random individuals and wounded 24 other (the police identified one shooter while many of the witnesses said there were as many four. The next day, another individual, this time in Dayton Ohio, killed ten people while wounding 37. The tragedy, as with most, is almost beyond words.

We've already heard stories about some of those who died, acts of bravery, sheer fear, anger, pain, and I'm sure we'll heard hear many more such stories over the weeks and months to come, especially how those who survived attempt to cope with the senseless acts of violence and begin the slow arduous road to at least some form of recovery, although their lives will never be "normal" again.

But the dual tragedies didn't end there. Almost immediately, there were other reports of similar acts of attempted violence. On the same day as the Dayton shooting, there were four other shootings. Two took place in Chicago. One involved a single death with seven being wounded while the second had seven wounded and no reported deaths. In Memphis Tennessee one person was killed and three were wounded.

On August 5th, in Suitland Maryland, there was five shootings, resulting in one death and four injuries. On the 6th, we had four wounded in Detroit and the following day, in St Louis, two people were killed and two others were wounded. Of course, I want to mention the mass shooting which occurred in Gilroy California, at a Garlic festival on July 28. Four were killed while 15 were injured.

Thus far, based on what law enforcement classifies as "mass shootings", there has been 248 incidents. There has been 246 deaths and 979 injured. Of these, two deaths occurred in a school and one at a place of worship. Sadly, August has just begun and we have four more months to the year left.

Granted, the majority of these "mass shootings" were gang and/or drug related. Nevertheless, within a matter of hours following the El Paso shooting, there was a carefully orchestrated effort to somehow blame the shootings on President Donald Trump, complete with scripted press releases (written, taped, and live interviews) and even paid commercials calling for the banning of guns, ammo, and so forth.

Even Hollywood got in on it by going not just after President Trump, but especially Trump supporters (an obviously attempt as isolation and intimidation). Some as gone as far as to encourage people to attack or even kill Trump supporters (a couple have actually called for Trump's assassination. Once upon a time that would earn you a visit from the Secret Service or FBI). Obviously the "managed media" does its best to reinforce this anti-Trump rhetoric as well.

The overwhelming majority of these individuals and lobbyist groups responsible for the ads all blame a so-called "climate" of "hate" and "anger" promoted by the President and/or his supporters; often cherry picking Tweets, comments at events, and so forth. Lastly, they claim that Trump caters to "White Supremacy" and promotes "White privilege".

As usual, they all call for an immediate ban on guns of all sorts, but particularly "assault" rifles, which are simple semi-automatic rifles with military looking stocks, along with various add-on features. There is also a new call for so-called "Red Flag" laws.

Red Flag laws allow an individual or member of law enforcement to petition the local court to issue an order to "temporarily" remove all firearms from an individual and/or prohibit their ability to purchase any guns on the basis that the person in question is a danger to himself or others. The order remains in effect until the individual is evaluated by authorities (including a psychologist) and determined to be otherwise. Failure to comply is considered a criminal offense subject to jail time and/or a hefty fine.

At present 17 states, mostly the West Coast and New England have some version of the Red Flag law currently in effect. Many of those who are demanding greater restrictions on gun purchases and ownership are calling for a national version of the Red Flag law. While the overwhelming majority is coming from the Left, many Republicans are also warming to the idea, especially as the 2020 election cycle approaches (imagine that).

Of course, the Right isn't quite ready to throw in the towel by a long shot. Many point out the need for gun ownership not just as a means to protect family, friends, or self, but as a "inalienable" right bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers; a means to defend ourselves from a corrupt government intent on enslaving its citizens. The Founding Fathers, who had just finished a bloody and costly revolution with Great Britain as well as watched several failed revolutions throughout Europe, felt so strongly about this that it was the second right bestowed on the citizens of this new nation just behind freedom of speech and expression.

They also like to point out how totalitarian regimes love to confiscate guns in the early stages of their authoritarian takeover. Specifically they like to point to Soviet Russia, Communist China and Cuba, Fascist Italy, and of course Nazi Germany (as an aside, some are wacky enough to claim that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are actually "Leftist" forms of government, or even types of Communism). In short, both sides demonize the other. So what are the facts and what is the usual partisan rhetoric aka "propaganda"?

At least two and possibly as many as four of the recent events (including an attack by a machete and gun toting individual just recently) were either mass murders or attempts at mass murder. Is this Trump's fault or that of his supporters? No. Yes, Trump has made some comments and Tweets that makes one cringe, but none of them encourage violence or racism in any way (and by the way, while there are likely bonafide racist on the Right, there are also bonafide racist on the Left too).

In fact, those on the Right have been remarkably civil (and certainly non-violent) overall when compared to Antifa which looks more like Hitler's Brownshirts than anything on the Right. We also have college student demanding that individuals be denied the opportunity to speak (even after being invited to do so by the university), and have even stormed the stage, pushing the speaker either aside or off the stage! Where has that occurred on at conservative schools? The answer is nowhere.

The claim that these attacks are Trump's fault is simply without merit. Under President Obama there were 32 officially declared mass shootings, but no one seemed to think Obama was somehow responsible. Perhaps the most infamous of which was the Mass shooting at the Mandalay Casino in Las Vegas which resulted in 59 deaths and 851 injuries, including 422 by gunfire. We could consider San Bernardino in 2015 for instance. 14 people were murdered and 21 injured. How about Orlando Florida in 2016? 49 died while 53 were wounded or injured. Want more?

In Binghamton New York, 13 were killed and four were wounded. In 2010, eight were killed in Manchester Connecticut and two were wounded. In 2012, a total of 67 were killed and 68 were wounded. In 2016, 71 were murdered while 83 were wounded (Orlando Florida saw the worse of it). We can't forget the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in 2017. That's where an individual targeted Republican members of Congress during a practice game. Fortunately, only six were wounded (two critically), the only death was the shooter. I could easily go on, but I think you get the point.

Was any of these the result of President Obama or his followers? Was the result of the atmosphere he created through his comments? I certainly recall a lot of hostility during his two terms. Was this it then the result of "black supremacy" or "black privilege"? In my opinion, no to all of the aforementioned. It was the result of some very twisted minds just as it is now. They were able to take advantage of our existing freedoms such as gun ownership or the ability to freely by fertilizer or other supplies which could be used to make explosives or rent trucks capable of delivering their deadly cargo.

By the way, regarding claims of "racism", let's remember that blacks, not whites, Asians, or Hispanics, are the ones responsible--- by far--- the killing of fellow blacks; about 92% according to the FBI. In fact, blacks as whole are actually responsible for violent crimes against other races than any other group (likely the result of economics and social pressure such as gang influence). Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum, Asians have the lowest crime rate of any race. Perhaps, again, the result of economics and social norms, but also due to culture which places a high value of conformity.

Now, let's take that same fact and reinterpret it another way, we find that those of a particular race are much more likely to murdered by someone of the same race simply due to association (ie: about 84% of whites in 2016 were murdered other whites, etc). See how that changes our perception of the same information? Yes, in the case of mass shootings, many of the perpetrator(s) are usually white or Hispanic. Why? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with their race. It could the result of specific social norms which affect one group over another just like overwhelmingly mass murderers are male rather than female.

The fact is that evil will always find away. In the UK, which has extremely restrictive laws pertaining to gun ownership, extremist Muslims use machetes and butcher knives to commit their mass murders. Should we outlaws those? What about clubs, bats, slingshots, bows and arrows? Perhaps we could restrict boards, pipes, sticks, and maybe rocks while we're at it. Bad guys don't care about your laws. They will find a way to get their hands on one. Then, faced with an unarmed public, it will be like a pack of hungry wolves on sheep backed against a cliff.

Some of these mass murderers were/are mentally ill. Better access to mental care could have prevented a few killings. More aggressive enforcement of existing laws pertaining to gun purchases would have also cut down on the number of incidents. I agree that some form of "Red Flag" law would have also helped. I would also like to see mandatory gun safety training with periodic updates. As for restricting certain types of weapons based simply on how they look, that's ridiculous. Any gun, regardless of what it looks like or its caliber can kill in the wrong hands.

Lastly, we have to look at the media and current climate of hate and anger, not caused by President Trump per se, but the result of the virulent partisanship in Washington where rarely a civil word is exchanged between parties is ever hear. Part of this is the result of the Left not being able to get over the fact that Hillary Clinton failed to get her coronation. That seems to be what stunned the Left and the win by an outsider like Trump is what pushed them over the edge and into a never-ending vendetta.

The media, which, along with the government, is controlled by the ruling Oligarchy (90+% of all media, including entertainment, videos, radio, newspapers, magazines, TV, and internet content are controlled by just six corporations), has played a large part in contributing to the atmosphere is hatred. When was the last time you watched the "news" (perhaps excluding Fox) in which something was directly or indirectly derogatory toward Trump or his supporters? Even our nightly lineup of TV shows often include some sort of negative comment about Trump. Gone are the days when we got non-partisan reporting. We miss you Art, Walt, Chet, David, Howard, John, Frank, and Harry.

So, what can we do? The first thing, perhaps the most important thing, is to at least agree to disagree; to accept our differences along with our commonality. We won't agree on everything, or even most things as a country. Heck, we don't even do that within a family unit most times. We don't always get our way either. But we can respect each other's opinion and right to voice them, whether we agree or not. We each have that right.

We also need to consign the notion of race hatred, supremacy, privilege, or whatever, regardless of where it comes, to the proverbial "dustbin of history" where it needs to be. That means removing quotas, restrictions (including association), and so forth. It also means treating and respecting each person for who they are individually, not the color of their skin or any other manufactured differences.

We need to step up and enforce existing laws pertaining to background checks. Too often that's the first real break in the chain of responsibility. We do need to enact some form of "Red Flag" law, as well as impose mandatory gun safety training with periodic updates. We must do more---much more---to identify and treat those with mental disorders. Those are the most likely to be our serial killers and mass murderers.

Trying to remove certain guns based on their appearance makes absolutely no sense. Outlawing guns in general make zero sense. As I said, evil will always find a way around any law or restriction. Criminals are, in general, cowards. They tend to hide behind violence and prey on the weak. Someone who is properly trained to use a gun is much less likely not to become a victim than someone who is unarmed. We need to remember that in going forward.

Finally, we need to recognize that the ruling Oligarchy is all about control, be it assets, resources, or us. To do that, they will wage wars using us as their pawns. They will buy and toss politicians like yesterday's fruit. They literally own both parties and the government's bureaucratic infrastructure. Their interests are well protected through their well paid lobbyists and palms are always greased. But to completely control us, they must divide us, and they try in as many ways as possible.

They formulate hatred, division, envy, jealousy, and most of all, anger until we beg for their intervention. As long as we're fighting each other, we're ignoring them and that's the way they want it. We must fully understand this and approach it with eyes wide open. We must accept our few differences while embracing our much larger commonalities. Once we stop playing their games, then we can focus on what really matter to us. Then, and only then, can we truly become a "United" States of America.

Finally, as a side note, I intentionally did not mention the names of any of the mass shooters, past or present. I also chose not to use any of their pictures or descriptions. I decided that I would not give any of these individuals free publicity on this site.


37 Years of Mass Shooting in the US in One Chart

Red Flag Laws

Race and Crime in the United States

Why We never Talk About Black on Black Crime: An Answer to White America's Most Pressing Question

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