The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling: Constitutional or a Supreme Blunder?

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again demonstrated their fallibility and shortsightedness with their recent 6-3 decision regarding “birthright” citizenship just like their infamous 2010 “Citizens United” blunder, which essentially declared that the U.S. government was “for sale”, which has turned our nation from a democratic constitutional republic into a neo-fascist corporatocracy and surveillance state.  

Originally the 14^th Amendment (adopted in 1868) was intended to offer citizenship to all formerly enslaved individuals in order to aid their full  integration into the society. It was never intended to provide legal cover for individuals attempting to sneak in our country in direct violation of both our immigration policies  and defiance of our national sovereignty or allow individuals born elsewhere to evade the steps to become a U.S. citizen while obtaining legal residency via a child born in the U.S., even if the parents are here in violation of our immigration laws.   

There’s no disagreement that a child born on U.S. soil of foreign parents should be entitled to American citizenship. However, should that still apply if the parents are here illegally, in violation of migration laws, and with no other intent than that of securing citizenship for their child in order to remain in the United States themselves? Thus, it appears the Supreme Court got lost among the trees and failed to see the forest much like it did with their 2010 Citizens United blunder.

America, like every other nation, has a strict immigration policy and process for anyone wishing to settle here. It also adheres to international law when it comes to asylum seekers. It’s worth mentioning that economic immigration (ie: finding a job or a better paying job) is NOT accepted as a legitimate reason to seek asylum.  

The United States also has the legal right as a sovereign nation to establish borders and enforce those borders. No different from any other country, including those from where these migrants originate (which, by the way, are far more stringent and brutal than anything we would impose).

The question now is what, if anything, we can do about it? The most obvious answer would be federal judicial term limits (as well as mandatory retirement at age 65). Restricting the amount of time an individual can remain on the Supreme Court would ensure the justices remained relevant not only of the current laws of this land, but also cognizant of the current political, economic, and social trends, as well as the mood of the country.

One justice latter admitted that a major reasons for the passage of Citizens United was their limited knowledge about money in politics.  I submit they may be equally ignorant when it comes to the cost of illegal immigration and the burden it imposes on the average taxpayer.

 As an aside, in case you were wondering, Congress itself conservatively estimates that the cost of illegal immigration in the United States is $183 billion dollars, up 37% since 2017. To put it another way, that’s roughly $8,776.00 per illegal immigrant annually. That’s how much you and I are paying out in tax dollars. The Supreme Court’s ruling just increased that costs that we must bear.

A second option, aside from mandatory term limits,  would be to transfer the costs of illegal immigration from the taxpayers to the responsible parties. Specifically, that means billing their country of origin the cost of absorbing their citizens. Now, I know some of you cynics out there are probably saying that they’ll never pay it, and you’re probably right.

However, to ensure that they do pick of the cost, we need only to deduct the cost from the foreign aid the U.S. State Department sends them annually. Not only does it keep some of our tax dollars at home, it provides a bit of “encouragement” for them to address the issue of illegal immigration from their end.

As an example, Mexico, which is the country of origin for most illegal immigrates, receives about $200 million dollars in foreign aid (remember again, that’s our tax dollars). Of that, $45.5 million goes directly to humanitarian aid which is supposed to address the immigration issue. By offsetting the cost to U.S. taxpayers, we would save that $8,776.00 we spend on each illegal immigrant, we also give them an added incentive to do more to prevent it on their end.

 As an aside, Nicaragua gets about $30 million each year in U.S. foreign aid. Honduras receives bout $200 million of our tax dollars annually in foreign aid  while El Salvador gets $230 million.  That’s a whole lot of money we---the American Taxpayer---could save by offsetting the costs.

Of course, we could impose a fine of the parents and require them to enter into a mandatory citizenship program which also requires that they learn English, and obtain gainful employment though a "Green Card to Citizenship" program, otherwise face deportation. Unfortunately, given today's political climate, this is unlikely to happen.   

Regardless of whether judicial term limits are imposed or we start passing on the cost illegal immigration back on to the country of origin, one thing is for sure. The American Taxpayer can not continue to bear the costs for governmental incompetence. We are not their “cash cow” to use whenever and however they want.

Issues like illegal immigration should be addressed by voters at the ballot box, along with other long term tax matters. Government (as well as both political parties) are supposed to represent us. Instead, it serves Wall Street. It’s past time that we remind them of that. What do you think?

 

The Cost of the Border Crisis Testimony to the House BudgetCommittee…May 8, 2024

Birthright Citizenship

Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship on Constitutionalgrounds

Justices Reject Trump’s Effort to End Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship Under the U.S. Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Commonwealth Secretary of State’s Election Results

Our Election Day "PSA" For Voters Everywhere!

 

Election day (May 19^th) is fast approaching, and it seems that the airwaves and social media are full of “vote for me” commercials, not to mention the usual political entertainment, “mudslinging”. Along with the commercials, there’s the usual ubiquitous endorsements which are in truth nothing more than character references for the public.

Some endorsements are quite obvious. They’re from groups, individuals, or industries looking for “buying immediate access” which is shorthand for controlling or at least manipulation legislation as it pertains to them or the industry.

Some endorsements are less sinister. They aren’t necessarily looking for tax breaks or less government oversight. They’re really looking to improve child education, better healthcare, fresh water, or reduce pollution. To achieve these goals, they need an advocate in Congress. But these groups often have little or no money to donate. What money they have, which often comes from membership dues, are used to fund their project or to keep their doors open. However, money is the life blood of politics and influence typically goes to the highest bidder.

For instance, did you know that the average incumbent in the House has to raise $2900 every day (including weekends)? A challenger for the House has to raise around $3300 a day. Meanwhile, a U.S. senator has to come up with $15,300 per day. 75% of the average elected official’s time goes to fundraising for themselves or their party.

 It’s not unusual that these groups, despite their ultraistic objectives, are ignored by elected officials while Big Business continues unabated with their ownership of not just Congress, but the legal system, presidency, and even the government bureaucracy.

 So, what about the media and their candidate endorsements? Practically all media outlets, newspapers, TV, radio, and so forth have a specific political agenda. In fact, 98+ of all media is owned by just five corporations. It’s natural then that their endorsements are in line with their owners political interests, which don’t always (or even usually) coincide with the interests of the public. 

On occasion, they may give a reluctant halfhearted endorsement of a candidate on the opposing side provided they support at some of their side’s agenda. Besides, it keeps up the illusion of impartiality. Nevertheless, should the media be making endorsements in the first place?

The role of the media should be to provide accurate and balanced news so that we can make informed decisions. That means the news media needs to be non-partisan in their reporting. At election time the media (particularly newspapers) like to make their endorsements and urge you---the voter---support their agenda, yet their agendas don't necessarily represent our best interest.

Therefore, it’s best for you to do own research, which is easily found on the internet There are a host of non-partisan and unbiased sites available online (I’ve provided some links below). Armed with this information, you need to vote your conscience. Don't vote to be "anti" anything. Forget about party. We don't need any more negativity in the world. Instead, make your vote count "for" something you truly believe in. 

P.S.: Our apologies for the odd format. That appears to be an error on Blogger, our site's platform.  

Congressspends more than half their time dialing for dollars.

An insidelook at Congressional fundraising

 

How MoneyShapes Pathways to Power in Congress

Open Secrets

Your Voter’sGuide

Ballotpedia

See What’sOn Your Ballot

 Decide Whoto Vote For

 

 

Reforming Kentucky's Broken Primary System

For Independents, open primaries has been seen as essential. Afterall, we're force to pay for partisan primaries through our taxes, and yet in Kentucky and 13 other states, we're prohibited from participating. Our Founding Fathers, who opposed the notion of political parties ("cliques" as they called them) would have referred to this as an example of taxation without representation.

Joining with Let Us Vote, a nationally Independent organization, we have a terrific opportunity to do something about being locked out of primaries in Kentucky (this also affects third parties as well). Join us on March 18th for a Zoom conference call as we explore ways to break through the door erected by the Status Quo to keep Kentuckians out and protect their usurped power.

We've been working hard over many years---decades---to reform Kentucky's election process. We have been successful in reforming the Louisville Metro Council to create a non-partisan ballot so we can focus on voting for the most qualified candidate. Not the best of the worst. Now, as we join with Let Us Vote, we will have the tools and resources to make it happen. Will you join with us? Together we can make a more fair election system for all Kentuckians!

To learn more and where to sign up, check out this link:  https://kentucky.letusvote.org

Thanks to all!

Paul Hosse for Independent Kentucky;

Editor/Publisher of the top ranked Independent Op/Ed blog, Another Opinion AnotherOpinionblog.com

How the American Voters Have Become Political Orphans

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

In fact, the division today may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent elections (such as in New York City and Virginia as well as events in places like Dearborn Michigan) have served only to highlight our division. What have we've become?

One ideal our nation was founded on was the belief in a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government out of our private lives. However, now there are those who believed that government should be our primary source of our social and economic salvation. While our Founders believed that one succeeds or fails by their own efforts, we have those who think that government and by extension, society, “owes” for them simply for existing.

There are those who believe in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal than others and should be given special consideration for some historical slight or another. Another group believe success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to impart the skills one needs to succeed in society.

Meanwhile, others believe in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. As a result, society has to become a mediocrity. Meritocracy, where people are hired based on their skill and compatibility, is proclaimed “unfair” or “racist”. Successful people somehow "owe" those less successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or thought that playing sports  was more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a job just in the name of diversity or equity instead of knowledge or ability.

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They believed in the right to petition their elected representatives meant the right to question them, and if necessary, to recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our private affairs. Individual privacy was essential as was freedom of speech, press, and association. With just five corporations controlling 96% of everything we watch, hear, or read, including the news, we no longer have those freedoms. We have a propaganda machine.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”. Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They truly believed in "America First". They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proven to them that their mistrust government was justified. They understood that power, once obtained, is seldom willingly given up. They also knew, long before Lord Acton famously said it, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupted absolutely.

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

Most of our Founders opposed the creation of political parties as “cliques” who would, in time, seized power from ordinary citizens and use it to push their own agenda. They would be horrified by the control Big Business has over government.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That makes them the largest political bloc in the country. That also means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are in fact minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering pushing their own agendas without public input or approval.

Our Founders also supported the concept of the “citizen legislator”, where a citizens would serve one or two terms in office and then return home and allow another citizen to do the same; a form of term limits. In this way, legislation would also stay relevant and reduce the chances of corruption.

What that absolutely disapproved of was notion of a “professional” politician, which was seen as little better than leach living off their fellow citizens. As an aside, these “citizen legislators” were only to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses and not given a salary. Serving in government was seen as the civil duty of each citizen.

Personally, I believe that once a newly elected politician raises their hand to take the oath of office, they automatically end any political allegiance. They aren’t there to represent the agenda of some political  party or corporate clique. They are there to solely represent the American People and those of their district. Nothing more and nothing less.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while We the People are left dealing with the mess and picking up the tab on something we had no say in.

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how one corporate clique wants more of our tax dollars. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule in politics today and not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you rarely see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws with loopholes so they can make more money while avoiding taxes (or better yet, passing those taxes on to us). They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms into cushy government appointments and back again. They are the corporate lobbyists and Beltway insiders.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources. Their goal is nothing less that control, be it of assets, market access, natural resources, and, of course, of us.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by national boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and proud citizens to mere global consumers “loyal” to one toilet paper brand, detergent or another product. If you carefully watch their programming, you’ll see just how interchangeable we're made to feel. We’ve become indentured economic serfs, hostages to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence.

They are the ultimate users and corruptors. We are artificially divided as every turn. We are pitted against each other in some way, be it work, entertainment, sports, and of course, gender, race, religion, and politics. As long as we’re divided, we aren’t focused on the real villains of our collective misery.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this manufactured divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Returning to our constitutional republican government will require more mere tweaking.

Many already recognize this. Given the dominance of Independent voters, it’s obvious that many are finally waking up. Some, however, may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Lady Liberty has been prostituted out by Wall Street. Our freedoms, once guaranteed, are being usurped and sold to the highest bidder.  Uncle Sam is on life support while his two incompetent physicians, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment for the disease they caused. Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice. 

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

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


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

 

American Politics: A Reality Check

It seems we see almost all the the time on social media. Some group or another is trying to sell us on the concept that America is on the fast track toward socialism, fascism, communism, or some other "ism". They usually produce a list of greatly distorted "facts", coupled with a picture of Hitler, Marx, or some other nefarious "villain" from the authoritarian pantheon of history.

In truth, that's not "facts" they're peddling.  If you bother to look who's behind these sponsored posts, you'll usually find that they're some group looking to build support for some issue, bill, or agenda, or sell a book, and not uncommonly, looking to part you from some of your money.

Of course, social media being what it is, people tend to simply accept what they see on the surface without doing much (or any) research and pass it on. Their objective is to use our first impression and what we want to believe (actual facts aside) and to be "click bait". We do their marketing for them.  We've been conditioned to associate certain images, phrases, and images with particular emotions. We see a hammer and sickle, we automatically think Stalin or gulags. We see a swastika, and it's Hitler and concentration camps.

Today's political marketers have learned to link their message to those images. If you're conservative, an image of Obama or Hillary will almost automatically trigger an image of Hitler or Stalin. If you're liberal, that same image may make you think of the "Second Coming". It's all about controlling the message and as psychologists will tell you, as humans tend to react best to images.  

Nowadays, we're being conditioned (just like Pavlov's dog) to react a certain way every time we see or hear the terms "socialism", Communism, Nazism, or Fascism. If you're someone who's inquisitive and not willing to accept things at face value (as I am), you want to know why. You want to know who is behind the piece and what they're trying to gain.  

Of course, that requires some thinking for yourself, which, sadly, isn't as common as it once was. The main reason, as I'm sure you know,  is that education has repeatedly been dumbed down. Students are no longer taught critical thinking skills. Instead, they are taught to memorize what's presented to them and then to regurgitate it back in the form of a "standardized" test. It's no wonder students "graduate" from high school functionally two or three grades below where they should be!

It's not unusual for students with a high school diploma to be reading at a 10th grade level. Their math skills aren't much better. When it comes to their knowledge of history, civics, the sciences, or literature, it's pathetic  Surveys have repeatedly shown that the United States performs toward the bottom among industrialized nations when it comes to reading, math, and science. 

The world academic benchmark, set by the Programme for International Student Assessment (or PISA), ranks 30 of the 64 other industrial nations ahead of the U.S. academically, and this wasn't a one off. It's consistent.  "Why?" you might ask yourself.  Given the amount of money we spend on education and teachers, we shouldn't be ranked alongside second tier countries, and you would be right. 

In my opinion, it's because an ignorant populace is a populace easily led. We've often heard the old maxim that employers want employees just smart enough to the job but not smart enough to question their bosses. Well, imagine that from a political perspective--- creating voters just smart enough to follow along but not smart enough to question their leaders. 

People are usually so preoccupied just trying to get by in their increasingly chaotic "life" , they have no time or interest in researching what's actually happening (even if they knew where to look), not to mention confused, frustrated, or angry by the constant partisan bickering and crisis "de jure". 

Most just want to turn on some mindless "reality" show or watch a mediocre sitcom with its canned laughter track. Sadly, most individuals so brain numb from merely surviving the daily grind they fail to recognize all the subtle and not so subtle political and social messaging in the shows and commercials aimed directly at them. It's called "programming" for a reason you know.

America, as almost everyone knows, is no longer the "America" of their youth. It's changed, and not for the better. Corporations literally own both political parties and their politicians. While both operate behind a self-constructed image that they are the one and only "true" protectors of all that's good and righteous, they serve their corporate masters at our expense. 

In case you haven't noticed, the mindset in Washington, as well as in state capitals and city halls has changed. They no longer see themselves as our employees "hired" to represent our interests. They view themselves as our superiors; ours "betters". They represent themselves and their friends (who are their "friends"? We'll get to that shortly), but it will suffice to say that at this point, the relationship between (s)elected officials and us is akin to that of master and a serf with us playing the latter role. 

Their lobbyists openly write the legislation and shepherd it through committee after committee, until it finally becomes law. The only conflict, which is hidden behind partisan banners, is between competing corporate interests. These corporations fund their campaigns. Their fill the coffers of their so-called "leadership" PACs., create front groups to funnel money through, and underwrite hit pieces on their opponents. 

Corporations don't see nations. They see economic zones with governments serving as their managers. It doesn't matter if they wear blue ties or red ones as long as they do as they're told. They dictate domestic and foreign policy, which includes the use of the military to force open access to markets or gain control over resources and assets. Control is, after all, the name of the game. 

Corporations are not democracies, nor are they intended to be democracies. They are, by their very nature, a type of dictatorship. The workers don't get to vote on what they want to do, how much they get paid, or time off. You do the job or you either quit or get fired. Unions give you---the worker---a little more say in your job, but ultimately, it's do as you're told or leave.

The founder of modern Fascism, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, described "Fascism" as a integration between government and big business; a hand-in-glove relationship (hand in mailed fist might be a better analogy). Fascism borrows from both the Left and Right, depending on a country's history, traditions, laws, and values.

This is why Italian Fascism was different from that of Hungary or Romania, which were different from the fascism of Germany (yes, Nazism is a form of fascism), which in turn differed from that of Spain or Argentina (or later, in various post-WWII South American, Asian, and Middle Eastern governments which we installed after overthrowing their elected governments). Remember, it's about control. 

Fascism can have a centralized leadership, as it did in Germany for instance, or it can have a broader committee style leadership as Italy or Spain did.  Under Communism, there is literally no private anything---homes, businesses, banks, energy; nothing.  The state controls all. Under 'socialism" (which, by the way, has never actually existed), the workers or public own the means of production and distribution. 

Under Fascism, private ownership exists despite social media posts to the contrary. However, wages are regulated. Unions are either eliminated, nationalized, or effectively assimilated by the company as they are now. The social safety net, interestingly, is often typically enhanced. The government may outsource functions it once handled, including social services, to some anonymous corporation which doesn't always have to follow the same rules. The police become militarized. There is also the deployment of a massive national surveillance system, which provides the framework for a eventual police state. 

Additionally, the government/corporate partnership seek to weaken the opposition. They do this by acquiring control of the media and fomenting distention. They use the media to introduce "acceptable" behavior or thought while vilifying others. This includes political parties, ideologies, and social movements or individuals they perceive as dangerous. They also infiltrate various groups and work to either weaken or destroy them. 

Along the same lines, they pit groups against each other through manufactured events. Using the media, they invent or play up stories to increase hostilities and suspension. The idea is to create a volatile social situation or crisis whereby the public will, at some point, demand martial law to restore order, which, naturally, they will be more than happy to do. 

With Communism, private ownership of guns aren't permitted except by special permission. Under Fascism, there is a tendency to restrict gun ownership (unless elimination is possible) such as through mandatory registration and restricting the type of guns an individual can own. Despite the urban myth to the contrary, the Nazis didn't strip guns from the population. In fact, it was the opposite.

The majority socialist Weimar government of Post-WWII Germany, with pressure from the powerful Communist faction, greatly curtailed the private ownership of guns after the "Great War". The Nazis, however, restored private ownership of guns to most Germans with the exception of criminals, Jews, Gypsies, and those deemed as "politically unreliable" such as Communists, anarchists, socialists, and pro-democracy individuals.

While I'm at it, let's dispel another popular myth. Fascism was never anti-Bible, anti-Christian or even anti-religion. In fact, they saw organized religion as another useful tool to  to control the population. The Nazis tried introducing something called they called "Positive Christianity" which purged or downplayed all Jewish references in the Bible. They even invented a "Aryan" Jesus complete with blonde hair and blue eyes. Nevertheless, it tended to meet with limited success by ordinary Germans.

The Nazis did, however, prohibit religions like Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers, Pentecostals because of their "anti-state" and/or pacifist beliefs. However, the average German continued on as before, with some being Protestant (mainly Lutheran) and others Catholic.  Even the belt buckle of German soldiers had the motto "Gott Mit Uns" (God is With Us) on it.  Communism, on the other hand, is officially atheist while democratic socialism is religion is considered a matter of personal choice. 

Since the 1930's, the United States has flirted with a limited form of "socialism" such as limited  regulation of businesses and a taxpayer sponsored public safety net like social security, unemployment, women's right to vote or own property, a safe work environment, the right to organize and strike, and imposing child labor laws, a standardized 40 hour work week. Although we take these for granted, all of these were actually once considered "socialist" by business leaders who aggressively campaigned against them.   

Since the 1950's, union membership has declined from 35% of the overall workforce in 1954 to 10% in 2024 as many of issues unions campaigned for became federal law and more states (especially in the South) adopted "Right to Work" laws as 25% of  Americans households live paycheck to paycheck (that figure is 29% for low income families) and 31% have no savings set aside for emergencies.44% can't cover a $1000 emergency. The two groups most affected were Millennials and GenZ at 34% each.  Employers  cut or eliminated benefits due to either rising costs or to improve profits margins while good paying jobs were sent overseas. As an aside, did you know that the United States is the only industrial nation without a dedicated Labor Party? 

We all know our Republic is all but a shell of its former self; an illusion. Most academics agree that we've become a Corporatocracy (a neo-fascist blending of state and big business), led by an elite group of very wealthy individuals and corporations. Some call them an oligarchy while others refer to them as a kleptocracy or plutocracy.  To the 99% on the bottom, it's all semantics. The top 10% control about 67% of household wealth in the United States. The top 1% of that control roughly 30%. 

The real question is what do you see? The strong vibrant America of your youth or an America becoming controlled more and more by an all powerful centralized state as it acquires private property and all manner of businesses, including banks, brokerages firms, the media, oil companies, and the collapse of Wall Street? If so, that could be Communism.

If you see an increase in government regulation or nationalization of key strategic businesses, an expanding social safety net, growing unions, worker co-ops, and more public input, then maybe you're seeing democratic socialism.

Perhaps you see a growing unregulated corporate control over government; a revolving door between government officials and big business; distrust of the media, faith in elections; a weakening public impact on government, and the growth of a surveillance state, that could be neo Fascist Corporatocracy. As for me, I see an America in serious trouble and in desperate need of patriots.

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

 . 

As Union membership has fallen, the top 10% have beengetting a larger share of income

Labor Unions in the United States

Corporatocracy

Wealth inequality in the United States

Bankrate's 2025 Annual Emergency Savings Report

Nearly a quarter of U.S. households live paycheck to paycheck, report finds

Are Service Members Justified to Ignore "Illegal Orders"?

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) is the kind of guy most people would admire. He served in the military. He was a fighter pilot as well as a test pilot, and he was an astronaut. That in itself is pretty impressive, but Mark took it a step further when he decided to run for the U.S. Senate (reputed to be the world’s most exclusive club).

However, Mark became severely infected with a potentially lethal disease which affects almost everyone who goes to Washington despite their best intentions. That disease isn’t anything like COVID, TB, or cancer, which can, at least, be treated. No, instead this disease is worse in that it impairs one’s ability to think clearly and rationally. That disease is commonly known “partisanship”.

Normally, most people run for political office with the best of intentions. They or someone they’ve known, had experienced some form of perceived injustice.  Of course, this “injustice” isn’t on the same order as what affects most us (typically more hoops to jump, gas prices, or another tax hike), which certainly distances their concerns from the average voter they allegedly represent.

However, the way the system is set up, it quickly purges itself from anyone who hopes to reform the system or actually serve the voters.  It’s not that the system is broken or anything. Quite the contrary, it functions exactly as intended, which us to represent those with very deep pocket while giving lip service to the masses.

 Congress is, after all, for millionaires despite their annual salary of $174,000 plus bonuses depending on committee assignments and/or positions which can substantially increase their official income. As a rule, if you’re not a millionaire going in (which is rare), you will be coming out. For instance, let’s take a look at Senator Kelly’s income since this article is about him.

Senator Kelly’s net worth is estimated to be around $20.4 million dollars. His biggest donors come from education sector (including the University of Arizona and Arizona State University), Amazon, healthcare, the legal industry, financial services and business consulting (ExxonMobil is a substantial donor). Lastly, the Democratic Party as well as some liberal leaning groups, were also some rather substantial contributors.  He (naturally) has his own leadership PAC called “Liftoff PAC” which, between 2019 and of the end of 2024, had raised about $96,670,347 (as of the end of 2024, it still had around $4.4 million on hand).  

Senator Kelly also serves on some powerful and influential committees such as Energy and Natural Resources (think oil, gas, and coal) as will as Environment and Public Works. However, perhaps the most powerful committee he sits on is the Armed Services Committee which deals with national defense and the military. It is this committee which we are most concerned with given what Senator Kelly said, but before we do that, it’s important to briefly look at his background in order to grasp the gravity of his remarks.

Senator Mark Kelly  was born in 1961 in Orange City, New Jersey. His parents, Richard and Patricia, are both retired police officers. He has a twin brother by the name of Scott. Mark graduated from Mountain High School in 1982. In 1986, he graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy with the highest honors in the areas of marine engineering and nautical science. In 1994, he obtained a Master of Science degree in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.  

From 1987 through 2011, Mark served as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Navy and served on the aircraft carrier, USS Midway. During Operation Desert Storm, he flew 39 combat missions over Iraq. After the war, Kelly then attended the U.S. Navy Test Pilot School where he logged in over 5000 flight hours in more than 50 different types of aircraft and performed 375 carrier based landings. He ultimately rose to the rank of Captain.

Then form 1996 through 2011, Kelly joined NASA as an astronaut (along with his brother, Scott). He served as pilot on the “Endeavor” in 2001 and spent 117 days with his crew onboard the International Space Station. In 2006 he piloted the Shuttle “Discovery” , which he was to command in 2008 and again in 2011.

After retiring from NASA in 2011, Kelly went to work as a consultant in the Aerospace Industry, serving mainly as a consultant and strategic advisor. He was also a co-founder of “World View”, which developed high altitude balloons. The Chinese company Tencent was one of their largest investors. He was also an advisor for Space X, founded by Elon Musk.

Meanwhile, from 2011 through 2016, Mark Kelly became a paid speaker in the U.S. and China, speaking on behalf of Shaklee, a nutritional supplement manufacturer and distributor. He also spoke at Goldman Sachs, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and AmerisourceBergen, a drug manufacturer.  

 Beginning in 2013, Kelly began testing the political waters be getting involved with various groups looking to curtail gun violence (his wife, former Congresswoman Gabby Gifford, had been the victim of gun violence). Kelly is a strong advocate of stricter background checks and efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Finally, in 2020 Mark Kelly ran for the seat formerly held by ex-Navy pilot, Senator John McCain in a special election and won. He publicly refused corporate PAC money but did accept money from corporate executives and lobbyists. He was reelected in 2022.

Given Senator Kelly’s remarkable career, it’s puzzling why he and five other elected Democrat officials (four of whom were former military) made a video in November 2025 urging military service members to disobey what they termed, “illegal orders” by the Commander-in-Chief, who in this case happens to be President Donald Trump. This is the stuff mutinies are made of. 

In addition to Senator Kelly, the video included Representatives Jason Crow (D-CO), who was a former U.S. Army Ranger, Chris Deluzio (D-PA) and former Naval officer, Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), a former U.S. Navy reservist, Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), a former Air Force officer, and Senator Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and the individual responsible for releasing the video. 

The U.S. Department of Defense issued a statement on November 24^th that the matter would be investigated for “serious allegations of misconduct” and possible violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (commonly known as the “UCMJ”), which covers the conduct all active and retired members of the military. Accordingly, Kelly and the other four Democrats who had previously served in the military could be recalled to face serious disciplinary action up to and including court martial. Any disciplinary action against Senator Slotkin would likely come from Justice Department at the behest of the CIA. 

 President Trump responded on social media by saying that those individuals who made the video (including Kelly) should be charged with sedition and “hanged”, which seems rather extreme. It should be noted that Kelly voted in February 2021 for Trump to be convicted of inciting an insurrection in his second impeachment trial. Kelly has also been a vocal critic of Trump and his policies.  Obviously, there’s no love lost on either side.

As someone who served in the military (U.S. Navy), I am quite familiar with the UCMJ and consequences of disobeying a direct order from a senior officer (I served on command staff). The military functions on order, discipline, and that include following the chain of command and carrying out your orders. The military is not a democracy or union .You don't get to pick and chose which orders to follow or not. 

As I was repeatedly reminded throughout my time in the military that you are to carry out the orders of your superiors to the best of your ability. It isn’t your job or responsibility to question an order. If you have an objection or question, you are free to bring it to the attention of your ranking officer in your chain of command, but only after having followed through with the order.

For someone of the caliber of Mark Kelly, a U.S. Senator, former military officer and Navy fighter pilot, and astronaut, to tell service members to disobey or ignore any order they believe to be “illegal” is to jeopardize the command structure and possibly imperil others as well as put the mission at risk. The average soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine, doesn’t know all the reasons or wherefores of a particular order. They know only what is needed to accomplish a job and nothing more.

At the very minimum, Senator Kelly’s remarks, as well as that of the other five Democrats in the video, were unwarranted and potentially harmful. If they had made those same remarks during a time of war, the consequences could be far more serious. As it is, it’s possible these individuals could be receive an official reprimand, which would tarnish an otherwise stellar record in Kelly’s case. That seems, at least to me, to be rather extreme and ill-advised on his part just over partisan politics and the irrationality it causes or his personal distain for the Commander-in-Chief.  

 

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

 

OpenSecrets: Mark Kelly

Mark Kelly

Gabby Giffords

Senator Mark Kelly

Video: Kelly: Illegal Orders

Video: FBI seeks interviews of 6 Democrats as “illegalorders” warning video sparks firestorms

Black Friday and Cyber Monday: The Two High Holidays of the Retail World

 

Well, here it is again, Black Friday and Cyber Monday, the two high holidays of the Retail World. Thanksgiving, usual, got short thrift once again this year, stuck as it is between the "Candyween" and "Chargemas"(more accurate names for Halloween and Christmas respectively). I guess you can't really blame anyone.

 After all, it's pretty tough trying to commercialize a tradition of giving thanks for family and friends. Where's the money in that outside of inflated gas prices and plane tickets? Besides, Thanksgiving is mostly a family oriented day, punctuated with excessive eating and football, followed by food induced comas (nothing says "thank you" to the All Mighty like overindulgence and a seven point spread).

I guess what I object to the most is all the pre-Halloween Christmas hype. This year I saw my very first commercial (I kid you not) the week before Halloween! Seriously, Christmas commercials in October? I recall going into a popular local drug store in early September and seeing Halloween items on one side of the aisle and Christmas stuff on the other side! It's not uncommon to see Valentine Day items on sale in January and at the same time seeing St. Patrick's Day stuff. 

I realize that Christmas sales typically account for around 20% of all yearly retail business. In fact, the National Retail Federation, which represents retailers, are expecting sales to exceed $1 trillion dollars this year, but shouldn't there be a law or something prohibiting any promotion of a holiday before the preceding holiday? As an aside, did you know that Halloween is the second largest retail day behind Christmas? After counting candy, costumes, declarations, and so forth, Halloween brings in $13.1 billion dollars with the average consumer spending roughly $144.00 each.  

For example, no advertising of Thanksgiving (as if that's going to happen anyway) before Halloween. No Christmas commercials, TV specials, sales or anything else until the day after Thanksgiving. Now doesn't that make more sense? Let's give each holiday its proper due and respect (not to mention our frantic nerves and credit cards a break).

Speaking of Christmas, did you know that when Obama was president, he had agreed to sign a law applying a 15 cent tax to every fresh cut Christmas tree sold? As if that wasn't outrageous enough, the reason was even more outrageous. According to the Agriculture Department, the tax would apply to all "producers and importers" of 500 trees or more. The USDA went on to say that this tax was for the benefit of the Christmas Tree Promotion Board. Now just what is the Christmas Tree Promotion Board you might be asking yourself about now? Well, let me tell you.

The Christmas Tree Promotion Board is a private association of Christmas tree growers who are feeling the stiff competition from the manufactures of artificial Christmas trees (I wonder if there's an Artificial Christmas Tree Promotion Board?). Seems that the board was needing some help getting its message out about the splendors (and smells) of having a fresh Christmas tree in every living room in America. Apparently unable to obtain voluntary cooperation from within the group, they turned to the Washington and the USDA.

Fortunately, after much ridicule, the Obama Administration and the Agriculture Department agreed that  talk about taxing a Christmas tradition just wasn't politically in the spirit of the season and decided to withdraw the tax until a more appropriate time (like when the public was distracted by another holiday). Nevertheless, just why the federal government even considered a tax on behalf of a private organization for the benefit of their advertising and PR costs?

Well, the truth is that costs incurred by private corporations are routinely passed on to taxpayers. This is part and parcel for the Washington and Wall Street partnership (commonly referred to as the "corporatocracy"), which we see in the form of subsidies, built-in loopholes in legislation, exemptions, bailouts, low interests loans, and so-called "external costs". 

Collectively these are known as "corporate welfare" or "corporate socialism". Under President Biden, corporate welfare amounted to some $540 billion dollars of our money. Of course, the smaller "mom and pop" businesses are typically excluded from these forms of involuntary taxpayer subsidies.  

The bottom line here is this. Wouldn't it be nice to have the opportunity to relax and enjoy one holiday at a time rather than constantly being prompted into constantly thinking about the next one right around the corner? Of course, the message of the season has long sense been drowned out by the sound of cash registers ringing up another sale and credit cards being swiped. Besides, "peace on earth" just isn't profitable  enough is it?  

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

White House Sidelines Christmas Tree Tax

NRF expects holiday sales to surpass 1 trillion for the first time in 2025

Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget

Special Interests and Corporate Welfare