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?

 

Is Civil War on the Horizon?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


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

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment: Surprising Facts You Didn't Know

 Everybody knows at least the basics of what Abraham Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was about. Once upon a time (before the dumbing down of public education), students everyone in the U.S. had to memorize at least a portion of it. In some schools, all of it, along with the Preamble of the Constitution. and the Gettysburg Address. It was part of the Civics program which went hand-in-hand with our history classes (which have also largely gone by the wayside).

Of course, if you know anything about the proclamation then you should be familiar with the 14th Amendment which was passed by Congress in 1868. Well, I'm going to provide you with some interesting and often overlooked facts about both which you probably didn't know.  I suspect that it may come as a shock for some of you. So, let's start with Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation first.  

Contrary to popular belief, slavery was not the primary or sole reason for the start of the Civil War. However, it was seen as an important issue especially among certain groups, including Quakers, abolitionists, and some evangelical groups. One of the more famous abolitionist was, of course, John Brown, who attempted to spark something of a revolt with his ill-fated raid on a arms depot at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859.

The question of slavery was a serious issue even before the Civil War with a majority of the states wanting to put an end to it, while the South refused, citing its dependence on the use of slaves. During our revolution for independence from the British, it was commonly accepted that without the support of the South the war would be lost (and indeed, the war was ultimately decided in the South), Therefore, the Northern representatives were left with no choice but to except the hated institution...for now.

Shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. the importation of slaves into the U.S. was signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807 (becoming enforced in 1808) again caused a major riff between the industrialized Northern states and the largely agricultural Southern states. The riff came to a head  by the early 1800's and the United States came very close to ceasing to be.

However, a solution was reached in 1850 known as the "Great Compromise"  dealing with the admission of slave states into the union. It was engineered by Senator John C. Calhoun (D-SC),Senator Henry Clay (Whig-KY), and Senator Daniel Webster (Federalist-MA). Sadly, the "Great Compromise" is often overlooked in most history classes, and while it didn't "save" the nation as such, it did prolong the bloodiest war in U.S. history.

The issue of abolition was an important factor leading up the Civil War, thanks to individuals like Brown, Fredrick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and John Quincy Adams, it was never the central cause despite what we're taught in our watered down and often distorted history classes in high school (or sometimes, even in college; all of which are intended to fit into a particular political agenda).

The key issues were more about economics and admission of free vs. slave (these are where slavery comes in), tariffs, and ultimately, the supremacy of the Federal government. This was more than interpretation of the Constitution's 10th Amendment. ("...the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"), it was whether the states or the Federal government would be dominant.

Many Northern senators believed that the Federal government held all power not expressly assigned to the states as mentioned in the Constitution.  Most Southern senators said that the states held all governing powers not expressly given to the Federal government. That issue wouldn't be resolved until the final outcome of the Civil War.

Personally, based on my read of statement in question, and knowing how the Founding Fathers loathed a strong Federal government (and government in general), I tend to side with the South on their interpretation of the amendment, but that's just me. It should be noted that the descendants of most of the Founding Fathers also agreed with the South's position. So, what did Abraham Lincoln think about slavery as an issue and how did this affect his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863?

While campaigning for the presidency, Lincoln repeatedly said that he had no intention of trying to end  or interfere with slavery as an institution. That may come as a surprise to many people, especially those who've been taught to see Lincoln as a second coming of Moses, however, that wasn't the case, at least in the beginning. 

Even after winning the election, Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address to the nation on March 3, 1861 that the Federal government "held no authority to interfere with the institution of slavery where it already exists". He went on to say that, as president, he wouldn't seek to interfere with any state's right to govern the institution.

That doesn't mean that Lincoln agreed with slavery as an institution ("I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong"). His first and primary goal was the preservation of the union. Secondly, he wanted to restrict (if not outright ban) the entry of pro- slave territories into the union as new states. Nevertheless, despite his best efforts, he failed. before he even had begun. The first state to secede was South Carolina in November 1860 following Lincoln's election. Other states soon followed until there were 11 in total, forming the Confederate States of America (CSA).

While all of the states were slaveholding, four states that held slaves didn't secede ---Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, and Missouri (in anticipation of their leaving, Kentucky and Missouri were given stars on the Confederate flag). As an aside, did you know that several Native American tribes sided with the Confederacy? In 1861 the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole, Muscogee (Creek) all signed agreements of support in exchange of being guaranteed title to territories west of the Mississippi River.

 The War between the States began (officially) on April 12, 1861 with the assault on Ft. Sumter in Charleston Harbor (with South Carolina having seceded in 1860, the fort was viewed as foreign occupiers on their territory). The war was naively expected by both sides to be over in a matter of weeks. Bull Run, Shiloh, and Antietam soon removed the nation from that illusion.

By the time of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, the war had gone worse than expected by the North. Unless something dramatic was done to strategically shift the balance of power, the best outcome that could be expected was a draw.  

As in nearly every conflict down through history, the ability to successfully wage war rests on the economy's ability to sustain the effort. The South's ability to wage war rested on its agriculture. According to the last census before the war in 1860, there were approximately 4 million slaves in the South, making up roughly 30% of its population (compare that to the West Indies where about 85% of the entire population were enslaved).

It should be pointed out that only a few landowning families--mostly large plantations--- owned any slaves. The overwhelming majority of Southerners were too poor to own any slaves at all.  Nevertheless, if, somehow, the South's economy could be disrupted, Lincoln thought, then perhaps the war could be brought to a close.

At this point in late 1862, Lincoln had to accept that despite his promises not to interfere with the institution of slavery, the country was at war with itself,  men were dying daily (the average was 504 per day), and the abolitionists hadn't gone away. If anything, they had grown in number and become a powerful political force. It was time for Lincoln to play his trump card.

On January 1, 1863 Lincoln delivered the "Emancipation Proclamation". It's often overlooked by nearly everybody that the proclamation didn't end slavery in America as claimed. The proclamation freed those enslave only in the states which had seceded from the union and were now a part of the Confederacy ("...that all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward are free").  But what about the slaveholding states which remained part of the union?

It meant that those slaveholding states which didn't secede, regardless of their sentiment, were excluded from the proclamation. Thus slavery continued in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and Missouri until the end of the war (the tribes which sided with the South were unaffected. Native American tribes long held slaves of all races  before, during, and after the war).

The second interesting observation is that despite Lincoln's decree, those states which had legally (at the time) left the union, were now part of a independent and separate nation known as the Confederate States of America with its own president (Jefferson Davis), its own Congress and Constitution, its own legal system and currency. and so forth.

That meant that President Lincoln was attempting to impose a unlawful degree on an defacto independent nation! It would be like a President issuing a decree to Canada or Mexico! The decree therefore had no legal standing, and no doubt Lincoln knew it. But if it could hamper the South's war efforts, it was worth the bluff. and it worked

At first slowly, then in droves as word spread, slaves began to abandon their fields and head north or to the western territories. Even though slavery comprised a small percentage of its population, the effect was cataclysmic for the South. With crops being left to rot in the field and the economy now in turmoil, soldiers began deserting to harvest the crops in order to prevent their families from starving. 

This left the South's military further undermanned. In addition there was diminishing food and supplies reaching  Confederate troops, whose supply lines were overstretched already. It give the North the edge it needed.  By 1865 the war was over and the South lay in ruins. It would be decades before it would recover. In some ways it never has. 

Following the war, the 14th Amendment essentially codified Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation",  along with the 13th which formally abolished slavery as an institution, was passed in 1868.  thus ensuring all those previously held as slaves were now fully U.S. citizens with all the rights which go along with it. The 15th amendment, passed in 1869, provided for the right to vote (it, however, excluded all Native Americans).  The trio of amendments prevented (at least on paper) any states from denying equal rights to all those held in slavery. 

The 14th also forbid any former member of the U.S. government who participated with the "rebellion" from public office and denied any and all compensation incurred by the Confederate government, including loans or contracts (as well as slaveholders, meaning they wouldn't be compensated for the loss of their slaves).

As an aside, Confederate soldiers were eventually allowed compensation for service connected injuries and pensions for Confederate widows as early as 1867 by the state whom they served. The Federal government expanded existing military benefits in two Congressional Acts to cover Confederate soldiers and their widows. One in 1927 and the other in 1957, long after many were dead. 

It should be pointed out that 28 of the existing 37 states were needed to ratified the amendment in order for it become law (which they received), but did you know that despite the passage of the 14th Amendment by Congress in 1868, several states didn't ratify it until later (in some cases, much later)? While most states ratified the law in 1868, several notable states held out. The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified by Texas or Mississippi until two years later, in 1870. 

Three of the slaveholding border states which didn't secede  decided to take their sweet time about it.   Delaware ratified it in 1901. Maryland got around to it in 1959 (as did California which had become a state in 1850).  But the "winner" was Kentucky. It waited until March 18, 1976, nearly 108 years later! The fourth slaveholding  border state, Missouri, was the 17th state to ratify the amendment in 1868 along with West Virginia, another slaveholding border state.

Lastly, I think it's important to point out that while the 14th Amendment provided equal rights and protection under the law to all former slaves as well as children born of foreign parents (legal or illegal), Native Americans weren't granted the same rights until 1924. That's 56 years after the passage of the 14th Amendment. 187 years after America's independence.

The  "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924", or the "Snyder Law" as it became known, was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge (R) on June 2, 1924. It finally gave equal rights and protection under the law to all Native and Alaskan Americans. A sad commentary on "land of the free and home of the brave" don't you think? Never assume your freedoms are necessarily guaranteed or protected by anyone.

 

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 beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

National Archives: Emancipation Proclamation

 

The Roles of State and Federal Government

 

Kentucky's Abraham Lincoln

 

14th Amendment: Citizenship Rights, Equal Protection,Apportionment, and Civil War Debt

 

Ratification of Constitutional Amendments

 

There were 4 million enslaved people counted in the 1860census...

 

What Is the Snyder Act of 1921 and who does it apply to?

 

 

 

 

 

Let Them Eat Cake! The Decline of the American Voter

We're all familiar with the phrase "let them eat cake". Legend has it that French Queen Marie Antoinette was said to have uttered as she looked out over her balcony at Versailles Palace and watched the revolution unfold.  Of course, historians debate to this day whether or not she actually said those words or something similar.

But, nevertheless, what has never been in doubt was her attitude toward the masses (along with the rest of the ruling elite), nor its outcome, the loss of her head along with that of her husband, King Louis XVI and hundreds of exceedingly wealthy aristocrats.

By the time the "Reign of Terror" was over,  almost four hundred thousand were dead, exiled, or imprisoned. Some were part of the upper crust, including members of the clergy. However, many hundreds of others were simply caught up on the wrong side of "Monsieur Guillotine".  

The French Revolution represented a seismic shift in French society, born out of many of the same ideals which prompted our own revolution just a few years before such as the notion equality under a common law, taxation with representation and, of course, the impact of the Enlightenment.

The America which came out of our little "dust up" with Great Britain in 1783 was intended to be a democratic Republic based on a written Constitution and  backed by a Bill of Rights. It replaced the Articles of Confederation which was seen as to weak. It served as the first constitution from 1781 until 1789.

France adopted their constitution in 1791, which created a constitutional monarchy. In 1789, France ratified the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which served as its national Bill of Rights and served as the preamble to their constitution. Nevertheless, the damage was done and a dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte, waited in the wings for his moment to arrive.

As an aside,  while the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, it wasn't the oldest constitution. That honor belongs to San Marino, a tiny country in northwestern Italy. Their constitution was ratified in 1600. Poland's constitution was ratified shortly after ours in 1791. England had the first Bill of Right, which was signed into law in 1689 following the "Glorious Revolution" which ousted King James II. Ours was adopted in 1791. 

America  also differed from other nations in that its creation was organic, meaning that instead of evolving into a nation over time, as other countries had, America, like the mythical Athena who was born fully formed from the brow of Zeus, burst into existence as a wholly formed nation based on the lessons gleaned from ancient Greece and Rome, the indigenous Algonquin Federation, and the ideals of the Enlightenment. 

Today, America is no longer a democratic Republic. It's a neo-fascist Corporatocracy under the leadership of a handful of mega rich Oligarchs. Congress no longer represents the average citizen. It serves the needs of Wall Street. What the average citizen want or need is of little interest to Congress. Academic research has shown that ordinary citizens have virtually zero impact on issues as far as Congress is concerned while the elites have significant input on issues they regard as important.

 Corporate money openly fund both political parties and their candidates. They sponsor getaways, hold fundraisers which regularly raise millions of dollars.  Corporate lobbyists routinely write or help write legislation while federal contracts worth billions are awarded with alarming regularity. The government is no longer our own.

The media is controlled by just five corporations. Worse, they've come to operate more as propaganda machines whose aim is to frustrate, confuse, and manipulate the masses. They distract us from the real issues with manufactured news and mindless entertainment. Once upon a time, the media was seen as the purveyors of truth. Today the media has become the profaners of truth. 

So, what do you suppose our "overseers" think of us (not that it really matters)? According to a recent Scott Rasmussen survey conducted (ironically) on behalf of the "Committee to Unleash Prosperity", a conservative " economic supply-side" think tank with close ties to a number of libertarian leaning organizations as well as the Koch Brothers, Steve Forbes, Arthur Laffer, and Steve Moore,  the ruling elites don't think much of us.

The report starts out be defining who the "elites" and "super elites" are based on their incomes, zip code, and academics. It should be pointed out that the report erroneously classifies the "elite" as those making over $150,000 annually, having at least one post-graduate degree from a leading college like Columbia or Harvard, and living in a zip code where the population density exceeds 10,000 per square mile.

A majority of other studies identify "elites" as those with income levels of at least $600,000 and a net worth of $10 million or more (compare that to a median U.S. household income of $55,000 and a net worth of about $70,000).  Those in the top 5% tend to have annual incomes of $335,000, while the top 1% pull down around $820,000 a year and those at the apex---the 0.1%---bring in over $3 million annually.

Nevertheless, according to the Scott Rasmussen survey, the elites  or top 10% are seeing their earnings grow. They are also happy with the performance of economy and Biden. Meanwhile, roughly 40% of average Americans report that they are financially struggling. An article by Business Insider takes it further by saying that by mid-2024, 99% of Americans will be financially worse off than they were pre-Covid.-19.

The article, written in conjunction with JP Morgan, added that most Americans have already gone through most of their savings.  22% of Americans don't have enough money for emergencies.  43% couldn't cover an emergency over $1000. Bloomberg backed that up by pointing out that as of November 2023, 80% of Americans were already worse off than they were pre-Covid-19.

The article pointed out that only the top 20% were doing well financially. It should be mentioned that according to a October 2023 Harris Poll, 65% of Americans acknowledged living paycheck to paycheck. 35% regularly have more month than money!

The Rasmussen report goes on to point out that 77% of the top 10% and 89% of the top 1% believe that there should be "strict rationing of meat, gas, and electricity" for the average American family.  Approximately 81% would ban the use of gas power cars, forcing the "masses" to use battery powered vehicles, but that's not all. 55% of the top 10% "elites" and 70% of the "super elites" would restrict non-essential travel for average Americans. I guess that keeps them from having to rub elbows with the "unwashed masses" at all the resorts.

When it came to politics, it shouldn't come as a surprise that to learn that over half of the elites believe that government affords average Americans "too much freedom". Their solution? Some surveys suggest increased usage of surveillance cameras, increased use of facial recognition software, improved tracking devices on cell phones and cars,

Many favor tighter internet access such as limiting search engines, greater restrictions on gun/ammo ownership, further restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, and of course, closer "cooperation" between Big Business and government (which is the definition of fascism). Although often overlooked, we can't forget eliminating the use of cash in favor of electronic accounting.

Perhaps we'll soon see a day where government will electronically take out its estimated taxes and fees before you ever received your electronic paycheck. Utility and credit card companies will require payments be automatically deducted along with your rent or house payments and insurance. What's left (if anything) is what you'll use to buy groceries, clothes and whatever...all electronically so it can be tracked, recorded, and anticipated.

Your medical, financial, and employment history will all be collected and stored in a "super cloud". Businesses will know your medical and credit history before deciding to hire, promote, or retain you. Even your school grades will be recorded, along with what clubs you belonged to. No doubt your aptitude scores will be kept with your actual or estimated IQ score, Myers Briggs profile, or Enneagram.  

Every late payment, work infraction, and traffic ticket will be linked to your "national security data"  on the super cloud, which will monitor the sites you visit, the books or magazines you read, comments you made online, and even your buying preferences.  

These are just a few of the ways your freedoms can curtailed with you barely noticing if the elites have their way. Scary isn't it?  Yet the technology is already there, and in many instances, already being employed. Welcome to the machine.

We also need to bear in mind that the top 1% ---or about 735 billionaires--- have more money than the entire bottom half of American households. That's about $43.45 trillion dollars. According to a 2021 Credit Suisse report, the top 1% globally controlled nearly half of all the wealth on the planet or roughly 46% while one in ten individuals globally get by on just $2 dollars a day.

As for Congress, its job is to represent the American People, and yet numerous surveys show that Congress regularly vote in favor of what various organized special interest groups and the wealthiest top 10% want while the interests of the remaining 90% are typically ignored. Surprised? You shouldn't be.

The majority of Congress---50%---are millionaires (compared to only 5% of Americans in general). Even those who aren't millionaires when they enter Congress, nearly all are by the time they leave despite a annual salary of just $174,000. Both political parties are heavily funded by Big Business. 

Political campaigns, "leadership" PACs, "educational" junkets, and so forth receive nearly unlimited funding by Big Business thanks to the Supreme Court's 2010 "Citizens United" blunder; a decision which gave corporations nearly unlimited financial influence over government.

In 2022, both parties received a combined $8.9 billion dollars from Wall Street for midterm congressional races. About 45% went to Democrats while 55% went to Republicans (the National Association of Realtors was the largest donor at $36. 4 million).

Legislation is often written entirety or at least partially by corporate lobbyists. These same lobbyists help navigate bills through the maze of committees, often chaired by members whose campaigns they funded. As an aside, these lobbyists typically provide members of Congress (or their staff) with bill summaries and "recommendations" on which bill to support. They also help legislators with a little "under the table" wheeling and dealing, which gives them firsthand knowledge on all the dirt.

When members of the 115th Congress (or key staffers) decided to leave office in 2019, over 59% took a short drive over to "K" Street and signed on as a corporate lobbyist (some making three times what they did in Congress). Some become a consultant or adviser while others land very lucrative positions on various boards of directors or as senior partners in  high dollar law firms. This is the nefarious revolving door of politics, and it's why government serves the interests of Wall Street, not Main Street.

We have more wealth and income inequality than at any time over the last one hundred years. Company CEO's are making 350 times more than their average employee earns, and nearly 50% of all new wealth goes to the top 1%. The top three richest individuals in America have more wealth than the entire bottom half of America households, which adds up to over 160 million Americans.

Washington D.C.  bears a striking resemblance to the politically decadent and corrupt world of the ill fated Queen of France,  Marie Antoinette, and her husband, King Louis XV. Like the elites of her time, 72% of elites  today say they are superior to average Americans. Washington has developed a presumptive "ruling class" mentality by virtue of their education, family connections, and access to immense wealth, but are they our "betters"?

When we see the likes of a Barack Obama, Joe Biden, George W. Bush, Bill or Hillary Clinton, do we honestly believe these are the best America can produce to guide our nation? Given that the approval rating for Congress  is in low 30's and Biden's approval rating is lowest of any president in 15 years, the obvious answer is "no", and yet Congress has a 98% reelection rate. Do you think that's by accident?

Our political system isn't broken, it's been changed to suit the needs of a ruling class; an oligarchy which has substituted our democratic Republic for a neo-fascist corporatocracy. It's past time that the American People embrace the strength and courage of our Founding Fathers and do something about it.

 

  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 beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

The Real Story of Two Americas

New York Post: Shocking survey reveals the reason elites are out of touch---and it isn't what you think

Committee to Unleash Prosperity

Committee to Unleash Prosperity

American Upper Class

A staggering 80% of American households are worse off...

Internet Censorship in China

Living Paycheck to Paycheck is Common, Even Among Those WhoMake More Than $100,000

OpenSecrets: Which Party Receives MoreCorporate Donations

The Seeds of Destruction

There's expression which seems to aptly apply to the current state of America like no other which goes like this,  "every revolution contains within it the seed to its own destruction". The expression originates from author Frank Herbert's magnum opus, "Dune", first serialized in the sci-fi magazine "Analog" from 1963 through 1965 and finally published as a book in 1965.

The expression was given voice by the character "Princess Irulan", the emperor's daughter, as she said "...if history teaches us anything, it's simply this: every revolution carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. And empires that rise will one day fall". Have truer words ever been spoken (even if only by a fictional character)?

The United States was founded based on the concept of freedom of the individual, no matter what that entailed. We had the right to live where we wanted. To believe---or not---what we wanted. To lives our lives with as little government interference as possible. This was to be the land where the individual was sovereign. 

We welcomed everyone with a dream and who longed for freedom. It was here that a "seed" of the revolution which was planted by our Founding Fathers. In time it would be called The Tree of Liberty. It would bear fruit and shade for all Mankind or so hope our nation's Founders.

 That seed has struggled to survive. It's been watered with the sweat and blood of countless Americans. Some have sought to dig it up while others wanted to cage it and change it. Now that seed has grown into something not wholly expected.

We allowed ourselves to become distracted. We turned over its care to those for whom care was their own interests. They watered it too freely with our blood and sweat. They pruned too deeply, cutting away the lives of our young men and women for their temporal benefit like placing a rose in a vase. They deprived it of nourishment by cutting off its sources of knowledge as others poisoned its roots with lies and distortions.

The Republic created on that hot July day in Philadelphia in 1776 has passed as all empires do in their Autumns, yet those who destroyed haven't allowed it to fully take its place in history. They sought to hide what they've done by showing us reflections.   

Perhaps we were willing to be deceived. Unable to face what we had allowed.  But if we're to save it, we must let it go and salvage what we can. It's decay didn't result from the idea itself. The seed itself was good. Perhaps it placed too much faith on the individual. It's slow decay the result of our lack of attention. In the end, it shows that freedom is never free or safe, even in soil where it was planted.

 

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!

 

 

When Government Doesn't Trust The People: Who Blinks First?

 

The Founding Fathers didn't trust government. Nearly everything they did politically before, during and after the revolution was a reflection of that mistrust. Well, it should come as no surprise that modern Americans don't trust the government either.

Opinion polls have shown lows which borders on contempt for Congress, the judicial system, and the Presidency for decades. Even our trust of mainstream media, religion, financial system and our educational system and governmental bureaucracy with its myriad of agencies have reached anemic levels.

Perhaps even worse than our mistrust of institutions, is our lack of trust in our fellow citizens. We are more divided than at any time since the 1760's of the pre Revolution War. Others have argued that we're in fact much closer to the pre-Civil War years of the 1850's. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the country.

So, what should we make of government's apparent mistrust of its citizens? After all,  we've become a de facto surveillance state with camera nearly everywhere. We're monitored and tracked everywhere we go. Facial recognition is practically universal. Government has the technology to implement a police state unlike anything ever seen in the history of civilization.  

The following video from an episode of "On The Homefront" on CBN News entitled "Federal Agencies Arming Themselves" which brings home the point. The government has been on a buying spree of military grade weapons and ammo. It has been challenging our constitutional rights at an alarming rate. Some, as indicated in the video, claim that for all intents our Constitution is no longer a living document.  

There's no question that we've become a corporatocracy led by a super wealthy Oligarchy.   All we have to do is watch the biased "news" to see the two tier justice system at work (or should I say "not at work'?). Our trust of the mainstream media is nearly as low as that of Congress, which is something relatively new (as an aside, conservatives distrust the media at a higher percentage than liberals do).

There have been numerous psychological studies which have shown that when an individual or small group of individuals are treated with distrust, it tends to provoke anti-societal like behavior in that individual or group. Thus, one has to wonder whether we are being maneuvered into some reaction?  

Perhaps the result of this provoked behavior could trigger mass protests, riots, looting, violence such as we're now seeing in places like San Francisco, and so forth. If these manufactured  actions produce a certain "critical mass", it would be all the excuse needed to declare martial law and implement a police state. 

Then too, what about claims on both sides of mass election fraud and "stolen elections"? Are we going to start asking the United Nations to send in election monitors like we would for some failed democracy? 

The ongoing use of the FBI and judicial system to conduct a political vendetta and character assassination to neutralize an opponent is a gross misuse of power worthy of some third world banana republic.  Loss in faith of the electoral process has been central to the eventual fall of nearly every government down through history. Have we reached that point? 

There's no question that since 9/11 and the subsequent "Patriot Act" was implemented, the United States has moved in a decidedly anti-democratic direction. The Department of Homeland Security, the growth of the deep state and its affiliated intelligence agencies, and our state of perpetual war (be it direct or indirect) gives us about as much of a warm and fuzzy feeling as jackboots outside our front door.

Check out the video from CBN and see what you think. It runs just 7:05 minutes.  

 

Video: Federal Agencies Arming Themselves

CBN News

 

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! 

Breaking Our Faustian Bargain With Partisan Politics

Would it surprise you to know that many of the Founding Fathers opposed the creation of political parties? They feared that partisan politics would tear the nation apart, creating separate cliques of special interests whose only commonality would be to strip the citizens of their natural sovereignty.  Even the poster boy for Federalism, Alexander Hamilton, called political parties "the most fatal disease" of populist governments.

James Madison, the man considered the "Father of the Constitution", thought that if not for a strong Constitution, political parties could rip the nation apart. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the most intelligent man ever to occupy the presidency, strongly opposed partisan parties. He thought it was a mistake not to make some provision for the regulation of parties in the Constitution to keep them in check. I suspect he was right.

Our first and arguably greatest president, George Washington, even warned us against the dangers of political parties in his farewell address. But he did more than just warn the nation, he showed us how we could work around our political differences.

President Washington (who, by the way, was a defacto Independent), recognized that differing political opinions were the norm, not the exception, choose to put men of competing political opinion in offices in order to force them to compromise for the sake the nation.

Washington understood that while it may make for a rocky administration, it would benefit the nation and its citizens in the long run by seeking middle ground in lieu of narrow minded partisan conformity, such as what we have now.  For example, Washington appointed Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, who wanted a strong central government and was supported by Northern business interests which wanted to rekindle trade with England, as his Treasury Secretary.

Meanwhile, Washington appointed Thomas Jefferson, who wanted a small limited government and had the support of mostly Southern farmers and tradesmen as his Secretary of State. Jefferson was also a supporter of the French, who came to our aid in our war for independence, and were a long standing enemy of England.  The result was finding a common middle ground that was best for the country and not necessarily for either political clique.

All this begs the question about the need or importance of political parties today, especially given their ownership by Wall Street and cliques of the super wealthy. As most (hopefully) Americans now know, we're no longer a Constitutional or democratic Republic with a free and non-partisan press.

We've become a Corporatocracy under the control of a group of wealthy elites whose only interest is in acquiring control, be it control over assets, resources, or us. The media serves as their propaganda arm; to manufacture news to influence our opinions and divert our attention from the real issues. Heck, we can no longer trust our votes to count! It seems like it's all a nightmare doesn't it?

Apparently the majority of Americans agree since both of the two corporate parties are in decline. They've been in decline for around 20 years. The largest political bloc, with 42% of registered voters, is Independents. A growing number of political scientists even predict that within the next 20 years, one or both of the two corporate parties could likely cease to exist (the money is on the Republicans going extinct). So, what can we do to restore the balance of political power? 

President George Washington took the high road. He did his upmost to stay above the political mudslinging (which may be one reason he's so revered over 200 years later). Washington believed that once someone took office that regardless of which "faction" they adhered to, their role was to serve all the people, not just their side.

Most Americans don't realize that when their candidate loses, in our "winner-take-all" political system, they are no longer represented for the duration of that term, be it two, four, or six years. Without term limits or ending partisan gerrymandering, it could be as long as 30 or 40 years if not longer! Imagine that. Paying taxes without anyone from your district to champion your political interest.

True, you might still be able to get a hole filled or a tree trimmed, but that's a big difference from getting support on specific piece of legislation. Of course, you could always go to the time and expense of moving and leaving your home and neighborhood. But on the other hand, why should you? Aren't these people elected to office your representative?

We know that the two parties are corrupt. We know whose interests they serve, and it isn't ours. We know that candidates of both parties tend to lie or distort what they'll do "for" us (actually "to us") if elected. First off, no one person can successfully "stand up" to special interest when that special interest finances their party and probably their campaign.

Besides, we aren't fools. We know that no single individual can do anything. Everything is run by and through committees, which are party controlled, which means ultimately corporate controlled. Legislation is even written and reviewed by corporate lobbyists. All we end up doing is making a Faustian bargain; a deal with the devil to be burned last, but there are some things we can do. 

The principal reason for partisan elections is to ensure the continuity of a specific ideologically and maintain political control for the financial benefit of the party's corporate sponsors. It's the same reason sports teams try to win races. It looks good for the team and it makes everyone money (except the fans. They pay the money). But what if a political office doesn't do either? What if it just enforces existing laws. What if its partisan leaning unintentionally implies partiality and bias?

The State Office of Attorney General is the chief lawyer for the people.  They are also the chief legal adviser to the governor, the state legislature, and the state's various agencies. In the United States, attorney generals are elected in 43 states (not including territories) and appointed in the remaining seven.

In every single instance they are partisan. They are either Democrat or Republican. In fact, there are 27 Republican and 23 Democrat Attorneys General. The only non-partisan Attorney Generals are found in the Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam, both of which are in the South Pacific.

Now, I don't know about you, but I prefer to get my legal advice from someone who's impartial. Since an Attorney General's job is simply a legal function, and doesn't make laws (although they are supposed to provide a non-bias legal opinion on various laws proposed by the partisan legislature), wouldn't you want someone without a dog in the fight? It's like the coach of the Chicago Bears calling plays for the Green bay Packers. Why then isn't the Attorney General's Office non-partisan?

Staying on the legal topic, the same can be asked of city or county attorney generals. Why are these offices partisan? Judges have their own personal political opinions, yet are elected in non-partisan races. Why wouldn't we want the same of an attorney elected to represent the community and it citizens? Their partisanship by definition presumes a political prejudice. 

Another key political office is Secretary of State. There are 47 Secretary of States, of which 35 are elected by voters while the remaining 12 are appointed by a partisan governor. Of the 47, 27 are currently Republican and the other 20 are Democrat. None are non-partisan. Why?

The Secretary of State is charged by the state constitution with maintaining business records for the state, commissioning and regulating notaries public, keeping official records, and in most cases, maintaining the state seal. However, its most important job is as chief election officer. They administer elections, oversee and report official election results and voter registration, which is locally managed by a local clerk for the Board of Elections (sometimes called the County Clerk or County Elections Clerk), another elected partisan office.

In most states, County Clerks also oversee registration and licensing of boats, trailers, and vehicles, marriages licenses, issue permits, title transfers, delinquent property taxes, recording legal documents, maintain deed records, and handle voter registration. They are also tasked with the retaining and training election officers (who are paid with public tax dollars) to work the polls.

However, did you know that only Democrats and Republicans can be election officers? Yelp. State law in some places (like Kentucky) say that registered non-partisan voters like Independents and third parties can't serve, but their taxes still go to pay for partisan only election officers. Sounds shady to me!

The Office of Secretary of State passes no laws. It votes on no legislation. It's strictly an administrative office, so why is it partisan? Why would anyone trust an office run by partisan politician who is charge election results, voter registration or hiring election officers? As an aside, the County Clerk also appoints individuals to oversee election matters pertaining to Republicans and Democrats. No one oversees Independents or third parties. So what happens to the nation's largest political bloc?

In each state, the corporate party with the least number of registered voters is assigned Independent, third party, and "No preference" voters. Naturally, they couldn't care less about those individuals, but someone has to get stuck with them right? In short, they are ignored. The corporate party with the largest number of voters also gets the lion's share of board and commission appointments. That means the largest voter demographic and third parties are simply ignored by the political system.

Several other elected state offices are just as guilty of playing partisan politics with voters such as the Auditor, Treasurer, Transportation, Agriculture, and Commerce equally all have no law making capabilities. Collectively, these offices are referred to as Constitutional offices. They exist by virtue of the state's constitution and are strictly administrative in their function, yet they're partisan.  

Other offices, not elected, are just as important, such as Commissioner of Insurance, Labor, or Public Education. These administrative offices are appointed by the governor primarily based on party affiliation, and not solely on qualifications (in a few states, the Office of Lt. Governor is also appointed, while in other states they may run as a single ticket or independently).

In none of our state constitutions (nor in the federal constitution), does the chief executive make laws. That role is designated solely for the state legislature(as an aside, Nebraska is the only state with a non-partisan state legislature). The governor, however, does sign or reject bills which comes before them. Obviously, a partisan governor is more likely to sign (and promote) bills passed by their corporate party and reject those by the opposition instead of evaluating them based solely on their merit and benefit to the citizens of the state, which makes much better sense. The same holds true for mayors or county commissioners.

We also shouldn't forget the County Court Clerk, Property Valuation Administrator, City Tax Assessor, County Sheriff, County Constable and/or Magistrate, or County Judge. These are almost always partisan offices. Tell me, why would you want a partisan sheriff, tax assessor, or County Court Clerk?  None of these publicly elected offices should be politically biased. None.

The only elected partisan offices should be those which write laws or establish policy along ideological lines (and even that's questionable). Increasingly, some municipalities have gone to all non-partisan metro councils and assemblies, which only makes sense. Their job is to serve the residents as impartially as possible, not dictate lifestyles. You can't do that when you're serving a political party which is owned by a conglomerate of corporations and special interest groups.

So what do you think? Should elected administrative and appointed offices which don't make laws or establish policies be partisan or should they retain their administrative function as established by constitution or law and serve everyone equally?  Personally, I think President Washington had it right.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at 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 A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

George Washington's Mt. Vernon: Political Parties

George Washington Warned About Political Infighting in HisFarewell Address

Jefferson County Clerk's Office: Election Officer Information

Ballotpedia: Attorney General (state executive office)

Ballotpedia: Secretary of State (state executive office)

Gallup: Party Affiliation Trend Since 2004

Partisan vs. Nonpartisan Elections

Non-partisan Democracy