Where Has the Love Gone? The Future of the American Political Duopoly

 America’s love affair with partisan politics (if there really was one) appears to be over for good. The Democrats, once the harbinger of inclusivity, has found itself mired in mediocrity and lacking in leadership, is able to maintain relevance through Identity politics.  I guess that’s what happens when you run out of ideas and don’t have a very deep bench.

The Republican Party, as a result has benefited, especially in America’s heartland and  in particular, at state and local levels. Yet, its support seems to rest on the last vestiges of a fading demographic white, mostly male, middle class voters, and there is a subtle cold and callous undertone to their call for austerity and “making America great again” by cutting back on social security and the public social safety net but continuing to spend more money on the military than the next ten nations (including China, UK, India, France, and Russia) combined!   

However, neither those who agitate on the Left or Right are satisfied with what their side is offering. The result is an America more deeply and widely divided than at any time since the years proceeding the Civil War.  Some ominously predict a pending revolution while others anticipate a second civil war at any moment, and still others foresee for a “civil divorce”.

Even during our formative years as a nation there were those among our Founding Fathers who questioned whether we were or could ever become a truly “United States” of America. We were fundamentally too different; a multitude of nations.  Over the subsequent decades and centuries, as millions came to our shores, those divisions have only intensified. Regardless, one thing is for sure. This is not the America our Founders intended. So, lets take a look at our political landscape. Perhaps we can even predict an America just a few years or a decade or two down the road.

First, despite the popular belief that America is a “two party” nation, the truth is that it was never established that way. In fact, the majority of the Founders opposed the creation of political parties, fearing that they could become powerful special interest cliques which would in time weaken the political power of the average citizen through deception and corruption and eventually dominate government (nah. That could never happen…could it?).

Secondly, that we’re only limited to just two parties. In fact, we’ve have numerous political parties. Most have either merged with other parties or simply faded away with whatever particular issues they supported. Today, we have two primary parties---Democrat and Republican, although the Libertarian, Green, and Constitutional parties are formable.

 However, despite their public perception of two differing parties, the fact is they’re more similar than not.  For example, they’re both owned by special interests from Wall Street. Wall Street controls the finances of both parties. It funds their campaigns, their leadership PACs, and sets their agenda. It dictates their domestic and foreign policies (which are not overly dissimilar). The corporate media defines their public persona and influences their political message. Both are legal fictions given the rights of the average citizen…and then some.  They are, in fact, a duopoly of Wall Street. Another thing they have in common is that both are actually minority parties.

According to the most recent polling, Independents are the largest political demographic in the United States with just over 43% of all registered voters not aligning with either the Democrats or Republicans. As an aside, did you know that Independents have been the dominate political demographic since 2011? Meanwhile, the two corporate owned parties are roughly equal with 28% each of the electorate making Independents (erroneously called “swing voters” by some) the literal “kingmakers” of today’s politics.

Something else the Democrats and Republicans have in common is that not many people like them. According to a Pew poll, 65% of registered voters, irrespective of registration, disliked Republican polices. 56% felt the same way about Democrat policies.

A 2025 NBC News Stay Tuned Poll, showed that 71% of Independents disapproved of the direction the Republican Party was going. 91% of Democrats agreed as did 13% of Republicans (could they be the nefarious “RINOs” so hated by GOP hardliners?).

When it came to Democrats, 64% of Independents disapproved of where the Democratic Party was wanting to take the country. 93% of Republicans concurred. Interestingly, so did 22% of Democrats (those nefarious “DINOs” this time).  In short, an overwhelming majority of Americans disapproved of both Democrat and Republican policies.

Amusingly, in 1960, 4% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans said they’d be unhappy if their son or daughter married someone outside of their party affiliation. In 2019, nearly half---45%---of Democrats said they’d be unhappy if their child married someone from a different party. Republicans were apparently a little more open minded. Just 35% said they would object. Today, I suspect they’d be disowned.

Another factor affecting both parties is that they’re losing their base. Demographics in America are constantly changing. Historically, America has been a predominate white European nation since its founding while blacks were considered the largest minority, As a result, legislation and funding was directed accordingly. But that’s all changing.

Today, whites are still the largest racial demographic at 58.4% (white males, often viewed as America's political, social, and economic “powerbrokers” are projected by the Census Bureau to become a de facto minority by the early 2040's).  The second largest population are Hispanics, who comprise 19.5% of the population (that number would likely be higher if all illegal immigrates were included. However, it's  only as an estimate). Black Americans make up just 13.7% of the population. Asians are 6.4%. Those claiming two or more races make up about 3.1% of the population (and growing). Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and others make up under 2%.

Based on projections, sometime in the next 25 years, America will no longer have a majority racial population. Whites and Hispanics are expected to have a near parity. Black percentages are expected to drop while Asians are anticipated to increase along with the number of those of mixed racial ancestry. So, what does that mean?

Well, for starters, it means that limited federal tax dollars are going to be redirected to the group with the most mouths to feed, and that’s going to be Hispanics. So, expect future federal (and likely state) programs will cater more to Hispanics which could increase competition between blacks and Hispanics for federal dollars.

Secondly, there will be an increase in the number of people of Hispanic ancestry being elected to office at all levels as a result of both a growing population and an increased concentration in key districts or dominate state with high electoral votes. So, don’t be surprised to see a Hispanic president in the next 25 years. Also, although historically, there’s been a decrease in ancestral allegiance over generations, that doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to Hispanics.

 The reason is that historically, immigration came in waves, thus giving time to integrate into American society, aka the proverbial “melting pot”. Note too, this “absorption” was also encouraged by previous immigrants and society in general as well as newly arriving immigrants had a strong desire to become “Americans” as quickly as possible.

That’s no longer the case. First, the arrival of Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) are occurring as such regular rate and volume that there’s little time or opportunity to integrate. Secondly, many have no intention or desire in becoming “Americans”. They are here solely for a payday.  These are economic migrations. As a result, few bother to learn English, the laws, or adopt to customs, values, or traditions. They tend to congregate in their own ethnic enclaves. Many regularly support family back home. Therefore, nearly everything about them remain tied to their native country.

Black Americans have faced a series of serious issues since emancipation which the federal government has attempted to correct through legislation and various taxpayer based programs with varying degrees of success. As federal funding for programs and services are reduced or redirected, along with competition for jobs now being taken by Hispanics, black Americans are going to be forced to struggle harder.

Lastly, the percentage of Asians are growing more rapidly than previously. This is due to the influx of Asians from places like China, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan,  Vietnam, and elsewhere. Another factor is that Asians tend to have large families (as do Hispanics). Thus, in certain areas, especially along the West Coast, Asians could come to represent minority majorities.

This brings us to an interesting question. With Democrats and Republicans shrinking in number, generational dissatisfaction with existing partisan politics (especially among Millennials, Gen Z and facing a declining number of Babyboomers and aging Gen X), what does our political, economic, and social future look like?  Cities, starving for economic  resources, are gobbling up smaller surrounding communities. Corporations are also continuing to gobble up everything they can, thus eliminating or consolidating competition. It already controls the government, and with it, controls funding as well as domestic and foreign policy.

 Technology, especially AI, is already proving to be a double edge sword. It’s provided opportunities for a few while reducing or eliminating jobs thus contributing to the already enormous gulf between the rich and the rest of us. It is also the tool behind our evaporating personal privacy and becoming the ever watchful eye of our emerging surveillance state. It bears mentioning that Millennials and Gen Z, both raised on technology, don’t appear to have the same regard toward privacy as older generations.

As I briefly touched on, the wage/income gap between the elites and the rest of society (which also benefits Congress and others in power) is widening. For instance, did you know that the top 1% control 31% of the nation’s wealth compared to the bottom 50% which controls just 2.6%? From 1979 to 2023, the top 1% saw their wealth grow 182% while the bottom 90% had a growth of 44%. The average CEO makes roughly 334 times that of the average employee.  

Are either of the two corporate owned parties equipped to deal with issues like these over the long term? The Democrats try to maintain power by never saying “no” and kicking the debt can down a short dead end road without a worry about who’s going to pick up the tab. The Republicans hope they can prolong the inevitable by cutting programs affecting the politically weakest and forcing open foreign markets by rook, crook, or rocket. They believe cutting taxes on mega corporations and the wealthy will improve the lot for everyone else.

Neither party are willing or able to make the changes which we need. Besides, it’s not in their vested interests to do so. It’s taken decades crafting the perfect scam. The tune they dance to isn’t the voice of the American voter. It’s sound of vast sums of money played by Wall Street. Corporatism, as under Fascism or Communism, requires a compliant citizenry convinced into surrendering their integrity and wellbeing to a state absent any real accountability, which to me is a lot like an alley cat telling a mouse to “trust me”.  Bon Appetit anybody?

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Political Polarization in the United States

Digging into America’s sour views on both political parties:From the Politics Desk

GOP Holds the Edge in Party Affiliation for Third StraightYear

Wage inequality fell in 2023 amid a strong labor market,bucking long term trends

Corporatism

U.S. Census Bureau: Quick Facts

Partisan Politics drags U.S. towards failed-state status

 

Louisville’s Continuing Love Affair With Political Mediocrity

As those who follow Another Opinion know, I typically write about global and national issues. However, recently I’ve had a number of people ask me about Louisville Mayor, Craig Greenberg. Most of those asking about Greenberg were interested in his political experience prior to his election as Metro Mayor in 2022. So, here it goes.

Craig Greenberg was born on August 22, 1973 in Commack, New York, which is a small upper middle class hamlet (comprising 12.23 square miles) on Long Island. It’s claim to fame is a Methodist church built in 1789 and the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and Museum which is located in the Suffolk Jewish Community Center.

His family moved to Louisville in 1980 where he attended Ballard High School in Louisville. From there, he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree, majoring in political science and government, from the University of Michigan. He was the student government president and Phi Beta Kappa.

It’s worth mentioning that Phi Beta kappa is one of America’s oldest and most prestigious  academic honor societies, having been founded in 1776. It’s members have included 17 presidents, 42 U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and 136 Nobel Prize recipients.  After graduating in 1995, Greenberg went on to attend Harvard University’s School of Law where he graduated cum laude with a Juris Doctorate in 1998.

In 2000, Greenberg cofounded the Venture Capital Fund and Technology Consulting Company I-Visionary in Lexington, Kentucky, where he served as the Chief Operating Officer and the company’s general council. That same year, he was named one of Business First’s “Top 40 Under 40”. In 2001, Ballard High School named him “Alumni of the Year”.

In 2003, he attended Leadership Louisville and then was a 2005 Bingham Fellow graduate. He went on to serve Metro United Way’s board of directors, as well as the board of directors for Kentucky Museum of Art and Craft, the Jewish Community Center, and the University of Louisville’s Board of Trustees.

He was part of the development team for the Museum Plaza and Whiskey Row, and then with art investors, Steve Wilson and Laura Lee Brown, cofounded the 21C Museum Hotels chains. He served as president in 2012 and CEO in 2017 before stepping down in mid-2020.

Prior to his election, Greenberg was an attorney with Frost, Brown, and Todd, one of Louisville’s best known law firms. His job there was developing some of the firm’s ancillary business ventures, including an initiative to secure and “deploy” new market tax credit investments to lower tax liabilities for businesses. He helped to raise and invest roughly $100 million dollars in low income communities throughout Kentucky and elsewhere using the federal tax credit program.

Greenberg is also a cofounder with sports radio host, Matt Jones, of the Greenberg Group, which co-owns the Ohio Valley Wrestling,  holding a majority share of stock, where he served as CEO, president, and general counsel.  According to Gurufocus, Greenberg is also a director of Republic Bancorp and holds about 6,272 shares of Republic Bancorp stock.

Craig is married to Rachel, a public school teacher. Together they have two children, Daniel and Benjamin. His mother, Dr Ruth Greenberg, died at the end of January 2024 after what was described as a “brief illness”. Greenberg, like his mayoral predecessor, Jerry Abramson, is Jewish.

In April 2021, Greenberg announced his candidacy for mayor on the Democratic ticket seeking to replace outgoing  Mayor Greg Fischer (if mediocrity had a child, I think he would be a strong contender). Greenberg stated platform was public safety, universal pre-K, affordable housing, getting illegal guns off the streets, reducing crime, supporting abortion rights, and government transparency.

Ultimately, Greenberg was just one of seven running on the Democrat ticket, with 3^rd District Metro Council member and mayoral candidate, Shameka Parrish-Wright appearing to be the early favorite given her strong support among black voters (she won her seat in 2023 with 88% of the vote).  However, all that changed on February 14^th---Valentine’s Day---2022.

That was the day when 21 year old Quintez Brown walked into Greenberg’s campaign office in the Butchertown Market area on Story Avenue and fired several shots from his 9mm Glock semi-automatic at near point blank range at Greenberg, who was seated in his chair, miraculously only nicking his shirt and sweater.

Brown, who was a prominent spokesperson for the local Black Lives Matter movement and a professed “social justice advocate”. Interestingly, Brown himself was running for a seat on Metro Council. Brown then turned and ran as staff members immediately tried to barricade the door.

According to reports, Quintez Brown was arrested a few blocks away, still carrying his Glock. The police reported that he was also carrying nine fully load clips! Sounds like he was anticipating a showdown with someone. During questioning, Brown confessed that he went to Greenberg’s office with a single intent---to kill him.

He later admitted that he was wanted to be the “Equalizer”, a reference to the role portrayed by Denzel Washington who, as a former Marine, was something of a vigilante-like crusader out to rid his fictional city of criminals. Brown added that he expected the police would arrive before he had an opportunity to shoot Greenberg, and he would die at the hands of the local police.

According to the city prosecutors, Brown was miffed at Greenberg because of his support for the  West End Increment Financing (Greenberg helped draft the legislation). Brown believed that the proposal would result in the “gentrification” of the West End which would draw in wealthier individuals  and upscale businesses, thus forcing out existing low income residents  and neighborhood businesses.

Officers found images of Greenberg, portrayed as a “devil” engulfed in flames posted online allegedly by Brown. They also discovered that Brown belonged to a Black nationalist militia which self-identifies as “Black Jews” and God’s true “chosen people”.

The day following Brown’s arrest, the Black Lives Global Network Foundation and the Louisville Community Bail Foundation jointly posted $100,000 to cover Quantez's bail. Greenberg, as well as Democratic Senatorial candidate Charles Booker, and incumbent Republican Senator Mitch McConnell expressed utter dismay that (as Greenberg said) “someone can attempt murder on Monday and walk out of jail on Wednesday”.

Nevertheless, Quintez Brown was rearrested a short time later on federal charges and sent to the Grayson County Detention Center in Leitchfield, Kentucky. In March 2022, a grand jury indicted Brown on state charges of attempted murder and four federal counts of wanton endangerment. Although his attorneys said they would consider an insanity plea, Brown confessed to the changes on July 2024 and earned himself a 17 year sentence.

As an aside, it was revealed during the trial that Brown had done an extensive online search in an attempt to find where Greenberg lived and like to hand out. Additionally, Brown was  interested in knowing the personal details of Republican mayoral candidate and popular former Jeffersontown mayor, Bill Dieruf as well (something which the media downplayed).

Following the murder attempt (and subsequent publicity), Craig Greenberg’s campaign jumped into high gear, picking up huge numbers of endorsements and massive amounts of donations, winning the Democratic Primary with 41.3% of vote, defeating Shamika Parrish-Wright, the former top contender, by 16, 848 votes.

The history of the mayoral race in Louisville is, to be polite, a bit lopsided. The last Republican candidate elected as mayor was Ken Schmied in 1965. Ever since it’s been a Democrat, no matter how things went in Louisville, it seemed that the Republicans didn’t have a chance (of course, part of that is the cliquish nature of the local GOP and its tendency toward being disorganized and not thinking out of the box).

However, the best chance to pick up the illusive seat seemed to be former Jeffersontown mayor, William “Bill” Dieruf.  A self-identified “centrist”, Dieruff was president of the Jefferson County League of Cities and served on the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency, as well as Greater Louisville, Inc., and was the owner of Dieruf Hardware Store. He also had a history of working with all sides irrespective of party and given that Louisville is one of last Democrat bastions in Kentucky, that’s a good thing.

For those unfamiliar with Louisville and Jefferson County, Jeffersontown (aka “J-town”) is the second largest city in Jefferson County with a population of 29,388.  and, thanks to the Bluegrass Commerce Park, the third largest employer in the state. The Commerce Park alone has approximately 850 employers (Papa John Pizza is headquartered there).

Just 4.3% of the J-Town’s population live at or below the poverty line. Compare that to 15% of Louisville’s population or the fact that Louisville ranks 7^th among its peer cities in poverty and the 5^th highest poverty rate in the country. Not exactly something to write home about.

Dieruf was appointed to J-town’s City Council in 2000 and served until 2010 when he was elected mayor and would go on to serve 10 years as its mayor. Running on the platform of “Mayor for Everyone”, he promoted public safety, job creation, economic development, and improving the quality of Louisville’s and emphasizing “solutions with accountability”.

 But, facing a Democratic majority of 324,434 to 185,701, and with a history of strong turnouts, a local Republican party known for shooting itself in the foot, snubbing potential political allies, traditionally low Republican and conservative turnouts, a questionable media,  Dieruf had a tough row to hoe (not to mention the “free press” the attempted murder of Greenberg generated locally and nationally).

In the end, Craig Greenberg, a largely unknown candidate with no political experience won with 51.7% of the vote, defeating an individual with years of actual hands on political experience in running a city. In hard numbers, Greenberg received 143,799 votes to Bill Dieruf’s 128,690. As an aside, I can relate.  With over 25 years’ experience at the time, I ran for Metro Council against an unknown and lost in what was later deemed a “questionable race”.

Since Greenberg’s election, there’s been a lot of “buyer’s remorse” coming from the Democrats and the Left. Crime remains a serious problem and gang activity, once denied by the LMPD, is an undebatable fact. The city’s infrastructure continues to deteriorate, the quality of local schools haven’t improved (in 2024 the schools faced a disaster when the bus schedules were badly botched, leaving some without transportation), and of course, well-paying jobs remain elusive with taxes continuing to go up.

Louisville, once a major transportation and manufacturing center, could claim Nashville Tennessee, Indianapolis Indiana, St. Louis Missouri, and Cincinnati Ohio as peer cites. Sadly, those days are long gone. Louisville has become largely a warehouse hub filled with “McJobs”.  Carjackings, assaults, gangs, and until recently, years of low police moral, high turnover and a total lack of leadership, has become the norm. We depend on whiskey and a two minute horse race we milk for two weeks to keep our relevance.

The city has spent billions repeatedly trying to revive a downtown whose best days past in the 1960’s. Taxes increase proposals are rubber stamped. The infrastructure will continue to deteriorate until something tragic happens to force change. Residents in the county bemoan the choice they made when they approved a  grossly misrepresented city-county merger while talk of local succession grows.

Meanwhile, in just a couple of years, residents will go to the polls again. Will we buy the shiniest rotten apple in the bin? Probably. It seems to have become our most defining national trait.  A self-inflected wound we try to blame on the other side. It reminds me of Charlie Brown and Lucy at the start of every football season. But remember, there are alternatives. We just have to look up from our Smartphones and take a look around.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Craig Greenberg

MoxieTalk: Craig Greenberg

Craig Greenberg

Gurufocus: Craig Greenberg Net Worth and Insider Trader

Quintez Brown said he would be Equalizer on day he shot at CraigGreenberg, prosecutors claim

Metro United Way: Strong Households

William Dieruff

Dieruff for Metro Mayor

From J-town to downtown, Bill Dieruff touts his ‘centrist’  bona fides for Louisville mayor

Attorney, developer, runner: Craig Greenberg wants ‘bigchanges’ if he is Louisville mayor

 

Tulsi Gabbard and Leaving the "Cowardly Woke" Democratic Party

Tulsi Gabbard has left the Democrat Party. A move which, according to Ms. Gabbard, was long overdue.  For those unfamiliar with Ms. Gabbard, she has a very impressive resume. She was a U.S. Army Reserve Officer, having served in a medical unit for a year in Iraq. She later served a tour of duty in Kuwait, was military police officer, and ultimately assigned to the Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command. She finished up her military service as a Lt. Colonel in 2021.

Ms. Gabbard served in the Hawaii State Legislature from 2002 to 2004, the Honolulu City Council from 2011 through 2012, and finally as the U.S. Representative from Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District from 2013 through 2021.  She was the first Samoan-American and Hindu ever elected to Congress. 

As  Congresswoman, Ms. Gabbard served on several key committees, including Homeland Security, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Financial Services. She  was also one of two women combat veterans in Congress at the time. In 2020, she ran unsuccessfully for President.

She served as Vice Chairperson of the Democrat Party under Debbie Wasserman Schultz. However, she resigned after it became apparent that the party leadership, which was suppose to be neutral in the primary, was blatantly supporting Hillary Clinton and rigged the nomination process against Bernie Saunders (Ms. Schultz was later fired, but was hired the next day by the Clinton campaign).

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz's replacement, Donna Brazille, was fired for providing Hillary Clinton, by then the Democrat nominee for President, with a copy of some confidential questions which were to be asked in a televised president debate between her and Donald Trump.

Ms. Gabbard cited several reasons for her departure from the Democratic Party. She said it was "now under complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers, driven by cowardly wokeness". She accused the party of promoting a "anti-white racism" and of being "contemptuous of religion, law enforcement, and "driving the country toward nuclear war".  That's some powerful accusations.

She added that she considered herself a "independent minded" person throughout her political career and thought of herself as mostly conservative. Well, she's much more than that now.  Because of her resignation, Ms. Gabbard has become part of America's political majority---the Independents.

Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of an intentionally corrupt political system which serves solely the interests of a oligarchy. Ever since Citizens United, corporations have controlled both political parties. They don't even pretend to hide it anymore, and why bother? They've all but eliminated the average voter from participation in the political process. 

They've made political campaigns to expensive for most Americans. They've rigged districts through gerrymandering in order to keep partisan control. The absence of term limits means that an incumbent can stay in office for virtually as long as they want.  They've ensured that big money donors (which are typically corporations and multi-millionaires) don't give money to "unapproved" candidates.

As an aside, that's one of the main reasons the establishment media and both parties went after Donald Trump from the beginning. He was not a "approved "candidate. He wasn't properly "vetted" by the political gatekeepers, and he was largely self funded. That meant he couldn't be controlled or beholden to anyone or any agenda. To the elites, that's dangerous.

Part of the ongoing vendetta against Trump is to ensure that no one ever again attempts to do what he did; that no financially independent or "unapproved" candidate runs for president just like when Ross Perot ran for president on the Reform Party ticket in the 1980's.

Perot was largely self-funded and did such a good job in the televised debates that both parties came together to form the Commission for Presidential Debates to order to keep future "Ross Perot" types out of the debates and out of the public spotlight as much as possible (the debates were previously held by the League of Women Voters who refused to amend the rules to keep third parties and Independent candidates out. As a result, the LWV was dropped).   

 At the local level, state legislatures have made it near impossible for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican to get on the ballot by requiring them to jump through hoops the other two are exempted from. In 24 states, like Kentucky and New York, citizens are even prohibited from introducing ballot initiatives and referendums! Why? It's all about control and keeping it from the voters.

So what does Tulsi Gabbard's decision to leave the Democrats tell us? First, it's not unusual for politicians to leave their party, particularly when the political winds are shifting.  Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat, as were most individuals involved in movies or radio back in the day. Reagan changed to Republican after famously saying that he "didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me".

Democratic icon, Hillary Clinton, was once a Republican, and not just any ole Republican. She was once a member of the so-called "Goldwater Girls", who were avid backers of Senator Barry Goldwater, the scion of the conservative and libertarian movement in America.

Senator Elizabeth Warren started her political career as a pro-business Republican before becoming a liberal stalwart and part time Native American. Leon Panetta (aka "Darth Vader")  was originally a Nixon Republican before switching parties in 1971 over Nixon's stance on Civil Rights.

Of course, perhaps the most famous party jumper was the Teddy Roosevelt. We went from a trust busting moderate Republican to a Progressive "Bull Moose", before later switching back to his moderate GOP roots.

One can't fault Ms. Gabbard for her decision. More Americans are abandoning the two corporate than ever before. The majority of voters these days are Independent. In fact, about 43% are Independents (30% are Republicans and 24% are Democrats).Pollsters like to claim that Independents are actually closet partisans, which is about as far from the truth as it gets.

Since the late 1970's, the Democrats and Republicans began a slow but steady purge of moderates from their midst. Republicans called them "RINOs" (or "Republican in Name Only") while the Democrats referred to conservative members of their party as "DINOs" ("Democrat in Name Only"). Unfortunately for both parties, their respective "purity" litmus test proved too much and so they left.  It's been a proverbial hemorrhage of membership ever since.

So, what does it mean to be an Independent and is there a price to be paid? As stated above, the majority of Independents are mostly moderate or centrists. That means they lean conservative on some issues (usually fiscal, foreign policy, and some domestic issues) and liberal on others  with some occasional overlaps.  I prefer the term "pragmatic".

Independents tend to be non-dogmatic and examine each issued based on its own merits, which means doing a lot of their own research. They pay little or no attention to media endorsements (the media's job is to provide fair, honest, and balanced reporting, not promote political agendas). They are strong individualists and generally have a "live and let live" attitude.  Another thing about most Independents is that they tend to believe in equal opportunities, but not equal outcomes. That's up to the individual.

They prefer decision making at the local level as much as possible. They tend to oppose Citizens United and the notion of "corporate personhood", not to mention partisan gerrymandering, while supporting term limits and citizen referendums and ballot initiatives.

Individuals like Tulsi Gabbard are a like sign posts. They point to a new direction for the nation. The two corporate parties have put Americans on a never-ending marry-go-round.  Each blaming the other for what they both are doing and the establishment media providing the finger pointing.

We all know what's happening. We know, mostly, who is to blame. Many of us have glimpsed those pulling the levers "behind the curtain" to borrow from the "Wizard of Oz".  Politics has become a millionaires game and we're mere pawns at best. But their time is quickly coming to an end.

If we're to restore our democratic or Constitutional Republic, it's time we put aside the partisan politics and its manufactured divisions and come together once again as a single people united in liberty for all.

It's time we demand a balanced budget and line item veto amendments at the local, state, and national levels to ensure government doesn't spend more than it takes it and to eliminate pay-to-play pork projects. Corporate lobbyists should not write legislation. That's the job of the legislature.

We need to end partisan gerrymandering. Districts should be drawn along natural boundaries and by non-partisan entities such as local universities or colleges on a rotating basis. Term limits are a must. If the President can be limited to two 4 year terms, so should Congress and the Judicial system (actually a limit of 12 years---three 4 years terms---should be ample).

Rank Choice Voting is also a better way to elect candidates. Candidates are ranked by order of preference regardless of their political affiliation (or lack thereof).  The highest rank candidate wins. Referendums and ballot initiatives are our right as citizens. We don't need corporate controlled politicians acting as gatekeepers on issues we want to vote on.

While we're at it, shouldn't politicians be require to formally resign from their political party when elected? In our "winner-take-all" system, those on the losing end have no representation for however long the other side has that seat. Winners should represent everyone, not just one side.

Speaking of voting, citizens should decide on whether to approve a tax or other increase along with any changes in the salaries of elected or appointed officials. We all know politicians aren't good with money, especially ours! We need to serious overhaul our tax code and eliminate Citizens United too. Corporations are not people. They are legal fictions. They do not vote. Money is not "free speech". 

We need a level playing field when comes to running for office. Nowadays, Independents and third parties have to jump through obstacles the other two parties don't. If a Democrat or Republican wants to run for office, they may need only three or so signatures to get on the ballot while a Independent or third party candidate may need as much as a hundred. That's not right (and I doubt even legal).  

It took a lot of courage for Tulsi Gabbard to do what she did, but already a lot of Americans---if fact, the majority---have shown a similar courage by leaving the two corporate owned parties. So kudos to Ms. Gabbard for leaving the "dark side of the Empire", and joining the American People who want their government and their country back.

 

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! 

 

Tulsi Gabbard leaves Democratic Party, denounces it as 'elitist cabal' 

 

Tulsi Gabbard leaving 'elitist" Democratic Party, blast 'cowardly wokeness'

Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard

Gallup: Party Affiliation

States without initiative or referendum

Commission on Presidential Debates

10 famous people who switched political parties

List of United States senators who switched parties

 

Sanders' Supporters get "Berned" and "Sleepy Joe" Looks for a Running Mate

Well, it looks as if Sanders' so-called "socialist revolution" has "Berned" out. On Wednesday, April 8th, the Vermont Senator called it quits and ended his second, and likely final, bid for the presidency. This clears the way for former Vice President Joe Biden to the Democratic nomination. Sorry "Bernies" but the Establishment has won again.

Although Sanders has vowed to fight to have some of his "progressive" ideas included in the Democrat Party's platform, in truth it doesn't matter much since the platform represents ideals that the party would like to accomplish. Think of it as its "wish list" (the Republicans have one too). It's meant to appease the various factions within a party and to assure them that their central issues aren't being forgotten. So, what does this mean and what happens next?

Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign marks the second time that the self-proclaimed "socialist" and his revolution have been stopped by the Establishment. The first time was in 2016 when Sanders faced off against the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Although it was assumed by many that Hillary would easily win her party's nomination, Hillary took no chances.

Clinton, along with the DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, worked to rig the Democratic Primary against Sanders, and then at the convention, ensured that none of Sanders' supporters would be heard. Ultimately, Schultz was forced to resign after leaks and lawsuits made it clear that plans to rig the primary were not just factual, but were underway as early as March 2015!

Even during the convention itself, Sanders' supporters were denied entry, were placed directly under loudspeakers where they would be drowned out, and denied access to speak during primetime. Furthermore, the corporate owned media went as far as to try to discredit any Sander's activists and others who were calling for an investigation into charges of election rigging.

Nevertheless, mounting evidence made all but impossible to hide the facts that the Democratic Establishment had rigged the primary. DNC Chairwoman Schultz was publicly chastised by the party leadership and removed from her position (she immediately found work in the Hillary campaign). She was replaced by Donna Brazile, who, in turn, would be removed from the DNC chairmanship for slipping Hillary a copy of the questions to be used in the last presidential debate with Donald Trump. Of course, despite nearly everyone expecting Hillary to waltz into the White House, she was defeated by "The Donald". As for Brazile, she immediately found work as a paid media consultant and commentator.

So, here we are nearly four years later and Sanders has again been defeated by the Establishment. Apparently his calls for a revolution was too worrisome for the Establishment (and the ruling Oligarchy which props it up), and so Sanders was forced out. How all the Bernie supporters and those on the Far Left are going to take this is up in the air. The majority of his supporters in both campaigns were Millennials, who are the country's largest age demographic (they surpass even the Baby Boomers).

According to several surveys, about 70% of Millennials consider themselves either socialists or lean socialist. That's a pretty sizeable number, and no doubt they are feeling angry and betrayed. Their belief in the political process has long been questionable at best. Now, with their most visible leader out for a second and likely final time, it will be interesting how they respond. Will they create their own political party? There has long been calls from those Center-Left and Center-Right for a third choice (as an aside, Millennials also make up the largest demographic segment among Independents). Will the Far Left take up their banner too?

The current political system is hopelessly broken. Perhaps instead of trying to win offices, they'll turn their attention to issues politics such as ending partisan gerrymandering, imposing term limits, requiring citizen referendums and voter initiatives, ending taxpayer support of Democrat and Republican primaries, tax reform, ending Citizen United, or opening up elections to Independents and third parties. Maybe they'll demand that voters have the final say on tax and salary increases too. We can only hope.

What's of more immediate concern for the Democratic Establishment is whether "Sleepy Joe" can attract Sanders supporters. Earlier polls shows not much love for Biden by Sanders supporters, but then again, Sanders was still a factor. Now that he's out, will they throw their considerable weight behind someone they clearly dislike? Perhaps the key will be in who "Sleepy Joe" picks as his running mate. After all, it's pretty clear that Biden isn't in the best health.

Accordingly to President Obama's former doctor, Dr. David Scheiner, the 77 year old Biden isn't "healthy guy". He has had a history of aneurysms, high cholesterol, an irregular heartbeat, and is a high risk of a stroke. There are others who insist that his cognitive abilities have been impacted by the two aneurysms Biden has had, not to mention potentially having the onset of dementia.

Anyway you look at it, Biden may not be the best choice for the pressures of the White House. Therefore, we need to seriously look at who would be his running mate since in all likelihood they'll be the one to finish up a Biden Presidency. As of right now, we don't know who Biden would pick as his running mate except for two previous comments. The first is that he's said that his running mate will be a woman no matter what. Second, he has said that he would like to have Hillary Clinton on his ticket.

Some have questioned whether Hillary would accept second banana on a presidential ticket, saying that her ego wouldn't allow it or that she'd overshadow ole "Sleepy Joe" either accidentally or on purpose similar to what happened with Sarah Palin and John McCain. I disagree. Hillary is politically very savvy. She knows what is at stake. I doubt she'd do or say anything to put Biden in a bad light. She'd play her part, and why not? There is an excellent chance that within a year or two, Joe will resign due to bad health and that would make her president. Now, wouldn't that be something?

Of course, if her behavior during the 2016 election is any indication, Hillary may not be in the best of health either. Among the rumors regarding her health is that she has dysphagia which is a neurological condition which impacts one's ability to communicate and/or to understand speech. She is also said to be suffering from Parkinson's Disease. However, those closest to the 72 year old former senator and Secretary of State have maintained that her health is fine and that she was suffering from pneumonia during the 2016 campaign. Of course, there's also the long standing rumors that the former First Lady is a lush as well as a security risk too.

At this juncture, it's hard to say who "Sleepy Joe" would pick as his VP. One thing is for sure. They will need the experience and temperament to step into the role of president quickly. There won't be much time (if any) for any "on the job training", which makes Hillary perhaps his best choice. However, if she isn't interested, who else is out there? Biden has said that in addition to picking a female, he added that he would be open to a "woman of color".

One possible pick would be Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Although not a "woman of color" (though she claims a near insignificant amount of Native American ancestry), the 70 year old does have considerable political experience. She has also polled well among Bernie supporters. Another choice would be Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. Although a political newbie for Nevada, the 56 year old Masto could help with the Hispanic vote, which also supported Sanders. New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (age 60) is another Latina who could help shore up the Hispanic vote.

Tammy Baldwin, the 58 year old Senator from Wisconsin, is another top choice. While not someone of "color", she could be a strong voice for the Midwest, which Trump will need in order to win a second term, and she would be the first openly gay Vice President. The same could be said of Tammy Duckworth. Tammy is from the Midwest, a disabled veteran (she lost both of her legs when the Blackhawk she was piloting was shot down), and she is an Asian-American (she was born in Bangkok Thailand). However, the 52 year old former Lieutenant Colonel is a junior Senator from Illinois, which means she has little serious political experience, but then again, another junior senator from Illinois with no real political experience managed to get himself elected president---Barack Obama.

Amy Klobacher would be a fairly safe choice for Biden. She is from Minnesota and is considered relatively moderate. The 59 year old Senator is married with one child and was first elected in 2006. Prior to that she was a corporate lawyer. Her husband, also a lawyer, is a part time professor of law at Georgetown University and Baltimore School of Law. However, she is not someone of "color". Gretchen Whitmer, 48 years old, is the governor of Michigan.

Whitmer was first elected to the Michigan House of Representatives back in 2001, then to the State Senate in 2006, and finally to Governor in 2016 after a short stent as Ingham County Prosecutor (she comes from a family of lawyers). She is married with three children from a previous marriage and two from her current one. However, she has no political experience in big leagues and she too is not someone of "color".

There is Val Demings who represents the Orlando area of Florida. The 63 year old was first elected to Congress in 2017, making her a junior member of the House. However, she's impressed enough that Nancy Pelosi appointed her to serve as an impeachment manager during the Trump Impeachment hearings in the Senate. Besides being a "woman of color" she is considered to be generally moderate (in addition to being a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, she's also a member of the New Democrat Coalition). She is married with three children. Her husband is a former sheriff and mayor of Orange Park.

Finally, Kamala Harris. She is a strong choice for Biden. First, she is a "woman of color". She is part black and Indian. The 55 year old is also a senator from California, representing the Oakland area (and a state with a lot of electoral votes) and is serving alongside Senator Diane Feinstein. She is close friends with Nancy Pelosi, who is also from nearly San Francisco California. She is also known as a strong debater. Harris, a lawyer, served as the California Attorney General and the 27th District Attorney for San Francisco. However, she is still a relatively newcomer, having been elected to the U.S. Senate only in 2017. Nevertheless, she's built up her credentials on foreign policy matters. She's got moxie. She is my pick for VP.

So, there you all have it. Who do you think ole "Sleepy Joe" will pick to be his running mate? Will it be Hillary or someone else? Does Sanders dropping out of the presidential race have any bearing on the future of the Democratic Party or politics in general? Can Biden beat Trump? These are important questions. America's future is stake.



WikiLeaks proves Primary Was Rigged: DNC Undermined Democracy

7 in 10 millennials say they'd vote for a socialist: poll

70% of millennials say they'd vote for a socialist

'Lot of issues': Former Obama doctor says Biden' not a healthy guy'

The 10 women Joe Biden might choose as his VP

Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism: The (Current) Ogre of The Right

As of this writing, Bernie Sanders is the current leader among the contenders for the Democratic Party's nominee for President and the one to face President Donald Trump in the fall. The last time Sanders ran for president, back in 2016, he was literally cheated out the opportunity to become his party's nominee by the "Queen-in-waiting", Hillary Clinton, along with a little help from her friends like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the (then) head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Of course, Wasserman was later forced to resign as a result of helping to rig the nomination process against Sanders. Sanders was also denied a role in putting together the party's agenda for the upcoming election. Such was the deep seated fear of the Establishment Democrats of Sanders.

Now, with no Hillary Clinton to contend with, Bernie Sanders appears to be on a roll. So much so that the Establishment Right is already rolling out their "Oh God, he's a Pinko Commie Bastard" message. The truth of the matter is this. Bernie calls himself a "socialist democrat" and he's making all the usual promises designed to get attention and, hopefully, votes; especially from those who are sick and tired of being sick and tired of politics as usual.

The Right is doing its best to equate Bernie with every bogeyman imaginable. They are claiming that he's a full blown a rat-bastard Communist and neo-Stalinist. They've even tried to link his claim of democratic socialism with Fascism and Nazis (which actually fall on the far Right of the political spectrum, not the Left), but let's not confuse facts with some good old fashion mudslinging! Besides, this is politics. What does "Truth" have to do with it anyway? Some have even had the audacity to compare Bernie Sanders with that other lowdown Commie, President Franklin D Roosevelt (gasp!).

Yes, it's often alleged by the Right that President Franklin D Roosevelt was a closet Commie bastards too. Well, he was certainly called a "traitor to his class" by all well heeled society folks of the time, especially those on Wall Street. After all, he was tied to the Great Depression thanks to the actions (or inactions) of his predecessors, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. It's true that he took steps to make Wall Street and the banks more accountable not just to the government, but to the public.

It's also true that he helped implement some dastardly "socialist" government programs like Social Security, funded pensions, enacted child labor laws, legalized unionization, backed the 40 hour work week, established wage hour laws and supported health benefits programs, unemployment insurance, and safe working conditions. He also created "make work" programs (the so-called "Alphabet Agencies" to employ many of the vast unemployed men and women. Oh the humanity of it all! Did this man not have a conscience? He was indeed a traitor to his class.

It's said that FDR was nearly as bad as his cousin (who was called a "mad man"), President Theodore Roosevelt, who broke up the monopolies of the Robber Barons (Antitrust Policy), his conservation efforts, and the Meat Inspection Act along with the Food and Drug Act of 1906; both of which sought to make clean up those industries so that people would get a healthy and consistent product. By today's standards, ole "Teddy" as he was called would also be called a RINO.

But much has changed since then. For example, we had numerous programs aimed at improving life for ordinary Americans. Many were called "socialist" at the time too but we wouldn't dream being without them. I'm talking about Truman's Fair Deal of 1949 which included the Housing Act which rid communities of slums and implemented urban renewal. He expanded Social Security. He desegregated the military (yes, that was actually called "socialist" in 1949). Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1960 while Kennedy expanded it in 1962.

President Johnson declared war on poverty, which included work-study programs for students, expanded healthcare and education programs such as Headstart into areas hit the hardest by poverty (particularly in the Appalachian regions of Kentucky and West Virginia). There was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, in part, barred discrimination against in employment, sales, and housing. In 1964, Medicare and Medicaid were created. The Water Quality Act was passed in 1965.

Nixon backed the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972 to create safety standards and ban products deemed unsafe for consumer use, and the list goes on. The point is that each of these programs were, in their day, each called "socialism" by the opposition, but can you imagine being without any of them--no unemployment, no Social Security; no laws protecting you from overtime abuse or your paycheck; living with unsafe working conditions, or legalized discrimination?

Yeah, there have been oversteps; programs which didn't work or work as originally intended such as Welfare which has devolved into a virtual "career" choice for some, or federal overreach into public schools (another notion which was considered "socialist" when first introduced), and especially forced busing which denied choice. More recently there have been attempts to limit gun and ammo sales or curtail free speech. None of these does society much good.

As for Bernie Sanders, he is a Democrat no matter what he calls himself. He must still operate within the confines of the rules established by his party. Secondly, the Democrats and Republican establishment work in unison to control the political process in this country. There are things they will and will not allow to happen. In turn, the two party duopoly and their politicians are controlled by a ruling Oligarchy of very wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals. They establish the political tone and direction in this country by controlling Washington's overall political agenda.

The Oligarchy is not in any shape form or fashion socialist or tolerant of socialism. They will not allow themselves to ever be dictated to by the government. Never. At present they exist in a partnership with government which is financially beneficial to each. They, through their hired guns---the lobbyists---help write legislation and then lobby (bribe) to ensure its passage. The bickering is mainly over whose agenda makes it through and who gets the largest share of crumbs (aka "pork"). Financially they underwrite the politicians and their campaigns. They control 90+% of the media and, therefore, control the message.

Politically speaking, most are pretty conservative fiscally, preferring a hands off approach from government with as little regulation as possible, while their opinions on social issues vary. Anyone elected to office must comply with the demands of the Oligarchy and, in turn, the very powerful party bosses, who act as gatekeepers, and committee chairmen and women. That includes Sanders should he get elected president. Any attempt to buck the Status Quo will be shut down.

If someone gets too far out of hand, the Establishment will force them back in line. That can be anything from denying you a seat on a particular committee or no "crumbs" to take home to the voters to destroying your political career or character assassination to working against you in your reelection (yes, a party will turn on their own if they buck the system too much). In a few cases, they've been known to take more serious steps to eliminate a problem.

Who is backing Sanders? He can't get elected on the dimes and dollars ordinary voters give. The Status Quo has been it virtually impossible for the average person to run for office and get elected. So, obviously Sanders has to have some big money behind him. Well, in his 2016 race his biggest financial supporters were the University of California, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Amazon, Kaiser Permanente (a healthcare consortium), National Nurses United, Boeing, Intel, AT&T, as well as political action groups and wealthy members representing the Armed Forces, Veterans Affairs, U.S. Dept of Defense, and federal government employees.

However, his biggest financial donor was a company I had never heard of. It's named Alphabet, Inc. It turns out that Alphabet, Inc is a conglomerate of multinational corporations which comprise businesses like Google, a semi-secret R&D company named X Development, another R&D company which focuses on genetics and disease named Calico, Nest which markets smart home products, Makani Technologies which manufactures wind turbines, a private equity company, CapitalG, which concentrates on investing on emerging growth technology businesses. Not exactly what I'd expect to find donating in large dollar amounts to a "democratic socialist".

As expected, there were also a host of Left leaning organizations such as MoveOn and ad hoc groups like Progressive Voters of America. This go around, it looks like his big donors are the same groups as above in addition to UPS, Walmart, City University of New York, Starbucks, and Target. He's also getting money from the American Postal Workers Union, the Communication Workers of America, the National Education Association, Unite Here, Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Operating Engineers Union.

Again, not what I would expect for someone whose political campaign is based on doing away with free enterprise or government takeover of all existing businesses including Wall Street. I should also point out that several of these groups are covering their bases by donating to multiple candidates, but it appears that at this point anyway Bernie is getting the majority of their money.

Speaking of which, Wall Street Democrats and other Establishment Democrats loath Sanders. Not that they actually expect he'd be able to pull off some sort of socialist coup once elected, but that he might be able to at least implement some form of restrictions on capital or push through some type of new social program. The big dollar Democratic candidate is multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg (because being a billionaire creates such a close connect with the working class I suppose). He's followed by another multibillionaire, Tom Steyer, then come Bernie, who is a mere millionaire.

Next is Joe Biden with a net worth of around nine million dollars. Rounding out the top five is Pete Buttigieg. It's worth noting that Buttigieg is not a millionaire, but he's not exactly poor either. He's basically upper middle class with a net worth of approximately $100,000. He earns just over $112,000 as mayor of South Bend Indiana. His husband, a middle school teacher, earns $152,000.

So, there you have it. Bernie, the millionaire. Hardly the stereotype of a democratic socialist, and making promises he knows damn well he can't deliver on. Meanwhile front groups on the Right are on the verge of a hysterical meltdown as they try to whip conservatives into thinking that Sanders represents Stalin incarnate (the likely goal is to help get a Establishment Democrat win the nomination). They've even gone as far as to claim that Sanders and his ilk equate to Communists, Fascists, Nazis, and that all of them are offshoots of Marxism!

Yeah, I'm perfectly aware of just how absurd that sounds, but then again, thanks to our "dumbed down" education system there are a lot of people who don't know history and will be believe just about anything. Want to know more? Check out my links below. As regular readers of A/O know, I always include source links with my articles.



Open Secrets: Bernie Sander's Campaign 2016

Open Secrets: Bernie Sander's Campaign 2020

The Money: Who's Winning---and losing---the great 2020 money chase

What is Pete Buttigieg's Net Worth?

Political Corruption: Taking Out The Trash

Over the past several weeks we've taken a look at political corruption, from the cozy relationship with the big donors ( and no, George Soros and the Koch Brothers aren't even close to being at the top of that list) to military contractors, local lobbyists, and the always entertaining, "dirty tricks" which happen at the local level. Political corruption isn't unusual or even new. It's been a part of society since the very beginning (the same with religious corruption, which started out as being one and the same as the political, and in many countries today it's essentially the flip side of the same coin).

The real problem is when a society goes from the occasional individual form of graft to institutionalized corruption; where it actually becomes part of the political system itself, which is where we are today. In the past, once a society reaches that level of corruption, society begins to break down, some form of totalitarianism arises and eventually the people rebel. I think that's what we're starting to see today, except that the rebellion is being carefully controlled or manipulated; channeled if you will.

America is governed by an Oligarchy. That's an accepted fact by all but the most naive. An Oligarchy is when a relatively small elite control the government for their own benefit. In this case, it's a plutocracy, which is rule by the wealthy. As I've previously written, they control---literally own---the financial institutions, defense industry (war is a very profitable business), oil and gas, as well as the energy industry, the auto industry, the media (90+% of all forms of media), and many more. This is the stuff that urban myths about the Trilateral Commission, Bildenbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations are based, and to a degree, are true in that they all belong to small interlocking clique of committees and boards that you and I will never belong to.

What is their goal or objective you ask? Well, actually it's quite simple. It's all about having control. They already have more money they any of us could possibly imagine. However, money begets power, and power equates with control. Their aim is to control or influence every aspect of society. For them, control is order and stability. It takes order and stability for business to operate and, hopefully, generate profits. This also means controlling the demand for jobs, wages, and benefits, which also means controlling or destroying labor unions and worker associations. That's why it's important for them to be able to ship high wage/benefit jobs overseas where they pay virtually nothing (and because of the abject poverty and overpopulation, people are glad to take it) and then ship it back over here where marketing creates the demand for it (not to mention intentionally built-in obsolescence).

It means controlling demand...and supply...of not just products but of the availability of jobs. This is the reason many of these large companies push for open borders and/or are willing to employ illegal immigrants. The more demand there is for the limited number of opening, the lower the employer can force the wages as well as any benefits. This is a flaw with labor unions too. They work to recruit illegal workers, especially in the low skill sectors since they are unlikely to rock the boats and ask a lot of questions about how things are run, but more importantly their dues fill near empty union bank accounts.

Another serious factor is controlling ordinary people. The information they routinely gather is used to ascertain our shopping habits---where we go, what we purchase, how often, what we watch, and so forth. It's also used to determine our financial and physical health; our "worth" to the economy if you will. It is used to gather information on our political leanings, which is helpful for them to determine what are key issues or "buttons" are, as well as seeing just how far we can pushed.

If, for instance, I know what are the hot buttons are for various issues, I know I can push you on other topics without much push back. If I know the hot topics for a specific population segment, I know how to manipulate and motivate them to act (like the best way to get you to send money, or maybe call or email some legislator). I also know how to spin issues to make one side look better (or worse, demanding on my intent). That's what the media is for. It's to decided what is and isn't newsworthy, how to present it (spin), and manipulate the outcome.

Now if you happen to be one of those individuals who think it's all the Democrat's fault or the Republicans, then I hate to break it to you, but it's not one side or the other, it's actually both. These Oligarchs literally own both parties and the politicians who are actually more selected than elected. Think about it. If the Democrats were right and the GOP were all a bunch of greedy and selfless bastards, and the Democrats did all they said they would do, there wouldn't be a single Republican elected to office anywhere in this country. On the other hand, if the Republicans were right and the Democrats were a group of manipulative SOBs determined to tax the middle class into oblivion, and they actually did all they promised, you couldn't find a Democrat in office anywhere you looked.

However, we know---we instinctively know---both sides are lying to us. Whenever a single party has controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency nothing changes does it? We still have the same ole BS. Even when a single party had controlled the governor's office and state legislature it's still the same game. The reason is because neither party is actually serious about doing anything. While you and I talk about the system being broken, for them the system works just fine because the ones who line their pockets and campaign war chests are doing just fine. A politician's biggest concern is getting reelected because, frankly, they love the power (which is addictive and gives them a sense of self importance) and they love the perks and lifestyle that power brings them. But getting and keeping that power mean getting access to big money, and the only ones capable of providing that kind of money are the big corporations or their errand boys (and girls) who work for them, the lobbyists.

In fact, these lobbyists are paid really big money on behalf of their masters to make sure those they helped to put in office do as they're told. In some cases, they even help to write legislation and provide summaries for bills or issues along with their "recommendations". All this has effectively made it near impossible for the average American to even consider running for office; it's far outside the financial reach of most of us. That's why Congress is called the "Millionaire's Club", because it actually is. It doesn't matter what your party affiliation is. It matters who your financial benefactors are. The political infighting is both a matter of which special interest group wins out on a particular issue, and in keeping us divided; to make us believe it's the other side's fault (like "taking guns away" or "destroying" some freedom).

The truth of the matter is that the Oligarchy wants--- actually needs--- for us to be divided. It has to keep us at each other's throats in as many ways as possible. "Why" you ask? Again, the answer is pretty simple. As long as we're fighting and arguing with each other, no one is watching the "candy store". That is, we're not focused on the corruption which is taking place almost openly (and in some cases, in broad daylight). Secondly, with us fighting each other, it's so much easier to manipulate one side and then other. That allows them to expand their control. This type of mentality happens not just at the local or community level, but at the state as well as the national and even international levels.

How often have you heard where some country, often one few have even heard of, is suddenly in the news amid claims of "terrorism" or some other "international crime"? Fairly often I would bet. Invariably the US is "asked" by various parties to intervene to help restore democracy or some other noble sounding cause. The odds are pretty good that the sole reason has to do with either access to resources or a market. And as often as not, it's because attempts to gain access to these resources or markets by regular means have failed. Attempts at bribing have failed. Threats have failed, and finally once that has happened, public opinion is stirred up and the next thing we know, we're bombing the daylights out of some nothing of a county or group.

Former Nazi Air Marshall Hermann Goering once said "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” The only real difference today is that the decision is made between corporate and government officials, who work hand-in-hand (in the majority of cases, the revolving door between the corporate world and the government one, be it as an elected official or an appointed one, is a blur) rather a cabal of politicians. In fact, it might as well be stated that the goals of most politicians, senior staff members, bureaucratic department heads, or appointed offices is to become one of these very generously paid lobbyists.

Another feature of a divided people besides being easier to manipulate, is that they almost always look to the government to "fix" the problem, which it is always happy to do since that affords them the opportunity to seize more control over your life. Recently that control has been in terms of surveillance and the increased militarization of the police. Together, they can quite easily devolve into a police state...all for our own protection naturally. There's another interesting feature used in these situations which we're seeing a lot of lately. The use of name calling, or more specifically, of demonizing an individual, group, or term.

Since kindergarten we've all known the value of name calling, rumors, and innuendos. Politics is no different. I've known a certain politician who purposefully would call his female nemesis a vulgar but rhyming term similar to her name. Of course, calling opponents by various derogatory but humorous names has been common since the ancient Greek forums. The late Huey P. Long of Louisiana made it art form! So did President Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin, FDR. It's a staple of politics. What's different today, at least in US politics, has been the misuse of terms like "Nazism", "Socialism", "Communism" as well as "racism" and others. The intent seems to be to confuse people by trying to convince them that the term means something that it doesn't. For instance, claiming that the Democratic Party is "Socialism" or "Communist" while the GOP is "Nazis" (this can just as easily be applied to a specific individual from either party as well).

The fact is that neither the Democrats or Republicans are as the other side claim. Both represent corporate special interest groups; each has its own agenda. While socialism and Communism imply doing away with capitalism and Nazism implies business interests becoming subservient to the state, which are all opposite to what the Oligarchy wants. In addition, the overuse and misuse of the terms distorts and dilutes their meanings to the point no one understands their significance. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose for it to mean---neither more or less". Has politics now become the "Looking Glass"? This misapplication of terms also distort the fact that ideologies such as democratic socialism had worked quite well in Europe until recently when the system was overloaded with "migrants" who, lacking skills, education and a similar work ethic, refuse to participate in the economic system which is required for its success.

However, when it did work properly, the citizenry benefited very handsomely. Yes, they paid much higher taxes (which they voted to approve), but they were willing to do so in exchange for more public benefits. But it also meant the corporations were also more heavily regulated and there was more mandatory transparency. It also meant that unions and employee associations had a much more active voice in government and work affairs. That's something the Oligarchy obviously doesn't want. So, terms like "democratic socialism" become linked to "Communism" or even "Nazism", which already have negative connotations, as if they were one in the same.

So, what kind of government does the Oligarchy and plutocracy want? Their ideal form of government is Fascism, which as its founder, Benito Mussolini once said, would be better called as "Corporatism" since it's a partnership between government and the major businesses (in his view, government would be the senior partner while today it's the opposite). The plutocracy, as the name implies, would like to see to that the rich (and by that I mean really rich) elites are in charge. Thus, the special interest groups behind the Democratic Party and its politicians are pushing for Left oriented form of Fascism while those behind the Republican Party are trying to implant a Right leaning form of Fascism. Either way, it's Fascism.

For it to succeed, we must be ignorant of or willing to ignore the many forms of corruption and manipulation which are taking place at all levels of government (the so-called "Nanny State" which wants to control what you eat, wear, the education of you and your children, your workplace, use of private land, living "off the grid", and so forth while learning everything there is about you). It's also necessary that we not be united. That's one reason we see such groups like Antifa and BLM with their paid organizers and agitators (surprisingly, the Right has been unexpectedly quite when it comes to social violence). However, to be sure when it has come to police shootings, there has been several instances where the police reacted improperly and weren't either punished or adequately punished. But too has been the tendency of the certain groups to think they don't have to follow a cop's instructions or to act physically or verbally aggressively (either intentionally or not). You just don't make a intense situation worse by doing that. It's really stupid and a recipe for tragedy.

There are things we can do, at least for now, to help offset this assault on our individual freedoms and to restore our Constitutional Republics, which for now appears lost. One, don't share personal information (especially financial or political) with groups you don't know. This is especially true of surveys by phone or online (such as the seemly innocent looking quizzes online which offer to tell you what's your "totem animal" or "power color" or whatever). If you must, then lie about the responses. Seriously. Don't give any real data about your viewing, shopping, dining habits no matter how innocent they seem. It all goes to build a profile of you and others with similar responses.

Another thing you can do is to assume that the media, just like politicians or other political groups, have an agenda they're pushing. Try to get as many diverse news sources as possible. Read Left leaning articles as well as Right leaning on the same topic if possible in order to seek out the truth, which is usually somewhere in the middle (no one said this was going to be easy). Read different blogs and pass them on to your friends and ask that they do the same (like this one for instance!). Go outside the US for news stories. You'll be surprised at the different takes they have on events in the US as well as the stories they find important that we never hear about.

We also need to support candidates based on their stances on issues, not political registration (and especially not based on newspaper or other endorsements which, again, are pushing their agendas not yours). Pay specific attention to third party and Independent candidates (remember, Indies are the largest voting bloc in America by far). Partisan politics are about pushing someone else's agenda who has a lot more money than you do or ever will. Get involved in issues which are non-partisan such as real campaign finance reform which makes it possible for anyone to afford to run for office; ending gerrymandering for political parties. This creates artificial and biased boundaries designed to keep the incumbent or their party in power. Push for a non-partisan group like a university to do it using simple population data not based on political registration.

Get involved with efforts to create a balanced playing field for Independents and third parties to file and run for office, as well as participate in debates. There are still backward states which require non-partisan candidates to have hundreds or even thousands more signatures to get on a ballot than a Republican or Democrat. Also, both corporate owned parties actively seek to keep third party and Independent candidates out of debates; they make it appear that you have "choices" while limiting those choices to two! As an aside, the news media also try to ignore third party and Indie candidates; treating like a sideshow if they acknowledge them at all. Voters also need to be the ones with the final say on tax or rates increases, as well as increases in public sector salaries or perks. Allowing citizen initiated ballot referendums must be given.

Volunteer or financially support Indies or a third party candidate if you can, even if it's just telling others. Demand term limits be imposed in order to at least limit the amount of corruption going on. Personally, I support a twelve year cap. Focus on individual issues, and be sure to keep an open mind (doing a little research of your own won't hurt either). Heck, don't vote for incumbents for a change of pace and fresh ideas! Lastly, find ways to bring diverse groups together to target specific problems. If we can do this, we can fight back against the obvious attempt to hijack our country, its values, and its traditions. We need to restore our Constitutional Republic, and by coming together we can do that. But if we wait any longer that opportunity, like our nation, will be gone forever. Let's kick to the curb those who seek to overthrow our nation like yesterday's garbage.