President Biden, Storming Washington, and What Kind of America Do We Want?

The Republicans have lost two important seats in Georgia and as a result, will lose control of the Senate. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell will now be the Senate minority leader. Democrats are already in control of the House. Trump has held off conceding the election, though it's clear that Biden is the victor. Trump is expected to concede, but doesn't have to say that Biden won "fair and square". That's because it appears that he didn't. But there's a bigger story being played out here.

Americans have had mounting doubt about the legitimacy of elections going back to at least George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 (remember "dangling chads"?).  Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016 sparked another round and launched a nearly four year investigation into alleged Russian collusion and a rigged election, amplified by the media, which was at least partially complicit.

 Ultimately, it was proven that not only was there no Russian collusion, but that the whole story was  concocted by the Clinton-Obama camp to discredit Trump (which also goes to show the extent those in power will go to keep power. I dare say they will go much further); an opening salvo to destroy Trump's credibility.

Now, with the 2020 election over, we're being told that China this time was directed involved in the election results by the Right.  We're told that the voting machines were rigged; that fake ballots were used; that the dead rose from their graves and somehow voted for the Democrats; that the vote counts stopped as soon as the Democrats had enough votes to win. Meanwhile, the victors, the Democrats, are telling us that the election went just fine. That our elections can't be rigged unlike the results in 2016.

Is any of it true? To be honest, I don't know. I've seen a lot of footage which reputedly shows illegal vote counting in process. I've read numerous articles about the reliability of some of the voting machines. We know the "Russian collusion" of 2016 was a hoax at taxpayer expense.

Frankly, I see no reason to think the claim of Chinese involvement is anything but utter garbage. Why would Russia or China try to destable the country when we are quite able and willing to do it to ourselves? It's just something else to cause us to doubt the legitimacy of our electoral system.

But here's the real issue. Americans, especially on the Right, have long believed that the we're losing our freedoms and I agree, although perhaps not to the extent that they do. We are certainly not a Constitutional or democratic Republic any longer. We are a defacto Corporatocracy, controlled by an small group of Oligarchs. We are a surveillance state which is just one major crisis away from becoming an all out police state.

We no longer feel we have a say in what's going on (academic studies conclude that's pretty much the case. Congress and the Presidency follows the dictates of the 1% and a relatively few very powerful global corporations). Therefore, we feel threatened. We have come to believe that we have only two arrows in our Constitutional quiver---the ballot or the bullet.

If we can no longer trust the ballot, the only remaining option is a revolt. Could it happen? Yes, it's certainly possible. However, with the tools of the surveillance state already in place, it would be hard to pull off. I don't think, however, that we are expected to pull it off. Historically speaking, the larger and more complex a society is, the more difficult it is to topple.

The best examples of successful overthrows of governments are the so-called "Rainbow Revolutions" of Eastern Europe; the "Pots and Pans" revolution of Iceland; and, of course, the Second Revolution in Russia following Gorbachev. The uprisings during the "Arab Spring" are another great example.  Even the recent pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, while apparently unsuccessful due primarily to the COVID outbreak, merit close study as does the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989 in China.

These were sustained protests aimed at key government centers. They were largely non-violent since the State is always looking for an excuse to declare martial law and call out the National Guard or military. The protests sought to disrupt not just the operation of government, but the personal lives of those in power; to make it nearly impossible to function or for them to go or do anything.

They are also disregarded the official media which serves the interests of the Status Quo. The media's job is to divide the opposition into as many factions as possible in order to render it impotent. That includes manufacturing events to pit the various groups against each other (which the media has already been doing for awhile now). It is to discredit or vilify the opposition and its leaders.

The State will do everything possible to disrupt and infiltrate the opposition that they can. In the U.S. they've been doing that going back to at least the 1920's they infiltrated the KKK, Odd Fellows, the Socialist Party of America, unions, and other groups. During the 60's and 70's, it was the anti-war movement, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Black Panthers, the Civil Rights Movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Women's Liberation Movement, and so forth.

They threatened and attempted to blackmail MLK, Malcolm X,  Cesar Chavez of the National Farm Workers Association among others. Wonder whatever happened to activist unionism? Wonder no more.  It was "defanged" like all the other groups which posed a threat to the Status Quo. Heck, more recently they did it within Occupy Movement and the Tea Party.  The singular goal of the Status Quo is to maintain or expand the power and control of the Status Quo.   

Naturally, I'm not proposing anything. I am, however, saying that when people no longer have faith in the government; that when they no longer believe their vote counts, then the State leaves no option for the people they will, like a cornered animal, strike out, be it Left, Right, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, or whatever. I'm sure those in power are keenly aware of this, just as I'm equally sure they are prepared for such an action by the people.

Those in power will use patriotic sounding words like "our democracy", the "People's representatives" or "doing the People's business". They will tell us that protests against government "aren't who we are". That we are a nation of laws except they fail to mention that there are two sets of laws. One for them and another for everyone else. That speaking up is "Un-American". They will act surprised by any protests or acts of resistance. Perhaps some of it will be actually true. It's so hard to differentiate their lies from the truth anymore. 

Nevertheless, those in Washington are largely out of touch with what the average American endures, let alone those among the working poor or homeless. Anything to tug at our heartstrings so that we back down. Anything to obfuscate the corruption of government and acumination of wealth and power. It's the silk glove covering the mailed fist.

People, regardless of political ideology, race, gender, or religion, must wake up to the fact that this is not "our" country any longer. The ruling Oligarchy has near absolute control of America. One percent controls as much wealth than the bottom 90%. The inequality gap is the widest of any industrialized nation. Our healthcare and educational systems are among the worse. Our social safety net is inadequate at best (we rank toward the bottom when it comes to infant mortality and child poverty).

Most of our well paying manufacturing jobs have been outsourced overseas. We're now largely a low paying service economy.  Unions, once the backbone and voice of the Working Class are mute.  Our infrastructure is crumbling and yet we spend more money on the military that the next ten nations combined, including Russia and China. We are taxed without input. And now, even our supposed national voice---the election process itself---is no longer reliable.

There's an old curse---"may you live in interesting times". I'm sure the next four years will be interesting times without a doubt. The only question is what, if anything, can we do about it? What, if anything can the American People---Left or Right---do restore or rebuild the America we want to live in; that we want our children and grandchildren to live in? The answer is up to you.

 

"The Top 0.1% percent...owns about the same wealth as 90% of America"

U.S. Defense Spending Compared To Other Countries

How Does the United States compare with child well-being?

Addressing Child Poverty: How Does the United States CompareWith Other Nations?

What Has Happened To Political Discourse?

There is something very wrong in America today. It's hard to pin down. It's more than just the "mood" of the nation. It goes much deeper than that. With the past four or perhaps five presidential election cycles, we've the quality of the potential occupant of the White House diminish. We have super wealthy individuals with little connection to ordinary Americans vying for the highest elected office in the land, all the while pretending that they mirror us. Most of us have come to accept the politics, especially at the national level such as this, as rigged. We know that our apathy and short attention spans have resulted in the forfeiture of our democratic republic. We've discovered that those who care more are the very ones we should fear the most, and thus, we've allowed ourselves to become a defacto oligarchy. We've given the illusion of choice by being allowed to pick from wealthy pre-vetted individuals who will tow the line and do as they are instructed, despite their faux-center Right or center-Left campaign rhetoric.

We've elected twice now an individual who normally wouldn't have qualified for even a state governor, let alone a two term president. We've witnessed a befuddled Congress capable of little real change; at least change that would improve the lived the most Americans. Even the Supreme Court has seen fit to ignore its Constitutional boundaries and rewrite legislation. Then there's the ongoing terrorist threat; recruited, trained, armed and supplied by us while at the same time our so-called "leadership" in Washington, as well as various State Houses, have encouraged not just illegal immigration, but accepting "refugees" from the very nations we are militarily engaged at as well. The same sort of individuals who have all but destroyed Europe! We're told by politicians in Washington that "We" should be more accommodating: that "We' should conform and adapt. Really? What happened to the ideal of being American? When did we, as citizens, decided it was ok to forgo learning English, or abiding by our laws, or accepting our values? When did we decide to remove our nation's flag or removing our religion's symbols out of fear that we might "offend" someone? That, nevertheless, is what's happening in the name of "multiculturalism". We are allowing this nation to become small enclaves representing other nations much like some of the failed empires of old did---Rome, Holy Roman Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire just to name three.

Now, something else is happening, which is perhaps even more sinister, though not totally unexpected. We are seeing open and organized attacks in the name of politics. However, these assaults, which are usually violent, seem to be coming from just one side---the Left. These individuals are organized locally (some are bused in). Their aim is to disrupt, harass, intimidate, and physically engage anyone who either is supporting the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, or simply those who want to hear him speak, leaving many bloody and bruised. They have blocked highways, streets, entrances, parking lots while some have thrown glass bottles, eggs, tomatoes, rocks---anything really. They have sneaked into various speaking venues and stormed the stage, shouted down speakers, started fights, and anything else they can to cause chaos. There's been more than few incidents where the police and/or security have been assaulted, cars (including police vehicles) pelted with rocks, overturned and burned. Meanwhile, the media either ignores or downplays these events while attempting to make it look like it's Trump's fault. When his crowds are small, the media claims Trump is losing stream among his supporters when in fact, they most likely don't want to get beaten up! The same goes for his poll numbers. The media likes to point out that Trump is trailing behind Hillary Clinton, the anticipated Democrat nominee, in polls generally conducted a few days after they've reported on violence at a Trump event (which is, of course, slanted against Trump).

So, who are these "protestors" anyway? Well, some---a minority---are actual active supporters of Clinton, however, most are part of various Left wing organizations as well as illegal immigrants, black or Hispanic race oriented groups, LGBT groups, and a few minority oriented gangbangers. As pointed out above, some are bused in, given instructions and signs, and paid. While the specific makeup may vary from protest to protest, the one thing you can be sure of is that these are not random or spontaneous events. The next obvious question would be whether Hillary Clinton is behind these attacks or at least aware of them? In my opinion, I would say yes and no. I don't think Clinton is directly behind these attacks. She can't afford to be; not as a presidential candidate. However, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there is some indirect or loose coordination going on. Campaigns are complex organizations at times; employing dozens or even hundreds in top tier elections. Many things happen without any direct knowledge of the candidate or their immediate staff (a lesson of "plausible denial" learned through Nixon's Watergate fiasco and subsequent adoption of the adage about not employing amateurs). Recent Federal Election Guidelines (thanks in part to the misruling of the Supreme Court's "Citizen's United" matter) have made it possible for groups and organizations to "campaign" or promote a candidate or other issues without the approval of the candidate.

As for the second half of the question, I have absolutely no doubt that Clinton and her campaign staff are fully aware of what's being done in her name. How could she not? It's constantly all over the corporate news and Internet. Yet, despite the mayhem being done allegedly on her behalf, Hillary Clinton has barely acknowledged it publically, nor has she stepped up and directly asked that the violence stop or taken steps to disavow any group or individual involved with these acts (I'm sure that if she does, it will be at best only a tepid reprimand and then, only to the severity of the attacks).

With respect to Donald Trump and the conservatives, they have been remarkably civil and calm. Trump can more than handle any heckler and thus far, those who have attended or attempted to attend a Trump rally, have handled themselves quite well when there has been attempt at disruption. Of course, they have defended themselves, as they should, when physically assaulted and most tend to ignore the verbal harassment directed their way. The police and security too have been impressively restrained despite their patrol cars being vandalized, egged, dinted, and so forth (again, the corporate media has not reported on this aspect very much at all). I am also impressed by the fact that thus far, none of the Far Right groups have responded in kind. I would have thought that they would have been out in force, but no. However, if they did, doubtless that the corporate media would seize on it in order to imply that Trump and/or his supporters are "racists", or "Nazis" or whatever the scary word of the month happens to be.

So, what can we make of this? First, this is a side of America that I hoped I would never see. This is what one saw in early Nazi Germany, just before and after the election of Hitler as Chancellor when the Brownshirts under Ernst Rohm would attack the political opposition in order to breakup meetings, marches, speeches, and so forth. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini used his Blackshirts in a similar fashion during the 1920's just before obtaining power. Of course other dictators and wannabe dictators throughout history and the world have sought to disrupt , dissuade, and demoralize their opponents. Sometimes it fails or has the opposite effect and the people come out in droves to support the other candidate (of course, coups have occasionally followed, and in recent history, with the assistance of the CIA and/or US military. Pinochet is a good example). However, more often than not, many have stayed away from the polls out of fear. I would be surprised to see that here. In the last two presidential elections, there were documented reports of whites being turned away from polls by a black racist group as well as the dead mysteriously coming back to vote (I guess we should start referring to that as "zombie voting").

What we are seeing is yet another example of our decline as a nation. Actions such as the ones described above or what you see on TV or the Internet is, frankly, what we would expect from a third world nation or perhaps even a second tier country. But it's happening here. Hillary Clinton must win this election if for no other reason than to avoid possible criminal proceeding for her actions (or lack thereof) as Secretary of State (whether or not she can actually be prosecuted is another matter). There has already been several investigations undertaken by the US Senate and House as well as by the FBI which would give credence of the seriousness of her actions. Donald Trump seems to represent the last hope of many Constitutional conservatives to preserve something of our Founding Father's intent for our nation. Yet, many of the status quo Republican "leadership" see him as a direct threat to their authority over the party and its dogma (some on the Democrat side feel the same way about Hillary).

Most Americans have abandoned both political parties as being to corrupt, inept, and no longer in touch with the values of ordinary Americans. Neither have shown to represent or act in our interests. The majority of Americans (just over 43%) are now Independent, including the overwhelming majority of the nation's largest voting bloc, the Millennials), and that number is growing rapidly. Democrats remain a factor, though a waning one while the GOP is a distant third. Thanks in part to Bernie Sanders, a slight majority of the Millennials have found a revived interest in democratic socialism while the minority have picked up on libertarianism. The media, which are controlled by the same clique which owns both political parties, continues to act as if Americans have only two political options---Democrat or Republican---while completely ignoring other parties such as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, despite to renewed interest by the Millennials and other turned off Americans. It seems that the only thing keeping the economic and political status quo intact is the lack of a strong viable candidates running as Independents, Green, Libertarian or another third party who are willing to challenge the system. The Oligarchs who now rule America would like to keep that from ever happening, and thus the game will continue until we, as a nation, decide that we don't want to play by their rules any longer.

Perhaps, in the end, the violence being taken on behalf of Hillary Clinton may underscore not just a decline in civil politics or even our decline as a nation, but also point the way out for us as a nation. Perhaps the violence represents a last gasp of the failed status quo to maintain power by inciting the uninformed with bread crumbs. It certainly shows what happens when a nation---any nation---ignores it responsibilities in protecting its liberties and permits an economic and political class to make our decisions for us. I think it's past time that we take back this nation. How about you?


Violence Breaks Out At Trump Rally in San Jose
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-breaks-trump-rally-san-jose-protesters-hurl/story?id=39576437


Violence And Arrests Are Way More Common At Trump Rallies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/violence-arrests-trump_us_56e9d15be4b0b25c91846261


VOX editor suspended for encouraging riots at Trump rallies
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/03/vox-editor-suspended-for-encouraging-riots-at-trump-rallies.html

Is "Hater" the New "Racist"?

As many of you know, I follow a vast menu of news and blog sites on a daily basis; some present a pretty liberal perspective while others extremely conservative in their outlook. Some of these are print media while others are video or radio. As a radical non-partisan centrist, I am looking for commonality of thought and where we diverge. One thing that seems to be popping up increasing is the use of the word "hater". It seems that whenever a conservative makes a comment that a liberal doesn't agree with or seems contradictory to their argument, they almost immediately label the perceived offender as a "hater", and almost as quickly, the conservative begins backtracking as fast as they can while trying to defend (albeit almost apologetically) their remarks. Which brings me to my first observation, has the term "hater" become the new "racist"?

It used to be that someone was a racist if they, for whatever reason, didn't like another race (sometimes equally applied to ethnic groups). Perhaps surprisingly, the term didn't always carry the negative connotation that we think of now. There was actually a time were being a "racist" was something many were actually proud of; it meant they were proud of their own race or particular ethnic group. Since whites were the largest group in America, it was most often attributed them, but it could just as equally be applied to others too. In fact, it's not uncommon to hear its usage in other parts of the world with some sense of pride.
Over time, however, the liberal Left adopted the term for anyone not agreeing with their position on a given social issue. I suppose that this was because most of the social issues were directed toward or referenced specific minority racial groups. Reinforced by the media, the conservatives were put on the defensive every time the term was used. Eventually, however, it's overuse began to numb the public to its intended meaning. The shock has largely lost its awe.

What was needed, therefore, was a new term that was simple and carried an especially negative connotation, and so, it now appears that the word "hater" has become fashionable among the Left. Every time a conservative takes a position against, let's say gay rights, immediately they are labeled a "hater" without much consideration to their original comment or their reason for taking the position they did. From the Left's point of view, a conservative opposes gay rights...ergo...they are a "hater". See? Clean and simple.

Of course, all is fair in love and war, and apparently in political lexicology. During the late 1970's through the early 1990's as you may remember, the term "liberal" was used by the Right (often with the colorfully descriptive "bleeding heart" epitaph generally attached) as a verbal stand in for someone being "anti-American" or "Commie" (again, with colorful epitaphs like "pinko" and "fag" added for emphasis). Liberals were just as quick to verbally back pedal in defense of their position. I recall writing an article for our once great newspaper (March 29, 1998) defending the use of the term "liberal" as being actually a good thing in that it meant open minded and implied a willingness to examine carefully all sides of an issue while conservative meant nothing more than a desire to proceed slowly; that change wasn't always an improvement, not the backwards thinking Neanderthal it does now. Interesting how terms change their meaning over time isn't it?

I think if we're to understand each other, we need to change the tone of the discussion. We need to use less threatening and inflammatory words. Name calling really should be left on the playground don't you think? We need to at least acknowledge the other person's position. It doesn't mean we agree with it, or even that we accept it. What we are doing, however, is acknowledging their right to their opinion (however wrong we believe it is) as part of the political and civil discourse we desperately need in this country---indeed, the world---if we're to get out of this morass. So, let's drop the "hater" label and simply agree to disagree. Who knows, perhaps we'll find out that we may actually agree on the core issues. And if you don't agree, well maybe you're just a fat puddin' head!

Purple American

Everyone once in awhile I come across an article that just really reaches out and grabs me. I recently read one such article, written by Mark Satin on his blog, Radical Middle Newsletter. Mark talked about the fact that we, as Americans, actually have more in common than not. I too believe most Americans share a certain core of collective values, which is why most of us are somewhere in the "no man's land" of the political landscape. That is, the Middle. Some of us are slightly left of the center, while others are slightly right of center. Either way, we share a lot in common with each other despite what the media and some political pundits would have us believe. Both parities, however, have chosen to occupy the extreme sides. It's only during election that the real battle begins, which is the fight for the Center. Each try to convince the Middle of their sincerity, and then after the election is over, retreat to their extremist camp leaving the most of us feeling like a used rag. No wonder there is so much apathy among voters!

Over the last 10 or so years, the Middle has begun to wake up and realize that it has the real power in this country. Not the Far Left. Not the Far Right. What the Middle wants is the creation of a synthesis that represents the best of both parties. If that can't be done within an existing political framework, then it will be done outside of the existing political guidelines through a new political party (and there are a lot of new third party choices out there which simply exemplifies the current level of voter frustration) or through a social political movement along the lines of those rarely seen since the 1960's and '70's. The party which can best accommodate the rising power of the Center will survive. The other will become, at best, a regional has been. or at worse, regulated to the dust bin of history. It's happened before and it will happen again.

So with out further adieu, here's Mark Satin's article. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did:

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_fiorina.htm