Two Peas in a Pod: Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell

Two of the most disliked members of the dishonorable elite are Representative Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco and Speaker of the House, and the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader.

Nancy Pelosi has been a member of House since 1987, and for much of her time in office, she has held one of the most powerful positions in Congress, Speaker of House (2007 - 2011 and 2019 - Present). She is also one of the wealthiest members of Congress, which is saying something given that Congress is the bastion of millionaires to begin with.

According to Open Secrets, Pelosi is the sixth wealthiest member of Congress. She has an estimated net worth of $135 million dollars. She makes $210,000 from her position in Congress. However, her monthly income from investments brings in $1 million dollars. It's worth noting that her portfolio includes investments in IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, Bank of America, and General Electric; all part of the ruling Corporatocracy which pulls Congress's purse strings.  

As an aside, Pelosi has been consistently one of the most disliked members of not just the House, but Congress of years. So how does she manage to keep getting reelected?  Pelosi's is from San Francisco's 12th District, which covers the entirely of the city itself, and thus is 100% urban; the fertile soil of the Democratic Party. The median income is just under $121,000.

Despite her strict Italian Catholic upbringing, Pelosi represents an extremely liberal district, reflecting its racial and cultural makeup. It is one of the so-called major "sanctuary" cities, offering support to illegal immigrants in violation of federal immigrations laws and still receiving federal dollars, thanks to people like Pelosi.  

Racially it's mainly white at 43.5%, followed by Asian with 31.9%, Hispanic 14.3%, black at 5.4%, and mixed race making up 3.9%. Males comprise 51.3% of population while females are 48.7%. With a population of 771,000, it has one of the highest LGBQT concentrations in the country.

 When it comes to voter registration, just under half of district's residents are either registered to vote (total voter registration is 425,290). With its well earned liberal tradition, it's not surprising the 12th District is overwhelmingly Democrat with 57.50% of the voters. Republicans make up just 6.61%, followed by Independents with 1.65%.  Pelosi won her last race in 2020 with a commanding 74% of the vote.

So, the only way Pelosi can lose is if a strong and very wealthy Democratic candidate runs against her, which is unlikely to happen (in addition, Pelosi is very good friends and neighbor with former San Francisco mayor and current senator, Diane Feinstein).

As for Mitch McConnell, he's been a member of what's been called "the most exclusive private club in the world" since 1985; representing Kentucky's 4th Congressional District, which includes upper incomes of eastern Jefferson County, and much of Northern Kentucky extending to the Ft. Thomas, Newport, and Covington (all of which are considered part of the Greater Cincinnati area).

Aside from the wealthy portions of Louisville/Jefferson County, the 4th Congressional District in general is well to do, especially the areas close to Cincinnati. It is also one of the first Congressional districts in Kentucky to become solidly Republican in what was once a hardcore Democrat state (albeit a fairly conservative one).

In terms of registration, the 4th Congressional District has 619,460 registered voters. Of that, 49.50%  are Republicans. Democrats make up 38.31%, while Independents and third parties (most notably the growing Libertarian Party) comprise a total of 12.19% of voters.  

It's worth nothing that Louisville/Jefferson County, which is Kentucky's largest city and the economic engine of the state, is one of the last Democratic bastions remaining in a de facto red state. While there are pockets of traditionally liberal Democrats (notably in the city's Highlands), most residents tend to lean conservative on the majority of issues.

Louisville also has the highest concentration of LGBQT individuals as well, who are known to be very politically active and predominately Democrat. Nevertheless, it appears that the 80 year old senator's base is pretty secure for the foreseeable future. As for his approval rating, that's something altogether different.

Like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senator Mitch McConnell is one of the most unpopular individuals in Congress. In a December 2021 Gallup Poll, McConnell came in first place (or should that be last place?) as the most disliked person in Congress with an approval rating of 34%. For what it's worth, Pelosi was second place with 40%. Chief Justice John Roberts was the most favorable with 60%, but that was, of course, before the Roe v. Wade decision.

Even at home, the Senator's disapproval rating hovers around a 53%, and yet despite the best efforts of Democrats, he keeps winning (when I say "best efforts", it's usually political retreads or inept newbies harping on the wrong message). Nationally, it gets worse. In a May 2022 survey, the Senior Senator's approval rating was a mere 28%.  To stay in office, despite poor approval ratings, takes a lot of money, and Senator McConnell easily makes bank. Who are his biggest donors?

The majority of McConnell's donations come from Wall Street, especially banks and other financial institutions, including healthcare and real estate investment firms. Other top donors include insurance, energy and technology companies which contributed $6.3 million dollars in 2020.

Some of the top donors include the financially powerful Blackstone Group, Humana, NorPac, and Kindred Health. One of the largest is Kent Companies, a third generation family owned construction company based in Midland Texas. It has donated $6.94 million dollars into McConnell's war chest.

Other donors include BlueCross/Blue Shield, AT&T, Goldman Sachs, UPS, Brown-Foreman, Citigroup, General Electric, Peabody Energy, FedEx, and  JP Morgan and Chase. With all those "political investors" in Mitch McConnell, just how much money does he have in his war chest?

When combined with the Senate Leadership Fund (a super PAC), One Nation (a political nonprofit fund), McConnell controls just under $90 million dollars (or $87.5 million to be precise) as of January 2022.  In 2021, he raised a total of $100 million dollars which he used, in part, to help fellow Republicans in Congress with their re-election efforts. Is it any wonder the Kentucky senator so strongly supported Citizens United?

As for the senator himself, he's done alright personally. According to an article by Forbes, Mitch McConnell earns $200,000 annually as senator. With investments, his monthly income is $900,000. His Wall Street investments exceed approximately $25 million dollars in stocks and bonds. Overall, his net worth is around $150 million dollars, making him the 19th richest member of Congress.

Irrespective of their popularity ratings, Pelosi and McConnell have done quite well in politics. The same can be said for Congress in general where more than half were millionaires going in and practically all are coming out. Compare that to just 8% of the total population who are millionaires, and you'll have to agree that Congress doesn't even begin to represent most Americans. They have little or no concept what the average American goes through on a daily basis just to make ends meet. That's mostly thanks to Citizens United.

That fact that these individuals who make up the House of Representatives and Senate can have a reelection percentage of over 90% despite sustained dismal approval ratings under 30%  is due to partisan gerrymandering and (again) Citizens United, not to mention unregulated term limits which allows them to hold office practically forever no matter how poor their performance. Isn't it time for a change?

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!  

 

Justice Roberts Tops Federal Leaders in American Approval

Nancy Pelosi Net Worth 2022: Salary Stock Portfolio Wealth

Favorability of Mitch McConnell among U.S. adults, as of May2022

McConnell-aligned groups build $87.5m war chest to spend onwinning Senate majority

Congressional Stagnation in the United States

Rules For Thee But Not For Me: Congressional Exemptions (Including Covid Vaccine)

Maybe it's the word "mandate" which I don't like. It conjures up images of jackboots. It sounds so finite; so authoritarian.  I've never cared for authoritarianism, especially when it comes from the government, and particularly when it involves my personal choices. I've always been a strong advocate of individual rights.  So were our Founding Fathers. They were big on individual rights and restricting government's ability to impede those rights.

So, when President Joe Biden comes out with "mandates" about vaccinations, I have an issue with that. It's not that I necessarily oppose the vaccinations. I think they are likely beneficial, particularly if you're someone with a impaired immune system such as the elderly or someone with a illness which affects their immune system. However, the government also claims natural immunity alone isn't enough even for young and healthy people, which seems odd.    

Naturally, I have some questions about the vaccines themselves and the record time they were developed and approved. Most vaccines go through a long and laborious procedure of test trials and reviews lasting years, not four months, before being receiving the FDC stamp of approval (in fact, the average process takes 10-15 years). Apparently, however, the COVID vaccines were an exception, which is a little disconcerting.

And yet, President Biden has issued a mandate requiring virtually everyone to either get vaccinated or regularly tested.  Many employers, as well as schools, however, have insisted that everyone be vaccinated or lose their job. Other employers are more "lenient".  They are opting to forego proof of vaccination and instead require weekly testing, wearing a mask, and avoiding contact with customers and other employees as much as possible. How generous, especially if your income depends on customer contact (note intended sarcasm).

One reason I italicized the word "virtually" is because this mandate, which is causing so much grief among you and I, doesn't apply to members of Congress, the President, or their immediate staff. Yelp, you read that right. President Biden, VP Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and the usual suspects are exempt from the "jab". That doesn't mean they can't get the shot if they want to. It's just means they don't have to if they don't want to. I have a problem with that.

If the various vaccines are so safe, and Covid is so contagious, then why are they exempt from the same jab we're told we have to go to work, send our children to school, or is required by all other government employees including the military?  As an aside, all four of the military branches discharged military personnel for refusing the vaccination.

We've all been told to "social distance" by at least six feet, wear a mask, and avoid social gatherings, and yet how often have we seen government leaders, such as members of Congress, huddle around a microphone or photo-op without a mask (or drop their mask as soon as they think the press is leaving)? How about members of the G7 all setting around talking mask free? Monkey see monkey don't?

I'm particularly amused...and a little miffed...to hear government leaders or the uber rich tell us wear masks indoors or to avoid contact with family, especially during the holidays; tell us to remain inside unless it's essential that we go out, and then avoid all contact and get back as soon as we can. I'm sure they're in full compliance with their own instructions...not! Vaccinations aside, all this made me wonder what else besides the Covid jab is Congress and the President exempt from but still applies to us.

One item which caught my eye immediately is FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act. Members of Congress, and any associated committees, are not subject to FOIA, which, in effect, means they don't answer to you. The explanation given is that responding to FOIA requests could put Congressional members "under undo pressure".

What about "insider trading"? In 2012, President Obama signed into law a bill prohibiting insider trading; that is, financial information received from sources outside the normal legislative process. But some enterprising legislators left a loophole in the bill as usual. Information received in the normal conduct of legislative business, including closed briefings, is not considered insider trading. So, if you learn something in a closed briefing about, let's say, a vaccine, that's not considered to be insider trading, you might want to have your broker on speed dial.  

Whistleblower protection. Ever hear the expression "See something say something"? Well, not if you work for the legislative branch! Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 to encourage federal employees, including those working in the executive branch to speak up if they see or hear something that's not kosher while protecting them from retaliation, including termination (at least in theory). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act gives similar protection to workers in the private sector.

However, Congress exempted itself and those who work in the legislative branch from protection. That includes those working in the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, and other federal jobs. So, if you  suspect something you'd better keep your damn mouth shut if you know what's good for you!

Along those same lines is subpoenaing health and safety records, and the ability to conduct investigations. The Occupational and Health Safety Act permits the U.S. Department of Labor to conduct investigations and obtain records from private businesses if required. However, the Office of Compliance, which issues those subpoenas, does not have the authority to investigate or subpoena records of alleged violations from the legislative branch. Kinda handy don't you think?

Public sector unions are the largest segment of organized labor in the United States. However, in addition to the above, Congress is exempt from keeping regular workplace records such as pertaining to the Age Discrimination Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act  to name just two.

It's worth nothing that in 1997, Congress passed Congressional Accountability Act. What's that you ask? It required Congress to adopt and apply certain legislation which had previously been signed into law but which Congress has exempted itself from.

A few of those laws (and when they were enacted) included the 1964 Title VII Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Occupation Health and Safety Act of 1970, and the Veteran's Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. Remember, these weren't formally adopted by Congress until 1997 even though they were passed into law years or decades earlier.

Then there's the topic of receiving outside money. Members of Congress receive a base salary of $174,000 (Majority and minority leaders in the Senate make a base of $193,400).  The House Speaker (that's Nancy Pelosi) makes $223,500. That doesn't include all the various perks they get such as gym membership, per diem, subsidized insurance (there's a taxpayer based fund which pays their premiums), first class seats on planes, free parking...anywhere (and no tickets!). Of course, there's always the "outside" perks which really make the job worthwhile.  

Why fly commercial when you can get a catered flight on a private airplane courtesy of a corporation or political association anywhere and at any time you want? Why live off a measly $174,000 when you can form your own personal leadership PAC to solicit mega donations which you can use to pay for all sorts of "political" related expenses? Others have set up special tax exempt foundations (funded by a "pay to play" scheme) and pay themselves in the six or seven figure range for "consulting".

You also can get speaking fees paying in the hundreds of thousands.  In 2001, Bill and Hillary gave 729 political talks averaging $210,795 each of them! After her tenure as Secretary  of State, Hillary received $22 million dollars in speaking fees. Most of the money---15.9 million---came from corporations which regularly lobby Congress.

While ordinary members of Congress may not do that well, they can still make a large chunk of change, and we're not even talking book deals or semi-regular appearances on talk shows! As an aside, bear in mind that just over 50% of Congressional members were millionaires (many are multi-millionaires) going into a job that pays $174,000.  You can bet that ain't doing it for their health or our wellbeing either.

The top 10% of Congressional members have three times the wealth as the bottom 90%, which is still far more than the average American household owns. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), saw her wealth go from $41 million to $115 million since making it into that top 10% bubble. Senator Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) wealth went from a paltry $3 million dollars to over $34 million. Then again, for some it doesn't matter. Senator Kelly Loeffer (R-GA) came into the game with a net worth of over $500 million.  The game has been rigged so that only those with deep pockets can play.

On the topic of money, there is one myth I want to dispel. Members of Congress don't get their salary for life, even if they serve just one term. Members can receive a full pension only if they're 62 years old and served for a minimum of five years; 50 years old and have served 20 years; or they've served for 25 years regardless of their age.

 Also, regardless of how long they served, they cannot receive more than 80% of the salary at the time they left Congress. They must also pay 1.3% of their salary into the Federal Employees' Retirement System and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.

Many members of Congress, including key staffers, often end up on Washington's K Street as corporate lobbyists, "advisers" or "consultants" (members of Congress must legally wait 12 months before they start glad handing their former colleagues). How many are we talking about?

About 78% of former House members and 87% of former Senate members, plus key staff members, become lobbyists while most of the remainder "advise" or "consult" on a part-time basis. On average, when a Congressman becomes a lobbyist, they get a 1,452% raise over their former $174,000 salary (plus all the perquisite perks) while lobbyists spend approximately $3 billion dollars lobbying Congress and other federal agencies. Lobbyists also write the overwhelming majority of all legislation too.  Is it any wonder that we're a Corporatocracy?

On that note, I'd like to ask you dear reader if any of this sounds like "socialism" to you? I can't imagine it does. Socialism is public ownership or control. Communism is state ownership of everything. That's includes private businesses, banks, and property. That's means no Wall Street. No lobbyists. That means everything you read above couldn't and wouldn't happen under socialism, Communism or Marxism.

Hopefully, this article has shed some light on the abuses and misuses of Congress, as well as the political system in general, for you. President Biden can "mandate" all he wants, but for countless Americans, it carries little or no weight, especially given that Biden and Congress have exempted themselves. But, as shown above, they've exempted themselves from many other laws too (and that's just a partial list).

The Status Quo that created the rules created the two tier legal system. Some say it's biased towards blacks, or Hispanics, or gays, or women, or the poor, and in a sense they'd be right.  Its aim is to separate us from them and us from each other. The more divided we are, the easier we are to control and manipulate. President John Kennedy said, in 1962, that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable". That clock is about to strike midnight.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider subscribing. It's free! Lastly please be sure to ""like" us on Facebook or whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation.

 

Why is Congress exempt from the Biden Covid mandate?

No, President Biden's mandate for federal workers does not apply to members of Congress and their staff

Here's who paid Hillary Clinton $22 Million in Speaking Fees

Majority of Lawmakers in the 116th Congress are millionaires

When a Congressman becomes a lobbyist he get a 1,452% raise(on average)

 

Do As We Say, Congress Says, Then Does What It Wants

Perks Members Of Congress Give To Themselves

 

Laws That Do Not Apply To Congress

Congress exempt from several federal laws

How Senators May have Avoided Insider Trading Charges

The Republican Party: Fissure and Future

Thanks to the election of one of their own, the Status Quo is back in power. President Biden has set about undoing most of President Trump's accomplishments, not to mention removing many of his  Federal appointments. It will be as if the Trump Presidency had never really existed. It was just a momentary aberration between Obama and Biden. 

I suspect much of what Biden will do during his first few months in office will be to rebuild the political structure first put into place under Obama, and which were to be deepened and expanded under a Hillary Clinton Administration. Instead, it will be left to Biden and his Vice President, Kamala Harris, to rebuild and the Establishment to implement ways to ensure that an political outsider like Donald Trump can never again be elected to the Presidency. That will be the end result of the second impeachment. 

Donald Trump was viewed as a irreverent by the two Establishment parties. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio called him a "clown" and his campaign a "clown circus" during the 2016 Republican Primary. No one took Trump seriously. Not the Democrats. Not the corporate owned media, and definitely not the Republicans.

Even after winning the Primary, he wasn't taken seriously. The Establishment Republicans had resigned themselves to another Clinton Presidency, which didn't bother them all that much. Hillary was "one of  them"; someone who had established her right to rule (not govern) by virtue of her connections and wealth. She was a top notch game player.  They could work with her.

Then came election night 2016. What happened stunned to the Status Quo. They all knew that Hillary hadn't connected with the electorate. The Establishment was aware that voters were angry over growing allegations of Hillary's "pay-to-play" foundation and as well as Benghazi, resulting in the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three American security personnel, among other troubling things.

They saw Hillary's odd behavior on the campaign trail just as we did, but nobody thought that a ultra-conservative populist and political outsider like Trump had any chance of winning. Besides, the media was giving us ample distractions---bread and circuses---to keep us entertained and at worse, confused. Hillary was a shoo in.  Yet, "The Donald" won anyway.

To call the Establishment stunned by Trump's victory would be a gross understatement. They were gobsmacked. Nevertheless, they bounced back with a vengeance. The Establishment Republicans would be tasked with "managing" the new president and keeping him under control.  Along with the Establishment Democrats, they would continue to keep the nation's neo-fascist trajectory on course though those in leadership positions within Washington's bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, the corporate media would begin with an all out assault on Trump and his administration. It would dig up or manufacture anything negative they could. Trump would be forced into a corner and would stay there for the next four years. This was to be character assassination writ large. But the stadiums remained full. His approval rating among conservatives remained strong. The populist President only got stronger while the Establishment got weaker. Such was the public's contempt and mistrust of the Status Quo.

The antics of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi benefited the President too. Her frustration was the subject of public ridicule.  Attempts by both the Senate Majority and Minority leaders (Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer) to reign in Trump failed. Even after the first impeachment, Trump remained popular (as did Bill Clinton after his impeachment).  Nothing seemed to work.

But, ultimately Trump was defeated by the very Establishment he fought so hard to expose during the four years of his Presidency. Trump now faces a second impeachment---a first in U.S. history---based on tweets he sent allegedly calling for insurrection during the certification process of the Electoral College; tweets which were blown out of proportion by a humiliated media and desperate Status Quo.

So, now Trump faces a second impeachment for alleged sedition . The media no longer provides Trump a forum to answer the charges directly to the public Social media has blocked him too. Members within his own party now shun him. Nevertheless, the true purpose of this latest impeachment hasn't been lost on anyone. It's to ensure that Donald Trump can never again run for public office.

Given Trump's popularity, which hasn't dimmed since leaving office, no one within the Establishment wants to see Trump in power again. Senator Mitch McConnell openly stated that it was time to purge the Republican Party of all Trump supporters. However, this presents the GOP with a serious problem.

Many of Trump's followers (and some GOP leaders) have been calling for the creation of a new party; a political party independent of the corporate owned and controlled Republican Party. How many are we talking about? Polls show as much as 64% of conservatives would support a new conservative party (37% of all voters, regardless of party, said they would join a Trump led third party). 

What does that tell you about the electorate? It would, of course, spell disaster for the GOP, which is now a minority party within the House and tied with Democrats in the Senate. It could seriously impact the Democratic Party as well.  

Yet, within the Republican Party, its party bosses have asked Trump supporters not leave (which is ironic, given that just a few weeks ago many of the same party bosses supported McConnell in booting out any supporters of Trump). Instead, they've asked that the Trumpsters to remain in the party, perhaps forming their own clique, rather leave. Oh, what to do, what to do?

Back in the 1980's, another wealthy conservative outsider by the name of Ross Perot had come along. Finding that his avenues were blocked within the so-called Republican "Big Tent", he struck out as an Independent (later forming a new party, the Reform Party). It not just resulted in getting Bill Clinton elected by splitting the conservative vote, it reduced the power of the GOP at the local level.

As a result, the GOP leadership persuaded many of the Perot backers to rejoin the Republican Party and work for reform within the party itself. The result was as expected. The new party founded by Perot began to fold amid infighting. Perot supporters were isolated within the GOP and ultimately lost whatever clout they had while only a few of their goals were adopted. Finally, the Establishment Republicans and Democrats came together to ensure that another Ross Perot would never happen.

They created the Commission on Presidential Debates to keep third parties and Independents out of the national limelight in the future. They ensured that the big donors would support only the Democrats or Republicans (Citizens United later sealed the deal). Lastly, bipartisan legislation was passed to virtually keep third parties and Independents off ballots in many states through outrageous requirements. In short, they effectively made sure that voters had only two choices to pick from. So much for "free and open" elections.

A few years later came the Tea Party. They arrived like a hurricane, terrifying Establishment Republicans and Democrats alike, not to mention the corporate media. The Tea Party was all about getting back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If it wasn't there, it had to go.

The Tea Party was intended to be a populist, conservative, neo-libertarian, small government party. They backed fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and more personal liberty. Rather than create a separate party, their objective was to seize control of the Republican Party from within. Some individuals choose to run as de facto Tea Party candidates under a Republican banner.

While they made great strides in the first few years, they eventually ran out of steam and were subsequently taken over by the Christian Right, with its focus on "Pro-Life" issues (and some would add, opposition to the LGBQT movement, including the Log Cabin Republicans who were gay conservatives). In time, it enveloped the GOP itself. 

Meanwhile, moderates within the Republican Party (often called "Rinos" or "Republicans In Name Only") were purged from elected and appointed positions as the party shifted to the Right, even though they were encouraged not to form their own separate political party and remain within the "Big Tent" and move the party back to the center. The result was, unsurprisingly, the isolation of the moderates, and finally, their near complete ouster. Only a very few still remain.

As an aside, it's a bit ironic that moderates within the GOP were purged. It was under moderates that the Republican Party had it greatest successes; individuals like Teddy Roosevelt, Alf Landon, Coolidge, Eisenhower, Henry Cabot Lodge, Rockefeller, Agnew, Ford, and George H. W. Bush just to name a few. Now it's the Trumpeters turn.

Republican leadership wants to purge Trump supporters from the party. At the same time, they're encouraging them not to form a new party. Instead, they are to remain and reform the party from within. They claim that's what Trump wants too. Of course, we all know where that road leads. It is to the Status Quo's advantage to destroy any potential threats; the sooner the better. Unity is conformity.

The bipartisan Establishment is firmly in charge of the political system. They are part of the Oligarchy ruling this country (along with the global corporatists of Wall Street, which also owns the media). Together they make up the Corporatocracy which has replaced the Republic.

However, they aren't as powerful as they appear. That stale slice of the political pie they fight over is continuing to shrink. The majority of Americans are Independent, and that number is growing.  Third parties are growing too as more and more people wake up to the rigged game.

What will happen to Trump and his supporters? Trump won't disappear, at least not entirely. He loves the attention too much. He also understands (albeit to his surprise) that he has become the figurehead of a new political movement not seen in this country in decades. But can it be sustained or will it be co-opted like all other movements before it?  

Perhaps. Trump can generate the money to get the movement off the ground, but what about the long run? He'll need a way to reach the public whenever and wherever he wants. He won't get that from mainstream media. Not even Fox.  He won't get it from the social media platforms either.

The GOP will do its upmost to strip his base from him; to discredit him post presidency. The media and Democrats will help. It will co-opt some Trumpian ideals which it will morph into so something less threatening to the Status Quo; much like it did to the Tea Party while purging the rest to the political wilderness as it did the moderates and Perot's supporters. But nothing will change; not really. The Status Quo will adapt and march on as it's always done.

 

The post-Trump identity crisis that's fracturing the GOP

Majority of Republicans would join a Trump-led third party.

The Tea Party Movement

Factions Within the Republican Party

South Park Republican

Factions Within the Democratic Party

 

The Impeachment of Donald Trump and What it Means for America

The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, have been trying since day one to smear Trump's character as much as possible. It's been all about making him look ridiculous and destroying the country's faith in him. Naturally, the media has gone along hand-in-glove with their efforts. After all, Trump was the outsider who wasn't suppose to have won. There have even been Republicans who, at least behind the scenes, have been supporting the Democrats efforts as well. Of course, Trump hasn't helped his cause thanks to his tendency to speak out, often at the wrong time or wrong place.

The reality is that this is all about power, wealth, and its control. It reminds me of two mafia families locked into combat over a situation not of their making and wanting to get back to business as usual, and yet, the situation has presented each with an opportunity to acquire more power at the other side's expense. It always comes down to turf doesn't it? It doesn't hurt that you have Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House acting like the "don" of the Democrats. She's about as much of an insider as you can get. On the other side is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the "capo dei capi" of the GOP. Both remind me of Bond villains straight out of central casting.

In the middle is Donald Trump. A tough New York real estate mogul, business entrepreneur, and "reality show" boss with the ultimate catchphrase, "You're fired!". He's the "chairman of the board" as it where. Pelosi believes that in the political world, no one is above her. McConnell controls the Senate, known the world over as the "most exclusive club on the planet". He's a master politician too. Both play the long game. Pelosi would love to "fire" Trump, and in doing so, hurt the GOP. McConnell will protect his party's control of the Senate at any cost and would gladly weaken Pelosi's control of the House.

At stake is ensuring that President Trump is a one term president; an aberration. A fluke who stumbled into power on the wave of mass public discontent of the government; a government operating openly under the control of the Oligarchy; the only ones who truly deserve to rule, or so they believe. Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, was to be the "first among equals" of this Plutocratic driven triumvirate. Meanwhile, the changes imposed by Trump have to be deflected or stopped before he undoes everything they've worked for. But one thing is for sure. The likes of a Donald Trump will never be allowed to become president ever again.

In 2016, the Presidential race was to be between one of the pre-vetted Republicans and Hillary Clinton. It really didn't matter who on the Republican side as long as they had been rubber stamped by the party bosses and the Oligarchs. On the Democrat side, Hillary was to be nominated. While Bernie Sanders was never a serious threat, he could not be allowed to be seen as a serious challenger...or a serious candidate. The media would handle the latter part while Hillary and the DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, ensured that the Democrat primaries were fixed. The "fix" extended all the way into the Democratic Convention where Sander supporters were all but shut out.

However, no one was counting on a Donald Trump. He was brash, a bit condescending, and arrogant. He was outspoken, seen as an American success story, a master showman, tough, and was quite wealthy. He was also a household name thanks to the "Go-Go" 80's which created modern day robber barons like Carl Ichan, T. Boone Penkins and other corporate raiders, "greed is good" movies and books, "Alex P Keeton", and Robin Leach! The public couldn't get enough of "The Donald".

But most of all, Donald Trump understood the frustration of ordinary Americans. He knew how to turn a phrase...and stage a show. Most of all, he didn't need the support of party bosses. He could fund his own campaign so he didn't need the financial backing of the Oligarchs; and he could buy his own media coverage. To the ruling elite, Donald Trump was one of their own who had turned on them. They did their best to ridicule him; calling him a "clown" or the "the circus". They tried to ignore him or whatever they could to marginalize him, but the more they did, the more the people wanted more Trump. While other candidates could barely fill convention rooms, "The Donald" was filling whole stadiums.


The "Empress and the Fool". That was how the race between Hillary and Trump was characterized by the media. The power players from around the world lined up to donate billions to the Clinton Foundation's "pay-to-play" scheme as they had when she was Secretary of the State in what they believed was a sure thing, but now the payoff would be bigger. Never mind the fact that she wasn't connecting with voters, not like Bill Clinton had years earlier. Never mind the skeletons which continued to tumble out of her closet, her brazen lying to Congress and willful destruction evidence, her sense of entitlement, her strange and erratic behavior, nor that cold, contemptible, and calculating arrogance.

There too was the Democratic Primary. If she was the "darling of the Left", why was it necessary to rig the results? Was it to avoid the appearance of a serious challenger in Bernie Sanders or was it his message that she and others were so afraid of? Perhaps worse yet was her acceptance from Donna Brazile, the new DNC Chairman who had replaced her co-conspirator, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a copy of the questions to be used in the final presidential race? This act alone showed two things. The first was Hillary's "above the law" attitude. The other was her fear of losing. All in all, it helped to expose all those things which Americans abhorred in its leaders.

What this impeachment is all about is ensuring that another Donald J. Trump never happens again. The first order of business is to destroy the one they currently have to a degree that the moniker of an "outsider" will turnoff voters for years to come. It must be made to be the equivalent of "amateur" or "inexperienced". People will clamor for the "professional" politician as the only "safe" choice, which can only mean someone from one of the two corporate owned political "mafia-like" families.

I fully believe that, as the pontificating in the Senate continues and the media spin machine churns away, the real business of ensuring that a Trump never happens again. The cost of campaigns are already far beyond what ordinary citizens can afford. Primaries are dogmatic purity litmus tests and serve to expose and eliminate any true reformers. You can say it. You just can't mean it.

Media coverage is carefully controlled in both content and in access. The tightly regimented bureaucratic partisan system of committees, whips, and funding effectively prohibits any rare "loose cannons" and keeps everyone in line. Partisan gerrymandering allows the parties to select voters instead of voters selecting their representatives. The absence of term limits all but guarantees uninterrupted power for as long as the incumbent wants it. Even the old Soviet Politburo saw more turnover than we currently have!

Besides, this doesn't even take into account illegal immigration, the passing of tax or rate increases by unelected bureaucrats, attempts to restrict or rescind our Second Amendment right, a militarized police, unwarranted search and seizure of our property, gathering of our private information and the creation of electronic dossiers by government agencies, total corporate financial control of parties and politicians or corporate lobbyists writing public legislation, massive corporate welfare, the media as the propaganda arms the elites.

It does this take into account the corporate/government revolving door or the use of our military to enforce joint corporate/government foreign policy objectives. The military is to protect this nation from foreign threats, not secure foreign assets or resources for profit. If our Founding Fathers could see this, I think they would have simply paid that damn tea tax and walked away.

We can't forget that collusion between both parties, the media, and with the blessing of the Oligarchy has all but excluded third parties and Independents from the political process, even though Indies represent the single largest political voting bloc and continues to grow while the registration for both the Republicans and Democrats continue to shrink. Not exactly "equal representation" now is it?

These aren't things which "could be". These are things which already are. These are the things which have destroyed our democratic republic. Trump was seen as someone who could, at least, restore some of that republic and its former glory. This is what the elites---the Oligarchy and their willing puppets in Washington---want to see continue, and that means ensuring that no one like a Donald Trump ever again is elected to a position of power. No one again must ever threaten the status quo. This is the other half of the impeachment story which isn't being told, nor is it ever likely to be.




How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy

Is American Becoming an Oligarchy?


Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile both now agree that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged


10 ways the Democratic primary has been rigged from the start


Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC


Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign

Meet Nancy Pelosi : The Bane of Conservatives and Darling of Liberals Everywhere

Mention the name of "Nancy Pelosi" to someone and watch their reaction. Typically you'll get one of two responses. The first might be a smile and sense of pride. Here's someone in Washington who has stood up to Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell; a real fighter for the common folk. The other reaction might be something between an attempt to repress a involuntary urge to hurl or a sneer and sarcastic grunt. There's not too much leeway in between.

Regardless of your opinion of her, she is without question one of the most powerful people in Washington irrespective of gender. She is the first female Speaker of the House (and second in the line of succession to the presidency behind the Vice President), and one of the longest serving Speakers of the modern era.

Nancy Pelosi tries to portray herself as a "defender of the common people"; someone who enjoys rubbing elbows with the "unwashed masses". She would have the American Public believe that she's no different from them; a political outsider and someone removed from the stench of corruption rising out of the cesspool that is Washington. But just how true is that portrayal of her? Is she really "one of us" or is that merely a carefully crafted persona; a mask which she wears when the lights and cameras are on? Who is the real Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro was born in Baltimore, Maryland on March 26, 1940 to Thomas D'Alesandro and Annunciato M. "Nancy" Lombardi. His family came from Genoa, Venice and Abruzzo in southeastern Italy. Her mother's family was from Campobasso in south central Italy. When she came into this world, her father was the Democratic Congressman from Maryland, representing its 3rd district. He held that position from 1939 until 1947 (before getting into politics he was an insurance and real estate broker). From 1947 until 1959, Thomas was the Mayor of Baltimore (his son, Tom D'Alesandro III served as Mayor of Baltimore from 1967 to 1971). Young Nancy started out managing her father's book of who owed him political favors.

In 1961 Thomas was appointed by President Kennedy to the Federal Renegotiation Board (the board was created under President Truman as a government "watchdog" against exorbitant profits taken by government contractors. Its role was to review and renegotiate government contracts if it was deemed that the contractor's profits were excessive). He served in that role until 1969 (the board was dissolved in 1979). Thomas died in 1987. As for her mother, "Big Nancy" as she was then known, was active in politics behind the scenes, often organizing Democratic women's groups and known to be tough.

Nancy graduated from the Institute of Notre Dame, which is a private all-girl Catholic school. Like Bill Clinton, Nancy was infatuated with President Kennedy and even attended his inauguration in January 1961. In 1962 she graduated from Trinity Washington College, a Catholic college in Washington DC, with a BA in Political Science. At the same time she interned for Senator Daniel Brewster (D-MD). Brewster, who was elected in 1963, was the first Democrat to hold that seat since 1946; he previously served as a Congressman. She also worked alongside future House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer (D-MD).

It was while attending college that Nancy met her future husband, Paul Frank Pelosi. They were married in 1963 (they would go on to have five children). About this time, Nancy and her new husband moved to San Francisco where Paul's brother, Ron, a successful businessman was elected to the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Nancy began working with Phillip Burton (D-CA), the 5th District Congressman. Burton was an active opponent of the Vietnam War, worked to abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee", supported Bobby Kennedy's presidential run in 1968 and was closely tied with organized labor. He was a key advocate for funding AIDS research. However, it was his role in reforming existing House rules which earned him the designation as the "Father of the Modern Congress". Nancy was certainly cutting her political teeth with the right people at the right time.

In 1976, Nancy was elected to the Democratic National Committee (which she held until 1996). In 1977 she was elected as party chair for Northern California. In 1981, she was elected to chair the California Democratic Party; a position she retained for two years. She served as the Democratic National Convention Host in 1984, and then as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign finance chair from 1985 until the following year. By this time, Nancy was a seasoned pro at the state level and was quickly learning the ropes at the national level.

Her mentor, Phillip Burton, died in 1983. The seat was filled by his wife, Sala Burton. However, she became ill and did not seek reelection. As a result, Nancy was designated as the heir apparent. She won the special election in 1987 and has held the seat ever since. Nancy's committee assignments were impressive right off the bat, serving on the Appropriations and Intelligence committees and on the Baltic States Caucus. In 1991, she became a founding member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), an unabashed Left leaning issues group whose aim is to promote liberal policies.

In 2001, she was elected to the House Minority Whip, the first woman to hold that position. In 2002, following the resignation of Dick Gephardt (D-MO), she was elected as House Minority leader, again the first woman to hold that key position.

In 2007, Pelosi was elected to Speaker of the House, once more establishing a Congressional "first". She held that powerful position until 2011 when the Republicans won a majority of the seats in the House. In 2008, she was elected as the Permanent Chairperson of the 2008 Democratic National Committee. After the GOP takeover of the House, Nancy resumed her position as House Minority leader. However, this was to be short lived. During the 2018 midterm elections, the Democrats were able to retake the House and in November, she was reelected to a second term as Speaker of the House which she continues to hold.

Pelosi is known her stances as a supporter of LGBTQ issues, marijuana reform and legalized medical marijuana (although NORML's deputy director, Paul Armentano, has said that Pelosi hasn't done anything to make that happen), and the removal of Confederate statues and memorials nationwide. She also opposes "enhanced" interrogation including waterboarding, supports amnesty for illegal immigrants and opposes any steps to secure the US-Mexican border. She is pro-choice and a strong advocate of "Obamacare". She has also voted against efforts to establish a Single Payer healthcare program (a replacement for Obamacare) while supporting increases in Medicare and Medicaid.

In addition, Pelosi is strong advocate of increased gun control laws including expanded background checks, restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" (she received a zero rating by the Gun Owners of America and a 7% rating by the NRA). She has said that climate change is the planet's greatest threat and has supported efforts to curtail offshore drilling and restrict the development of protected areas including national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges.

Nancy supported the 2002 "No Child Left Behind Act" and opposes the displaying of the Ten Commandments in public schools or buildings. She also opposes school prayer or saying the Pledge of Allegiance. She voted against the Balance Budget Proposed Constitutional Amendment Act of 1995 but supported increasing minimum wage in 2007. She also opposed the welfare reform proposals of both President Clinton and President George W Bush. Nancy was also against the tax reform bill signed by President Trump in 2017.

Of particular note is that Pelosi is a supporter of "PRISM", a NSA run program designed to gather information on Americans via the internet and other forms of electronic communication (without bothering with a warrant I might add). The program began in 2007 as an offshoot of the "Patriot Act" under President George W. Bush and extended by President Obama. It is currently administered by the secret U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) which was famously exposed by Edward Snowden.

Nancy Pelosi has had the benefit of coming from a strongly entrenched politically family. She has used her family connections to her obvious benefit, which has enabled her to rise to the highest levels in politics; hardly the moniker of an "outsider". The district she represents, California's 12th Congressional, which includes most of the Bay Area and about 4/5 of Greater San Francisco, is considered the "safest" district in America for Democrats with a 80% Democrat registration. So, while Pelosi has completed 17 terms in Congress, it's likely that she'll be able to hold on to that seat for as long as she wants it.

Finally, we come (as always) to the money. Nancy Pelosi is listed as the 29th wealthiest member of Congress with a net worth of $120 million dollars as of 2018 (her government salary is $223,500 dollars a year). Not too shabby Nancy, but far from being one of "common people". By comparison, her nemesis in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has a net worth of "just" $30 million. It's worth noting that Pelosi's biggest campaign donors come from Wall Street, Big Phama, the real estate industry (mostly commercial developers) and some very wealthy individuals. Not sounding particularly "blue collar" to me, how about to you?

As an aside, in researching information for this article I came across a telling letter written and signed by many of these super wealthy individuals and heads of some very powerful corporation which stated in effect that any attempt to remove Pelosi from her position as Speaker of the House would have serious consequences. These same individuals and corporations also give generously to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and they are closely connected with others who also give big.

The letter, directed to the DNC and key leaders in both the House and Senate, stated that they like the way Nancy does her job and the access as well as the support that she provides them. Thus, any attempt to oust her would result in a major reduction in the amount of financial support they give to the DNC as well as to Democratic candidates direct. In short, do as we want or we'll cut you off. So, here we have concrete proof of the power and clout of the ruling Oligarchy on full display. They have, in effect, selected the third most powerful political position in the U.S. No doubt something similar has been done on the Senate side and directed to the RNC as well. I'm sure their desires for other matters have been made clear as well. This is Senator Mitch McConnell's definition of "free speech" at full throat.

So, there you have it. Everything you wanted to know about the bane of conservatives everywhere. Perhaps though you can see why those on the Left particularly idolize her. She is a highly experienced political operative with an ability to get things done. However, she is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "one of the people". She is the quintessential political insider. She is part of the top 5% wealthiest in the United States and there is no doubt that Nancy Pelosi is part of the patrician class.


Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi's Net Worth

List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth
OpenSecrets: Nancy Pelosi--California 12th District

Nancy Pelosi Victory Fund and the Wealthy Donors Who Own the Democratic Party
'Naive and self-destructive': Big Democratic donors back Nancy Pelosi and warn that funding will be cut in half if she's pushed out

The Impeachment of Donald Trump

Have you ever heard of the "50 Year Scandal Cycle? It's one of those urban myths which say that about every 50 years or so, Washington undergoes some sort of major crisis or scandal. In the early 1870's, former Union General and U.S. President, Ulysses S. Grant, was duped into the national "gold conspiracy" by the robber barons Jay Gould and James Fisk, along with members of his administration which included the Credit Mobilier and Whiskey Ring scandals. It almost cost Grant the presidency.

In the early 1920's, President Warren G. Harding's administration was caught up in the Teapot Dome scandal. Fortunately for Harding, he died before being implicated. Then in the early 1970's we had President Richard Nixon and the Watergate break-in. The result was Nixon resigning in order to avoid being facing possible impeachment while other took the fall. The next big scandal, according to the myth should be around early 2020, and right on cue, we have the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Of course, as with most urban myths, they tend to fall apart under scrutiny. After all, if you go back 50 years before Grant we have President James Monroe. His administration was relatively uneventful except for the Panic of 1819 which was caused by poor banking practices and rampant land speculation. We also had the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This created a balance of sorts between the admission of free and slave-holding states which held until the late early 1860.

Coming forward, we had other major events such as the Great Depression in 1929, which, although brought about by the economic policies of President Coolidge, were largely blamed in on Herbert Hoover. We had World War I under Woodrow Wilson and World War II under Franklin D Roosevelt, not to mention Korean and Vietnam wars as well as other economic downturns and social changes.

So while you can make of it as you will, there's no doubt that we are facing another key juncture in our nation's history. As a country, America is more divided along more lines than at any other time since the Late Antebellum Period just preceding the advent of the Civil War. At the center is President Donald Trump who is seen by the conservative Right as the last major barrier to a "socialist" or "Communist" take over by the Left. Meanwhile the Left sees Trump and his supporters as akin to Fascists or Nazis with both sides accusing the other of as the death harbinger to our nation's democracy. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Never mind the fact that we're nowhere near the accepted definition of "socialism" let alone Communism, and neither are we even remotely close to being like Nazi Germany. However, the death knell of our democratic Republic has long ago sounded. We are, as everyone should know, an Oligarchy; a tightly woven neo-fascist corporate-government alliance replete with a corporate owned propaganda wing in the form of the media. It has produced an emerging surveillance/police state, created under the auspices of "national security" which provides adequate cover to all those seeking to curtail our natural and Constitutional rights, not to mention a perpetual "war on terrorism" to artificially stimulate the economy and to "bled off" a "surplus" population and all the while making obscene profits. It has redefined "freedom of speech" and personhood. It has co-opted both political parties which now serves its interests while leaving us with the illusion of choice. Suffice it to say that America in the Age of Trump is a badly broken country, but I digress.

So what are we to make of the impeachment of Trump? Is it, perhaps, payback by the Democrats for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton? After all, he was originally brought up on four charges under the label of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Two were charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power relating to his affairs with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Two of the charges were dropped, and Clinton was brought up one count each of obstruction of justice and perjury. While Clinton was charged in a bipartisan vote in the House, he was ultimately acquitted along a split vote in Senate.

In the case of Trump, the move to impeach was strictly along partisan lines, at least in the House where Democrats are in control (and there is a personal vendetta against Trump being played out by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)). Nevertheless, when (and if) it goes to the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans and led by Mitch McConnell (R-KY), it will die an ignominious death amid partisan cries of "shame!". I wouldn't be surprised to see it remain in the House where it would be a matter of record, to be used by Democratic candidates as a club to bludgeon their Republican rivals with (especially a candidate Trump or anyone seeking to use his coattails).

But what is this really about? Trump is accused of two charges, obstruction of Congress and abuse of power stemming over his alleged attempts of using the promise of military aid and a White House meeting to get the President of the Ukraine, Volodymry Zelensky, to investigate a potential rival in the 2020 Presidential race, Joe Biden, along with his son Hunter, who has business dealings in the Ukraine.

These actually seem minor, especially when you look back at what transpired under the Obama Administration such as Benghazi, Fast and Furious, failure to reduce illegal immigration and DACA, failure to anticipate the 'Arab Spring' and the crisis in the Ukraine just to mention a few though I will add that him being "award" the Nobel Peace Prize for literally nothing was a joke and greatly devalued the importance of the once prestigious award.

The Democrats (ie: Nancy Pelosi) claim that Trump's actions were tantamount to "high crimes and misdemeanors". They allege that President Trump was using his position "personal gain" when dealing President Zelensky which constituted abuse of power, and then by refusing to respond to repeated House inquiries had obstructed Congress. A "whistle-blower" report was filed by an unnamed intelligence officer who claimed that "he" had access to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky claimed that Trump was essentially trying to bribe the Ukrainian President.

However, both President Trump and President Zelensky both deny that anything of the sort happened. Besides, the military aid along with additional economic aid, were released as promised. If that was an attempt to bribe, it sure was a shoddy job. As for obstructing Congress, Trump maintains that he acted well within his presidential prerogative. Perhaps Nancy was miffed because she wasn't included in the discussions.

Additional investigation by the House via lopsided partisan hearings have produced a litany of partisan witnesses who appear to be testifying as much on heresy evidence than anything. Meanwhile, other witnesses, who may in fact be just as partisan, haven't been called despite requests by the Republican House members.

So, in the final analysis, what do we have here? Personally, I think we have the nation's divide on full display for not just the country to see, but for the whole world to witness. Secondly, we have the vitreous hatred of Pelosi for Donald Trump and all he stands for as a populist conservative on full view. She has gone out of her way from the day of Trump's election to impede and discredit Trump at every turn. Is it little wonder that she has led efforts to find a way to impeach Trump from the get-go? Of course, she's far from being the only one. Other Democrats have as well, including Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Elijah Cummings (D-MD) Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA). However, it has been Pelosi who has by far been the most determined.

In the end, this circus, which has cost taxpayers millions, will have accomplished little except to deepen the divide among Americans, but perhaps that's only a small bonus for the ruling Oligarchy which pulls the strings behind the curtains. Trump wasn't suppose to win. We was an outsider; a "sideshow" attraction as some of his fellow Republican candidates said of him in 2016. He wasn't one of the pre-vetted and pre-approved choices we were given. Besides, regardless of who the GOP nominee was, Hillary Clinton was the "chosen" candidate. She was supposed to receive her well deserved coronation, after which she could reward those who had supported and covered for her, not to mention use her position to bury once and for all her numerous sins of state.

But that didn't happen. Instead, a populist conservative with a reputation of being someone who spoke his mind and wouldn't be "managed" was elected. It meant that the Status Quo---the Oligarchy---had to place its plans on hold. There was even the danger that much of what they'd accomplished could be derailed or undone. It also meant that some may even be publicly exposed, which would violate a cardinal rule that was never to be violated.

I think that, in the end, this impeachment process has had but a single objective. That objective is to destroy President Trump's chances of being reelected. In short, it's nothing more than a desperate attempt at character assassination. A President hindered with the charge of impeachment, even if ultimately acquitted, could be viewed as someone who can't be trusted with power of the American Presidency. That would leave the American People with no other choice but to vote for the candidate the ruling Oligarchy has selected for us. Whether we chose to accept their selection remains to be seen.



Barack Obama Was a Foreign Policy Failure

Impeachment Inquiry Against Donald Trump

Trump impeachment inquiry: A simple guide


Top Democrats set to make Trump's life miserable in 2019

Where Does American Stand On The World's Freedom Index? The State of American Freedom Pt 1 of 3 of Our "Where America Ranks" Series

Did you watch President's Trump's State of Union address? I watched most of it (including the Pelosi sideshow going on behind the President). I took particular note of how often Trump made reference to America being "great", which has been a central theme of his since the campaign. That made me wonder---just how "great" is America really? As most Americans already know, the United States is an Oligarchy; ruled (as opposed to governed) by a relatively small number of elites. Of course, these same elites and a few others, dominate the rest of the globe, or at least most of it. So, how does the US stack up in terms of overall freedom, income equality and social mobility, and finally, in terms of the quality of our education system? This article will be part one of a three part series which will examine those issues.

The first topic we'll look at is freedom. After all, the notion of "freedom" has been this country's mantra practically since its founding. It's why people from around the world want to come here. But just how "free" are we actually? We already know that the US has become essentially a surveillance state since 9/11, be it government agencies or corporations (as an Oligarchy, the two work in tandem anyway). As I wrote in my last article, the US has adopted a "enhanced" driver's license, which acts as a defacto national ID card, complete with a tracking chip and facial ID capability.

Our cell phones and social media monitors and records us, builds profiles of sites we visit, where we shop and purchased, not to mention even tracks us, and even anticipates our likes. Some people like that. Personally, I find it a little scary. It's too much private information in the hands of other people and computers. Our credit cards are chipped and so are our cars and trucks. Some people have watches which double not just as a time piece but also as cell phone, internet access point, and, of course, a monitoring devise. But these are more incidentals; reflections on the state of our personal freedom amid ever growing technology. What I want to know is how we ranked in terms of our basic freedoms.

One of the most important freedoms that American has been a free press, as covered under the First Amendment along with free speech and freedom of association. According to Reporters Without Borders, they researched the openness, independence, accurately, and self-censorship of the media. Out of 180 countries, the US is now ranked in the 45th spot, dropping two spots since Trump was elected President. This partly the result of a not so subtle propaganda war again the Trump White House and the proliferation of what's often called "fax news".

So, if the US is in 45th place, who came in first for the most honest, accurate, and fair media? That went to Norway, followed by Sweden in second place. Russia was ranked as 148th while China was 176th. In last place was North Korea. No big surprise there! According to the Human Freedom Index, which was compiled by the Cato and Frasier institutes, in terms of personal freedom, economic freedom, and amount of tax and regulations, the US is ranked in the 17th sport; a drop from its usual third place spot. Pretty sad for a country which prides itself as being the "Leader of the Free World" don't you think? The drop started around the time of Bill Clinton, and has continued to decline through the presidencies of George W Bush and Barack Obama, and now, into President Trump's administration.

The top spots went to Switzerland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Ireland, and Australia. As an aside, Hong Kong was ranked number one in terms of economic freedom and second in personal freedom. In addition, Hong Kong was the top ranked place for innovation, be it technology, business, or government. At the bottom of the list was, starting at 155th place, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Venezuela, and Syria. Venezuela, prior to Hugo Chavez, was ranked as the wealthiest country in Latin America and one of the most economic and personally freest countries. However, since the adoption of a Marxist version of Socialism, it's economic, social, and political systems has been in a free fall, making it one of the worse countries in the world to live in.

According to the website, Traveller, which is a travel site that rates the best countries and places to visit, the United States ranks 25th in personal freedom. The information came from The "Legatum Prosperity Index for 2018", which looks at a variety of factors such as crime, business environment, health, personal freedom, environment, among other factors. The report listed the US as first in terms of business environment and sixth in social capital. However, we ranked poorly in terms of governance (19th), economic quality (13th), personal freedom and natural environment (23rd each), health (35th), safety and security (43rd). In terms of education, we only made it to the 9th spot.

The top ranked countries (in order) was Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Iceland, Ireland, Uruguay, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, and Portugal. Also included among the top twenty were all the Scandinavian countries, Slovenia, Australia, Malta, the UK, Costa Rica and Spain. The least most tolerant countries included most of Africa and the Middle East (excluding Israel), along with Iran in the 5th spot, Russia in 9th place, Iraq in at 11th and China at 12th. However, according to the report, coming in first place as the least free country was Afghanistan.

In terms of healthcare, according to the World Health organization, the US ranks 37th in the world, behind countries most all European countries, as well as Canada, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Chile, Australia, and Morocco. In fact, the US ranked in between Costa Rica and Slovenia. That's actually pretty embarrassing if you think about it; a country like the US being ranked behind and in the midst of second tier countries.

The top spots went to Italy, France, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, and Singapore. Other nations in the top tier included Japan, all the Scandinavian countries, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and most of Europe. It goes to show that while "Obamacare" did improve overall healthcare in the US, it fell far short when compared to the rest of the world. In terms of healthcare performance, America actually ranks dead last.

The study, conducted by the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund, examined five areas. Namely, Access, Care Process, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Healthcare Outcomes. The study showed that while the outspends every other country, we somehow managed to fail three of the five issues with Americans having the highest mortality rate of any country in the study; much higher than their counterparts in Europe. The report cites essentially a lack to adequate quality care as the chief cause. America would have fared far better had it adopted a single payer health system and allowed individuals and companies to purchase supplemental insurance. This would have allowed even small businesses to a means to compete with the larger ones without the extra financial burden or forcing employees to find their own coverage, and for a far cheaper price.

However, the US did come in first place in one key, albeit dubious category. American was ranked number one in terms of incarceration. We imprison more of people than any industrialized nation in the world at a rate of 655 per 100,000. That's more than China, Russia, Cuba, or even North Korea. The closest country to us is El Salvador, which jails 609 per 100,000 and Turkmenistan with prison rate of 552 per 100,000. Cuba jails 510 individuals per 100,000 while for Russia it's 409 per 100,000. The top reason for the imprisonment in the US was due to drugs, possession or sell, followed by felonies of one sort or another.

Well, there you have it. For a nation which fancies itself as the bastion of freedom, it appears the facts don't back up the hype. In most of the studies, the US typically ranks between the middle and the low end of the second tier of whatever category we're looking at with one glaring exception. The problems we face are not partisan issues. This isn't solely the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans. It can't be attributed to the extreme Left or Right. This is a systematic failure in which both sides share the blame equally. This is what the partisan bickering has brought us, not to mention the corporate control of the agenda and the demise of labor unions (say what you want about unions, they at least ensured that their members received good wages and benefits). Our next installment will focus on income inequality. I hope you will join us.


US drops to 45 in countries in ranking of countries based on freedom of the press

US freedom ranking lower than you would think

Freedom around the world: The most (and least) free and tolerant countries

Countries with the most prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, as of July 2018

The Patient Factor: World Health Organization Ranking of World Health Systems

The US Ranks Last in Health Care Systems Performance