President Biden pardon son, Hunter, despite "No One is Above the Law" promises

Merry Christmas to Hunter Biden!  His dad, outgoing President Joe Biden, has reloaded Hunter's "Get out of Jail" card, thus ensuring junior will skirt around the U.S. legal system once more.  Hunter's pardon  proves again to the American People and the world what we've known all along, that the United States has a dual legal system, one for the wealthy elites and one for the rest of us.

The then candidate President Joe Biden promised the American People on several occasions that his son, Hunter, would not be receiving a pardon from him, citing his trust in the U.S. justice system and Hunter's innocence (apparently he's not feeling so confident any more). If convicted, Hunter would be the first child of a president to face a possible prison sentence for felony criminal charges.

Hunter has been in repeated trouble for years including charges of cocaine possession (some have speculated that he may been the one who brought a stash of  "coke" into the White House, bypassing security. Something a ordinary visitor wouldn't be able to do), tax evasion, illegal gun possession to name but a few. There's been allegation that Hunter spent time on Jeffrey Epstein's "Pedophile Island" (who was actually there is still a matter of some dispute).  

Some believe his businesses dealings with Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians was a factor behind the current war between Ukraine and Russia. The war has caused the loss of thousands of lives and billions of dollars in damage, threatened Europe with war, ruined U.S. and Russia's relationship, and all over a  deal with oligarchs in the Ukrainian government involving oil and gas rights in the Black Sea in exchange for NATO protection (and supposedly guaranteed by then Vice President Joe Biden).

Of course, Trump supporters are giddy about President Biden's Christmas gift to Hunter since this appears to be a gift which just keeps on giving.  Thanks to Hunter's pardon, conservatives now see an opportunity for President Trump at being able to pardon all those facing possible jail time and/or fines for their part in the so-called "January 6th Insurrection" using the same legal argument.

If, as it's argued, Hunter can skip away untouched for all his misdeeds, then the "J6 political prisoners" as they're called, should be able to walk away too. If you think about it, it's hard to believe how far America has slipped. After all, the legal system, of all our branches of government, was expected to be the one branch  least affected by partisan politics and corruption, but here we are!  What happened?

Born in 1970, Hunter's life has been rife with trouble. Although his father doesn't drink, Hunter has more than made up for it. He's also had a long history of cocaine abuse dating back to his time in college and has been in and out of rehab centers (he attended Georgetown College and Yale's law school).

Shortly after graduating, Hunter was hired as a consultant by MBNA America, a holding bank with close tie to his father, Joe Biden, and one of his top political contributors. As Hunter quickly rose through the ranks to executive vice president, Joe was busy supporting a bankruptcy reform through Congress, which, as an aside, would aid certain financial institutions. You know, like MBNA America (which was eventually acquired by Bank of America).

In 2013, Hunter decided he wanted to join the U.S. Navy Reserves. And so following a swearing in ceremony at the White House under the  beaming gaze of his then Vice President father, Hunter was ordered to report to his first duty station...and was promptly discharged shortly after arriving for testing positive for cocaine. I guess he forgot having  read (and signed) the Navy's zero tolerance policy statement about drug use.

The death of his older brother, Beau,  from a brain tumor in 2015, sent Hunter back down the bottle again. He reputedly would never leave his house for days at a time unless it was for a trip to the liquor store! According to Kathleen Buhle, his ex-wife, that when they were going through their divorce, Hunter was consuming "massive" amounts of drugs and alcohol while spending a great amount of time and money on hookers, at strip clubs and with other women to the point where the family had no money left to pay their bills. 

A 2019 DNA test confirmed he was the father of child with a woman who had been employed as "exotic dancer". In a 2021 memoir, Hunter admitted that it was the unbridled infidelity that drove his wife away. As an aside, while the divorce with Kathleen was still pending, Hunter hooked up with Hallie Biden, the wife of his deceased brother Beau. Given that Hunter and Beau was considered inseparable, doing nearly everything together, perhaps this isn't too surprising.   The affair lasted about two years.

Despite being an addict and alcoholic, Hunter purchased a pistol in 2018, following another stint (this time for 60 days) in rehab. Allegedly, Hunter lied on the gun purchase application by saying that he was not a addict at that time. Hallie said that she found the gun and ammo in Hunter's car while she was removing drug paraphernalia.

Hallie went on to say that she put the gun in a old grocery bag and pitched it into dumpster. Hunter and Hallie split in 2019 just as Joe Biden announced another bid for the White House, this time against sitting President, Donald Trump.

Hunter didn't morn the breakup for long. Just about a month later, he met and married Melissa Cohen, documentary producer and social activist from Johannesburg, South Africa  following a six day "romance" on May 19, 2019. Shortly afterwards she became a naturalized citizen U.S. She is 16 years his junior.

By this point, while still employed by MBNA Bank, Hunter started a lobbying firm (no potential conflicts there). Politico Magazine reported that many of his early clients were in industries overseen by Joe Biden's committees in the Senate. In 2008, Hunter, along with another family member, acquired a hedge fund group, Paradigm Global Advisors just as Senator Biden resumed his chairmanship of  the Foreign Relations Committee (both Joe and Hunter have denied any collusion or wrong doings).

The Foreign Relations Committee is the only Senate committee to oversee, debate, and report on treaties directly to the president as they pertain to national security issues, including war powers, foreign aid programs, treaties, military deployment, executive agreements with foreign powers or agencies,  arms control, sales, and training matters, global economic policies, holding confirmation hearings for high level positions within the State Department, oversight of the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as monitoring all American embassies, diplomats, and international posts.

By 2013, Hunter finally made it into the majors. He took a founding board seat with the Chinese private equity firm, BHR. Originally, he was apparently there as a unpaid consultant. Later, however, apparently because of his vast knowledge of foreign affairs, he was given a 10% equity stake in the company.

Much has been made in the media of a official trip by Vice President Biden, accompanied by his son, Hunter, to China for a simple "meet and greet" with Chinese government officials and various business leaders, including BHR's chief executive. Hunter described the meeting as merely stopping by for a "cup of coffee".  Shortly afterwards, BHR was registered in Shanghai, often called China's  "economic and technological crown jewel".

According to the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice, during this same time frame (between 2016 and 2020), Hunter knowingly and willingly set out to defraud the government. Officials  estimated that Biden filed to pay some $1.4 million dollars in taxes.  When he did finally file his tax returns, he included false business expenses in order to reduce his tax liability, misrepresented payroll and other deductions among other allegations.  

In 2017, Hunter joined with Chinese businessman, Ye Jianming, founder and former chairman of CEFC China Energy Company Limited, in a deal to acquire natural gas rights in Louisiana (Ye was also an economic advisor to Czech president, Milos Zeman). However, before the deal could take off, Ye was picked up by Chinese security on charges of bribery and other "economic crimes".  As of March 2018, Ye hasn't been seen.

In 2014, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy holding company headquartered in Kyiv involved in exploration and production. The company was owned by Russian oligarch, businessman, and politician, Mykola Zlochevsky, through his private company, Brociti Investments Limited.  For his participation on the board, Hunter was paid $1.2 million dollars a year.

 Later, through investigation by Ukrainian authorities, it was determined that oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky, was the real owner behind Burisma.  Kolomoisky, a Ukrainian born Israeli businessman and billionaire, was at one time considered to be Ukraine's most powerful oligarch.  It bears mentioning that  Hunter's presidential pardon by Biden extends back to the start of his dealings with Burisma Holdings in 2014.

At the same time, Vice President Biden promoted the investigation of the Ukraine's leading legal prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was being accused of corruption. By pure happenstance, Shokin, the Prosecutor General of the Ukraine (equivalent to our U.S. Attorney General), was investigating alleged corruption between government officials and Burisma Holdings and its board members.

Now, why should a U.S. Vice President concern himself with a clearly internal legal matter in the Ukraine? Claims of collusion was denied by the White House and Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.  In 2016, the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Shokin from his office. Not surprisingly, Viktor Shokin maintains his removal was due to his investigation of Burisma.      

Nevertheless, an FBI informant claimed that Joe and Hunter Biden were paid $5 million dollars each by Burisma executives for helping stop the investigation. The claim proved later proved to be false  (apparently you just can't trust FBI informants despite what they say on those TV shows). Meanwhile, one of Hunter's reputed business partners said that Joe Biden was part of conference calls with Hunter and other contacts, implying that Hunter had the support of his father.

A laptop belonging to Hunter was left with a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware eventually found its way into the hands of the FBI. An examination of its hard drive was said to hold evidence of Hunter's dealings in China and Ukraine as well as his extensive use of drugs and booze.

Just exactly what was on the hard drive remains unknown, although since the revelation of the hard drive's possession by the FBI, the media has repeatedly implied that it proved Hunter's shady dealings which may have affected our national security, proof of bribery and corruption, or Joe Biden's direct or indirect involvement.

Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence release a report which proposes that 51 CIA subcontractors, including then CIA Director, Gina Haspel, aided the Biden presidential campaign in misleading the public about President Biden and the contents on the laptop's hard drive. If the report is accurate, it would further damn Biden's political legacy not to mention the already crumbing credibility of the U.S. government and the power of the Deep State.  

On September 5, 2024, Hunter Biden was found guilty of tax evasion pertaining to a nine count complaint. Biden was found guilty on three felonies and six tax related misdemeanors. The Justice Department said that there was no plea deal made with Hunter. On December 16th, Hunter is scheduled to appear for sentencing, which carries a maximum 17 year prison sentence. On the gun possession charges, Hunter could face up to 25 years of prison time.

Although whatever was on the hard drive was enough for federal prosecutors to bring a criminal investigation against Hunter. But with Hunter's blanket pardon, the issue is moot. Hunter gets to walk away virtually unscathed despite President Biden's statement that "no one is above the law", well, except apparently his son, Hunter.

The U.S. Constitution grants the president the authority to issue a pardon, amnesty, reprieve, or commutation. A commutation reduces a sentence without completely setting it aside. A reprieve is a temporary delay or suspension of a sentence. A pardon absolves the person of all criminal charges as well as restore all civil rights while an amnesty is the same as a pardon but applies to multiple individuals or groups.

It's doubtful the American public will ever know the full contents for sure.  Nevertheless, the whole nefarious episode demonstrates to all just how broken society has become and how just much value we place on money, power and prestige, even if it means destroying our own lives or the lives of others. It also shows that those with money or hold power don't face the same rules or outcomes as does the common citizen. This is truly a nation of two separate and unequal legal systems.

 

Thank you for reading Another Opinion! We hope you enjoyed this article and will pass it along. Please don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly, please "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Please find below the links we consulted in researching this article.

 

Biden, Inc.

The Bidens' Influence Peddling Timeline

From laptop to pardon: The Hunter Biden story explained

Joe Biden pardons son Hunter: What it means and why itmatters

Melissa Cohen Biden

Burisma

Mykola Zlochevsky

Ihor Kolomoyski

Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Democrats)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy

 

New Information Shows CIA Contractors Colluded with theBiden Campaign to Discredit Hunter Biden Laptop Story

Robert Hunter Biden Convicted on Three Felony Tax Offensesand Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses

The 'Conspiracy Theorists' Were Right About Covid-19? The Origin of the Pandemic

 

Remember when Covid-19 pandemic first made its mysterious appearance?  Do you recall all the different state and federal government mandates ranging from self-quarantining, mandatory masks, maintaining a distance of at least 6 feet, or the defacto looting of stores of their toilet paper, paper towels, hand sanitizer, and practically anything that could be consumed (and that doesn't even include the price gouging)? It must be pointed out that there were no natural shortages of these items. It was hoarding motivated by greed which kept products off the shelves and drive up prices. 

Some of us found a little smug satisfaction and sardonic amusement at the self-proclaimed "preppers" who were caught off guard materially and mentally for the ensuing chaos just like the rest of us. Nevertheless, many of us promised ourselves then and there that we would never be caught short like that ever again.

Then came the government's body count as government officials would hold afternoon press conferences to update the public with the latest death counts due to Covid, or the number of individuals officially diagnosed with Covid,  often simultaneously showing images of bodies being stored in outdoor cooling units until they could be properly handled by a funeral home, hospital personnel running around in hazmat suits, and horror stories about ventilator shortages. It was a grim display aimed at showing us the seriousness in which the government wanted us to take the situation.

I clearly remember representatives from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) explaining to us how the virus mysteriously exploded on the world from a bowel of Chinese "bat soup" consumed by some unassuming tourist in Wuhan China, wherever that was.  Instinctively, I knew something wasn't quite right with that story. Coronaviruses rarely jump from animals to humans as we've observed from the recent past with other viruses.

I also vividly recall the Centers for Disease Control announcing that not only has a vaccine been produced, but there were actually a number of vaccines available, and not just that, but how quickly they were green lighted for human inoculation.  Typically it takes years of exhaustive research before any vaccine was ready for human trials, but here we were in just a matter of a couple months and we just don't have a single vaccine, but at least four worldwide!

Thousands lined up to get the "jab" as it was called in the hopes of staving off the deadly virus. Meanwhile, it was mandatory that we continue to wear our masks, regularly use our hand sanitizer, and of course, maintain proper "social distancing". After receiving the vaccine, we were encouraged by government and health officials to carry our vaccination cards  and be prepared to show them as proof of our compliance.

For some reason, that just seemed so "Nazi" to me.  It was so sterile and regulated. It was reminiscent of the old Nazi Era "Ihre Papiere bitte" ("your papers please") which would be uttered by the dreaded Gestapo in their sinister chic black leather coats and matching black fedoras to unsuspecting passersbyers on the streets of Berlin, Paris, or Prague.  

With so many vaccines suddenly available, it seemed to me that there was either an army of seriously brilliant "Doctor Strange"  type of scientists doing nonstop viral research using supercomputers or there was already a vaccine prototype worked up.  If that were the case, then there had to be a biochemical "fingerprint" of the virus available to study. But for that to happen, it meant that "someone" already knew what the deadly Covid virus looked liked at a molecular level , and that meant the mysterious "bat soup" virus had to be man made.

Apparently though I wasn't the only one who reached that conclusion! Quite a few people around the world who were much more familiar with the topic of virology than me came to the same conclusion. However, it wasn't long before the media started labeling these individuals "conspiracy theorists" or worse, "conspiracy nuts" for questioning the official narrative despite having some seriously impressive credentials. Others soon joined in to question the government's explanation of events in a cascading loss of official credibility.  To many things simply didn't add up whether Dr. Fauci or anyone else said otherwise.

A growing number of people kept pointing out the similarity of Covid was to the flu or the fact that we seemed to be missing our normal "flu season". Many people started treating the Covid virus like the flu, albeit  a more serious one for those with health preconditions which affected their immune system. Oddly, many of those people seemed to do just fine thank you.  How could that be?

Meanwhile, in what had the earmarks of an orchestrated response, many of those who refused to get the shots, wear masks and so forth were being ridiculed, ostracized, and even threatened with violence. Some employers refused to allow individuals to come back to work while several large restaurant chains, banks, and retail stores denied service to anyone without a vaccination card or mask.  

Although Covid has largely disappeared from the headlines and officials have quietly suspended their nightly death toll report, the issue of Covid's origin and the government's response still continues.  Many of the "conspiracy nuts" looked to the supposedly secret Chinese medical research center in Wuhan Province as ground zero for the virus leakage, which many claimed was intentional.

Others decided to follow the money which appeared to show billions in U.S. funds being routed to Chinese research facilities for years  from U.S. government agencies, including the CDC while it was under Fauci's watch. Was that true? Why would the CDC and other agencies work with Chinese on weaponizing the flu virus? A number of individuals was determined to find out, especially Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) launched a full on assault  into the official records (which many of us don't have access to). He  conducted a series of government hearings in ways that only a U.S. senator could do to get at the truth, which included subpoenaing key individuals and their records. While it's taken a number of years, it appears that many of the "conspiracy nuts" were largely right after all.

Dr. Paul reported his findings in a speech he delivered on November 1, 2023 at the Allan P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship on Hillsdale's Washington D.C. campus entitled "Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up". The speech was also published in a edited version in Hillsdale's "Imprimis" newsletter (December 2023 Volume 52 Number 12).

I've provided a link Dr. Paul's speech below. I strongly recommend that you read it, especially if you lost a friend, a family member, or if  you or someone you were acquainted with had Covid. This also goes to anyone who was laid off, lost their job or forced to close their business due to Covid-19 enforced mandates. So, what, if anything, have learned from the pandemic?

Hopefully we've learned that there was quite a bit of truth uncovered by those individuals who were disparagingly  referred to as "conspiracy nuts", "troublemaker" or much worse. Some of what they confirmed ranged from the likely origin of the virus from a Chinese military lab in Wuhan Province, the striking resemblance of Covid to the flu virus,  the virus being man made or it  having a possible weaponized application, which would be illegal under the UN's Biological Weapons Convention, and a great deal of "under-the-table" funding by the U.S. government.

I also want to point out a serious object lesson we should have learned as we delve further into an expanding AI, more sophisticated facial recognition software, data mining,  supercomputers, human like robots and their self-awareness, declining privacy, and a growing surveillance state under the control of elite plutocrats, plus the strong likelihood of more enhanced viruses or diseases.

The Covid-19 pandemic (or scare if you prefer) taught us that ordinary people of all walks of life can easily be coerced into "self-isolating" with little effort. All that's required is a little manufactured fear generated by the government and cast to the winds by a willing media.  We learned how individuals can be intimidated into wearing a nearly ineffective mask with the same ease as making group of individuals don yellow felt Stars of David to their clothes.

We should have learned that it's just as easy to persuade people to get a injection of some unknown substance into the arm as it was to demand a people to assemble in the middle of a town square and board cattle cars for a destination unknown.

People are quite pliable and gullible. We tend to react as a herd animal, little different from sheep, cows, or pigs. Most of us are afraid to step very far out of line for fear of being singled out or losing the perceived protection of the herd. The conspiracy theorists (or "nuts") were the ones who spoke out the loudest. They tried to rouse the herd into looking up. They were the voices in the wilderness that the Status Quo tried to silence.

There's no doubt that Covid-19 was a "live fire" exercise on a global scale. Real people died. Many of the immune compromised were hospitalized. Was this intended to "thin the herd" or merely to see how we would react despite our anti-government rhetoric? Well, the masses did dutifully obeyed. They covered their faces.  They self-incarcerate. Those who didn't may have inadvertently self-identified as most likely to challenge authority next time and bear monitoring. 

But perhaps what mattered the most to the ruling elites in this little exercise  was just how easily people the world over, regardless of religion, culture, or politics could be made to willingly obey with very little effort.  All that's required is a little fear and some gentle, but firm guidance from sympathetic sounding  authority figures. I truly hope you all will check out Dr. Paul's link below.

 

  If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Lessons From the Great Covid Cover-Up by U.S. Senator Dr. Rand Paul (R-KY).

Resistance is NOT Futile: Defeating Social and Political Conformity

Conformity is the byword of any system whose intent is control of the masses. Your opinion or enthusiasm is of no particular interest to them, so long as they have your compliance and cooperation. In fact, no matter how powerful a system tries to project itself, ultimately it's power rests on your willingness to go along with the objectives of the system.

Of course, your compliance can be free given or it can be coerced as was the case under Chile's Augusto Pinochet or Spain's Franco on the Right or Mao in China and Kim Jung Un in North Korea on the Left. Conformity can encompass everything from similar thoughts to mirroring the "great leader" or dominant group, which can be a simple majority or an assertive minority.  In most instances, however, it is conformity of thought and obedience which counts the most.

We humans are hardwired to follow the herd, at least to a certain point. By working together, we are able to achieve a great deal. Our earliest ancestors tended to conform to functioning in a certain pattern of behavior when it came to planting crops, hunting in groups, building communities, and organizing armies, systems of government, and religion. Privately, they may have thought the chief or high priest was nuts, but they weren't about to say that out loud! Such sentiment could get you ostracized (which could be a virtual death sentence) to imprisoned.

Today, we tend to follow the herd, be it in a work environment or publically. Schools teach us not just how to get along, but also how to go along.  Adopting a "school spirit" teaches us to embrace a sense of loyalty for our "tribe". Non-conformists tend to get called out and/or punished.  We can still stand out and express our freedom of expression, but only within certain guidelines and venues.

In the military, individuality is frowned on. You're taught to act in a regulated and well ordered fashion. You are conditioned to accept orders without question. Obviously in the heat and fog of war, second guessing decisions can...and will...get people killed or maimed. You speak in a particular manner, which includes its own unique phrases and uses its own symbols to establish a well defined hierarchy.

A not dissimilar type of social grooming carries through to the business world as well. You follow the instructions of your boss, obviously within specific guidelines which have been established in part by the federal government, which also applies to your employer. Society too has its guidelines known as laws which are enforced by our legal system and is enforced by specially designated public employees. Those who fail to obey those guidelines can face punishment ranging from verbal reprimands to fines to being denied their freedom.

Our society runs on conformity. From our birth to our death we are conditioned to think and act a certain way. In politics, a Status Quo tends to rise to the top and jell over time.  Paradoxically, that creates a certain comfort and chaos. The comfort arises from the knowledge of knowing what to expect. The chaos results from the staleness as change or improvements become harder and more difficult to create. Society fails to remain current with technology and science.

What is now possible, thanks to advances in technology for instance may not make allowances morally. Just because we can to something doesn't mean we should do it, especially on a wide scale.  For example, in most cases we can keep a human being alive practically indefinitely thanks to advances in technology and chemistry, but morally should we? What about their quality of life or cognitive functions short term and long term?

But let's reverse that. Just because some ancient script deemed sacred by our ancestors centuries ago instructs one gender to dress or act in a certain way be adhered to in the present where it's a hindrance or doesn't reflect the norms of the current time? Maybe eating certain foods 2000 years ago were rightly prohibited because without proper refrigeration, preservatives and processing, it could make you extremely sick or  possibly kill you. Today we that's all changed. We can preserve food for days, weeks or longer thanks to changes in technology, including  the ability to safely transport them over long distances before they spoil, which required someone to challenge the prevailing mindset.

Once upon a time it was believed that there was no need to educate females. Education took time and was expensive. Besides, a woman's sole role was pretty much limited to a few general tasks, of which none require much more than a very basic level of education, or so it was thought. Males, on the other hand were seen as the principal breadwinners. Their level of knowledge extended over much broader areas than that of women. Therefore, not only should their education be capped, but so too should other functions like driving, voting, signing legal documents, or even owning property.

But for most of global society, time didn't stand still thanks to challenges to conformity. People have access to a much wider selection of food. Education is open to all, as well as life choices. Governments recognize that they must serve all members of society, not just a portion and that includes the right to drive, to vote, to hold political office, serve in the military, or be the president of a corporation.

A few repressive societies and religions still exist for which questioning the Status Quo or thinking for yourself is forbidden or an affront to God. Conformity must be maintained, not because it has proven itself better, more effective or because the Divine has certain dietary and dress preferences, but because questioning conformity threatens their power and control. It always comes down to that. Power and control. Assign to us your free will, do as you're told, and everything will be just peachy. 

It reminds me of that famous photograph of August Landmesser, a German dockworker at the Blohm+Voss Shipyards in Nazi Germany. The photo, taken in 1936, shows a sea of German workers giving the nazi salute at the launch of the ship, "Horst Wessel" with Hitler in attendance. Landmesser was polite and respectful, but decided not to join in. 

The reason was that Herr Landmesser had a girlfriend who just so happened to be part Jewish. Under the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, their relationship were prohibited. Landmesser chose love over conformity. 

Landmesser was charged with "dishonoring the race" and sentenced to two and a half years in prison and was then assigned to a military penal unit.  Sometimes resistance to conformity comes at a steep price.  But only we can decide if that price is to high. For our Founding Fathers, just as with Herr Landmesser, it was worth it. 

In U.S. politics (and I suspect politics around the world) we are given the illusion of choice while preserving conformity. We are told that we have choices to pick from, but only two. Should you ask "why?", you're told that no other choices are possible because they fall outside of the guidelines the Status Quo established for itself---not you---to protect its power. Thus you must conform with the "legal choices" presented to you.

Those two "choices" have already been selected and vetted while others who offer us new ideas have been sidelined. The districts have been drawn up by the Status Quo to virtually ensure at least which of the two parties will likely win. The Status Quo knows they'll protect the existing power structure in spite of their rallying cries of "change" or "reform". And should you still have any doubts, the news media will have taken the drudgery of thinking out of the equation for you and selected which candidates you should vote for. All you have to do is follow their recommendations.

Everyone, regardless of age, gender or race, economic class, knows at a certain psychological level that it's all phony. No one is actually going to "stand up" to anyone or anything.  The political apparatus has been engineered to prevent any real change from taking place.   Like the "Borg", your resistance to their conformity is futile, at least that's what they want you to believe.

I recently came across a really interesting video by Academy of Ideas entitled "Why are People so Obedient? - Compliance and Tyranny". I've provided a link below. The video runs just 12:32 and it covers the nature of conformity and includes some simple suggestions on how defeat it at the grassroots level.

I encourage you to take some time to watch it. With the Presidential Election for 2024 starting to gear up, now would be a good time to learn about some of the things you can do.

 

Video: Why are People so Obedient? -Compliance and Tyranny (12:32)

Academy of Ideas

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

Scientists Found An Algorithm To Turn All Of Us Into Sheeple

The Tragic Story Behind One Man's Refusal To Salute the Fuehrer  

Why People Become Sheeple

  

Biden's Continued Downward Slide and Changes

 

According to a recent poll conducted in late August by YouGov, 75% of Americans believe that Biden is taking us down the wrong path. A NBC News Poll reported 74% of those they polled thought America was going the wrong way too. An earlier poll, taken in late June by Monmouth University, put that number at 88%.  A mere 10% also said we were on the right path.

The Monmouth Poll pointed out that approximate 90% who thought we were going in the wrong direction.  80% of Democrats and 92% of Republicans disapproved of Biden's handling of the country.  Among America's largest political bloc, Independents, 91% agreed that we were going the wrong way.

As an aside, the poll noted that 84% of seniors (55+) disapproved of Biden. 92% of those 35 to 54 agreed that Biden was doing a poor job, as did 95% of those 18 to 34 years of age, which includes Millennials and Gen X. 

55% thought President Biden had botched his handling of the country while 42% thought he was doing at least a passable job. A majority of country---irrespective of party--- believes Biden is mentally unfit to be President. His approval rating, at 54%, remain some of lowest in history.  Meanwhile, Congress isn't doing any better. It's seemingly perpetual "in the toilet" disapproval rating is a current 60%.

Although these are significant numbers, there's nothing new here in either of the three polls. Americans, regardless of their political leanings, have for decades known that both corporate owned parties are destroying America. We've become everything our Founding Father's warned us about.

According to the above NBC poll, 58% believe that our country's best days were behind us. When we compare the America of today with that of our parents or grandparents, it's hard to disagree. True, there has been badly overdue progress, especially in the area of civil rights.

At the same time, we've managed to create a nation of "victims" and a "entitled" generation where everyone gets a "participation trophy" just for showing up and "safe spaces" when their feelings get hurt. Perhaps that's History's revenge on the self-important "Me Generation". As the saying goes, "history doesn't repeat but it often rhymes".

With prices continuing to rise, inflation is the main concern for the majority of families whose incomes aren't keeping up in survey after survey. For seniors and those on fixed incomes it's becoming a growing crisis. One report says that 45% of food banks nationwide have seen an increase of 10% or more. Among those surveyed, 56% said Biden was not doing enough to help them or the economy. 68% said that, despite Biden's reassurances, America was already well into a recession.

71% of respondents didn't think Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act"  wasn't going to help them any. 36% said it wouldn't make any difference one way or another in their financial situation while another 35% thought it would actually make matters worse for them personally!

The "Inflation Reduction Act" will cost taxpayers an anticipated $437 billion dollars. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which reviewed the bill in depth, stated that it would have little to no actual affect on inflation. The University of Pennsylvania went further and said the bill's impact on inflation would be "statistically zero", although it could possibly reduce the total national deficit by $300 billion over the next ten years or so, and therefore could indirectly affect inflation.

It should be pointed out that although $300 billion may sound like a lot, it's barely a drop in the debt bucket. Our current deficit is $31 trillion dollars and growing. By 2031, it will consume 106% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which measures the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S..  

The result will almost assuredly mean a severe reduction in money available for crumbling infrastructure (like our outdated sewers and electrical grid, roads and bridges),national parks, and social services (Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, WIC, unemployment, etc). It will also practically guarantee a substantial increase in taxes.

In the short term, I suspect that the beneficiaries of Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act" will be large corporations and those at the top of the economic ladder. After all, they own both parties and their lobbyists write the laws. Politicians are little more than hired help; the intermediaries serving as gatekeepers between the "us and them".  If we benefit in any way, it's nothing more than a happy coincidence for us and political hay for whoever is in office. But, what do you expect living in a neo-fascist "Corporate Democracy"? 

Poll after poll for decades now have shown that Americans are "sick and tired" of being sick and tired. We know both parties serve corporate masters and not the people. We know Citizens United was a mistake.  It was the catalyst for converting America from a democratic Republic to a increasingly neo-fascist Corporatocracy. It created a professional political class of multi-millionaires and ruling oligarchs no different than those found in Russia, Ukraine, China, or other nations we like to villainize.

We know what to do. We eliminate Citizens United, institute real campaign finance reform, impose term limits, end partisan gerrymandering, change elected administrative offices into non-partisan offices, create a level political playing field by opening using the same ballot requirements for everyone running for office.

We need to open up federal election debates to all qualified candidates. These debates are currently closed to anyone who isn't a Democrat or Republican. We need to encourage rank choice voting, give the chief executive line item veto powers to eliminate "pork" from bills and raise our tax bills, prohibit lobbyists from writing legislation, permit recall elections, ballot initiatives and referendums.

There are other things we can do such as create separate election officers for third parties and Independents and ending public funding of partisan primaries. Make election day a holiday in order to encourage more participation. End taxpayer based funding of partisan primaries. Lastly, voters should have the final say on all proposed local and state taxes, fee or rate increases. Any one of these would help tilt the game in our favor.

There's nothing radical about any of these reform measures mentioned above. Most were once available to nearly every citizen. But one by one we lost them thanks to political corruption and corporate greed.   All we have left is the ballot box, and even that is under attack. We've been left with little more than the illusion of power. Perhaps it's time to restore the sovereignty of the individual and curtail that of an increasingly autocratic government and its corporate masters. What do you think?

 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! 

Nearly 75% of Americans think the US is headed in the WRONGdirection under President Biden...

88 percent say US on wrong track: survey

Over half of American believe US is 'on the wrong track'---poll

U.S. Debt Clock

 

 

The Rise of the Independent

Independents have long been the largest voting bloc in America.  According to a November 30, 2020 poll, those numbers are expected to continue to increase. It's expected that by 2035, nearly 3/4 of all registered voters will be Independent.  Polls shows that Independents, who've been a majority for about 20 years, are holding firm at 36% while the Democrats are 34% and Republicans are at 29%. Along with the change in registration, the poll predicted new election laws such as Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting.

In several states, which have had a historical preference for one corporate party or the other, such as North Carolina,  Alaska, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Oregon, those changes are already underfoot. Within the next 14 years (or sooner), those states will have Independent majorities. Other states following closely on the same track include Florida, New Jersey, and the upper Northeastern states of Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

While some pollsters and pundits like to pretend that Independents are merely "homeless" voters or individuals who are uncertain about which party they should to belong, choosing instead to be Independent while leaning to the Republicans or Democrats. This couldn't be further from the truth.

In fact, they come to those questionable conclusions based on biased worded questions designed to create a false positive answer toward one or the other party; taking the lazy approach of lumping them in with one party or the other instead of treating Independents as the separate political demographic that they are.  

So,  just what is an Independent? Many Independents are former moderates/centrists who were purged out of one or the other corporate owned party by the extremists within that particular party. Independents are, by nature, not extremists. They also can't be pigeonholed, which frustrates the Status Quo. 

They are interested in practical and rational solutions to problems, not lockstep dogma. In short, they like to think for themselves. I imagine most of us were the troublemakers who always asked questions you encountered from school all grown up now and still asking questions.

An Independent wants a realistic solution regardless of where that solution comes from. Those who follow partisan dogma will accept the "solution" offered by their party, no matter how outrageous that "solution" is. To make matters more complex, both parties are owned by corporate money, and thus, so is their solution.

There's no questioning that.  Their lobbyists "contribute" to legislation (which is obviously meant to benefit them). They "advise" legislators. They help get legislation passed. Those who go along are rewarded, financially and otherwise. Is it any wonder that the majority of former legislators work for lobbying firms?

Thus the "solutions" presented by partisan politicians are by definition designed to benefit corporate interests, not our interests. Independents, as a whole, reject this. They want solutions which benefit society first and foremost. Generally speaking, Independents prefer policies and laws which promote fiscal responsibility which protecting individual liberties.  They seek a balance.  

In terms of foreign policy,  the majority of Independents prefer diplomacy over military action. However, they will support the latter if all efforts at a peaceful resolution have been exhausted. As an aside, most Independents support global trade while protecting American jobs. They also believe in keeping our noses out of other country's internal affairs and wars over resources. 

Now, let's discuss Open Primaries, Ranked Choice Voting, and other changes which are likely come along with the rise of Independents. The majority of these are aimed to help make elections more fair (and honest) by creating a level playing field and giving everyone a voice.

Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting, now the bane of Republicans and Democrats bosses, will likely be a matter of fact in all 50 states. Currently, in 30 states, they are already a matter of law. 

Open Primaries allow anyone not registered as a Democrat, Republican, or to another party, to choice which, if any, partisan primary to vote in. Why would that happen? Simply this. Taxpayer dollars pay for Republican and Democrat primaries. Yelp, you read that right. Your tax dollars pay for both partisan primaries.

 If you're an Independent or member of a third party, that means your tax dollars go to a strictly partisan political event without either your consent or ability to participate in. Doesn't exactly sound like a "representative democracy" to me. Does it to you? Then again, we're not. We're a Corporatocracy led by Oligarchs.

Here's another thought for you. Even if you're registered with one or the other corporate owned political parties, under our current "winner take all" system, that means if your party loses, your political views aren't represented for the duration of that individuals terms the way it would in a parliamentary system, yet you get to continue paying taxes for policies and legislation you don't support.

To add salt to the wound, given the current use of political gerrymandering and in the absence of term limits, it means that the opposing party is likely to hold that seat for as long as they want (incumbents have a 98% reelection rate, which is higher than the Chinese Communist Central Committee and Politburo of 62%). As far as they are concerned, you can move; leave your home and your neighborhood. Not exactly fair is it?

Ranked Choice Voting (also called RCV or Instant Runoff Voting) allows you, the voter, to rank the individuals running for a specific office, regardless of party, by preference, thus eliminating the need for a partisan primary (and saving you money) and giving you more of a say in who wins. In some cases, the party isn't even shown on the ballot. Because there some variations, I've included a link below to help explain it in more detail.

Other changes coming to the political landscape (whether the party bosses and their corporate masters like it or not) could include term limits. Our Founding Fathers never intended on holding public office to be a lifetime job (in fact, they didn't even think they should be paid; it was considered to be a civil duty).

In a 2020 poll conducted by McLaughlin and Associates, a Republican polling firm, found that 82% of all Americans favored a Constitutional amendment setting a fixed term of office for elected office holders. 52% of Americans also thought that Supreme Court Justices should also have set tenure on the High Court.

Of course, politicians and the folks pulling their strings, strongly oppose any attempt to replace their puppets. They'll use every trick and lie they can come up with, and why not? Tenure means more power which means more money. It also means having someone who jump when they're told to jump. Do you think they're going to give that up willingly? No. But term limits benefits us. It reduces the opportunity for corruption. It also means we'll see more fresh new ideas. Innovation is something that we are woefully lacking in government.

We should expect to see partisan gerrymandering ended. For those who don't know what that is, partisan gerrymandering allows a given party to redraw district lines to ensure that their party keeps a specific seat. It's how we get these unnatural looking districts whose neighborhoods and communities have little or nothing in common with each other except having the right number of partisan voters. It's why some neighborhoods get things done for them while other neighborhoods get squat.

Redistricting, however, is not all bad. Communities grow and change. That's why political representation should be allowed to change along with them. To do this, universities typically have political science and mathematical departments. Using data provided by the Census Bureau, along with computer models, would allow districts to be redrawn which reflect their natural growth. No longer would politicians try to force some neighborhoods in and others out in order to keep their political dominance.  Communities could stay and grow together.

The hardest change will be financial, and that includes Citizens United. Citizens United came about in 2010; the result of an ill considered Supreme Court decision. It decided that corporations were de facto "individuals" and thus, had the same rights as you and I. It further held that money was "free speech".  Thus, supporters declared it a First Amendment victory. However, it was anything but.

Corporations are artificial creations. A legal fiction. Those who are employed do not get a vote on where the money goes. That's done by the board of directors. Secondly, corporations aren't capped on the amount of money they give while you and I are. Naturally, corporations can donate millions compared to the insignificant amount working class individuals and small business donors can give.

Even unions can't compete. Typically, for every dollar a union gives a candidate or issue, a single corporation will give five dollars (not to mention there are far fewer unions than corporations). Thus, Citizens United not only distorted the intent of the First Amendment, it effectively eliminated citizens from having a voice.

Additionally, it made running for office so prohibitive expensive, only the wealthy need apply. It's worth noting that many legal scholars have acknowledged that Citizens United was a huge mistake since it all but removed ordinary citizens from the election process.

One suggestion to correct the "Supreme Error" is that all corporate money has to be donated to a common pool where it would be divided equally between eligible candidates directly. Another option is that the money would only buy equal public air time (and, I suppose, social media as well) on behalf of eligible candidates.  

It's doubtful that either option will be adopted. Even if it were, "dark money" would continue to filter in and "unofficially" back certain candidates. The only viable option is to remove corporate money---direct and indirect--- altogether from politics. Limiting all contributions to individual donors only, and then, capping the amount to keep billionaires and millionaires from buying candidates and elections as they do now.

Other likely changes will include eliminating ballot access restrictions. That means requiring the same number of signatures to get on a ballot. For instance, a Republican or Democrat might only need three, while an Independent or third party candidate might need hundreds...or thousands for the same seat!  Also, requiring that all candidates on the ballot be eligible to participate in public debates, which doesn't happen now.

Citizen initiatives or referendums are prohibited or restricted in a few, most backward, states (Kentucky comes to mind). I guess they're afraid of voters. Nevertheless, we, as citizens, have the right to express our opinion in the form of placing a question on the ballot for everyone to decide. We don't need the "permission" of legislators trying to protect their turf.

On a personal note, along those same lines, I think the voters should have the final say on tax, fee, or rate increases, as well as salary increases for anyone elected to office. Politicians have long shown they can't manage our money. We know what we can and can't afford. Damn few politicians have ever met a tax or rate increase they didn't like. It's our tax dollars, therefore, it should be our decision.

The continual rise of Independents is inevitable. The system and those who've run the system have failed us time and again. They pretend that their blunders are successes. Their corruption is for the common good. Well, the mask has slipped. We see exactly what's happening behind the curtain. They've done their best to lie and distract us, but you can only do that so many times.

They've tried to divide us at every turn in the hopes that our manufactured anger will be directed toward each other and because they believe they control all the levers of power, we can be controlled or distracted.  Independents are, by nature, not likely to be controlled or manipulated by anyone, especially out of touch millionaire politicians or the media.  We ask questions. We do our own research, and to the utter horror of the Status Quo, we think for ourselves. We speak our mind without worrying whose sacred silk slippers we step on.

 

How RCV Works

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

 

U.S. Term Limits

The share of independent voters is forecast to increasesteadily

Americans tend to be in favor of term limits for mostinstitutions, says pollster

Congressional stagnation in the United States

Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

How to buy Congress and influence People (or are politicians cheaper by the dozen?)

Last week I provided you with the names and a little background information about of the "Big Six" mega-corporations which control 90%+ of all media outlets, and thus, our opinion as to what's happening in the world. These same six corporations also affect out entertainment, and not just the news. We touched on how this impacted our opinion of events and of the media itself, which we broke down along age demographics. I think many of you were surprised at the hold a relatively small group of individuals have on what we see, hear, and read. These six corporations decided what's news, how it will be presented, and how to spin it for any agenda they're a pushing at a given moment. They also control how we relax, be it video games, sports, or some show on television. In this issue, we're going to look at the top corporate political campaign givers.

Given that two Supreme Court misrulings, Citizens United and the McCutcheon's cases have completely altered the political landscape by declaring corporations are "people" and money as "free speech", it's important to know who the average Joe and Jane Public are competing against (given the corporations can contribute what it want while ordinary "flesh and blood types" citizens are still capped). We will start with the premise that money brings with it not just power, but also access to power and influence. For the majority of Americans, seeking public office is simply out of their reach because of the high cost of elections. It's no wonder that Congress is referred to as the "Millionaires Club". So, without further ado, let's take a look at some of the top Fortune 500 corporations.

AT&T, the telecommunications giant based in Texas raised $3,022,815 dollars. Of this, Republicans received 38.9% while Democrats got 60%. The Bank of America, located in North Carolina, pooled $2,931,246. Democrats got 41.4% compared to Republicans who got 57.9%. The Las Vegas Sands Hotel and Casino in Nevada pooled their earnings totaling $2,885,417 and gambled 62% of it on Republicans and 36.6% on Democrats. DISH Network, based in California, donated 42.8% of its $2,604,920 on the GOP and 55.4% on Democrats. Chicago based Boeing Industries contributed 55.4% and 43.8% of its $2,805,418 on Democrats and Republicans respectively. IBM, based in New York, raised $2,598,586. The Republicans got 29.7% whereas the Democrats took 68.9%.

Lockheed Martin, the aerospace giant based in Maryland, contributed 54.7% of its $2,364,432 to Republicans and 43.7% to Democrats. The New York based telecommunications corporation Version raised $2,532,495. Democrats pocketed 67.2% of it; Republicans just 32.7%. The California based social media platform, Facebook, contributed 91.3% of its $2150,277 to Democrats. Republicans got a paltry 7%. Exxon Mobil, the Texas based oil and gas conglomerate, donated 63% of its $2,134,633 to Republicans. Democrats got only 36%. Another Texas based oil and gas giant, Western Refining, directed 63.4% of its $2,148,865 to Republicans while Democrats saw 35.3%. The Chicago located energy company, Exelon gave 60.6% of $2,106,413 to Republicans. Democrats saw just 38.8%.

The New Jersey pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson, had total donations of $1,981,003. Democrats got 52.2% compared to Republicans who got 45.4%. Pfizer, another monster sided pharmaceutical giant raised $1,943,348 and then donated 64.8% to Democrats and 34.8% to Republicans. General Electric, based in Boston, gave Democrats 56% of its $1,753,871 political finds. Republicans got just 43.2%. California located Intel, a technology corporation, put together $1,690,486. Republicans saw 25.4% of it while the Democrats saw 73.2%. Version, another high tech corporation, gave Democrats 67.3% and Republicans 32.7% respectively of its $2,253,405. Wells Fargo Bank, based in California with it $3,212,918 in available funds, donated 54.2% to Democrats and 44.7% to the GOP.

While these are some pretty impressive numbers, they're still chump change compared to the big spenders. Take Morgan Stanley for instance. This New York bases financial services company donated 54.9% of its $5,362,033 to the Republicans. Democrats got 44.1%. Another New York financial services and banking company, JP Morgan+Chase, contributed 54.5% of its allotted $6,173,244 to Democrats, while Republicans got 49.9%. Microsoft, the Washington base tech giant, had $7,222,345 to donate, and Democrats got 80.2% of it. Meanwhile, Republicans got 18.6%. Topping the list is Goldman Sachs. This New York based financial services corporation had $11,457,248 to donate. Hedging their political portfolio, they invested 52.2% in Republicans and 47% in Democrats. Now, if you think these numbers are mind boggling in both their size along with the amount of political favors and legislation they'll buy, sit tight. You haven't read anything just yet.

Did you know that just 2/3 of all individual campaign contributions come just 1/4 of 1 percent of voters? According to a CNBC article from April 2018, 30% of that money went directly to the candidate. The rest, called "soft money" contributions, went to groups who spent the money indirectly on behalf of the candidate or issue. So how much money are we talking about? Try $154 million dollars (and just the top 100 individual contributors). Of this, the majority leans Right or Conservative to the tune of $83 million dollars. $65 million leans Left toward Liberal candidates and causes.

Everyone has heard of the Koch Brothers, who are usually portrayed as the evil incarnate by the politically slanted media, however, they are far from the biggest contributors. They give just under a million dollars ($997,000) to Republicans, whereas fellow conservative Geoff Palmer, owner of GH Palmer Associates, donated $2,403,172 to Republicans. Robert Mercer of Renaissance Technologies gave $3.7 million to conservative causes and candidates. Steven Cohen of Point 72 Asset Management has given Republicans and conservative causes $3.4 million. Another partner from that same firm is Henry Laufer. He's not shy about spending money either. He donated $2.5 million to Democrats (I've got to get a job there!).

Now don't feel left out Democrats. You've got some big money behind you too. James Simons of the same corporations as Mercer, donated $3.2 million dollars to Democrats. The "evil villain" according to the political Right, George Soros, has given Democrats $1.4 million dollars. Now, compare those numbers with Donald Sussman of Paloma Partners who gave Democrats $6.1 million dollars. Barnard Marcus of the Marcus Foundation gave Republicans $5.5 million dollars while Fred Eyechaner of Newsweb donated $4.6 million to Democrats. George Marcus of Marcus & Millichap had $4.2 million for Liberals, and so the story goes. However, the two largest contributors haven't even been mentioned yet, so let's get to it!

Thomas F. Steyer of Fehr LLC is the top Democrat and liberal issues contributor. Steyer, who was born in 1957, is a hedge fund manager whose net worth is around $2 billion dollars. Steyer consider himself to be an environmentalist, philanthropist, and a liberal issues activist and fundraiser. His current political project is a campaign to impeach President Trump (of which he's donated some $10 million dollars thus far). But perhaps his biggest claim to fame is that he's the single largest contributor to Democrats and liberal causes in the amount of $16 million dollars. Obviously, that adds a whole to dimension to the old term "Limousine Liberal" doesn't it? However, as impressive at Steyer may be, he pales compared to the single largest private donor, Richard E. Uihlein. Uihlein is the owner of Uline, Inc, which is shipping supply distribution company, was born in 1945. Uihlein is a active contributor to Republicans and other conservative causes (he also has close friendship with Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas). So, how much as Uihlein given? A cool $21.1 million dollars.

This is just a sampling of the ruling Oligarchs in this country. They are part of the elite one percent. Thanks to their wealth they can and do buy the kind of political access that the ordinary American voter can't even begin to comprehend. Not only do they have the instant and full attention of anyone and everyone in Washington, they are able to influence legislation. Through their lobbyists and friends in Washington, they can create or kill bills at the snap of their fingers. There's a reason that Congress is called the "Millionaire's Club".

Political parties really don't meant much to them, even though they may contribute to one party or cause over another. When you get down to it, they support those who can get things done for them, and that usually translates into making them more money or getting them access to resources somewhere. If it's a Democrat who can do that best for them, then they'll get with that individual. If it's a Republican, then that's where they'll go. Ultimately, it comes down to this---both political parties are part of a single corporate owned party with differing special interests groups each trying to get their agenda through. However, it matters not to which party holds the majority because money buys a lot of favors and it's doesn't care if you're "red" or "blue" (as an aside, red and blue make green, the color of money).

If the Democrats were truly the "People's Party" and meant everything they claim, there wouldn't be the first Republican in office anywhere in the country. If the Republicans were true to their dogma, then not a single Democrat would exist, certainly not in City Hall, our state capitols, and especially Washington. However, they do exist and they do hold office, and they do cooperate, especially on issues of mutual importance. That is to say, they cooperate on matters their corporate masters want to see accomplished. Now, don't get me wrong. I like money. It's pretty handy and has a lot of uses like paying bills and buying groceries. But, I don't like what it buys when it comes to government, especially when it's for the benefit of a tiny few.

American voters are capped by how much they can donate to political campaigns and issues. However, thanks to the Supreme Court's duel mistakes (Citizens United and McCutcheon), corporations have become "people" (I prefer to think of them as "Frankensteins") and money has become "free speech", I think voters have been locked out of the political process, especially when you consider that while we're limited in how much we can donate, these Frankensteins can donate however much they want. We can't begin to compete or offset the amount of money they can donate.

Of course, key players in Washington have made it clear that there will be no realistic campaign finance reform. Even if someone had the backbone to try, no committee chairman would dare let it pass out of their committee lest they face the wrath of their party's whip and leadership. Besides, the corporate lobbyists would ensure that the bill was rewritten or amended to their favor. I would imagine too that whoever tried to write a serious campaign finance reform bill would find their career blunted. They would likely get booted off all their committees, and find themselves with no money or help when it came time for reelection (and a good chance of facing a formidable opponent recruited by their own party).

So, just as real campaign finances reform would be good for America, so to would be an end to gerrymandering (rewriting district lines to the benefit of a specific political party to ensure reelection), reforming the tax code, imposing term limits, a balanced budget amendment, national single payer health coverage and stopping the Capital Hill/K Street revolving door (K Street is where most of the lobbying firms are located). I think requiring the politicians in Washington to be subject to the same laws they pass would be nice too, along with ending a lifelong salary with benefits after they leave office, security, and other high dollar perks. But none of this will ever happen as long a money dictates legislation and motives in Washington and elsewhere in politics.


The 30 Fortune 500 companies that have thrown the most money at Republicans and Democrats in the last decade

Here are the 2018 campaign's biggest donors... so far

Top Organization Contributors