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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Political Polarization in the United States

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

GOP Holds the Edge in Party Affiliation for Third StraightYear

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

Corporatism

U.S. Census Bureau: Quick Facts

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

 

What Fate Awaits Trump --- The Presidency or Prison?

There's no question former President Donald Trump is a rich man. After all, he was perpetually on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" with Robin Leach during the 1980's and Robin didn't showcase paupers! Trump is an American legend when it comes to self-promotion as much as he is a mega successful real estate mogul and entrepreneur. He is the originator of the "art of the deal".

Trump has owned numerous high end properties throughout New York City, including the flagship "Trump Towers" with its exclusive condos owned by the "Who's Who" of  high society, and exclusive boutique stores whose names alone ooze money and the historic art deco styled "40 Wall Street" building. 

"The Donald" as he's known has published several books on the "Art of the Deal" as he likes to call his own game theory version of making business deals. He's owned a casino, a airline company, golf courses, and a university. Oh, and he's been President of the United States.

The former president's four year term was fraught with bitter Beltway infighting, backbiting, betrayal, and filled with enough intrigue to fill a Tom Clancy novel. President Trump promised the American People that he would restore our former Republic, which has been hijacked by corporate elites and others who've turned America into a neo-fascist corporatocracy; an oligarchy overseeing what might as well be called a "surveillance state". 

Trump promised Americans that he would "drain the swamp" that is Washington DC  and rid it of its slimy creatures that includes banksters, lobbyists, special interests groups, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. He said he would secure our southern border and reverse illegal immigration (which has become a defacto invasion), which included building a wall, prevent unnecessary wars while rebuilding the military, improve our healthcare system, strengthen Social Security, among other things.

One of Trump's most notable accomplishments occurred even before taking the oath of office as our 45th president, when "the Donald" was successful in doing what few thought could be done. He defeated Hillary Clinton, the darling of liberals everywhere. In fact, polls showed that with 12 days until the election, Hillary was leading everywhere.

Nobody on the Left could believe that Hillary had been denied her due; that there would be no long overdue coronation.  What had happened? Who was to blame---the Russians? The Chinese? Secret backroom financial deals?  Everyone was to blamed except Hillary's hubris.

 The politically inexperienced  "Donald" somehow managed to defeat a former political operative, former First Lady, former U.S. Senator, and former Secretary of State 30 states to 20. The electoral votes, which are what decide elections, not the number of votes cast, went to Trump, the political outsider, by a margin of 304 to 227 (Hillary did carry the popular vote, 48.2% to 46.1%).

The defeat was so complete that Hillary disappeared; some claim she had a literal meltdown while others claimed that she was allegedly secretly planning Trump's financial and political, execution. Regardless, when she reemerged she was a changed person, barely able to conceal her bitterness, anger, and emotional pain.

Trump's four year term was marked with internal and external political fights and delays from both sides of the aisle. Republican leaders no less than their Democrat counterparts couldn't---and wouldn't---come to grips with how an outsider managed to usurp power from the Status Quo.

As a result, they did their best to undermine Trump's Administration at every turn, even resorting to political subterfuge when necessary while the mainstream media launched into  daily efforts at character assassination which continues to present day. 

Trump and many in his administration have faced unprecedented professional and personal attacks resulting in numerous lawsuits and ending political careers. A few were even sent to prison while the investigation into Jeffery Epstein's murder...err...."suicide"...and his alleged island of pedophilia for the rich and famous remains in limbo just as Hunter Biden (Joe Biden's son) supposed bribery and extortion allegations have gone nowhere. I wonder why that is?

Currently Donald Trump has some 91 felony charges pending against him. If convicted on any one of them, he would be disqualified from serving as president, and yet Trump's popularity remains so high that he is unopposed in the Republican Primary.

His early opponents, which included Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Trump's former Vice President, Mike Pence, all bowed out after having been steamrolled early on by Trump. It's worth noting that Scott and Ramaswamy both later endorsed Trump. 

Now he faces his former opponent,  President Joe Biden. However, Biden isn't the same man he was in 2020. He has managed to accomplish virtually nothing of note during his four year in office and few want to see him back in the Oval Office again. His Vice President has consistently been rated the lowest of any Vice President in U.S. history. Lastly, at 81 years of age, Biden's mental facilities are questionable at best.  

Think about this for a moment. With barely 30 days until the GOP Primary, the only candidate standing is the one with some 91 felonies pending against him. Convection on any one of them disqualifies Trump and leaves no one as the Republican Presidential nominee.

Meanwhile, "the Donald" continues battling the charges, and while winning most of them thus far, has managed to rack up more than $540 million dollars in legal bills! In early March 2024, Trump had to put up a $91.6 million dollar bond as he appealed a defamation case against him on filed on behalf of writer E. Jean Carroll.

Trump had been ordered to pay $83.3 million dollars in damages for allegedly verbally "attacking" her following the writer's allegations of sexual assault. He was also ordered to pay Carroll $5 million after he was found guilty of libel for sexual assault and defamation in E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against Trump.

Speaking of lawsuits, Trump has been ordered to pay $383,000 in legal fees following the loss of a lawsuit filed by Orbis Business Intelligence over a controversial information concerning Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election (no interference was proven).

He was ordered to pay a whopping $454.4 million dollars for allegedly "misstating" the value of his corporate assets, along with interest. This is part of a larger judgment against Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg in the amount of $465 million dollars. But wait, there's more...much more.

Trump was ordered to pay the New York Times just under $400,000 in legal fees after the court tossed his lawsuit over the newspaper acquiring and publishing his tax records without his permission.  There was also the question as to how the newspaper was able to obtain Trump's private tax records since he didn't authorize their release. I guess that means your private financial information isn't so private after all.

Donald Trump and one of his lawyers, Alina Habba were ordered to jointly pay sanctions over his lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats over claims that the 2016 presidential Election was "rigged". The judge order that Habba and Trump pay $937,989.39 following a blistering statement by the judge accusing Trump of trying to further his political agenda by filing a frivolous lawsuit. The lawsuit was subsequently thrown out.

The Trump Organization was found guilty of criminal tax fraud and tax evasion and ordered to pay $1.6 million dollars. As hard as it is to believe, Trump still faces additional civil lawsuits which, if he losses, could result in paying millions more in fines (plus interest), not to mention the 91 felony charges and four criminal charges stemming from the January 6th protests which could also include possible prison time.

According to Forbes, Donald Trump has a net worth of about $2.6 billion dollars. He has $413 million in cash and liquid assets, which sounds like a lot to us mere morals. However, this may not be enough to pay the full amount of the judgments against along with interest. As a result, he may be forced to significantly reduce his holdings, including selling many of his famous properties such as Trump Towers or Mar-a-Largo.

Nevertheless, it would appear that when this is all said and done, "the Donald" may be a financially and psychologically broken man. There is no way anyone can endure what he has and not be mentally or physically affected. On top of all this, he is still running for president, which in itself, is a grueling and exhaustive experience.

It appears, at least to me, that the power-that-be, the ruling elite behind the neo-fascist corporatocracy that is America these days, are determined to both "punish "Trump as well as make him into a warning that while you can make all the promises you want  about reform while campaigning, there will be no challenge to the Status Quo. It exists as an unassailable force as much as any "mafia family" ever has.

If Trump is convicted on any one of the 91 felony charges, his presidential aspirations are over. The RNC National Committee will  assuredly select a properly vetted individual; someone who won't rock the boat.  Who that will be I don't know. I'll leave that to you to suggest, but I have a few ideas.

If Trump manages to survive and win the election, don't look for the same 2016 president. While he'll still be as bombastic as ever, Trump will be forced to follow the playbook dictated to him by the Status Quo or face more legislative roadblocks, continued ridicule and harassment by the media (which is devastating for people who have egos like Trump) and possibly even legal troubles. As former Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, once said, "to get along you have to go along", meaning "the Donald" will have to play nice for the next four years if he wants to get anywhere. 

Of course, Trump has never been one to bow down to anyone.  A newly elected Trump could decide to go after the RNC, the mainstream media, and God knows who else. He could be a "man on a mission" intent on payback and putting America's house in order at any cost. 

As was said of Julius Caesar, "to save the Republic, it was necessary to destroy the Republic", but our Republic has already been destroyed. In its place is a barely veiled neo-fascist corporatocracy led by super rich oligarchs who make Trump look like a pauper (especially after all those fines and penalties are paid).

An ego bruised Trump may feel as if he has nothing to lose.  If that becomes the case, and given his army of devoted "Trumpsters", America could be in for a bumpy ride over the next four years. But then too, there aren't too many people who could blame him under the circumstances and no one is wanting four more years of Joe Biden. 

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!

HillaryClinton: How losing to Donald Trump changed her

Trump's 4 indictments in detail: A quick-look guide to charges, trial dates and key players for each case

TrumpInvestigations: Tracking the Cases

A Guide tothe Criminal Cases Against Donald Trump

 

Here Are AllThe Legal Bills Trump Has Faced Since Last Year---Surpassing $40 Million

Trump has become the last Republican standing in the 2024 primary. Here's how he bulldozed the field

The 1860Presidential Election

Kamala Harris: A Lady in Waiting...for the Presidency?

Well, it's official. Kamala Harris is Joe Biden's pick for Vice President should he win the election in November. Of course, this should come as no surprise to readers of Another Opinion. Back on April 11th ("Sanders' Supporters get "Berned" and "Sleepy Joe" Looks for a Running Mate") I reviewed ole Joe's top ten choices based on his own criteria that his running mate would need to be a woman and "someone of color'. Although there were a number of decent choices, the one which stood out was Kamala Harris. Apparently Joe agreed.

So, what do we know about Ms. Harris? Back in April, I pointed out that Ms Harris was 55 years old. A lawyer, the former California Attorney General, and 27th District Attorney for San Francisco. The junior Senator (elected in 2017) represents Oakland and is a both a protégé and good friend of senior Senator and former San Francisco mayor, Diane Feinstein, as well as the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who also hails from the Bay Area. She also has a good background in foreign policy.

In addition, Ms. Harris is known as a capable debater and isn't afraid to mix it up. As I stated back in April, Kamala Harris has moxie. There are also the intangibles. She looks good on camera and comes across as personable, though I wouldn't say she has the charisma of Bill Clinton or a Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, she has all qualities that Joe Biden lacks which is going to be important in what will be likely be an all out slugfest against the incumbents, President Trump and Vice President Pence.

We also need go ahead and say it---Joe Biden has serious health issues. I think it's unlikely that he will survive a term as president. In all likelihood, Biden will either be forced to step down or will die in office. I don't say this lightly or to be partisan in any way. Anyone who has watched Biden over the last year or two can see an man who is obviously having mental issues (by the that I mean the ability to focus as well as memory). Physically he looks weak; like someone who is easily fatigued.

Former White House physician, Dr. David Scheiner, has stated that the nearly 80 year old Biden isn't a healthy guy too. He has high cholesterol, which could affect his blood pressure, an irregular heartbeat, and a history of aneurysms. As Dr. Scheiner has said, Joe Biden is a good candidate for a stroke.

Given the pressures of being president, those odds increase dramatically (we've all seen how the presidency ages people just who are younger and better shape, physically and mentally). So, the hard cold reality is that Biden's choice of Vice President takes on more significance than usual. With that in mind, we need to take a closer look at Ms. Harris.

Kamala Devi Harris was born on October 20, 1964 in Oakland California ("Devi" is Sanskrit for "goddess"). Her mother, Shyamaia Gopalan, was from Tamil Nadu India. She was a doctor of endocrinology and specialized in breast cancer research and treatment. She died in 2009 of colon cancer.

Her father is British Jamaican born Donald J. Harris, an economics professor emeritus at Stanford University who specializes in Post-Keynesian Developmental Economics. For those of you without an economics background, this is a branch of economics originally developed by famed British economist, Dr. John Maynard Keynes in 1936. It's reference to "Post-Keynesian" refers to its more progressive approach regarding income distribution, interest rates and its effect on employment with respect, in this case, to developing economies such as found in the Third World. If it sounds "Left leaning" it's because that at its core it is.

Dr. Harris, who is bi-racial, was born St. Ann's Bay Jamaica. He obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of London and his doctorate in 1966 at UC Berkeley. In keeping with the typical career of an academic, Dr. Harris has taught at a number of schools around the country as well as the West Indies. He was a Fulbright Scholar in Brazil (1990 and 1991) and in Mexico (1992).

Dr. Harris and Dr. Gopalan meet as students at UC Berkeley where both were student activists involved with the civil rights movement. They were married in 1963 and subsequently divorced in 1971. Both of Kamala's parents are naturalized citizens. For what it's worth, Dr. Harris has publicly stated that some of his ancestors owned large tracts of land and were slave owners.

According to Kamala, both her and her younger sister, Maya, grew up attending a black Baptist Church and a Hindu Temple in keeping with the traditions of both parents. Kamala attended the predominantly black private college, Howard University in Washington DC, where she obtained a BA in Political Science and Economics.

Harris interned for Senator Alan Cranston (D), served on the school debate team, actively demonstrated against South African apartheid on campus, and was a member of the first ever all black Greek sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha. She obtained her law degree from the University of California Hastings School of Law in San Francisco in 1989 and passed the bar the following year.

That same year, Harris was hired as a Deputy District Attorney for Alameda County. In 1994, she was appointed to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission by her then boyfriend and California Assembly Speaker, Willy Brown (D).

1998 was a big year for Ms. Harris. It seemed to mark the turning point in her burgeoning political career. That year she was hired as the Assistant San Francisco District Attorney and became the Chief of the Criminal Division where she and her team of five attorneys prosecuted major crimes including homicide, robbery, burglary, and sexual assault cases. Two years later she was hired to work for the City Attorney's office where she oversaw the Family and Children's Services Division where she represented in child abuse and neglect cases.

In 2003, Kamala Harris became California's "first woman of color" to be elected as District Attorney where she earned a reputation for being tough on crime. When she took over the office, the felony conviction rate was just 50%. By 2009, it stood at 76%. Drug dealer convections rose from 56% to 76%. When it came to violent crimes, she achieved a conviction rate of 87% for murder and 90% for felony gun violations. While she was able to reduce gang violence and truancy within her district, Harris went on record to state that she didn't support the death penalty.

In 2011, Harris took another step up the political ladder when she was elected State Attorney General, a position she held until 2017 when she was elected to the U.S. Senate. During her term as AG, she pursued a number of popular issues such as reducing the state's truancy, prison reform, created a Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, helped introduce a Homeowner's Bill of Rights, required software and technology companies to amend their agreements to provide full disclosure of the use of private information, and requiring companies, such as banks, rent-to-own companies and others to provide full disclosure of contract terms (such as undisclosed late fees, penalties for early payoff, and monitoring remotely keystrokes and built in cameras).

Ms. Harris also credited with championing a wide array of public safety and privacy as well as environmental measures while cracking down on sex crimes, especially against minors, and on the drug cartels which have invaded California and the U.S. Southwest. Overall, her tenure as State Attorney General was seen as a positive one for the general public.

After California's Barbara Boxer (D) decided to hang it up in 2016 after 24 years in the U.S. Senate, Harris was the first to throw her hat in the ring. She won a highly competitive election against several veteran politicians. However, Harris was able to secure the support of a number of key power brokers, and won all but four counties with nearly 60% of the vote.

Currently Ms. Harris serves on the important Budget Committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Federal Oversight and Emergency Management and the Regulatory Affairs Federal Management subcommittees), Additionally, she serves on the Judicial Committee's Constitution, Privacy and Technology, Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts subcommittees. She is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. She is also a strong advocate of LGBQT issues and open borders, supporting San Francisco's "sanctuary city" status.

On a personal note, Kamala married Doug Emhoff, an entertainment law attorney, in 2014. Emhoff, who is Jewish, was born in Brooklyn New York in 1964. He and his family moved to California when he was 17. He attended California State University at Northridge and the USC Gould School of Law. Kamala is a step mother to two children from Emhoff's previous marriage. Kamala and Doug have an estimated personnel net worth of $5.8 million.

As for Kamala's sister, Maya, she's also an lawyer as well as a public policy advocate, and a hired political analyst for MSMBC. She was one of three senior public policy advisors for Hillary Clinton's failed 2016 presidential campaign. Maya previously served as the Executive Director for the ACLU of Northern California and as Senior Associate of PolicyLink, which is a "research and action" institute focusing on low income communities of color.

Given Kamala's professional and academic track record, you can see why I thought she would be picked by Joe Biden as his running mate. The other nine contenders simply couldn't hold a match to Kamala's credentials. Throughout her career she has been described as "smart as a whip", "determined", "dedicated" and "loyal" , which is rare in politics.

Her top financial backers include unions, gay and lesbian groups, law firms, the entertainment industry, plus various real estate and telecommunications groups. She doesn't get much PAC money but what she does get comes primarily from women's issues and human rights groups, liberal Democrat and pro-choice organizations. Approximately 52.4% of her donors are women and most of it comes from in-state. However, she get a fair of money from out-of-state donors too, particularly New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Pennsylvania, Washington State, Georgia, and Illinois. As an aside, during her short lived run for the Democrat Presidential nomination, the majority of her donors were billionaires.

Since her election to the Senate in 2017 she has shown herself to be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who supports every Democrat measure coming down the line. If you're a hardcore partisan, I guess that's a good thing, but partisanship is not what we need today. We need to find ways which bring us together across party lines (especially since both parties, which are corporate owned, are dying), race, gender and whatever else. I hope she can do that, especially given the strong probability that she'll end up at the helm should Biden win in November.





Kamala Harris


Political Positions of Kamala Harris



OpenSecrets: Kamala Harris (D-CA)



Kamala Harris Has More Billionaire donors than any other Democrat candidate running for president



Hollywood's Top Power Players Favor Kamala Harris in Early Campaign Donations

The 116th Congress: New Faces and the Same Old BS

The 115th Congress is over and consigned to history. The 115th Congress was unique in that the Republican Party controlled both the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. When it first convened on January 3, 2017, it enacted the last bill signed into law by then President Barack Obama. In total, it enacted 338 public laws, 1 private law, and ratified five treaties. Some of the more notable public laws that were enacted included 115-6, 115-7, 115-303 which were aimed at encouraging women to become entrepreneurs and entering the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, aerospace, and physics. 115-93 was aimed to providing additional resources for the education, training, and employment of Native Americans, as well as numerous laws pertaining to veteran care and well-being, ending human trafficking (especially involving children), aiding domestic abuse victims, protection of grandparents/grandchildren rights, as well as laws related to the cyber security and the environment.

In its place, we now have the 116th Congress, which was sworn into office on January 3rd. While the Republicans still retain control of the Senate and Executive branches, Democrats have retaken the House of Representatives, with 67 Democrats and 44 Republicans. The 116th has already established several notable firsts such as being the most diverse Congress in history. 22 of the new members are former members of either military or CIA. There will 42 women joining its ranks, plus the first ever Native American women (Deb Haaland D-NM and Sharise Davids D-KS), the first Palestinian-American (Rashida Tlaib D-MI) and the first conservative Muslim woman (Ilhan Omar (D-MN), plus the first Korean-American (Andy Kim D-NJ). As an aside, Ms. Tlaib is also a Muslim, though unlike Omar, does not wear the traditional hijab headdress. Lastly, there is Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist from New York, who was the youngest individual elected to Congress at the age of 28.

Also, 60% of the women who ran, many for the first time, were successful. 24 members of the incoming Congress are racial minorities or of mixed race, including ten who represent mostly white districts (and in some cases, they are also the first minority to ever be elected to Congress by their district) or districts which had been carried by Trump. Politically, 25 of the incoming Democrats are self-described progressives or democratic socialists while nine of the incoming Republicans are considered "hard line" conservatives.

The 116th Congress is also unique in terms of religious diversity. While Congress is still overwhelmingly Christian (88%), there are now three Muslims in office along with three Hindus and two Buddhists. 34 members of Congress are Jewish. Of the Christians, there are 163 Catholics, 72 Baptists, 42 Methodists, 26 each Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian. The rest is a smattering of other denominations with 80 members listed as "unspecified". As an interesting aside, all of the Republicans self-identify as "Christian" except two members, Rep. Lee Zeldkin (NY) and Rep. David Kustoff (TN), who are Jewish. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, 62 members of the 282 Congressional Democrats don't identify as Christian. 31 are Jewish, 3 each are Muslim and Hindus, 2 each are Unitarian Universalists and Buddhists and 19 are religiously unaffiliated.

One of the House's first acts was the election of Rep. Nancy Pelosi to a second term as Speaker of the House. Pelosi, a Democrat representing the 12th District of California previously served as Speaker from 2007 to 2011 under the Obama Administration. Pelosi is well known for her confrontational stance against President Trump, especially when it comes to stopping illegal immigration and border security, including building of a border wall (it should be noted that her district includes San Francisco, which is a so-called "sanctuary city" and the site for the infamous murder of 32 year old Kathryn Steinle in 2017 by an illegal immigrant on a pier in the Mission District while her and her father stood talking). Another interesting moment was when new Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, after being sworn in, excitedly said that they would "impeach that motherf*cker", referring to President Trump. Such a classy broad.

Meanwhile, the partial government shutdown continues. The chief stumbling block being Trump's insistence on funding for a wall to secure our southern border with Mexico, which an overwhelming majority of the American Public has been demanding. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) continue to lead the stalemate, along with approximately 25% of Republicans (President Trump has asked for 1.6 billion dollars to begin funding the wall project. The estimate total cost will be around 5 billion dollars). Included in the shutdown are programs which affect low income families.

According to the Department of Agriculture, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program or "SNAP" which provides food stamps and child nutrition programs at school as well as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) only have funding for approximately a month. In the interim, about 800,000 federal employees in nine agencies have been affected, with 380,000 having been furloughed without pay while the rest continue to work without pay while neither the President, members of Congress or any their staff are affected by the shutdown.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that illegal immigration has long been a serious problem. At present it is estimated to cost taxpayers---you and I---some $4.6 billion dollars annually. We were repeatedly promised that this problem would be address as far back as President Reagan, who granted the first amnesty for those currently living in the US. For those too young to remember, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which affecting then current US immigration law and granted amnesty to approximately 100,000 individuals. Since then, the American Public has demanded repeatedly that Washington put a stop to it. However, the Washington elite has increasingly turned a deaf ear to the voter, especially after Citizens United was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Under the Obama Regime, it actually did everything it could to encourage and protect illegal immigrants including suing the State of Arizona for attempting to enforce current immigration laws and even allowing, for the first ever, a foreign government---Mexico---to join in the lawsuit. Obama didn't even have the decency to lie to us! He just simply ignored us as if we didn't matter. Trump made building the wall one of his central campaign planks and, unlike other candidates---Democrat or Republican---seems determined to keep his pledge to the American People.

If this is any indication, 2019 will be a bad year for the American People, but perhaps this is the price we pay for partisan games; the only ones who are actually affected are ordinary people just trying to get on with their lives as best as they can. America can no longer afford to be part of these childish playground antics. Most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. We don't have the luxury (or money) to wait for someone to blink like Pelosi, Schumer, or even Trump does.

Americans want an end to illegal immigration. We want to stop drug cartels from entering and operating in our country. We want to reduce crime (and that includes employer exploitation on workers), and we want to reduce the tax burden illegal immigration has on us. If that means building a wall, then so be it. We expect Congress as well as the President to represent us, not their special interest corporate masters. We also expect Congress and the President to act in a grownup manner and do the job we sent them there for. Lastly, we demand---not ask--- that they adhere to the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights as written. If they can't, fine. Leave. We are quite capable of finding someone who will. So 116th Congress, it's time to play nice, put aside your partisan BS and do your jobs. Fund the wall, end the shutdown and get back to work!


List of Acts of the 115th United States Congress

Meet the New Freshmen in Congress

Faith on the Hill

Rashida Tlaib Wants to Impeach

Everything you need to know about the government shutdown

Political Corruption: Taking Out The Trash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary's New Book "Stronger Together": A Would-be Caesar in a Pantsuit?

Not that I am a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, but the former First Lady and Secretary of State released a new book recently entitled "Stronger Together"; a fanciful trip down "what if" she had won the election and some of her policy decisions would have been . While she really needed to get over the fact that she didn't win and politics is not a static sport, so much of her statements are strictly speculative. Nevertheless, Hillary does go after her Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, pretty hard even though she helped rig the Primary to ensure that she handily beat the self-defined "democratic socialist".

In addition, even after securing the Primary victory, Clinton and the head of the Democratic National Committee (the DNC, like its counterpart, the RNC, runs the internal party machine), Deborah Wasserman-Schultz worked to keep Sanders' supporters from having any input into the party platform or from voicing their anger over procedures (Wasserman was fired from her position but was immediately hired by the Clinton camp). Ironically, her replacement, Donna Brazile, would be fired too. She was accused of feeding Hillary debate questions prior to a debate with Trump. Although the Sanders' camp would file a class action lawsuit, Federal judge William Zloch, would latter rule that the party could do as it pleased with respect to the primary; even rigging the outcome.

Think about that for just a moment. Let that statement simmer in your mind for just a minute. Bernie Sanders, a duly filed Democrat candidate filed to run in the Democratic Primary. He campaigned hard throughout the United States. Whether you liked his proposed platform or not (and many Millennials did), was denied a fair shot so scared was the Clinton camp and her supporters within the DNC that they were willing to rig specific primaries to ensure that Hillary won, and won big. The hope, of course, was that Sanders would get discouraged and drop out. Sanders didn't, and in fact, his message hit a cord with voters, especially younger voters. Meanwhile, Hillary's camp was hoping (to say the least) that one of the pre-vetted and pre-scripted Republican candidates would finally take out "the circus clown", Donald Trump.

The actions by the DNC, and reaffirmed by a federal judge, is that our votes aren't all that important. The party ultimately decides who it wants and then gets behind that individual. In this case, it was Hillary. In the case of the RNC, they clearly didn't want Trump. However, "The Donald" was clearly the strongest candidate based on his ability to attract crowds to speaking engagements and generate voter turnout. Although the RNC did entertain the idea of throwing out a Trump Primary victory and selecting a candidate through its executive committee (some of you will recall that Mitt Romney offered his "services" while this was being discussed), the RNC decided to hold its nose and allow Trump to become their nominee. Why? Because the Trump camp had dropped several not-so-subtle hints that their candidate would run as third party if the RNC pulled any shenanigans. The RNC knew that given Trump's popularity and ability to self-finance, they simply didn't have a candidate strong enough beat Trump. Besides, a divided conservative ticket would all but guarantee a Clinton victory in November.

It would also convey the message which the Democrats were struggling with, namely, that what the voters wanted didn't count. Both parties had sought to protect the illusion that voters still mattered, even though both parties include the provision in their by-laws to ignore the voting results and select a candidate of their own through the executive committee. Given the mood of the country, this may attract even more support for Trump, while on the Democrat side, they were hoping this would be downplayed. It wasn't, and accordingly, Sander's camp filed suit only to lose as stated before.

On a related matter, one that's sure to play a central role in any story about or by Hillary, is Benghazi. I'm sure everyone knows the story of Benghazi by now. Benghazi has gone down as one the worse attacks on the United States, not because of the number killed (there were four individuals who lost their lives), but because it was one of those situations which should not have happened, both before and the shameful cover-up by the Obama Administration, and especially by the State Department, afterwards. The official line was that it was a unplanned random attack by a small group of Libyans on the American Embassy in Benghazi. What, we were told, raised their ere was an obscure film with a anti-Islamic message. Of course, this was a complete fabrication created by Hillary's staff.

Over time, through bits and pieces, as well as the occasional admission, the public was able to piece together what really happened, despite the efforts of the Obama Administration. We now know for instance, the Hillary had (illegally) authorized gun running through the embassy, which was also done without the knowledge of Ambassador Stevens. The guns, as well as military intelligence reports, were run under the cover of the embassy to aid rebels in Syria and possibly, on to other groups in Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere. We've also learned that the presence of radicalized Muslim fighters had been increasing over the preceding weeks. We learned that the security forces recruited locally were of dubious loyalty and that US personal were unarmed (weapons and ammo were available, however, they had been locked away in a secure vault). Repeated requests for additional security personal were largely ignored or declined by the State Department, as were requested for US personnel to be armed. As for the "obscure movie", it was so obscure that it hadn't even been shown yet. In fact, it had been produced by an independent producer who was strapped for money and was unable to finish the project.

During the attack itself, which lasted approximately seven hours, repeated requests for assistance were denied, including permission to evacuate US embassy personal to a more secure area or to the nearby airport where a charted plane was prepped and ready for takeoff. US military forces were monitoring the situation as well, and despite repeated requests to come to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and other members of his staff, were instructed to stand-down. We've learned since that the Navy had fighter planes fueled and armed and only an hour or less out from Sigonella Italy, as well at bases in Avlano Italy (U.S. Air Force and NATO) and Souda Bay Crete (US Navy).

The Army too had fighters fueled and armed sitting on the runway waiting for permission to launch. At the time of attack, we learned that two CIA operatives at nearby communications station within the embassy did had some light firepower to hold off the attackers briefly. Meanwhile, one of the individuals was "painting" targets in anticipation of a rescue which never came. We have since learned that flying in the vicinity was an AC-130 returning from a mission (an AC-130 is an ultra modern version of what we used to called "Puff the Magic Dragon" AC-47). The pilot had also been monitoring the situation and requested permission to lay down suppression fire until the cavalry came. He too was ordered to leave. In addition, the US had drones flying overhead during the attack. In the end, Ambassador Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods were left to die. Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group 3 and US Army General Carter Ham, Commander of United States African Command, were both relieved of command by President Obama for their insistence on sending a relief operation to the embassy on the recommendation of Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense.

There was obviously so much more to Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State and, of course, to run for President. However, even when taken as a whole, her record isn't great. Something happened to Hillary Clinton since the days when she was a bright idealist; one filled with passion for women's and children's issues; of when she served as an aide on the House Judiciary Committee's Impeach Inquiry Staff during the Watergate Hearings. Somewhere along the way, she was corrupted by the very system she, and other of our generation, sought to change. Her idealism became cynicism and ultimately, perhaps the end really did justifies the means. Perhaps the hand of History will write that Hillary Clinton was another reminder of Lord Acton's maxim that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" . I think her book, and any that follows, will be her attempts to rewrite history in order to justify her actions or perhaps her lack of actions not just for posterity's sake as much as for herself. I believe too that it shows how far government has strayed from the ideals of our Founding Fathers.


Sales of Hillary Clinton's New Book Are Off To A Slow Start



Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders



Benghazi: Military Commanders "Relieved of Duty"


Contractors say Clinton State Department silenced them on Benghazi security lapses