What Was the Second Impeachment Suppose to Accomplish?

What was the purpose of the second impeachment; the real purpose? To answer that question, we first need to ask what's the purpose of an impeachment in the first place? The Constitution says it's to remove anyone found guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors", but what does that mean?

Simply put, high crimes and misdemeanors are any crimes, regardless of the scale or type committed by an elected officer, whether is simply a matter of conduct, morals, or actual crimes such as thief of public funds, physical assault. Trump was accused of sedition because of text messages taken out of context, which ultimately proved to be a red herring.  So, was there an ulterior motive?

The purpose of the second impeachment was simply not just to remove Trump from office, but to ensure that Trump could never run for office again. They also have to destroy his character so that not just was his reputation ruined, but so was his credibility. Lastly, he had to be destroyed financially. They will keep Trump tied up in court on charges ranging from serious to petty, but all fictitious. Donald Trump has to be not just rendered a spent force, never to rise again, but also held up for all the world to see as a warning. 

As an aside, care to guess what the impeachment cost taxpayers? According to Yahoo Finance, the first impeachment cost about $11.5 million. As for the second impeachment, we simply don't know. Estimates range from 1.83 million up to $33 million.  The investigation and impeachment trial of Bill Clinton in 1994 cost approximately $80 million dollars. I suspect there's an estimate of the cost of the second impeachment out there...somewhere, but they just don't want us to know about it. 

Trump saw himself as a reformer; a crusader. Someone who was going to expose the corruption of the Beltway Mafia. A lot of politicians promote themselves as a reformer, but the truth is that they never are. They always claim that they are going to "stand up" to the villain de jure or that they are going to tell Congress, the State Legislature, or City Hall that we aren't going to take it anymore.

The truth is that no single individual is capable of doing a damn thing. Not even a small group of well intentioned crusaders can affect much change. The fact of the matter is, despite their intentions, they will either conform to the corruption, or they'll be isolated and removed.   As former Speaker of House, Sam Rayburn (D-TX) once famously said, "to get along you have to go along".

Once you're elected, your time and energy are directed to committees (especially fundraising for the party and committee chairs). The dirtier your hands get, the more you're trusted, the better the committee assignments and the higher you rise on the greased poll of seniority.  You stay so preoccupied, you have no time for actual reform other than, perhaps, superficial changes. "Window dressing" is always popular to sooth the unruly mob out in "flyover country".

 If you don't "go along", you'll be kept off important committees like the Ways and Means, Education, Appropriations, Budget, or Labor, and cut off from any campaign financial support. When reelection rolls around, the party bosses will find an "opponent" for you and you'll find few, if any friends, among your associates. some might give you words of encouragement but no actual support.

Their loyalties are to the committee chairs and to the party. They dare not risk "offending" the hand that feeds them.  If you manage to survive your contested election, consider yourself warned. You might not be so lucky the next time around. That's how politics is played.

Trump was elected to drain the swamp that is Washington. Instead, he found himself waist deep in a swamp filled with all sorts of nasty creepy crawlies. Every one of them has multiple heads with at least two faces. Trump was isolated. He had few he could trust or confide in that had any real clout.  We was cut off from his base.

Trump is now viewed as a warning to all current and future reformers by the Status Quo. There may be some typical cosmetic changes, but nothing of substance will be changed.  Power is never willingly surrendered. The elites on both sides of the aisle will take steps to ensure no one like Donald Trump will happen again while making it appear that all things are now possible.

That isn't to say that change can't or won't happen. It will when we start realizing that we have more in common than not and that we aren't each other's enemy regardless of race, gender, or any other artificial barrier leveled against us by those who seek to keep us divided.

The real enemy is a system which seeks to control and subjugate us for its own benefit; which has substituted our democratic Constitutional Republic with a Corporatocracy managed by a handful of super wealthy Oligarchs. It has gradually replace freedom with politically correct "right think" to quote from George Orwell's book, "1984".

We've become a surveillance state on our way to becoming a police state. Is that what we want for ourselves? Our children or their children? It will be, after all, the legacy we bequeath to them if we continue to do nothing.

The second impeachment attempt of Donald Trump was a more than a symbolic warning shot across the bow of our country. It was intended to let us know that any further attempt at resistance won't be tolerated. Our compliance is no longer being politely requested by the Status Quo. It's to be expected. Speak out and you'll be silenced. Resist and you'll be "cancelled". Act out and you'll be demonized, ridiculed...or worse.  

So, what will we do? Will we meekly return to our daily existence, perhaps muttering something formerly patriotic to ourselves as we shuffle along? Will we resort to acts of passive resistance like tearing off bumper stickers, wishing someone a "Happy Fourth of July", a "Merry Christmas", or flying the American flag?  Maybe we'll quietly cheer on someone who bravely and openly supports the Second Amendment or perhaps we'll discreetly read a non-conformist political blog!

Resistance is never futile. Nothing is too small. Every act, however insignificant it seems, is important. The Status Quo must never feel it's fully in control. It can never be comfortable with its power. It must always question itself and its decision.

Some people dislike Trump. Some were even happy with his impeachment. That's understandable. He can be abrasive, argumentative, and petty. He has flaws, just like the rest of us, but on a bigger scale because he occupies a bigger stage than the rest of us. The spotlight magnifies the man--warts and all---especially when it's his enemies behind the spotlight.

Nevertheless, we must look beyond the man to what he represented. Trump was seen as the embodiment of the "ordinary American"; as someone who loves this country and what it stands for, and has come to despise what it has become. We wanted Trump to "drain the swamp", and try as he might, the swamp, with its creatures on the Left and Right, was too wide and too deep. It stunned us. We were devastated to see who fought against him, and to what extent they would go to destroy him.

They weren't ultimately intimidated by Trump because they weren't afraid of the American People. The system was so corrupt that it insulated them from those they were supposedly elected to serve. We saw who they really represented, and it wasn't us. The mask had more than merely slipped. It was dropped and we saw the grotesqueness of what our once proud Republic had become.  

Now, we're back to business as usual. The Status Quo is back in charge. Of course, there will be some changes.  Both parties will make sure no one like Trump will again threaten to deprive them of their control and power. Challenges to the Status Quo will no longer be tolerated.

We're already seeing it on social media, TV, and even with our cultural icons like Dr. Seuss, Bug Bunny, John Wayne, and so on.  What was once seen as a threat will now be dismissed or ridiculed at best or demonized at its worse. Compliance will be made to be seen as traditional and rational.

Trump supporters are portrayed as buffoons or racists just as those who looted, rioted, committed vandalism and arson in 2020 are now labeled as "peaceful protesters". They may even be honored with the Nobel Peace Prize, which has long lost its sheen. Education seeks to install a distorted view of America. Colleges and universities discourage critical thinking and the open critique of ideas.

A timid society must be made timid from the beginning and kept timid. It must be reinforced by the media and incorporated into entertainment in order to be seen as normal and acceptable. That is how to gain and maintain control. It's happening. It's been happening.  The question is whether or not we will allow that to continue?

How much will the Trump impeachment trial cost?

Fact check: No evidence to support online claims impeachment cost $33 million

The Republican Party: Fissure and Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

The Tea Party Movement

Factions Within the Republican Party

South Park Republican

Factions Within the Democratic Party

 

Impeachment and Life After Trump: "To Whom It May Concern in Anywhere America"

 

Like him or hate him, you have to admit that Donald Trump was never boring. From his sold out speeches in stadiums throughout the country, to his press conferences and verbal jousts with so-called "journalists", to his tweets, we never knew what he was going to say.

However, it was mostly the later, his tweets, which were the most incendiary. Though they were typically directed to his supporters, he would use the platform to go after those who attacked him directly or indirectly. It became a way to express his opinions in a candid and often unfiltered way. 

On January 6th, massive numbers of pro-Trump and ordinary conservatives from around the country descended on Washington DC to express their anger at what they saw as a blatantly rigged election and failed government. But it was much more than that. They were tired of the condescending attitude of members of Congress (both parties) and open bias of the media.

They had endured eight years of mockery and ridicule under the Obama Administration and a full four years of barely concealed contempt and smugness from the Speaker of the House on down. It was just as bad in the Senate. It was all over the news and on social media nearly every minute of every day. It was integrated into magazines, books, music, TV shows, radio, and movies.

Now that the nation had a new (and some who believed an illegitimate) President suddenly calling for "unity" and "coming together" with that the Status Quo back in charge was too much.  So, they planned, organized, and came together in a open and highly visible expression of their own contempt for a system which failed them; which belittled them.

Anyone who bothered to look out their window could see what was happening. There was no doubt that the Establishment was peeing down its collective leg. They were terrified. Hiding in locked rooms, in closets, under tables. They couldn't imagine the American People were actually coming together and saying "enough!". It's the one thing they least expected. It was also the one thing they feared the most.

Trump tweeted out words of support and encouragement. This was what he had fought for over the last four years. Never did his tweets call on the protesters to vandalize, loot, or deface property the way Antifa or BLM had done the preceding year. Never did he urge the protestors to break windows or even enter House or Senate chambers. And, he never encouraged the violence which unfolded.

Yes, a number of the protestors were armed. It was no secret. It was out in the open for all to see. But not surprisingly, their message was lost on the elites. What could all those gun toting protestors carrying American flags and pro-Trump banners want except to tar and feather members of Congress? 

 But the message was clear to the most casual viewer. They were there to impress on Washington that the American People have a right to carry arms. It's called the Second Amendment. It's right up there with the First Amendment---the right to freedom of speech, expression, religion, and to assemble.

 It didn't mean they were there for violence. It was to remind Congress that the People have those rights and will protect them if need be. Of course, how do you explain this to those who sincerely believe they have a pre-ordained right to rule---not govern--- but rule? The concept was beyond their understanding.  But something went wrong. What? The answer is that there were multiple mistakes.

The first mistake was the media. The only ones there that day was the corporate media which has spent every moment over the last four years trying to divide this country, be it Left vs. Right vs.the Center; black vs. white vs. brown vs. yellow vs. everyone else; men vs. women; straights vs. gays, and so on. Division, as artificial as it may be, drives ratings and ratings equal advertising which is money. Divided we can be controlled and manipulated. Together we can't.

The corporate media is the eyes, ears, and mouthpiece of the Status Quo; the Establishment. If you watched any of the "reporting". They were stunned to find conservative blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans in with the crowds. They were equally stymied to see gun totting women and yes, even gays there as part of the protest. It didn't fit the narrative they've been feeding us. The solution was, as always, to misdirect out attention, manipulate the image, and obscure the message.

What was missing was the eyes, ears, and voice of the protestors. Who was their media advocate? The answer was no body (you can't really include Fox News anymore). Image is perception. Perception becomes reality. It controls the narrative, and the organizers left it to the corporate media to dictate what that would be.

The second mistake was not knowing the crowd. I don't how the organizers set about getting the message out, but they did a good job in getting people there. But there was a large gathering of Antifa and BLM just a few blocks away for their own event, which could have easily spun out of control had the two groups clashed. 

Some allege that Antifa infiltrators were the ones breaking windows and spray painting walls,  but there's no hard proof of that (vandalism is a hallmark of Antifa as America and the world witnessed last year).  For those unaware, Antifa is a Far Left anarchist group. They are not directly associated with the Democrats per se. While the name is shorthand for "Anti-Fascist" they tend to behave similar to Nazi Brownshirts and Mussolini's Blackshirts, both  fascist organizations, and the Maoist Red Front.

Several members of the pro-Trump crowd tried to point out these interlopers and separate them from other protestors (they were mostly successful). However, the damage was done, both figuratively and literally. Without a supportive media there to record it as it happened, it created the image the radical Left wanted and the Status Quo hoped for.

The third mistake was Trump himself. The election was over, and whether the results were right or rigged, the corporate media was portraying the outcome as factual.  Trump resisted. He was upset and angry, and he struck out. Never let your emotions guide your actions. He should have known that as a businessman. But, unintentionally, it was his tweets which were his undoing.

President Trump had long used social media to bypass blatantly biased news outlets so much so that they spent as much time on his tweets and posts as they did on his actual statements. Following the election, his media bursts became sharper.

However, on January 6th, Trump tweeted messages like "stay strong" and "fight like hell" to his supporters . While his intent was to provide moral encouragement, the message was distorted. It was filtered through a corporate media seething with hatred for the President and his supporters. It was portrayed in a matter not intended. It was portrayed as to encourage violence and mayhem.

In all likelihood, I suspect that neither Trump or his staff were fully aware of what was actually happening outside. After all, they had been hurried into secure rooms, safe from any potential harm. Any information they received from outside was likely old, incomplete, or possibly inaccurate.

Given Trump's history, his cell phone should have been "secured". Without full knowledge of events, anything more than a "be safe" or "keep it peaceful" message was bound to do more harm than good, and, as we all know, it did. 

Ultimately, one protester, Ashli Babbitt, was shot dead by Capital Police. One police officer died while engaging protestors. Three others died from natural causes, and several were injured. Papers inside House and Senate chambers were strewn everywhere. Even Pelosi's podium was stolen! Windows were broken, laptops went missing, along with some general vandalism as mentioned previously.

The Establishment was pissed. It was time for revenge, and it came swift starting with social media suspending a setting President's accounts and cutting off any direct and unfiltered communication with the American public. There was also a crackdown on Conservative sites as well, including pressuring other social media sites to comply with their new guidelines or risk being deplatformed.

Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi was publically beside herself in anger that citizens had invaded the "People's House" while they were doing "the People's business" without permission. Ugh! We can't have the common rabble running around Congress. Who do these peasants think they are? It's not like Congress actually represents them or anything right?

So, Trump is gone. Biden is President, but that's not the end of the story. Trump is to be the first American President to be impeached twice, which could create a Constitutional crisis of sorts. Can someone be prosecuted for what happened while in office after they've left? We know they can be removed from office while still in office, but what if they're no longer in office?

It's likely the matter will eventually find its way before the Supreme Court, assuming the High Court will even hear the matter. After all, the point of impeachment is to censure the individual for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and, secondly, to remove them from office if necessary. In our history, only three presidents have been impeached, Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.  But what about Richard Nixon? Why could he be important?

President Nixon was never impeached for his role in the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up which included a kidnapping, wiretapping, destruction of evidence, and lying to Congress. However, the House was proceeding with impeachment hearings when Nixon resigned (had he not, he would have likely been impeached and possibly removed from office).

Nevertheless, Nixon was never tried although others were, and some went to jail for their roles. As far as ole "Tricky Dick" Nixon was concerned, the matter was dropped. Nixon didn't lose any of his perks of having been president either. Trump is accused of far less.

It seems to me Nixon comes the closest to Trump's current situation. Nixon avoided impeachment by resigning, nevertheless the stigma remained. As Trump is no longer President, there is no reason to impeach him. His removal from office came as a result of the election. Like Nixon (and even Clinton), the stigma of the first impeachment will itself likely keep him from ever seeking public office again.

But unlike Nixon or Clinton, this isn't about a break in or lying to Congress about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office. It's political, which means its personal. Donald Trump was an outsider who upset the plans of the Status Quo by defeating Hillary Clinton. He then set about exposing the corruption of Establishment, which included both parties, big business, and the media. That was unacceptable. This is about sending a message addressed "To Whom It May Concern in Anywhere America".

That message is a simple one. They will not ever allow another outsider. They will never again be publicly exposed for who they are. They are self-ordained to rule by virtue of their wealth and connections. They are not "one of us". They are our betters. They, and they alone know what's best for us. Our job is to keep quiet and do as we're told. Set back and enjoy the "bread and circuses".

The game is rigged. It's fixed. As George Carlin said, "It's a big club and you ain't in it".  Everything you or I suspected is likely not just true, but worse than we imagined. Once we accept this simple truth, regardless of which wing of the vulture we're under, the better we're going to be. Why? Because knowing the truth isn't the same as accepting it. Once it's accepted, you can act on it. You can start doing something about it.

 

 

These Are The 5 People Who Died in the Capital Riot

Watergate Scandal

George Carlin: It's a big club and you ain't in it

 

 

Culpability: The Protest on The Capital and Who Is Responsible

Mea Culpa. It's a legal term which means accepting responsibility for one's actions. Despite four years of creating a volatile---even hostile--- environment, not once has the corporate media, including social media platforms, newspapers, or the networks stepped up and accepted responsibility for their actions; for creating a climate of fear. For dividing Americans and America as they fan the flames of descension but ignore responsibility for the fire it creates.

Not once has the likes of Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Schumer, and others offered a sincere apology to the American People for fostering and inciting hatred of the President and their disdain for not just his supporters, but of anyone who disagrees with them. Remember the sarcasm of Pelosi throughout his State of the Union address? Remember her publically ripping his State of the Union speech in half and throwing it away? Whatever happened to simple common courtesy or at least respect for the office?

The feigned "shock" and "outrage" from Washington officials smacks of second rate Vaudevillian shtick. Despite professing ignorance of the American People's anger, they throw around empty words like "the People's House", "it's not us", or how protesting a corrupt Congress or a broken political system is somehow "Un-American".  How could they not have known? Perhaps they were too wrapped up in their own self-importance or insulated in the vacuum of their self-serving bubbles.

How is it they condemn ordinary the working or middle class or small business owners for wanting not just their lives backs, but for wanting a political system which works: one where, at the very least, their vote---their voice---still counts for something? These Americans were protesting what they believed to be a fixed election following four years of being told their President was a fraud; that his election wasn't the result of individuals tired of a broken system which serves the wants and whims of a wealthy class of elites, but the result of "Russian collusion".

Yet, these same hypocrites never condemned the riots and looting of this past Spring and Summer.  No, they never spoke out against the arson, the violence, the vandalism of public and private property or the destruction of historic monuments. Instead, they asked why there wasn't more protests in the streets? They encouraged the rioters. They egged on the looters.

Was President Trump to blame for what happened on January 6th? Yes he was, at least in part. Certainly the language he used in his Tweets and texts didn't help. Trump wanted to show support for those who stood by him these last four years. He encouraged his supporters and others who were fed up with Congress to come a show their support, not just for him, for an America which is passing away before their eyes.

Did Trump encourage violence or to act out? No. That, it seems, may have been the result of Antifa and BLM who, according to some witnesses, were bused in to disrupt and discredit the protestors. Sadly for all, it seems to have worked.  But we're not hearing that part of the story. Perhaps it just doesn't fit the narrative. Even if not, who, if not the media and certain members of Congress, are not responsible for creating the climate of anger and mistrust? There's plenty of blame to go around. It's not all President Trump.

So, now we are hearing about calls to impeach President Trump again. However, this would be under Article 25...for alleged sedition.  The goal is not to remove the President from office. There's not enough time for that. No, the goal is to ensure that Trump can never again run for a federal office...like for President in 2024. They want Trump not just discredited, but destroyed so that he will never be seen a symbol of resistance by the people. 

Senate Majority Leader...I mean...Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seems pleased with the results of the election, though not necessarily his loss in position. He seems even more pleased with efforts to impeach President Trump. In fact, he's gone as far as to openly support the idea since, in his opinion, it will go a long way in purging Trump supporters and the like from the Republican Party. Long live the Establishment, be it Democrat or Republican I suppose.  

The ruling elites of the Corporatocracy also want to send a message that no outsider will again challenge their grip on power. Anyone who runs for office must be a loyal adherent to the Status Quo; their party affiliation matters not. Both serve the same moneyed interests, and that's the way it will remain.

The inauguration of Joe Biden will take place as scheduled. It was always intended to. But it will be much more than Biden taking the oath of office and becoming the 46th President of the United States. It will represent the restoration of the Status Quo. The Oligarchs will be back in power after four years in shadows. The neo-fascist Corporatocracy, which has replaced our Republic, will be open for business as usual.

Biden will offer an olive branch and a call for unity, but don't assume that its meant to represent some form of compromise. His speech will be full of colorful phrases designed to press all the right buttons along with some subtle warnings. He'll utter empty words "family" , "patriotic", and a plea for us to "come together" aimed at making us feel nostalgic. What he is really saying is that we're back in charge and we intend to remain in charge.

It's said the history rarely repeats, but it often rhymes. January 6, 2021 marked the day that America crossed its Rubicon. Except there was no Caesar to cross its shallow river and restore the Republic or remove a bloated and corrupt Senate. The dice were cast, but this time it was the Oligarchs who won.

Like those of his kind, Biden will seek to mend fences and build alliances to help him secure his power. Stability is always the primary requirement for the corporate state. He will offer appeasements to whatever group he thinks will provide him with that stability.

I expect he'll open the southern border to illegal immigrants and call for so-called "reparations" to those who claim the bitter wounds of 160 years ago is the reason for their failures and not the result of failing to take advantage of the opportunities available to all. Something tells me it won't be enough. He may offer an alternative to the National Anthem or make America officially a bilingual nation.

He may impose a tax on the 2nd Amendment while curtailing the First. He's already hinted at it.Then too, he's always supported tax breaks for those of his social class over the last 47 years, so there's no reason to think that won't change. Zebras, skunks, and politicians rarely ever change their stripes. 

Corporations too will benefit as they always do when the elites are in charge of the public pocketbook. Those who countries which continue to support the Status Quo will benefit nicely as they always do, though the masses seldom benefit.  

As for the rest of us, the unwashed masses, we may see some crumbs thrown our way to buy our acquiesce to the corporate fait accompli.  It seems that protesting in the Capital is now prohibited in the Capital lest our followerless "leaders" cower under tables and behind locked doors. Should we endeavor for a kinder and more gentle outrage?

You can count on distractions too. They will need "something" to divert our attention from their sleight of hand now that they're back in business.  Bread and circuses have worked well these past 2000 years. No reason to stop now.

Meanwhile, the insincere indignation which barely conceals a gleeful cackle from the corporate media and political establishment will continue, at least for now. But don't hold your breath expecting their admission of guilt for their part in what's played out so far.

 

The Impeachment of Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Barack Obama Was a Foreign Policy Failure

Impeachment Inquiry Against Donald Trump

Trump impeachment inquiry: A simple guide


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

"We Have No Friends Except The Mountains": The Plight of the Kurdish People

When I was considering topics for this week's article, I originally gave serious consideration to writing about the possibility of whether President Trump will be brought up on impeachment charges. After all, the Democrats have been desperately looking for something...anything...to either discredit "The Donald" and effectively destroy any prospects of him winning a second term here and now.

The corporate owned media, which controls the narrative, has been in character assassination mode even before Trump took the oath of office. Even members within his own party have been secretly (and not to secretly) plotting to bring down this anti-establishment President. It's like the entire political establishment, so stunned that Hillary didn't get the coronation they thought she was entitled to, has been engaged in a cross party conspiracy to bring down the President.

Of course, Trump has given them plenty of ammunition hasn't he? Be it his comments to the media, his speeches, or his Tweets. Trump isn't exactly know for being subtle! And while he loves the public spotlight, I don't think he bargained for the kind of scrutiny he's been getting since day one. In fact, I seriously doubt any U.S. President has received the barely concealed loathing from the press that Trump has. Certainly, there's a lot to write about. However, it was a move by the President which caught my attention.

Just a few days ago, President Trump made the decision to withdraw American troops from areas in northern Syria in order to allow Turkish forces to launch an invasion, which may extend to parts of Iraq. The invasion will be directed against a small stateless group of individuals known as the Kurds. Now why would I choose to write about a bunch of stateless people instead of an attempt to bring down an American President?

Simply this. The Kurds are possibly the single most important group of people who've done more to help us in the Middle East than any other, with the possible exception of the Israelis. What's more, it strikes at something I deeply value on a personal level, namely loyalty and trust. But first, let me tell you about the Kurds.

If the Jews are considered a biblical people, then so too are the Kurds. The Kurdish people have been around almost from the beginning of civilization; originating, at least in part, from ancient Medes, and may be related to the ancient Hurrians who laid the groundwork for civilization itself. They've endured the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Persians, the Islamic Caliphates, Mongol invasions, and countless other empires which have come and gone. More recently, they survived the collapse and breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I.

In fact, in 1920, the Allies (principally the French and British)"inherited" much of what was the Ottoman Empire, promised the Kurds a homeland in the Treaty of Sevres, yet just three years later, they reneged on their promise of a Kurdish homeland with the Treaty of Lausanne (this treaty established the boundaries of modern Turkey while craving out Iran, Syria, and Iraq. The result since has been decades of genocide, rebellion, and near constant war.

Ultimately, the Kurdish people were divided between four nations---Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Through it all, they adapted. They did whatever they could to remain together as a people with one goal in mind, to become a nation, while managing to exist mainly as a semi-autonomous province in northern Iraq. The estimated 35 million Kurds today represent the single largest ethnic group in the world which does not have a country of their own. Those who oppose a Kurdish homeland claim that it would represent a "second Israel" despite their presence in the same area for at least 5000 years, predating the countries which oppose its creation!

Currently, approximately 18% of the Turkish population is Kurdish. Most live in the southeastern portion of the country. As an aside, the Turkish Government refuses to even acknowledge the Kurds, referring to them as "Mountain Turks" instead. They're also guilty of several attempts at "ethnic cleansing" of the Kurds. About 10% of Iran's population are Kurdish, while 17% of Iraq's population are Kurds. Meanwhile, 9% of Syria's population, mostly in the northeast, are Kurdish. Outside of the region, there are substantial Kurdish populations scattered in about 21, mostly European, countries.

In terms of religion, the majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims of the Shafi sect, which puts them in conflict with the majority Hanafi sect of most of the Arab world, including the Sunni Turks. There are also large numbers of Christians and Zoroastrians (which predates Judaism). However, the fastest growing segment is secularism. In terms of their politics, the majority of Kurds support a secular democratic republic, which is quite different from the governments surrounding them which are mainly non-democratic theocratic monarchies (as an aside, Israel is the only democratic country is the region. A Kurdish state would make it two).

Fast forwarding to the 1990's, Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, attempted several times to eliminate the Kurdish people, mostly through attacks by mustard and sarin gas. I'm sure many of you remember seeing the horrific video on the nightly news. Between 1988 and 1991, an estimated 281,000 Kurds were murdered by Saddam. Of course, Congress and the United Nations promised to investigate, and there was the usual sanctions, yet little else happened, but here's a little something I bet you didn't know.

The Kurds had been a thorn in Saddam's backside for decades, but it wasn't until the U.S. promised them support to help oust Saddam that they really went all out. Washington even went as far as to promise to come to their aid in the event things got rough starting in the early 1980's (we were looking for an excuse to get rid of Saddam even then). However, when Hussein stepped up his attacks, we offered little more than words. When the mustard and sarin (nerve) gas started to fall, we were nowhere to be found. We didn't come to their aid like we had promised. Nevertheless, the Kurds still actively participated in both Gulf Wars. In fact, if it wasn't for their intelligence on the ground, our losses would have been much higher.

When things began to breakdown in Syria, it was the Kurds who helped us the most. It was the Kurds who took on ISIS fighters in village by village and town by town fighting. It was the Kurds who helped rescue thousands of Assyrian Christians and Yazidis, victims themselves of ISIS genocide or being sold into slavery, by attacking ISIS positions and evacuating large masses of Assyrian Christians and Yazidis to the safety of the Zargros mountains and away from certain death despite centuries of mutual mistrust.

It was Kurdish fighters, many of whom being women, who provided on-the-ground intelligence. In fact, approximately 11,000 Kurdish fighters---our "ally"--- died fighting ISIS. Without them, that could have been 11,000... or more...American soldiers. In short, if it wasn't for the Kurdish fighters, large swaths of Syria would have been lost to the Islamic terrorists.

So, what have we done on behalf of these beleaguered but invaluable allies? We've withdrawn our troops in the region in order to allow Turkish forces to engage them. The Turkish Army is one of the largest and most modern in the region while the Kurds have pretty much whatever they could capture or acquire on their own. They have no air force or other form of air protection from the Turkish Air Force. They lack heavy artillery or tanks. Most of what they have is light artillery and perhaps some shoulder launched rockets. The majority of what's available to the Kurdish fighters is small arms such as automatic rifles and pistols. They're grossly out gunned and outnumbered. Any direct military engagement will be a slaughter. This is what we've done for our allies, the Kurds. Can you imagine the damage this has done to our credibility, not just in the region, but worldwide? Here is America, your "ally of convenience"!

While many have argued (and rightly so) that the Middle East is a region largely stuck in the 9th century, our actions---regardless of whether they support or oppose the Kurds---demonstrates for all to see that the U.S. is a country not to be relied on. From a Middle Eastern perspective, we are a country which can't be trusted to stand by its friends. In a region like the Middle East, where one's word is their bond, our actions have shown friend and foe alike that we lack honor as a nation.

I'm one of those people who put great stock in honor and loyalty. Your word is your bond. I expect you to keep it come hell or high water just as I will. The same holds true for friends. If you're a friend, you can count on me to help, and by the same token, I expect the same. I cannot abide by a thief, a liar, or someone without honor. At the same time, I believe that the duty and responsibility of those with power is to protect and aid those without. What we've done and what we're doing to the Kurdish people is irreprehensible.

Of course, that's just my personal opinion. However, I'm not alone. Members of both political parties have spoken out over the President's decision. So have senior Pentagon officials as well as our allies who now have to consider just how reliable we are. An interesting aside is that Turkey is a key member of NATO. It provides a key staging area for our missiles; locating them virtually on Russia's doorstep and also putting them within striking range of our regional arch-nemesis, Iran. It also serves as the doorkeeper for all shipping traversing the Bosporus Strait between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, including the Russian Navy based in Sevastopol on the Crimea.

As I stated earlier, Turkey has one of the largest militaries in the region---412,691 active duty personnel along with another 378,700 in reserves. In fact, Turkey is second only to the U.S. in terms of a standing army in NATO. They have 2,246 tanks, 1,108 armored fighting vehicles, 872 Howitzers, and 418 multiple rocket launchers. They have "officially" 635 military planes, including 245 F-16 Falcons and 59 UH-1 "Huey" helicopters, not to mention four Boeing 737 AWACS air command and support aircraft. Naturally, it's chief supplier is the United States, which makes Turkey as very valuable customer for the domestic "merchants of death".

In addition, it's worth noting that prior to the recent "invasion" of Europe of military age "migrants' (cough cough), Turkey provided the largest source of low skill workers, especially to Germany. Turkey, which has been a candidate for the EU since 1999, is Europe's fifth largest trading partner. Its principal exports to the EU are mostly machinery, transport equipment, and manufactured goods while the EU exports machinery, chemicals, and manufactured goods.

As for the Kurds, they export nothing. They have no country, so they don't have a economic infrastructure. Much of what they produce simple items commonly found in street markets. However, Kurdish workers do make up an important niche of the employed in the various countries they live in. In terms of military, the semi-official Peshmerga (comprised mainly of forces loyal to either the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) along with other, much smaller parties, is approximately 325,000 strong, far less than what the Turks can bring to bear, and about the same in reservists though much less trained and even worse equipped.

Speaking of equipment, it's largely odds and ends of captured weapons; mostly of Russian, Chinese, or American origin. As I pointed out earlier, there are no tanks, heavy artillery, or aircraft. However, they do bring a lot of moxie to the fight, which at times, can turn battles. Equally, their communication and medical capabilities are just as lacking. Against a modern and well equipped military like Turkey, it can only be a delaying action to get civilians out of harm's way.

Lastly, you should know that of the thousands of ISIS prisoners being held throughout northern Syria, it's Kurdish troops who are guarding them. If, and when this invasion takes place, the Kurdish guards will be forced to evacuate the prisons, leaving them wide open. Can you imagine what will happen if these battle harden ISIS fighters escape, especially given their hatred for the West, Israel and the United States in particular? We'll see terrorist attacks and genocide on a whole new and far more bloodier level ever before.

So there you have it. We've turned a hungry wolf loose on a flock sheep. Trump quipped that the Kurds "didn't help us" in World War II, which is hardly the point. However, that the Kurds sit on 1/3 of the oil in Iraq does. I hope enough pressure can be brought to bear on President Trump to rescind his withdrawal order in time. However, it's likely that the Turks have anticipated this and move quickly to annihilate the Kurdish people as quickly as possible. It's little wonder that the Kurds have a saying, "We have no friends except the mountains". I wish I could say they're wrong; that the United States is their friend, but it looks like we're no better than all those who've come before us.


Trump's betrayal of the Kurds is a gift to Putin and Assad

Trump tells Turkish president U.S. will stop arming Kurds in Syria

Turkish troops advance into Syria as Trump washes his hands of the Kurds