Is it time America had a National “Come to Jesus” Conversation About the State of America or Face a National Divorce?

 

What’s wrong with us when a large segment of the population celebrate the murder of someone just because we disagree with them or they challenge our worldview? I wasn’t a follower of Charlie Kirk, though I did occasionally listen to him. I didn’t always agree with what he said, but I did respect his right to say it; to express his opinion in an open and civil manner, which was more than he typically got in return from those who proclaim themselves “woke” or “enlightened” (more like they’re sleepwalking and regurgitating what they’ve been told.

 And since when do we make excuses for coldblooded murder on  individuals minding their own business sitting on a bus reading a book or out walking their dog in the park? Is it simply easier to blame the victim now that they can no longer speak for themselves?

 To compound matters, there were four other sitting just feet away to refused to act while she was being murdered, and even after the killer walked away, boosting that he had just killed a “white girl”, they just left her to die alone on the floor of a bus.  I guess after they praised three separate assassination attempts on President Trump, we should have expected it.

 When Donald Trump was first elected President, his campaign mantra was to “make America great again”. Well, he’s back and it’s once again the mantra of his followers amid the vitriol of the Left. Ironically, the phrase was used in a radio commercial for Hillary Clinton during her run in the 2008 Democratic Primary, now we now hear from the Left asking, “what’s so great about America?” and “when was America ever great?”.

Under President Eisenhower’s two terms running from 1953 to 1961, 73% of Americans said they trusted their government. Going along partisan lines, the trust level of government was 79% among Republicans. Even Democrats were happy (yes—actual “happy” Democrats. They did once exist). 71% said they trusted in the government.

The overall trust level had jumped to 77% by the time Lyndon Johnson took office. But as the war raged on and the causality rates rose (as well as lies by the military and government became public), those numbers started to drop. Still, they would be regarded as high by today’s standards with 66% confidence level by Democrats and a 60% by Republicans.  By the time Johnson left office, and Richard Nixon took over, public trust had dropped but still remained strong at an overall 68%.

Following Nixon’s resignation and the advent of Gerald Ford’s “caretaker” administration, public trust was floundering at 36%. Among Republicans, just 38% had any confidence in the government. The Democrats weren’t far off with 36%. Jimmy Carter was elected as the “anti-insider” in 1976. The American People had had enough of Washington insiders and Carter took office with a new high---40%---before tumbling to 28% by the time he left office.

Despite Reagan’s perceived popularity over his eight years as president, trust in the government never did any better than 46%, a pale reflection of the Eisenhower days which Reagan often recalled in his speeches. By 1994, during the Clinton Administration, the public’s trust in the government had hit a record low of 19% before rising to 49% by the end of his second term.

President Reagan was well known for his often quips. One involved his switching parties. When asked why he left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican, he famously said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me”. I guess this was the time when the American People could say the same thing about both parties now and the government in general. Government had left the American People.

Sadly, it took a national tragedy like 9/11 to rekindle America’s faith in their government, and it came shortly after George W. Bush (aka “Dubya”) took office. Poll numbers vary slightly, but the public’s trust in government ranged between 55% and as much as 60% according to some polls. Ever then, confidence in the government has been on a downward trajectory ever since. As some have said, “we're in a handbag to Hell on roller skates and no one is driving”

The best Trump did in his first term was 27%. Under President Biden, levels of trust in the government again repeated lows of 19%. Even among Democrats, the trust factor never did better than 35%.  For Republicans, it remained at levels one could only call abyssal---11%.

Today, Americans barely tolerate each other. We tend to live in our collective bubbles and regurgitate what we see and hear without bothering to question or investigate. They demand to be heard but refuse to listen. They celebrate the murders of others and excuse their killers. We’ve become two nations.

Even when we break down trust in government by race, we don’t see much of change. Using the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson administrations as a starting point, Blacks and whites intersected in October 1964 (the early LBJ Administration) with a 77% each saying they trust the government.

Staring in 1968, that trust among Blacks has plummeted. The next time it peaked was in 1993, corresponding with Bill Clinton’s inauguration, when it hit 43%. Even under Obama, it didn’t do any better than 39% in February 2013. Biden got close in April 2021 with 37%.  Trust levels hit rock bottom in March 2019  during Trump’s administration when they dropped to 9% thanks largely to relentless negative news about Trump and his administration by the legacy media. It was so bad that 67% of Blacks had been convinced that the political system exists to hold them back. 

Among Whites, their highest trust level in government following October 1964 wasn’t until October 2001 under George W. Bush when it reached 61% few weeks following the 9/11 attacked (was this actually “trust” or just patriotism?).   For Whites, their low point came in October 2011 under Obama when it dropped to 8%.

According to Pew Polling, Hispanics weren’t tracked until December 1990 when  George “Dubya” Bush was the president. Their initial starting point was 39%. They quickly reached their highest level of trust of 57% in December 1998, which was late into Clinton’s tenure as president before again dropping off. Their next high point came in January 2013 when it reached 44% under President Obama. Interesting, their lowest level of trust in the government came at the end of the Biden’s presidency when it hit 23%.

Lastly, Asians. Apparently, they first appeared in polling data in August 2020 during Trump’s first term when they expressed a trust level of only 27%. They peaked in May 2022 at 37% under Biden, only to bottomed out a month later at 23%. Native Americans and Independents, the nation’s largest political bloc, were excluded in the polling data.

Now, President Trump promises to make us “great” once more. That would mean taking us politically, socially, and economically back to the post-World War II years of Harry Truman and Ike. The American economy was booming and we had taken center stage as empires of old, England, France, and Germany faded from the limelight. We had become a “superpower”.

As for President Trump, he has been implementing many of campaign promises (a rarity in itself). He has started deporting illegal residents by the thousands (many of whom had previously just laughed at the usual empty rhetoric about deportation). He has started purging the government of useless and redundant bureaucrats, saving taxpayers millions in the process, and having an eye towards shutting down unneeded agencies. President Trump is, as promised, “draining the swamp”.

Of course, in his zeal, he needs to be careful of not overreaching into areas vital to ordinary citizens such as Social Security, unemployment, or WIC, while ensuring that those who actually need government services receive it. Often reformist zeal can turn into blind zealotry. He has imposed tariffs, which has been largely unpopular with the public and small businesses since it means higher prices which big business seems rather pleased. He has also promised lower prices, especially for staples like milk and eggs, which has yet to happen. 

For too long, the bulk of American citizens have seen government as inept and corrupt. Over 65% of Americans are unhappy with our position in the world. 72% of America agree with the statement that "America was once a good example of democracy, but no longer".  Among the OECD nations, the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to trust in government at 31  %. Only Columbia and Chile rank lower.  The country with the highest level of trust is Switzerland with 83.78%. 

 Given the appalling insensitive reaction of many on the Left (including much of the legacy media) to the death of Charlie Kirk, Iryna Zarutska, and others, the question  which now faces our nation is “now what?” We’ve become two nations with differing values occupying the same space. Our only commonality is the Status Quo which serves itself by keeping us divided and at each other’s throats. Can we root out the "Deep State" and restore our Republic or is it too late? Can we learn to talk “to” and not “at” one another again; to be respectful whether we agree or not with each other?

Personally, I have my doubts. America has become too deeply and widely divided and too willing to act as if this is acceptable.  It’s not. That means either deep reform, if not a complete overhaul of the government and breaking up the powerful corporate-government state, and returning to a constitutionally based Republic as intended by our Founders (which incidentally means doing away with political parties and having “citizen legislators”) or finding a way to peacefully create a two state nation, perhaps along the lines of a loosely based federation (Yugoslavia or the old Austro-Hungarian Empire comes to mind).  

We’ve watched the government slide from a Republic responsible to its citizens under Eisenhower to a surveillance state within a neo-fascist corporatocracy which serves Wall Street. Government, both elected and appointed, no longer represent the American People. Instead, it serves corporate interests and those with deep pockets.  Much of what Congress, the Judicial system, past presidents, and the legacy media bears that out. We can’t even be sure our vote still counts.

The only alternative is to terrible to seriously contemplate. Those who seek balance---“centrists” or “moderates”---have been largely purged from both of the corporate owned parties. As a result, they now make up the nation's majority of voters. They’re called Independents and unlike the two corporate parties, everyone is welcome if you believe in tolerance and having an open mind (we’re funny that way).  

But regardless of your political leanings, there’s one thing which is crystal clear and that is that our present dystopian state of the nation cannot hold.  Something has to give. It’s time that we, as a nation, have a frank and honest national conversation, a so-called “come to Jesus” moment to address some ugly truths about ourselves and find a way to peacefully coexist or simply agree to disagree and go our separate ways. 

Empires come and go. Republics tend to last about 250 years before they implode. We’ve reached that 250 year mark. We are, as our Founding Fathers said, a “grand experiment”. Nothing about our future was pre-ordained. I suspect we’ve already exceeded their expectations. One thing is for sure though. If we are to “make America great again”, we cannot continue to limp along as we have been doing and still pretend we’re a “Republic”. We’re not. Extremism and intolerance has no place among a free people. So, what do you want to do America?

 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. 

 

Pew Research: Public Trust in Government: 1958 - 2024

 

72% of American say the US used to be a good example ofdemocracy but isn’t anymore

 

WEF: Trust in Government by Country 2024

 

Make America Great Again

 

The American Experiment

 

Gallup: A Third of Americans Satisfied With Global Position

 

Black Americans mistrust the US political system

 

 The State of Public Trust in Government 2025

Americans Deepening Mistrust of Institutions

Pardon Me! President Joe Biden's January 19th Presidential Pardons

I can understand the need to grant a pardon. Sometimes the Justice system makes mistakes. Perhaps the sentence doesn't fit the crime or there was really no crime committed at all. Maybe the individual convicted have sufficiently reformed to earn special consideration to reenter society ahead of completing  their sentence. What I don't understand are certain politically motivated pardons. 

However, some pardons have nothing to do with clemency. Instead of empathy, they are based on purely political motives. Maybe someone is calling in a favor or the right palms were greased. Pardons are sometimes issued for purely personal reasons like bailing out a friend of family member. 

Regardless of the reason, I think most of us would agree that before a pardon is issued, especially a Executive Grant of Clemency by the President of the United States, there has to be some form of guilt involved. In most cases, the individual has already been arrested, convicted, and sentenced. But, in the absence of a conviction and sentencing, is there any reason for a pre-emptive pardon? Should someone be given a de facto "Get Out of Jail Free" card? 

To me, this seems to imply some measure of guilt of a crime. Maybe it's fraud, theft, or or some other possible criminal act which has yet to be discovered. President Gerald Ford (the only president never to have been elected) granted outgoing President Richard Nixon, a full and unconditional pardon following his resignation. Why? 

Some will argue that it all politics. After all, after Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resigned after facing charges of financial fraud while he was Governor of Maryland, Nixon reached over the heads of numerous senior members of Congress to select the junior Congressman from Michigan, Gerald "Jerry" Ford to replace Agnew. Ford had already voiced his support of Nixon and faith in the integrity in the office of the presidency. But, maybe it had nothing to do with ideological reasons and everything to do with personal ambition.  Others said it was Ford's deep belief on the American system and that he was just trying to protect the presidency from a imperial Congress and pettiness.

Richard Nixon was long known for being a very astute of political chess. He was nothing if not Machiavellian. There's no doubt that as the Watergate hearing wore on, Nixon was weighing all his options in light of some serious circumstantial evidence of criminal behavior. Many in his own party, trying to save their own political skin, were increasing turning against him, and then along comes Jerry. For Ford, here's an opportunity of a lifetime, to become President of the United States without paying decades of political dues. It was a Machiavellian match made in political heaven. 

So now comes along President Joe Biden. As his term came to an end, Biden embarked on a record breaking pardon spree. Where these justified, righting some judicial wrong, or were they an attempt at using the presidential prerogative to cover up some undiscovered crime like some crime boss?  Let's look at who Joe Biden pardoned on his final day as President and as he ended 54 years in politics. 

On January 19th, 2025, President Joe Biden granted a full and unconditional pardon to members of Congress who served on the Select Committee to investigate the January 6th protest, which included the former and now incoming president, Donald Trump.  The unconditional pardon included their staff and all those who had testified or provided evidence as to the events of January 6th. Did Biden inadvertently establish as precedent to exempt all elected officials and appointed staff, witnesses, and so forth from personal attacks ("character assassination") made under the guise of official business?   

That same day, Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Chief medical Advisor to the President. Fauci, as you will remember, was the central character behind the COVID-19 pandemic scare and for promoting "the jab" campaign, which involved using a series of mostly minimally tested vaccinations aimed at stopping the virus and bringing the so-called pandemic to an end

President Biden also issued another full and unconditional pardon to General Mark Miley for any and all supposed "offences" committed from January 1, 2014 under January 19, including any violations committed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in his role as Chief of Staff of the Army and his role as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.. What the heck did this guy do?  

Apparently, Miley and Trump simply didn't hit it off. They had several very loud and vocal disagreements on a wide number of issues, including his refusal in 2020 to deploy troops to protect against violent protestors. He went over President trump's head by telling Chinese officials that Trump would be prevented from taking any actions against China. Miley often called Trump "fascist to the core" and a "wannabe dictator". 

Next to be pardoned was the whole Biden family clan! Listed are James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valeria Biden Owens John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden. Is Joe Biden expecting some sort of political St. Valentine's Day Massacre? It sounds like something some Mafia don might do. 

Of course, we shouldn't forget that on December 1, 2024, President Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, for any and all crimes he may have committed. No conflict of interest there! Hunter has been accused of all sorts of crimes from possession and use of cocaine, to money laundering, his involvement in Ukrainian politics which may have been a trigger point for the war between Ukraine and Russia, among other allegations.  

Varying from the theme slightly, Biden pardons former Kentucky Democratic party boss, Gerald "Jerry" Lundergan, whose daughter, Kentucky Secretary of State, Alison Lundergan Grimes, attempted to unseat Senator Mitch McConnell's in 2014 and got clobbered. Lundergan was also Kentucky State Chairman of the 2008 Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign.  The former head of the Kentucky Democratic Party, Jerry had been charged and convicted on several counts of fraud. 

Specifically, Lundergan was found guilty of making more than $200,000 in secret contributions to his daughter's 2014 campaign, and then committed fraud by trying cover up the evidence, including falsification of documentation and intent to obstruct. As a result, he was required to pay a $150,000 fine and serve 21 months behind bars in a federal prison. He was released in 2023 without completing his full sentence.

The next beneficiary of Biden's Executive Grant of Clemency was Ernest William  ("E.W") Cromartie for "offenses against the United States". What were those "offenses"? Cromartie was a  powerful black councilman from Columbia, South Carolina who had been found guilty of several counts of income tax fraud. 

The Columbia powerbroker had plead guilty in April 2010 of tax evasion and structuring bank deposits in such as way as to avoid federal income tax reporting. He admitted to intentionally avoiding paying more than $25,000 in federal income tax. As a result, he was required to pay $58,000 in fines as well as serve a 366 day prison sentence. He also had to surrender his law license. 

Finally, President Biden signed a pardon for Daryll Chambers, Leonard Scott, Jr., Ravidath Ragbir, Kembia Smith Pradia, and the late Civil Rights leaders, Marcus Mosiah Garvey.  In 1998, Daryll "Wolfie" Chambers of Wilmington Delaware was sentenced to 17 years in prison on non-violent drug related charges. After getting out, Chambers became a activist against gun violence. He is now the founder and Executive Director of The Center for Structural Equity, which is a foundation for the promotion of youth development and creating positive change in "Brown and Black Communities" according to their website. 

The Trinidad born Ravidath "Ravi" Ragbir is a advocate for immigration reform and immigrant rights. Ragbir, who had lives in New York City since immigrating in 1991, was convicted of a "nonviolent offense" (mortgage fraud) in 2001 and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. Despite becoming a permanent resident of U.S. in 1994, his felony conviction placed him on the list for possible deportation since his release.  In 2006, a federal immigration judge issued a deportation order without a hearing, which many immigration rights advocates called unduly harsh.  In 2016, Ragbir first filed his request for clemency. 

Since 2007, Ragbir has been the executive director of the New Sanctuary Coalition ("NSC") which, in partnership with the Greenwich Village based Judson Memorial Church, provides assistance to new arrivals, most of whom are here illegally, and accompanies them to their appointments to Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") offices as needed.  NSC also strives to educate immigrants on their rights  and helps to navigate them through the Justice system and provides a bond fund to help with bail in the event of arrest. 

Don Scott is the current Virginia Speaker of the House who, in 1994, had been convicted on nonviolent drug related charges and served seven years. Scott, a Texas native,  graduated from Texas A&M, graduating in 1987 with  BA in Agriculture. After gradating, he joined the U.S. Navy and served as an officer on the USS John Hancock (DD 981) until his honorable discharge in 1991.

After leaving military service, Scott attended Louisiana State University's law school where he obtained his law degree in 1994. That same year, Scott was busted for drug possession and sentenced to seven years in federal prison  In 2019, Scott was elected to the Virginia House of Representatives, representing the 80th District. The following year, Scott endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden at the 2020 Democratic Party Primary. By 2023, after Democrats  took control of the state legislature, Don Scott was elected as the first black Speaker of the House. 

The next to be pardoned was Kemba Smith-Pradia. In 1994, Kemba was convicted on nonviolent drug related charges and sentenced to 24 years in federal prison, of which she only served 6.5 years. According to court records, Ms. Smith-Pradia had been involved in a volatile relationship with a reputed drug dealer by the name of Peter Hall while she was attending college. 

Although she claimed to have never used or been directly involved with drugs, in 1994 she was caught up in a police sting operation and charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine after she was allegedly present during some of Hall's drug dealings. Despite this being her first conviction, federal drug laws at the time mandated her lengthy prison sentence without parole (she was also seven months pregnant at the time of her conviction).  

Given the circumstances of her case, President Bill Clinton granted her a pardon in 2000 after serving 6 1/2 years of her sentence. After being released, Ms. Smith-Pradia became a criminal justice reform advocate. She has written a book ("Poster Child") about her experiences and founded a non-profit foundation, the Kemba Smith Foundation, which deals with domestic violence, racial equality, and justice reform. Her book was also turned into a BET produced movie, "Kemba". 

So, if President Clinton granted her clemency, why did outgoing President Joe Biden need to grant her a second presidential pardon? Well, apparently her first pardon didn't totally erased her convection charges. It just got her a early release. According to Ms. Smith-Pradia, she has been unable to go back to school and earn a law degree because the federal charges were still on her record. Biden's pardon is "full and unconditionally", meaning that it's as if it never happened as far as the courts are concerned. As a result, Ms. Smith-Pradia is how free to pursue her law degree if she still desires to do so. 

Our last recipient of President Biden's January 19th Executive Clemency Declarations is Marcus Mosiah Garvey. Of the five pardons, Garvey's is perhaps the most intriguing. In 1923 the Jamaican born Marcus Garvey was convicted of mail fraud (attempting to illegal sell company stock), a felony, and sentenced to five years in a federal prison. So, why did it take over a hundred years since his convection for Garvey to receive a presidential pardon? Who was Marcus Garvey? 

Born in 1887 in St. Ann's Bay Jamacia, Marcus Mosiah Garvey, better known as the "Black Moses", was a black nationalist leader and credited of organizing and leading the largest race based economic and social movement is U.S. history. Led by his son, Dr. Julius Garvey, a retired surgeon and executive director of The Marcus Garvey Institute for Human Development, has worked tirelessly for decades to rehabilitate his father legacy which included the founding of the Black Star Line, a black owned shipping company, and the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League (UNIA-ACL). 

His ideology, known as Garveyism, has influenced such diverse civil rights leaders as Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Supporting him in his efforts has been the Congressional Black Caucus, led by Congresswoman Yvette Clark (NY-D), members of the Jamaican community, and various African-centric organizations and educational programs as well as by Ms. Mia Mottley, the Prime Minister of Barbados and current chairwoman of the 15 member association of Caribbean nations known as "CARICOM". The pardon was additionally supported by former President Barack Obama. 

Garvey has been called a revolutionary and proponent a Pan-Africanism and a "back to Africa" movement, as well as known for being the first person "of color" to lead a mass movement in the United States and one of the few in the Western Hemisphere at that time. Even after 85 years since his death, the teachings of Marcus Garvey, which embraces racial separatism, continues to find a willing ear in the African centric Rastafari movement to the Nation of Islam and the Black Power Movement. 

In reviewing all of President Biden's pardons, I found it interesting that Biden issued 19 pardons related to the use, possession, and distribution of cocaine related charges from April 25, 2022 until the time he left office in addition to ten other pardons for individuals serving time on meth, marijuana, or other drug related charges. There were three pardons related to attempts to provide a foreign power (including Iran) with U.S. government secret technology. Additionally, Biden set a record of sorts by reducing the sentences of roughly 2500 individuals. 

Why is that?  Why were nearly all of Joe Biden's drug related pardons related to individuals who had been convicted on cocaine charges? Cocaine and its derivatives like crack, is pretty serious. Could it be because of  Hunter's use and abuse of the drug and there was some sympathy for its users? 

In wrapping this up, it should come as no surprise to anyone that those involved with politics who were granted clemency were all Democrats. No Republicans, Independents, or third party individuals were granted a pardon. Biden excused three individuals convicted of providing state secrets to a foreign power, including Iran. We used to call that treason, and those found guilty were rarely ever released, yet here's three. 

Then there's Dr. Fauci, who, as far as I know, has never been charged or convicted of anything except of being unpopular, which isn't a crime. Then you have a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was guilty of not getting along with his boss. If that was a crime, I think most of us would be serving life sentences. 

Then we come to the members of the Select Committee who investigated the January 6th protests, their staffs, and all those who gave evidence. Why do they warrant a "full and unconditional" presidential pardon?  There's nothing unusual about a Select (or "special") Committee unless it could be proven that the committee was convened solely as a political weapon to be used to intimidate or manufacture evidence. If so, then the actions of the committee becomes possibly subject to censure or contempt of Congress charges (a misdemeanor). Regardless, that would ultimately be a matter for the Department of Justice to determine.  So, why issue a pre-emptive pardon when there's been no hint of impropriety? 

Most curiously, why would President Biden feel the need to pardon his immediate family? What possible federal crime could they be guilty of? Does it in some way related to the attempted political or character assassination of Donald Trump, members of his family or friends? If that's the case, then Biden needed to pardon just about everyone in the mainstream media! 

Of course, I think most of us can understand why he pardoned Hunter. There's no telling what federal crimes he may have committed. It's like how some families try to cover for that alcoholic uncle or crazy aunt. In this case, a father trying to protect a troubled son.  Nevertheless, the blanket pardon of Hunter Biden goes to show that there are some who are above the law as well as the fact that we have a two tier justice system in this country. One for the rich and connected, and another for the rest us! 

I think President's Biden's mass pardons, especially those done for obvious political reasons or to coverup unethical behavior, helps to demonstrate why the president's unlimited ability to issue pardons for virtually any reason, whether there's been a conviction or not,  needs to be limited in scope and subject to review and approval.

 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 found 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 do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Office of the Pardon Attorney (DOJ: Pardons Granted by President Joseph Biden (2021 - Present)

The Center For Structural Equity

New Sanctuary Coalition

Faith-based immigration rights advocate faces threat of deportation

Don Scott (Virginia politician) 

President Biden Pardons Criminal Justice Advocate 24 Years After Her Release From Prison

More than a century after mail fraud convection Marcus Garvey gets presidential pardon

Marcus Garvey

Why Biden pardoned  Mark Miley ahead of Trump taking office

Jerry Lundergan

Who Do You Trust? America's Confidence in Government

I admit that I didn't watch President Biden's "State of the Union Address" on Tuesday. Frankly, I didn't care. Now, it's not that I don't care about what's happening in America or elsewhere in the world. Far from it. I am very concerned about what is happening around the world and here at home in the U.S..

It's just that I'm not interested in hearing the lies and watching the antics coming from both sides. This is not what I expect from people who are suppose to be educated and elected to serve the American People. I see two camps having more in common with the faux-gang "Jets" and "Sharks" from the West Side Story than the likes of Jefferson, Washington, or Lincoln!

The lack of respect and civility is not linked to one party (although the media would like for you to think so). It's both parties and it's been going on for far too long now. They act like spoiled children on a school playground, or worse, like some cheap "reality" TV show (the "Kardashians" come to mind).

It illustrates the near total breakdown of our the political system into two extremist camps. America is no longer the Republic it was intended. It's a neo-fascist Corporatocracy run by an Oligarchy. The rest is all kabuki theater with the corporate media acting as the chorus or narrator from ancient Greek plays, directing our attention from one actor to another and editorializing the scene with their comments.

I know that I'm not the only person who feels this way.  Based on several polls, most Americans overall have little or no trust in the media. In a Gallup Poll from October 2022, only about 34% say they had a "great or fair amount of trust" in the media. In a poll conducted in 1976, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and Watergate, that number was 72%.

That same poll showed that over one third (38%) of Americans had absolutely no trust in the media at all. By comparison, that figure was just 4% in 1976. Today, 28% currently acknowledged having  confidence in the media.

It's worth noting that those who do trust the media the most tend to be Democrats (70%). Those who trust it the least are Republicans and conservatives (86%). Independents (the nation's largest political bloc) have a pretty low feeling about the media too (73%).

Given that freedom of speech, expression, and assembly are listed first among our list of freedoms, that's significant. It impacts our core as a nation, but should we be surprised? After all,  America is no longer a Republic. It's a corporatocracy, meaning that it's our political institutions, economy and judicial system exist to represent corporate interests, not that of the American People.

As an aside, a corporatocracy is not "Communist" or "socialist" (unless you're referring to "corporate socialism" or "corporate welfare"). It is, by definition, a form of fascism. This fits in rather neatly with our surveillance state. Those who run this corporatocracy are members of the top 1% percent or so, commonly referred to as a oligarchy or kleptocracy.

So, when we look at the news media, what we see is the product of just five corporations. That's right. Just five corporations control 96+% of everything we read, hear, and watch. That includes not just the news and its content, but television programs we watch, the movies we see, the video games we play, many of the books selected for mass publication as well as majority of the magazines and newspapers out there not to mention the radio stations we listen too.

This control extends naturally to government where it has formed a sinister symbiotic relationship of sorts. Corporations underwrite the funding of both political parties and individual campaigns. They influence who gets what committee assignments or the backing needed to run for which office.

Their lobbyists not just review bills, but also provide summaries and make "recommendations" to the appropriate individuals on how to vote, but often write the legislation. Through their connections with the media, they can affect public opinion. As an aside, as of 2023, there are 12,096 registered lobbyists to lobby Congress. None of them are there on your behalf.

In a separate Gallup poll from October 2022, they include some interesting numbers about confidence in the three branches of government---Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. According to the poll, only 43% of Americans have any trust in the Executive branch irrespective of who is occupying it.

38% of voters say they have any confidence in the Legislative branch (the Senate and House of Representatives) regardless of which of the two corporate parties are in control. That's not really surprising since the approval rating for both branches of Congress have been in the proverbial toilet for decades (in recent years, the approval numbers have been as low as 9%).

What's is surprising, however, is the trust that voters place in the Judicial branch. Historically, most Americans trusted the judicial system. It seemed to be exempt from the public's contempt of the other two branches. Not anymore. Ever since the Supreme Court's dual bungling of Citizens United and Roe v Wade, their numbers have taken a nose dive. The poll showed that just 47% of Americans had any faith in the Judicial branch.

Ironically, when it came to state and local governments, there was a dramatic turnabout. According to the poll, 57% of those surveyed trusted their state government while 67% trusted their local government. Perhaps this shouldn't be too surprising since American was intended to have a weak federal government while state and local governments were to be stronger, reflecting their closeness to the people. Apparently most Americans still feel the same way.

When we look at "trust" by political division, we get a glimpse of the nation's schism. When asked if they had a "great deal or fair amount of trust" in the Executive branch as an institution,  86% of Democrats said yes. 43% of Independents agreed, but just 7% of Republicans/Conservatives went along.

When asked the same question about the Legislative branch, there was a similar response. 54% said they did. However, only 36% of Independents had any faith in the Legislative branch while only 25% of Republicans/Conservatives. did.

In looking at the Judicial branch, we had a reversal. 67% of Republicans/Conservatives trusted the nation's legal system (perhaps a reflection of the Supreme Court's decision regarding Roe v. Wade). Yet, despite overwhelming support from the Right, just 25% of Democrats had any confidence in the Judicial system. Meanwhile, the majority Independents have only a 46%  rate of trust.  

As an aside, our currency is suppose to be backed solely on the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. Government. Kind of makes you wonder what happens next when the majority of Americans have no or little faith in a federal government which is  $31 trillion dollars in debt doesn't it?  

When the question turned to local and state governments, we got a rare agreement among the three primary political factions. When asked about having trust in state government, 64% of Democrats said they did. So did 56% of Republicans/Conservatives and 54% of Independents.

What about local government? Well, again there was some cross agreement. 73% of Democrats, 70% of Republican/Conservatives, and 61% of Independents agreed that they trusted in local government.  

So, what does this mean? The responses appear to indicate what many of us suspected. The federal government and its control by Wall Street is the primary problem. We want a government which is closer to us where we can have more input and control (not unlike what our Founding Fathers wanted too). We also don't like the control of information we currently see. We just want to be given the unvarnished facts.  

Lastly, with the majority of Americans having left the two Wall Street parties, the American voter has made it abundantly clear what they thought about all the partisan incompetence, petty bickering, corruption, media bias, and election rigging. 

It appears that nearly everything happening in Washington is the antithesis of what it means to be an American.  So, now when we talk about where the fundamental changes in our corrupt political system need to be made first, perhaps this gives us a starting point.

 

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

 

Trustin Federal Government Branches Continue to Falter

 

American Dystopia

Americans' Trust in Media Remains Near Record Low

 

Is It Time We Consider Defunding the Police?

Following the deaths (or murders if you'd like) of Floyd George and  Breonna Taylor, there were massive protests all around the country, especially in Minneapolis Minnesota and Louisville Kentucky where the respective killings took place.  There were calls by Antifa, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and others, mostly on the Left, to defund police departments throughout the country.  

About 20 major metropolitan cities answered the call, including New York, Chicago/Cook County, Los Angeles, Portland, Austin, Baltimore, and Milwaukee, to the tune of about $870 million dollars.  

They praised the idea of cutting the already strained budgets of police departments, forcing some officers off the force, reducing patrols, and increasing response times. They claimed that white police officers had a long history of brutality towards minorities, often leading to unnecessary and often violent deaths, as in the case of not just Floyd and Taylor, but also to Eric Garner, Daniel Prude, Tamir Rice, and Michael Brown just to name but a few.

They called for local policing by minority led volunteer organizations, albeit with little or no actual authority, as if some sort of public censorship would reduce crime; that public exposure would make any difference to these petty criminals, carjackers, drug dealers, or reduce the number of murders. Some wanted to create a "rate-a-cop" program to weed out bad cops and neighborhood police  review boards 

Proponents called for the hiring of social workers to meet with youths deemed "at risk" of falling into the dead end trap of crime. They demanded more pre- and after-school programs to give these kids a place to go and something to do thanks to single, and often absent, parent homes.  They wanted  to extend these programs year around as well as providing breakfast and lunch during weekends and summer months since these were typically the only regular meals these kids received. 

In Louisville Kentucky, the mayor made the idiotic decision a few years ago to actually hire criminals  to keep the peace and rat on fellow criminals as means of reducing crime. Not unexpectedly, the opposite happened. Crime actually increased as these criminal informants used their new found clout to set up and get rid of their competition, or use their clout as a form of immunity. The ultimate result for residents of Metro Louisville was more carjackings, more robberies, and more murders.

Since COVID took over the news cycle, there hasn't been much said or done about cutting police budgets. Funding of Antifa paid organizers and protestors has dried up. The same can be said of BLM protestors. Meanwhile, a number of police departments overhauled their leadership and introduced mandatory diversity training for their officers (in some cases, this has also included Spanish language classes).

Some police departments have taken steps to hire more minority officers through minority specific recruiting, lowering hiring and academic standards. Where possible, patrols are comprised of a white and racial minority officers, especially in highly diverse neighborhoods.  There are more public service interactions between the community and law enforcement in schools, community centers, and public events to rebuild a sense of trust and cooperation within neighborhoods. But what about the actual defunding of police departments?

According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll from February 2022, 75% of those surveyed opposed defunding the police. The respondents felt that cutting the police budget would result in a increase in crime. 49% said it would result in a "major increase" in violent crime.

In a June 2021 Pew Report, 41% thought that violent crime was an issue. In July 2021, that number had risen to 61%. Data provided by the FBI seemed to agree. It reported that the murder rate in the U.S. had increased by 30% in 2020 . More specific date shows that Democrats now oppose a cut in police funding. In 2020, 41% of Democrats favored a reduction in police funding. By 2021, that number was just 25%.

34% of Democrats said the police funding should actually increased while 40% wanted to keep it at its current level. Compare that to 61% of Republicans and Conservatives wanting to see an increase in the police budgets, with 29% saying by a lot and 33% wanting to maintain current levels. 5% would a reduction in overall funding of law enforcement (within the GOP, 64% white Republicans favored an increase in police funding while 53% of Hispanic Republicans did). 

Minorities comprised of Asians, blacks, and Hispanics also oppose defunding police departments. However, by how much is significant. Hispanic, along with whites, would like to see a greater police presence (46% and 49% respectively) compared to 38% of blacks and 37% of Asians. Still, this represents an increase from 2020.

When it came to age, those 18 to 49, who previously favored a reduction in funding, now supported an increase. Only 23% still wanted to see a cut in police budgets. Adults over 50 strongly favored an increase in police funding. When it came to shifting money from the police to providing more social services, 57% overall opposed the idea. 43% however, supported it according to a March 2021 USA/Ipsos poll.

Going further, the poll indicated that 63% of blacks would like to a portion of the police departments budget go to social programs while just 35% of white agreed.  The same poll also showed that 67% of Democrats backed the idea of redistributing at some portion of the police budgets to social programs while only 16% of Republicans agreed. Meanwhile, 84% of Republicans wanted to make sure police budgets were fully funded. 33% of Democrats wanted to police funding at their present levels.   

In cities like Louisville Kentucky where the shooting of Taylor took place, and throughout much of the country, public opinion is consistent in believing that police officers are essentially "judgment proof". There have been numerous instances of incidents where a police officer was clearly at fault, be it for a traffic accident (including drunk driving, speeding without siren or lights), physical abuse, lying under oath, or a shooting, and faced no repercussions for their actions.

Granted there has to be a level of trust between the judicial system and law enforcement, however, it shouldn't be at the expense of justice. That is to say, the courts shouldn't automatically assume that someone is telling the truth simply because they wear a badge. I've known a number of police officers who've more than "fudged" where the truth was concerned.

It seems that most Americans agree. A survey conducted by the Associated Press---NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicated that 60% of Americans thought that police officers should be penalized for any racially based crime or conduct. Another 60% of respondents said that officers shouldn't be able to hide behind their shields. They felt that law enforcement shouldn't be granted automatic immunity for their actions, as is often the case, and should be held liable in a court of law.

In a unrelated question, the same poll indicated that 75% felt that first time non-violent offenders should be afforded a bit of slack and given a shorter sentence, including community service rather than jail time.   

 So what do we take away from all this? The movement to defund police departments was, first of all, primarily urban. In small and rural communities, the support for law enforcement remained largely unaffected. It should be pointed too that these same communities are also primarily white with small populations of blacks and mostly migratory Hispanic workers.  

However, it was in the middle size and larger towns and cities that the defund movement was the strongest, and then with larger populations of minorities (mainly black). With this, there was also high rates of unemployment and crime, especially in predominately black sections of the town, which likely helped create a sense of fear and frustration among the residents.

The movement itself was largely started with the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014 (Ferguson is part of the Greater St. Louis metro area). That's when the nation first became aware of the Black Lives Matter through nightly images of the mass protests by a combination of the black residents of Ferguson and those bused in by BLM to artificially inflate the numbers, along with images of looting and arson (the irony that many of the businesses destroyed were owned by Hispanics and Asians wasn't lost on many).   Antifa also soon entered the picture. Despite their name, "Anti-Fascist" or "Antifa", they routinely used tactics reminiscent of Nazi Brownshirts or Mao's "Red Guard".

The strength, in terms of numbers and funding, of both groups seemed to grow exponentially with each subsequent killing of a black individual by police officers, which was almost always portrayed as unjustified by the media (and in some cases justifiably so).  However, it was the 2020 deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis Minnesota and Breonna Taylor in Louisville Kentucky that brought both BLM and Antifa to the forefront of public attention, along with starting the defund movement.

The reaction was largely in response of what was presented by the media as a "out of control" police force. Even among whites there was a growing concern over the increasing militarization of the law enforcement with things like armored personnel carriers, high-tech surveillance, military related equipment and training, leaving them looking like stormtroopers out of "Star Wars".

However, it was this militarization which created a greater sense of a "us vs. them" mentality and help poison the relationship  between the police and residents. It also resulted in a "siege mentality" among officers and making more likely to react in an aggressive manner.   

The original notion of defunding the police was to reduce this type of mentality and redirect funding to support low income and mainly minority neighborhood, as well as to require officers to undertake diversity and sensitivity training. The more radical elements wanted near total defunding with self-policing coupled with an increase in social workers to "council" non-violent offenders, which sounded good in theory but in practice was disastrous for residents. In communities where policing was reduced, crime, especially violent crime, increased, along with carjackings, burglary, and vandalism.

As the polling shows, defunding law enforcement was, in fact, mostly a knee jerk reaction in response to a media manufactured perception of increase in black killings by a "out of control" police departments amid "white racism" running amuck.  In truth, more whites were killed by police officers than minorities.

As the facts of the various cases ultimately revealed, many of the resulting deaths were as justified as they were unavoidable. However, not all were, as in the cases of Timar Rice, George Floyd, Eric Garner, or Daniel Prude.  As for blatant racism, that appeared as a virtual non-existent factor.  Additional data has repeatedly shown that when it came to violent deaths, blacks were likely to be killed by blacks than any other factor.

Based on the polls, it appears that the public wants to maintain current funding of police departments, along with added social programs within minority neighborhoods specially directed toward "at risk" children and teenagers. Officers also need to step back from their "us vs. them" mentality. Perhaps additional sensitivity and diversify training would help, but it must also acknowledge by all sides that racism is not a one way street.  

While the judicial system and law enforcement are required to work together, the courts must temper their willingness to assume that law enforcement does no wrong or that the accused (or the witnesses) aren't just as credible as the police officers irrespective of race, economic class, gender, or any other factor. Police officers must be held to a higher standard and that standard must be enforced.

As for the cities which defunded the police mentioned above, most have restore funding to the police. A few actually increased it with some of the larger cities investing an additional $450 million dollars. Much of the money has gone to hiring and rehiring officers along additional training and equipment. 

I would add that there needs to be a return to an academic understanding of civics early on in school and ending this false sense of perpetual victimization. The youth must also be taught right from wrong, which begins at home, along with a sense of self-worth and respect for others.  

 If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

Louisville Crime

Poll: 75% say 'Defund the Police' caused violent crime wave

Growing share of Americans say they want more spending onpolice in their area

Fewer than 1 in 5 support 'defund the police' movement, USA/Ipsos Poll finds

Americans Don't Want to Defund the Police. Here's What They Want to Do